Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
It would be kind of messed up if Mueller exonerated Trump but a democratic majority went for impeachment.
Click to expand...
First of all, I assume you are talking about a hypothetical "democratic majority", since they are obviously in the minority in congress.

Secondly, it wouldn't exactly be "messed up", depending on what basis was used for impeachment. Mueller is investigating one main aspect... Trump and his Russian ties. However, there are other areas where impeachment might be possible, most notably the emolument's clause. This clause prevents a president from profiting from foreign governments, something that trump is accused of due to his current ownership of various properties (including Trump hotels that host foreign guests.) The emolument clause is a separate investigation and as far as I know, not being investigated by Mueller at all.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/emoluments-clause-trump-accused-of-violating-constitution.html
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
John Kelly, apologizer in chief, lying his way through a press conference right now pretending Trump is a great POTUS. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes. Not noble warrior but lickspittle lapdog.

Anyone who claims that Kelly is doing this for the good of the country is IMO full of it and/or in denial.
 
Segnosaur said:
First of all, I assume you are talking about a hypothetical "democratic majority", since they are obviously in the minority in congress.

Secondly, it wouldn't exactly be "messed up", depending on what basis was used for impeachment. Mueller is investigating one main aspect... Trump and his Russian ties. However, there are other areas where impeachment might be possible, most notably the emolument's clause. This clause prevents a president from profiting from foreign governments, something that trump is accused of due to his current ownership of various properties (including Trump hotels that host foreign guests.) The emolument clause is a separate investigation and as far as I know, not being investigated by Mueller at all.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/emoluments-clause-trump-accused-of-violating-constitution.html
Click to expand...

His investigation has no real restriction on it and he can look to anything that comes up. I he stumbled upon bribery, he could look at that. He has looked at some financial information. If he exonerated Trump on that dimension, we would be talking about impeachment over gifts that did not influence government behavior. I don't know if they would want to do that.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Another day, another outrage.

“President Donald Trump raged at the media Wednesday, saying in the Oval Office, “It’s frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever they want to write.” He added, “People should look into it.””
Click to expand...

For any Spanish speakers, I found a part of a speech he could use to announce that he's doing something about it.

Another president with media problems said:
¡Ipsofacto sale del aire! ¡De inmediato sale del aire y se le quita la concesión que tienen para estar transmitiendo! ¡Televisión o radio que viole la ley se le quitará la concesión! ¡Yo no estoy mamando gallo!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the original speaker is no longer with us, so The Donald can't ask him for advice.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It would be kind of messed up if Mueller exonerated Trump but a democratic majority went for impeachment. I think they are going to stick to a "high crimes" rather than terrible at the job.
Click to expand...

You can't impeach a President for being terrible at the job;there has to be deliberate wrongdoing of some kind or another.
That being said, Congress has a wide choice of things that consititute high crimes or misdemeanors;the humorous way of saying this is Congress could impeach the President for eating a cheese sanwhich if they wanted to.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Mueller is investigating one main aspect... Trump and his Russian ties. However, there are other areas where impeachment might be possible, most notably the emolument's clause.
Click to expand...
His investigation has no real restriction on it and he can look to anything that comes up. I he stumbled upon bribery, he could look at that. He has looked at some financial information.
Click to expand...
Just because Mueller can expand his investigations, it doesn't necessarily mean he will expand them, or even would be expected to investigate everything. Mueller may be a great investigator, but he's not omnipotent.

So once again, even if Trump is not found criminally responsible for ties to Russia, it does not mean that there wouldn't be rational reasons for impeaching him over other issues not covered by Mueller.

That's the problem when you have a president as corrupt as Trump.... there are so many ways that he can fail.
 
Segnosaur said:
Just because Mueller can expand his investigations, it doesn't necessarily mean he will expand them, or even would be expected to investigate everything. Mueller may be a great investigator, but he's not omnipotent.

So once again, even if Trump is not found criminally responsible for ties to Russia, it does not mean that there wouldn't be rational reasons for impeaching him over other issues not covered by Mueller.

That's the problem when you have a president as corrupt as Trump.... there are so many ways that he can fail.
Click to expand...

I included financial malfeasance in my exonerated example but I understand what you are saying.
 
The_Animus said:
Very poor results from the 2018 election, or the conclusion of Mueller's investigation implicating Trump are the only things that might finish Trump.

We're stuck for at least a year
Click to expand...

Have you seen the man's diet? Don't rule out a stroke or massive heart attack.
 
dudalb said:
You can't impeach a President for being terrible at the job;there has to be deliberate wrongdoing of some kind or another.
Click to expand...

There is no constitutional authority, I think, to police what you can or can't impeach a President over. You can impeach a President for whatever you make work politically, which might well include some veneer of wrongdoing. Unless you're saying that the Supreme Court could weigh in if a President was impeached and some lawsuit brought because the terms of the impeachment were improper?

Not sure where you got the standard of deliberateness. I think that word does not appear in the Constitution in the section on impeachment; is there a Supreme Court ruling somewhere that means deliberateness?
 
dudalb said:
You can't impeach a President for being terrible at the job;there has to be deliberate wrongdoing of some kind or another.
That being said, Congress has a wide choice of things that consititute high crimes or misdemeanors;the humorous way of saying this is Congress could impeach the President for eating a cheese sanwhich if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

Failure to faithfully execute his duties and defend the Constitution would certainly qualify. Conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin thinks we're getting there:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-card-f:homepage/story&utm_term=.6453a0a138ed
 
I'll point out that it has been just three weeks since Puerto Rico has been, in Trumps own words, been "completely destroyed".

The fact that he brings up the specter of ceasing federal support at this point is not just extremely callus but by tying the federal response to the pre-existing debt problem just hammers the fact that he doesn't care about the people suffering there right now. It's as if they don't deserve help because their previously elected government had run up a debt problem.

This wouldn't have happened if it was Florida that was totally destroyed.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
You can't impeach a President for being terrible at the job;there has to be deliberate wrongdoing of some kind or another.
Click to expand...

Really? As i recalled what was considered an "impeachable offence" was an entirely political question.

Gerald Ford certainly thought so:
An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
The killer in the 25th Admendment is that it does not have be the Cabinent that removes the President.it can also be "of such other body as Congress may by law provide, ".
In other words, the Congress can pass a law, create a group. and remove the POTUS.
Click to expand...
They could honour the flag by calling it the Star Chamber. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber
 
Arcade22 said:
I'll point out that it has been just three weeks since Puerto Rico has been, in Trumps own words, been "completely destroyed".

The fact that he brings up the specter of ceasing federal support at this point is not just extremely callus but by tying the federal response to the pre-existing debt problem just hammers the fact that he doesn't care about the people suffering there right now. It's as if they don't deserve help because their previously elected government had run up a debt problem.

This wouldn't have happened if it was Florida that was totally destroyed.
Click to expand...

I am one of the people not in favor of rebuilding New Orleans. Obviously Trump is not an Avatar for any idea. There are reasons not to rebuild.
 
Why isn't Trump celebrating this terrorist plot being foiled?

A man planted a Mason jar filled with explosive chemicals and nails at a western North Carolina airport last week and vowed to "fight a war on U.S. soil," according to court documents released Tuesday.

The criminal complaint written by an FBI agent said investigators found the improvised explosive device Friday morning at the Asheville airport near a terminal entrance. Asheville police bomb technicians then rendered it safe.

The complaint accuses Michael Christopher Estes of attempted malicious use of explosive materials and unlawful possession of explosives at an airport.

Estes was arrested Saturday, and the complaint says he admitted leaving the explosive device at the airport. The complaint states that Estes "claimed he was getting ready to 'fight a war on U.S. soil,'" but didn't elaborate on this alleged motive.
Click to expand...

They stopped a man that wanted to fight a war on US soil. Isn't that what he promised to stop?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom