Paranoid Trump Refuses To Work Near Staff He No Longer Trusts


According to a recent report in Politico,
Donald Trump is no longer working as much as he used to inside the oval office and just
in general, the West wing of the white house. Instead, staffers are now saying that Donald
Trump is choosing to spend more time in the residence portion of the white house and those
closest to him believe that it’s because he doesn’t trust his own staff anymore. Here’s how Politico explains it. When you work in the West wing, when you’re
working in the oval office, people are coming and going all the time. They walk right in and they knock on the door
and they come. They’re always listening. They’re always there. There’s always somebody every time you turn
around, but in the residents portion, that part’s off limits. That is technically Donald Trump’s home and
they can’t come in there unless he specifically invites them in. In fact, that resident’s portion of the white
houses where Donald Trump made his July 25th phone a phone call to Ukrainian president
Salinsky because it’s private over there because there’s not as many people come in and go
and except for the people he specifically wants to see, so he’s spending more and more
time over there. He is still working if that’s what they want
to call it. He does still have some people coming in there,
but it’s the people he wants to see the average staffers that people just running around making
copies, getting coffee, answering phones. They’re nowhere to be found and the reason
for that again is because Trump has grown so paranoid that he refuses to be around these
people anymore. Now, here’s the problem with this. One of the problems, because there’s many,
the first is that if the president doesn’t believe he can trust these staffers with what
he says and does, shouldn’t that just raise a bunch of red flags about what he is saying
and doing? I mean if he has nothing to hide, if he’s
not doing anything wrong, why does it matter if that phone call gets over heard or if the
staffer are down the hall, hear’s you say a plan that you’re going to do. If it’s actually a decent plan, right? What are they going to do? Go leak to the press and say, Oh my God, Donald
Trump’s going to do a good thing that, that, that that’s not how it works. If you think they’re going to go lie about
what you said, then guess what? They’re going to do that whether or not you’re
working in the oval office or the residency liars are going to lie in Mr. Trump. I think you know that better than anybody. So this makes no sense. Unless he is doing things and saying things
that might not be legal, I guess would be the best way to say that. And to me that seems like the most logical
thing. We can come to a conclusion we can come through,
right? He doesn’t want people to know what he’s doing. He doesn’t want people to hear what he’s saying. And it’s because those things he’s doing and
saying are probably very bad. Now, here’s the other thing though, Trump
has to trust his staff. He has to work with his staff. The country does still have to keep running,
right? We can’t just shut it down. We can’t just say, well, Trump’s a screw up
anyway. He can’t be doing this. No guys, listen, there’s little day to day
things that presidents have to do. Security briefings, things like that, you
know, keep us safe, make some minor decisions that could have huge ramifications later on
down the line. He still has to do that and in order to do
that, he has to have the trust of his staff. It has to go both ways. They have to tell him the truth. He has to give them a decent, honest answer
about what to do. He has to attend these briefings. He has to listen to the people who know more
than him and he’s not, but he’s still making the decisions. That’s what’s terrifying about this. A paranoid president is a dangerous president
and that is exactly what we’re dealing with with Donald Trump. And as these impeachment hearings go further,
as more and more people come forward and say, yes, the president did a crime, he’s going
to become more withdrawn. He’s going to stop listening to everyone in
his administration. But again, he’ll still have to make the important
decisions that we as American citizens are going to have to live with the consequences
of. And that means we are completely at the whim
of a crazy delusional and paranoid president.

How Does Impeachment Actually Work?


Who’s in charge of the person in charge?
Who fires the leader of a country if the leader is breaking the law or not doing their job
properly? Who gets to decide that the leader of a country is abusing power or derelict
in their duties in the first place? Sometimes leaders are fired or removed from office through
a process called impeachment where a governing body accuses and investigates how a leader
has mishandled their position or powers. While many countries around the world have
their own impeachment processes, today we’re focusing on the impeachment process for the
United States of America. Furthermore while any elected official may be impeached, and
impeachment is possible both at the state and federal levels, we’re specifically discussing
how impeachment works for the highest office in the land, the president of the United States. There are only 4 ways a US president may leave
or be removed from office during their term: Firstly, they can pass away. Eight US presidents
have died while in office, four of those deaths occurred via assasination. The first incumbent
president to die was William Henry Harrison in 1841, who died after only a month in office.
He was followed by Zachary Taylor in 1850. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865,
followed by James A. Garfield, who was assassinated in 1881. William McKinley was assassinated
in 1901 and Warren G. Harding suffered a heart attack while in office, and died in 1923.
Franklin D. Roosevelt died in 1945 and finally, John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. The second way an American president can leave
office during their term is to resign. Only one president has ever resigned in the history
of the US. Contrary to popular belief, President Richard Nixon was not removed from office,
he resigned in 1974. Thirdly, a president can be impeached, convicted
and removed. In this context, a simple definition of impeachment
is that the House of Representatives makes formal charges against the president for–to
quote the constitution “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
However, generally when people talk about impeachment they mean the whole process, including
conviction and removal from office. Basically impeachment is just the starting
point for reviewing a president’s actions and determining if those actions fit the clauses
set forth in the constitution. Much like a grand jury indicting an alleged criminal,
impeachment starts a process in motion to review and investigate the president’s actions. Let’s walk through how the impeachment process
can unfold: The President has done some questionable things
that the House of Representatives feels they should probe. The Judiciary Committee of the
House opens an investigation into the President’s actions. Ultimately, the Judiciary Committees’
report is enough to sway several members of the House that President should be impeached
so they call for a resolution. While at any time a member of congress could call for a
resolution of impeachment, if they are the only representative interested in impeaching
the president, it’s highly unlikely that the House would take further action. With support for an impeachment from several
colleagues, the Speaker of the House declares that the House of Representatives is going
to hold an official inquiry of impeachment into the President’s behavior. How the Speaker
declares the official inquiry is not specified in the constitution, they can hold a press
conference, send a letter to the Senate, etc. Over the next several days, if not weeks or
months, the House of Representatives collects and reviews information regarding the President’s
questionable actions. This investigation may involve holding hearings, subpoenaing witnesses
to testify, reviewing transcripts and files deemed relevant to the proceedings, etc. Once they’ve reviewed any evidence, if warranted
the House of Representatives, usually the Judiciary Committee, drafts Articles of Impeachment.
Technically, the House of Representatives can set up a special panel to handle the impeachment
proceedings or skip the investigation and hold a floor vote on such articles without
any committee vetting them. The Constitution simply says that impeachment is the prerogative
of the House of Representatives and does not specify how they conduct proceedings. Once the Articles of Impeachment have been
created, the House votes on them. If any article passes by a majority, then the President is
impeached. The House of Representatives consists of 435 lawmakers so if any article receives
a vote of 218, the article passes via simple majority. From there, the US Senate holds a trial to
decide if the passed impeachment articles are true and they rise to the level of being
serious enough to convict the President and remove them from office. The trial is overseen
by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. A team of lawmakers from the House, Called
‘Managers’, act as prosecutors while the president has counsel to act as defense lawyers.
The Senators serve as a jury. After hearing evidence and closing arguments from each side
and deliberating, the Senate then reconvenes and votes. A supermajority or at least two thirds (⅔)
of the Senate must vote in favor of any Article of Impeachment for the President to be convicted.
The Senate consists of 100 members so a simple majority is 51 votes; while a 2/3 supermajority
vote is 67 votes. If the President is found guilty of any article, they are removed from
office and the vice president is sworn in. No US president has ever been removed from
office via impeachment. Three presidents have come close. Two presidents have been impeached–President
Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton. A third, President Richard Nixon resigned
before the House of Representatives could vote on the Articles of Impeachment they had
drafted against him. In 1868, during Reconstruction, President
Andrew Johnson, who had an ongoing bitter struggle with Congress over division of power
was impeached. The primary charge against President Johnson was that he violated the
Tenure of Office Act when he fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. While 3 of the original
11 drafted Articles of Impeachment were passed by the House of Representatives, President
Johnson was not convicted and therefore not removed from office. In fact on each of the
3 articles, the Senate fell short of the required ⅔ majority by a single vote. In the fall of 1973, an impeachment process
began over President Nixon’s role in the Watergate Scandal. In early summer of 1974
the Judiciary Committee of the House approved three Articles of Impeachment against President
Nixon, for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. Before the
House of Representatives could vote on the impeachment articles, President Nixon resigned
from office on August 9, 1974. President Bill Clinton was formally impeached
in December of 1998, on two Articles of Impeachment–perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice
for his role in suppressing his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The Senate held a trial and
then a vote to convict. The Senate vote pretty much split down the middle by political party
and did not receive a super majority on either article so President Clinton was acquitted. During the summer of 1787 when the Constitutional
Convention convened in Philadelphia, the delegates spent a lot of time building checks and balances
into the government. Enshrining impeachment into the Constitution created a failsafe–the
US president is not above the law. One of the reasons central to America being founded
was that the colonies no longer wanted to be under the control of a King whom they deemed
a tyrant. So when the founding fathers created 3 branches of government, they wanted to make
sure that the executive branch, the elected US president never had absolute power like
a monarch. Impeachment is a way for the legislative branch
to check the power of the executive branch. However, the founding fathers deliberately
made the impeachment process multi-step, somewhat complicated and rather vague so it was hard
to abuse. Let’s break impeachment down: In article
2, section 4 of the US constitution it says: “The President, Vice President and all Civil
Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” So the constitution lays out 3 offenses for
which the president may be impeached: Treason, which they defined in article 3, section 3
of the constitution as “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” So
basically treason is helping enemies of the United States. Bribery is defined as the giving or offering
of a bribe. So if the president receives or gives gifts or money for personal benefit
or political favor, they would be participating in bribery. The third offense deemed worthy of impeachment
is ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ which the founding fathers did not define, deliberately
leaving it vague. For years, constitutional lawyers have debated what this means. The
term comes from British common law tradition. We’ll run with a fairly broad definition:
Any misconduct by the president that severely injures the stability, integrity or effectiveness
of the US government. Among other actions, this could include obstruction of authority,
perjury of oath, abuse of authority, misuse of public funds or assets, tax evasion or
unbecoming conduct. So while a president could break the law,
depending on the crime or the severity of the crime, it may not be considered a ‘high
crime or misdemeanor’ and therefore impeachment would not be pursued or would likely fail
if pursued. The impeachment process is meant to be a deliberate,
contemplative course of action. Impeachment proceedings also have a political dimension
because members of Congress are conscious about how their actions and votes during the
impeachment will play to their constituents and political base. Furthermore, impeachment
actions set precedence. Lawmakers look to the previous impeachments to substantiate
how future impeachment proceedings are conducted. If you remember, we mentioned that there are
four ways a President can leave or be removed from office. Just to recap the 3 ways we’ve
discussed: #1 is through death, #2 is if they choose to resign, #3 through impeachment,
conviction and removal. The fourth and final way a president can be
removed from office is if the 25th amendment is invoked. Under the 25th amendment there
are two methods in which the president may either temporarily or permanently be absolved
of power. Firstly, the President can provide the leaders
of the Senate and House of Representatives with a written declaration stating that they
are unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office. Once the declaration has
happened, the Vice President assumes all powers and duties as Acting President until the President
provides another written statement declaring that they are ready to resume their duties.
An example of this clause in action would be in 2002 when President George W. Bush temporarily
delegated power to Vice President Dick Cheney when he underwent a brief medical procedure. Section 4 of the 25th amendment discusses
the second means of either temporarily or permanently removing the president from office–if
the Vice President and a majority of cabinet members provide the leaders of the Senate
and House of Representatives with a written declaration that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of their office, the Vice President can immediately assume
the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. If the President responds with their own written
declaration that no inability exists, they can resume the powers and duties of their
office. Then within 4 days if the Vice President and cabinet members send a second declaration
that the President is unfit for duty, the Vice President again immediately takes over
as Acting President. Then Congress must meet within 48 hours regarding this issue. Within
21 days, Congress must vote to permanently remove the president from power. If two-thirds
of members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate agree that the President is
unfit for office, they are permanently stripped of the position, and the Vice President officially
becomes President. This clause is for removing power from the President if they suffer a
deficit in their physical or mental faculties and cannot or will not provide Congress with
a written declaration. Currently this option has never been utilized. Do you think the US impeachment process is
a fair way of investigating whether or not the president has committed bribery, abuses
of power or other severe crimes against their position? Why or why not? Let us know in the
comments! Also, be sure to check out our other video Can The President of the United States
Go To Jail?! Thanks for watching, and, as always, don’t forget to like, share, and
subscribe. See you next time!

Netanyahu Targets Iran to Deflect From Occupation


AARON MATÉ: It’s The Real News, I’m Aaron
Maté. At the UN this week, President Donald Trump
and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu showcased their shared priorities on the Middle
East. Both leaders made threats and bellicose statements
towards Iran. Netanyahu mentioned Iran 37 times, but mentioned
the Palestinians just twice. Trump, meanwhile, also made threats to Iran,
but didn’t mention the Palestinians even once. Gideon Levy is a veteran Israeli journalist
with the newspaper Haaretz, and he joins me now. Welcome, Gideon. GIDEON LEVY: Thank you. My pleasure. AARON MATÉ: Let’s start with playing a little
bit of what Netanyahu said. He spoke after Trump, and he began by praising
Trump’s words. Netanyahu: None were bolder, none were more
courageous and forthright than the one delivered by President Trump today. President Trump rightly called the nuclear
deal with Iran … He called it an embarrassment. Well, I couldn’t agree with him more, and
here’s why: Iran vows to destroy my country every day, including by its chief of staff
the other day. Iran is conducting a campaign of conquest
across the Middle East, and Iran is developing ballistic missiles to threaten the entire
world. Two years ago, I stood here and explained
why the Iranian nuclear deal not only doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, but actually
paves it. AARON MATÉ: So that’s Netanyahu speaking
at the UN this week. Gideon Levy, as I mentioned, Netanyahu made
37 references to Iran, just two to the Palestinians — what did you hear from him in his address? GIDEON LEVY: Netanyahu spoke about an embarrassment,
and I must tell you that there’s nothing more embarrassing than to know that the man who
handled this speech is the prime minister of my country. It was really an embarrassing guest speech,
I must say. First of all, that finally Donald Trump has
a friend in the world. I mean, the whole world is embarrassed by
Donald Trump — half of America doesn’t know where to hide out of shame because of this
man, and here comes the prime minister of Israel, the only prime minister in the world
today who will praise and flutter Donald Trump like he did. No other statesman in the world would talk
like him, and it is embarrassing me as an Israeli. And finally, it’s a great embarrassment for
me to realize that my prime minister lives in a total denial. There’s a huge elephant in the room, and the
elephant is called the Israeli Occupation, which is now celebrating, say, 50 years, and
the Israeli prime minister doesn’t even mention it. Doesn’t even recognize the fact that there
is an occupation. So, what is more embarrassing than this? AARON MATÉ: Well, let me ask you a question. Do you think part of the reason why Netanyahu
was so focused on Iran is because it helps him deflect attention from the occupation
that he doesn’t want to acknowledge? GIDEON LEVY: There is no other reason — what
do you mean? That’s the only reason that Netanyahu has-
AARON MATÉ: Well, look, in his case, though, he will point to the statements from Iran. There’s what Ahmadinejad said years ago about
Israel, and whenever someone from Iran says something bellicose towards Israel, Netanyahu
will seize on that and say that this is why we have to focus on Iran because they’re a
threat to us, they want to destroy us. GIDEON LEVY: Iran is a threat, but much a
smaller threat than Netanyahu makes it. This demonization, and above all, this exaggeration
has only domestic motivation, and Netanyahu needs an external enemy, and what is better
than to create this monster, Iran? The deal with Iran everyone knows is the best
deal that could have been achieved. It gives the world and Israel 10 years now
of full security, and to go now and to try to sabotage this deal is really a dangerous
game, because the alternative might be a war. You know, It’s not a small thing if, God forbid,
there will be a war between Israel and Iran, or United States, Israel, and Iran. We’re not dealing here with the Hamas in Gaza,
which Israel can bomb and finish their power within days. We are dealing here with a regional superpower,
so therefore one should be very careful about Iran. I don’t want to underestimate the threat,
but by the end of the day this threat is very well controlled by the agreement and we should
stick to the agreement. AARON MATÉ: Right, and I don’t want to overstate
the threat, if any, from Iran either. Iran has actually never threatened to bomb
Israel. Israel and the U.S. have threatened to bomb
Iran many times. Iran has said, also, that it would respect
any outcome to the Israel-Palestine peace conflict so long as the Palestinian people
supported it in a referendum whatever they decide. So, I agree with you that whatever statements
have come from Iran, they don’t nearly match … They don’t come anywhere close to how
they’re portrayed by leaders like Netanyahu. How did his speech play at home in Israel? GIDEON LEVY: There is a big exaggeration in
Israel about the importance of those UN speeches, while in no other country it’s even an issue
what the Prime Minister or the President says or doesn’t say in the UN. Israel is playing a double game — on one
hand, we always say that the UN is totally unimportant and the UN is totally irrelevant. On the other hand, we have this annual ritual
of, “The Prime Minister’s speech in the UN is in the whole world.” Most of the Israelis believe that the whole
world had nothing to do last Thursday evening but to sit and watch the speech of Netanyahu. There was only one thing which disturbed this
time — this huge success — and this was the fact that Netanyahu was late into hours. I mean, not his fault, but he missed the prime
time on TV in two hours, so many of Israelis were watching it not like any other year in
which it was always planned to be in the prime time. AARON MATÉ: Speaking of the UN, Netanyahu
called it, “The epicenter of global antisemitism.” What’s he trying to do there? GIDEON LEVY: Yeah, listen, for Netanyahu any
criticism on Israelis is immediately labeled as antisemitism. It’s a very efficient way to release ourselves
from any responsibility. You know, for people like Netanyahu, Israel
is doing only justice. Israel is only following the international
law. There is no occupation, there is no suffering
of the people for 50 years now, there’s no brutality, no violence — nothing– but antisemitism
of the world against Israel. It’s a very cynical game, which has very,
very little to do with reality. AARON MATÉ: Let’s talk about Mahmoud Abbas. He also spoke this week to the UN General
Assembly, and he put the one-state solution on the table saying that, “Because Israel
is undermining the two-state solution, a one-state solution might be Palestine’s only option.” What did you make of what he said to the UN? GIDEON LEVY: I mean, can anyone say anything
else? If the two-state solution is off the table,
there’s only the one-state solution. There is no third solution. And, you know, the fact that Israel is denying
it and playing as if there is a third way — there is no third. There’s either two-state solution or one-state
solution, and when we deal with the one-state solution, which by the way exists already
for 50 years. Let’s remember that the one-state is there
for 50 years. The only problem is its regime. It is not a democracy. It’s an apartheid regime in the occupied territories. So the only issue is now to try to change
the regime of the one-state, which is already there. Anyone who thinks that there is any other
alternative is playing with himself. AARON MATÉ: What do you think is the most
effective way to reach Israelis right now? There is a global movement to boycott Israel
until it complies with international law. Has that had any impact on Israelis right
now? What can people on the outside do to get across
the message that the occupation is not tolerable? GIDEON LEVY: The Israelis have no incentive
right now to go for any kind of change because life in Israel is quite good. The denial and the brainwash is in levels
that really … people who come here don’t believe in which denial the Israeli society
is living and how deep is its brainwash. So, those are conditions in which you can’t
expect any kind of change from within Israel, and therefore the only way to really shake
the Israeli society is by making it accountable and making it pay for the crimes of the occupation. As long as any Israeli is not paying by himself,
personally, and take accountability [inaudible 00:10:14] for the occupation. As long as this will not happen, there will
be no change. AARON MATÉ: We’ll leave it there. Gideon Levy, veteran Israeli journalist with
the newspaper Haaretz. Thank you. GIDEON LEVY: Thank you very much, Aaron. AARON MATÉ: And thank you for joining us
on The Real News.