 It's Friday morning. That means it's Trump week. I'm Jay Fidel, the lady at my left is Cynthia Sinclair, and the guy watching is Tim Apicella. Hi, Tim. The title of our show here on Trump week today is Impeachable, Replaceable You, referring of course to Donald Trump. He's impeachable, he's replaceable, and he's special. Okay, so we're going to cover three things. We're what is it to impeach somebody? How does that work? What's the history and the mechanics of it? Two, we're going to talk about all the impeachable offense that have been identified. And three, we're going to talk about Nancy Pelosi's strategy. What is it? What should it be? How does it connect with the election? Really important to try to get a handle on what her thinking is, and we're going to make some guesses on that. And I'd like to make a statement though. I'd like to make a statement, this statement. In general, bottom line is he is impeachable. Bottom line is he's ignorant in a time that requires sophisticated knowledge, he's ignorant. Bottom line is he's mean and has a kind of criminal mentality, which is not appropriate for this country or for any leader really leading the free world. And finally, he's all things together, he's incompetent, can't serve, he's not able to do the job. He hasn't got a clue on how to do the job. So when you look at it, increasingly complex, dangerous, fragmented, demanding, challenging world, this guy doesn't have it. And in many ways, all these offenses are only part of a larger picture. He can't do it. We've got to move on from him the sooner the better. But that's the bottom line. Cynthia, let's go through the little outline. Let's talk about what is impeachment in this country of a president? Well, impeachment actually goes for any public official. It's not just for presidents, right? And it goes way back. It descended from the English, to be honest. And it was a way for them to try to reduce the power of the monarchy. That was sort of where it all started. And it started in England. And then, of course, when we were just the colonies, right, there was the first impeachment. And it was of a senator in 1799. Senator Blount from Tennessee was the first impeachment that happened here on our soil. But he was just a colonial senator. So I take that back. The first impeachment was against Virginia's colonial governor. But then the very first American, once we were America, we were separated. So the word has roots even before the Constitution was written. The word goes back to 1386 even in England. That's how far back it goes. And then the first impeachment here in America was in 1799. Okay. So now we've also impeached presidents, maybe not conclusively, not to a conclusion of removing them. But we have, I remember, Lyndon Johnson, not Lyndon Johnson. Andrew Johnson. Andrew Johnson was the very first president. Just right after Ulysses Grant, as I remember, or maybe after Lincoln, right in there somewhere. He had 11 articles of impeachment that were filed against him. What was it? And now we have to remember that when we talk about impeachment, it's not the end all be all. The impeachment happens in the House. And then the Senate brings it for trial. Two steps. And yeah, it's a two-step thing. And the impeachment sort of is, it's sort of like a statement of charges, kind of like an indictment is with the criminal case. Trial in front of the Senate. Right. And you mentioned to me that the United States Supreme Court found not too long ago that the Senate can set its own rules for that trial. It can determine exactly how it is going to proceed in any given impeachment. That happened in 1993. And I think that's what sort of made me behind some of this, that Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to send it to the Senate because they can do whatever they want with it. Let's not jump to the conclusion. Right. So we'll talk about that towards the end. So we also, you know, one famous impeachment was Bill Clinton, where the House voted to impeach. That meant it went over to the Senate for an impeachment trial. And they acquitted him. They acquitted him. Right. Okay. And we all learned that that was kind of political at that time. It was not clear that the standard in the Constitution was met. That is that the individual had done high crimes, misdemeanors, and treason. Was there anything else in the Constitution? So that's the thing is that there was two articles of impeachment for Clinton. And one was perjury to the grand jury and one was obstruction of justice. So we have Nixon in the middle there, between Johnson and Clinton, right? And he was going to be impeached, but he resigned before it happened. And he had three articles of impeachment against him. And that was obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. But Nixon was not actually impeached by the House. No, he wasn't because he resigned. But articles had been filed. Right. They had been filed, but he resigned before anything happened. So it doesn't count as a full impeachment. Right. He went through some of the process of it. Did you ever find out whether Andrew Johnson was in fact impeached? He was in fact impeached. He was thrown out of office. Drown out of office. He was in fact impeached. Up until this point in American history, only one president has actually been thrown out of office. Right. And that was Andrew Johnson. So I have a list, and I don't have it on paper, so I'm going to read it off my phone. But I have a list of all of the articles and investigations that are happening against Trump right now. This is largely out of the New York Times. This is. And it is the emoluments clause. We've got Pence's Ireland trip. We've got all of the foreign dignitaries that are staying at Trump hotels, so that his brand is just getting lots of money when, you know, so he's holding hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars. So the emoluments clause, he's not completely divested from his stuff. And he wants the G7 to meet at Mar-a-Lago next year. No, not Mar-a-Lago at Dural. Dural. Down there in Florida. Same. Right. And oh, he'll stand to make how much money from that? Okay, the emoluments clause. Then we've got obstruction of justice, abuses of power, hush money payments. Structure would be all the stuff in Mueller's report and beyond Mueller's report. Right. So now with the hush money payments, you know, to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. There were state cases going on in that now. Right. And other names too. It's not just those two, right? Well, for those hush money payments, yes, it is. Okay, all right. For the actual cases that are happening, it is. There's other cases, but those aren't hush money. How am I reminded that there was recently an article about some other woman who had complained and she recently withdrew her complaint, you know? And I'm saying to myself, you know, if I'm a rich man and I can afford to pay people off. Oh yeah. I can do this stuff largely with impunity. Right. And so, you know, it strikes me anyway, objectively perhaps, that he paid this woman off. I know. Oh, sure. And, you know, it's like, if you put it all together, what you get is a pattern of conduct. Yes. And I would just subjectively conclude that he's been doing this like all his life. He's been doing it in office. Because if I pay you off and I'm a rich and powerful man, you don't mess with me. And how, if you don't say anything, if you decide you're going to withdraw the charges, you know, how is anybody, and you refuse to talk to the press or anybody about it. Right. Because it's in any way that goes with it, right? The case is done. Yeah. You know, so if you are a rich and powerful man, you can put these things away. You can stop them, which I think has happened a number of times, even though they're not on your list here today. Well, I believe that he paid his doctor to write down bone spurs and keep them out of Vietnam too. Right. So he learned this trick from his father. Yeah. You know, so you know he learned this. It's the same mentality, isn't it? Yes. And it's a learned behavior. Exactly. And this is just the beginning of the list. Let me tell you, this list goes on, you guys. The next is campaign finance laws, and that goes to the cash money payments. That's where that comes in. And then there's also the inauguration where all of that, they're trying to investigate that too, that he didn't. Oh, the money that came in. The money that came up and it didn't get spent right. Okay, so then there's interfering with the witness, and that is where he sort of dangles pardons out there for people, or outright promises pardons. He told ICE to go out and break the law. I don't care. I will pardon you. Yeah. That right there is one thing alone. He's done that a number of times, yeah. Yeah, and that one thing alone is enough to impeach him. It's completely lawless. And I've only just started the list, you guys. This keeps going. Russian interference and cooperation. It wasn't just the interference part, but he cooperated with them. He, you know, took their help and used it. Just a whole Cambridge Analytica thing. Yes. It's all connected, and Russia has been active, not only in this country, but elsewhere. Many others. Through Cambridge Analytica and elsewhere, through the Internet Research Agency, the IRA. And he's been complicit. I mean, it's clear enough. You connect the dots. You get him involved. Query whether he's involved today. We know that they're still doing it. It's clear from our intelligence agencies. What's not clear is whether he's still involved with them. And my gut would be he still is. Well, every time I see the picture of him shaking hands with Putin, you know, at the... We're trying to get him back into the G7. Yeah, exactly. All of that stuff kind of shows that, you know, okay, so we're still going down the list because there's plenty more. And all you have to do is read the Mueller report to know that Russian interference happened and that he cooperated, and that he tried to obstruct justice in the process so that nobody would find out. Now, they listed security clearances, secret communications with Putin. We still don't know what he said in Helsinki. He destroyed all the notes. There's no evidence of what was discussed. That is deeply troubling. Can we afford to have a president who does that? That is just deeply troubling. With a historical enemy. In fact, a de facto enemy right now. And he's having secret conversations. Right, exactly. Now, the Hatchack violations, I thought that was for Kellyanne Conway. And I didn't realize that applied to him, so I'm not exactly sure about the details of that one. But then, okay, we've got the Saudi arms deal. Well, don't forget that most recently, when he revealed a photograph taken by an American satellite the remnants of an explosion in Iran. And what's interesting about that is it tells the world, all the intelligence agencies, of all the rogue nations in the world, it tells them our capacity, how strong, how ubiquitous our satellites are, how clearly we can read fine print from miles and miles above the surface of the Earth. So we know how to hide. He's telling them the specs of our military war machine. Right, so they can learn how to hide from it. If an ordinary commander in the Navy did this, he'd be in the brig. So it's really remarkable that Trump did that. And to me, that's a huge violation. And nobody has punished him. They called it to our collective attention. But nobody has punished him. And nobody will punishment, unless there's some kind of impeachment process. I agree. Well, we are in an impeachment inquiry. You know, Representative Nadler told us that he is officially in impeachment inquiry. And all these investigations come under that, right? And there's another thing, when you think about giving up our secrets, he did the same thing with those Russians that came to the White House that were in the Oval Office with him. And I think it's kind of telling, they were the very first people that came to visit him. They were the very first official visit to the Oval Office. He's just to celebrate his election. That's what they were doing. Absolutely. That's what they were doing. So he also, when he sold the arms deal to the Saudis, he also gave them nuclear technology, which that is like the part that goes, wait a minute. Granted, the arms were old arms and whatnot. But, and it was a great lot of money for us and everything else. But to give nuclear secrets, that's just beyond. Well, and then there's another one material, another one material, which is now the subject of a humanitarian investigation by the United Nations. Claiming, among other things, that the United States is involved in war crimes, war crimes, the United States in war crimes. In war crimes. That's exactly right. And that's directly under Trump, even after being fully warned, even after going against congressional decisions on that point. Right, exactly. Okay. So then we've got targeting the media members. And that to me is huge. He has put so many journalists at risk because of the way he has made them vilified as the enemy of the people. And things like that that he says, instigating people to threaten. And there are life threats all the time. I mean, death threats all the time for big newscasters. And the First Amendment is a principal point of our democracy. Yes, it is. And he has cut his wings off. No press conferences, as you say, vilifying the press, keeping so many things secret. The press has got to find out some other way. Right. He has shut down the connection between the government and the press and lied to the press on so many occasions. That alone, to me, that's impeachable. And that is impeachable. Each one of these things alone is impeachable and the list goes on. Okay. Posting on Twitter. Oh, the classified photo. That was my next thing. Sharing US secrets with the Russians in the Oval Office. Right. Posting on Twitter. Sorry. Personal use of email. He has personal email use. The very things that he raved about Hillary Clinton doing. Him and his family both. Him and his family are all doing the same thing. Yeah, he was raving. He was using that as the biggest possible lever against Hillary. Lock her up. Crooked Hillary. Lock her up, yep. And now he's doing exactly the same thing. Exactly the same things. It's just great. So we got EPA, mismanagement. We've got ICE raids and everything that he's doing at the border. Absolutely undercutting the power of Congress, the power of the purse. No, he's now taking, what is it, $3.8 billion from the Pentagon? And then what will they have to pay the Pentagon back? So in reality, taxpayers are still paying for the wall? Wait a minute. When all... Didn't Congress say no to that? Congress has said no emphatically, said no. He's making his own budget, spending his own money, regardless of what Congress does. He's from a constitutional, a balance of power point of view, a branches of government point of view. He's ignored the Constitution. That alone. And by the way, the word Dianoo comes to mind. Dianoo is a word at Passover. We can say it would have been enough in this case to impeach him on this. It would have been enough to impeach him on that. Each one of these things is impeachable. And what I don't understand, let me insinuate a thought here. What I don't understand is why doesn't somebody make this analysis that you are making today in the mainstream press? Okay, he did this. It's impeachable, right? He did that. It's impeachable, yep. Dianoo, Dianoo, Dianoo. And we're not really getting the right flavor in terms of what's coming out of the media on this. I agree. And we know that Fox News is just nothing more than state TV and they just, I try to watch it just to see what's going on and what they're saying. And I really can't stand it for more than a few minutes because I see that obvious lies that are coming out of their mouths. I have the same experience. And I literally get physically ill and have to turn it because I cannot. I'll turn it to another channel. Okay, so my list isn't done yet. This is how incredible this is. We've got Private for Profit holding camp. He's doing a government sanctioned thing with all these people that are coming over. And yet, and then he's just paying, who? Where did he get these private for profit people to come in and do these things? So we've got Interior Department ethics going on. So ethics is just all throughout. He's appointed people who are clearly not qualified. He's appointed people who are loyal to him but are who share the same ignorance on things. And that's all he means. That's all he wants. Shame on the Senate for confirming them. It's a shame on Ms. McConnell for allowing them to be confirmed. Bottom line though is he's achieved the whole government of yes men. And that alone is undoes the kind of government the founders wanted us to have. Right, that's exactly right. Now impeachment doesn't mean removal from office, no. One more point. And okay, go ahead. And that is, you know, I've just remembered that one of the recent things he wants to do is he wants to stop all sanctuary immigration. Oh, right, right. Nobody can come to this country as a matter of sanctuary. When I think of that, I think of the Statue of Liberty. I think of the poem by Emma Lazarus. Give me your tired, huddled masses bearing to breathe free, which always inspires me and everyone. Yeah, chicken skin. I always get chicken skin on it. He has just absolutely dumped on that and it's disgraceful what he's done. And this is a fundamental point in our country and in the growth and the ethic and the morality of our country. In the way our country works on a daily basis. And also, you know, ultimately the economics and the survival of our country. I mean, you know, if we don't have, or somebody said this recently, if we don't have relationships with other countries, if we don't have an image around the world of being, you know, the leader, holding the torch, the Statue of Liberty, torture, freedom, we can't survive. At the end of the day, if we hold in on ourselves the way he's doing, holding in on him the way he's doing, you know, we will suffer. We will suffer this country. We'll cannot last. It cannot exist. And I'm very worried about that. Anyway, go ahead with Nancy. Oh, I wasn't quite there yet. Because I want to make another point that we kind of missed, which I think is important, that the House has initiated impeachment preceding 62 times since 1789. Most were federal judges. 19 impeachment trials actually made it to the Senate. There were eight convictions, seven acquittals, three dismissals, and one resignation, right? So that's the way they sort of line up all the way back to, you know, very beginning of impeachment, right? So we already talked about that it's just in the House, and then it goes to the Senate. Now, in order to pass the House, though, it has to be a two-thirds vote in the House before it can go to the Senate for trial. And we don't have that now. We talked a little bit about... Do we have 134? 34, that's not two-thirds of the House. No, it's not. It's a little over half. I have it, actually. 134 House Democrats now support impeachment. 17 of the 24 Democrats that are in the Judiciary Committee. So the Judiciary Committee Democrats know something about all this because, boy, they're all like, we're ready. Let's do it. So let's see. 95 of the rest of the other 34, 134, 95 House Democrats support continuing the ongoing investigations, and six don't really have a stand on it yet, I think is important. And I think it's important for our viewers, too, if you want to see the complete list of exactly which Democrats have signed on for impeachment, you can go to NBC News, and then the title of the article is Over Half of House Democrats' Favor Trump Impeachment Inquiry. Full list. But you need two-thirds. Right, but we need two-thirds. So almost there. How about the vote in the Senate? What does the vote in the Senate have to be? You need to... I just think it has to be a majority in the Senate. It just has to be a majority. We're not going to get that now. But we're not going to get that. We're not going to get anything, okay? And then we started to talk a little bit about that 1993 Supreme Court ruling that allows the Senate to make its own rules on the whole thing, which means they can make up the rules that we're saying, well, we're not going to have a trial. We don't need a trial, we're just going to have a vote. And they already know they're not going to lose because they've got a majority in the Senate. So... Not to have another Senate leader in there. If they had a different composition of senators in there, which could happen in 2020, that would be different. But I don't think impeachment is the way these days. Because we're getting too close to the election. And I frankly think it's better going back to the point I made a little while ago to simply point out somebody should, us here right now, point out that Diana, each one of these offenses is impeachable. And cumulatively, they are hugely impeachable. So let's try to... By the way, have you got any more left? No, I've missed it all. Okay. That's the long... It's like there's 18 or 19 of them, I think, and some of them are bigger than others. Others are some of them are more recent. Some of them are happening right now. And they will continue to happen because his view of things is that if I can get away with it, I'll do more of it, and I'll double down on it. Right. And that's what's been happening through his administration. That's why... One of the reasons why there's so many of them, because he is encouraged that nobody stops him, is a pathological kind of approach. So anyway, going back to Nancy Pelosi, we've discussed this many times here on Trump League. What is she doing? Why is she doing? Why is she not impeaching him right now? The right thing to do would be to consider these various offenses impeachable and impeach them and find somebody else. Of course, there's an issue about Pence and whether that would be a good somebody else. Putting that aside, she hasn't done it. And she stands in the way even now today. If you call her on the phone, she would say, no, I don't want to do that. And what is her reasoning? I have a little bit of insight into that after doing some of this research here. And it was that new Supreme Court ruling that got me. And I thought, you know, she knows that she's trying to delay as long as she can before it goes to the Senate. So they have as much evidence as possible. And she's been very clear about that. She's not ready to go forward, but you know, but they're still going on with investigations. She completely supports all of the investigations. So this kind of shined a whole new light on Nancy's handling of this because I've been kind of angry with her for now. But okay, so a couple of quotes from her. The public wants impeachment now because they don't understand the process. And that kind of made me angry before. But now that I know about the Supreme Court rule, I think, yeah, she's right. I didn't know about that. I bet a lot of people don't know about that. Whatever the rule is right now, the Senate would never ever do it. Well, I think she's working on the notion and she's right that she can do whatever she wants, getting the two thirds in the House, it's never going to result in an impeachment in the Senate. Whatever the rules are, whatever they do, the leadership and the members of the Senate are never ever going to let this happen. So that's a fact. And I think she, at one point I heard it described that she doesn't want to go into something she knows is going to lose. But I think it's more than that. I really think it's more than that. I think she's, like, with long sight, looking at the whole situation. I have two more quotes of hers. She said, impeachment is too good for him. I want to see him in prison. And I thought, oh, Nancy. And then she did it. She said a linking quote, an old linking quote, this public sentiment is everything. So I think she's trying to try this in the court of public opinion, kind of, right? But then, okay, so I've always said that I believe he's going to cheat. Cheated before he's going to cheat again, which means he very well may win in 2020. He won't actually win, but he will cheat so he ends up being successful, okay? Now, if they send impeachment now before 2020 and it gets blown down, then it's done. They can't bring impeachment again until he does something else, which I'm sure he won't. They've shot their wad. Right? They can't do it again. They will not be able to do it again. People aren't going to buy a second president. So they haven't done it yet. And 2020 comes and he gets to be president for another four years, but we've taken back the Senate. Then everything changes. And I can't help but think maybe she sees that. So maybe she also sees that he's going to cheat again. He might win. And if he does, then if we can focus all of our attention on winning back the Senate, which there is plenty of a chance to do with all of the Republican senators that are bailing. That's pretty convoluted and that may not work, because people may see his reelection as a mandate, as an acceptance of all this conduct, wiping the slate clean and giving him a pass. But it doesn't happen that way. If he wins in the election, it's going to be hard to impeach him afterward. If you look at the public opinion, here's what I think, which is different. Okay. I think that she's keeping her bow to dry. We're still a year away from the final months of the campaign, his campaign. Lots of things can happen. He will probably do all kinds of bastardly things between then and now. And what I think what she's doing is lining up for a trial in public. And timing is everything in this game. Because he knows that. That's the game he plays. Timing is everything. The public, we know, forgets things in a matter of moments. So you've got to time it so that the bad stuff comes out, the calls for impeachment, the identification of all these impeachable offenses all come out in great detail in like September, October, even November, no, it wouldn't be November. September, October of 2020. Not enough time for the Senate to even do anything with it. Right. And he won't be able to recover from that. Oh, yeah. I think the trial, her plan, my thinking is her plan is to try this in public opinion right after a year from now. A year from now with all of the gore and all of the information and try in the Senate and whatever happens in the Senate to broadcast that to the press. Hopefully the press will tell the public. So anyway, we've got two ways to looking at this. There's probably more ways yet. And this is miles to go before we sleep. Oh, yeah. Cynthia, there's miles of Trump week to go before we sleep. There is miles of Trump week to go before we go. So we hope that Tim comes back soon and he'll be back in the next week or two. He'll be back next week, I think. Oh, good, good. And Cynthia and I will join him again and we'll have more on what Trump is doing, connecting the dots, trying to make sense of how our country is doing under this particular leader who, as I said before, is not competent to lead us. Definitely not competent. Thank you, Cynthia. Thank you, Aloha. See you next week. Thank you.