The Trump Presidency 14

[The Great Zaganza]

I've come full circle on Impeachment and start to think it's a bad idea, mostly because it is too good for Trump. He needs to see the inside of a cell.

He ran his campaign in a way no presidential candidate should ever be allowed to, and he runs the White House the same way.
The only saving grace, then and now, is that his people are too stupid or to self-serving to actually do what he tells them to. Congress and the Courts has long determined that they will decide what is actually happening, leaving Trump the Power to Tweet but little else. They can keep that up for another 21 months.

There won't be justice, but at the very least the Trump Legacy needs to be reduced to a pile of ash.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Deutsche Bank is fully complying with the subpoena from Letitia James, AG of NY, for documentation about Trump's loans.

 

[smartcooky]

Has anyone read or shared this yet?

Trump says he'll turn to Supreme Court if Congress begins impeachment.

Der Trumpenführer gerät in panik

Die Wände schließen sich

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Der Trumpenführer gerät in panik

Die Wände schließen sich

hey, Kavanaugh owes Trump one. Time to collect.

 

[Worm]

Has anyone read or shared this yet?

Trump says he'll turn to Supreme Court if Congress begins impeachment.

It's becoming inescapably clear that Trump hasn't read the Constitution that he swore to defend.

 

[The Atheist]

It's becoming inescapably clear that Trump hasn't read the Constitution that he swore to defend anything since grade school.

FTFY

 

[Upchurch]

Has anyone read or shared this yet?

Trump says he'll turn to Supreme Court if Congress begins impeachment.

“Dear SCOTUS, checks and balances between co-equal branches of government couldn’t possibly be constitutional, could they?”

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Welcome to the race Sleepy Joe. I only hope you have the intelligence, long in doubt, to wage a successful primary campaign. It will be nasty - you will be dealing with people who truly have some very sick & demented ideas. But if you make it, I will see you at the Starting Gate!

 

[Belz...]

Trump Tweets

Welcome to the race Sleepy Joe. I only hope you have the intelligence, long in doubt, to wage a successful primary campaign. It will be nasty - you will be dealing with people who truly have some very sick & demented ideas. But if you make it, I will see you at the Starting Gate!

Classy.

Has anyone read or shared this yet?

Trump says he'll turn to Supreme Court if Congress begins impeachment.

Turn to them for what? They have nothing to do with the process, do they?

 

[jeremyp]

That wasn't him tweeting. No spelling or capitalization mistakes, no attacks, no namecalling. Either it was very much NOT a great meeting and his aides are hiding his phone again, or it was a VERY great meeting and we'll be hearing what it was about in a future impeachment proceeding.

Also, the insertion of the word "from" between "Jack" and "Twitter".

 

[jeremyp]

Classy.



Turn to them for what? They have nothing to do with the process, do they?

They could rule that the impeachment was unconstitutional, couldn't they? There's a majority of Republicans on the bench, so I wouldn't put it past them. If they don't want to be nakedly partisan, they could argue that whatever crimes are in the indictment don't count as "high crimes and misdemeanours".

 

[The Great Zaganza]

They could rule that the impeachment was unconstitutional, couldn't they? There's a majority of Republicans on the bench, so I wouldn't put it past them. If they don't want to be nakedly partisan, they could argue that whatever crimes are in the indictment don't count as "high crimes and misdemeanours".

No, they couldn't.
Or if they did, Congress could ignore them.

It is entirely up to the House to decide to impeach, and be it only for the high Crime and misdemeanor of wearing a tan jacket.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It is entirely up to the House to decide to impeach, and be it only for the high Crime and misdemeanor of wearing a tan jacket.

It hinges on what shoes were worn with it.

 

[Belz...]

They could rule that the impeachment was unconstitutional, couldn't they? There's a majority of Republicans on the bench, so I wouldn't put it past them.

Impossible. Impeachment is not a law; it's a political process. SCOTUS has no say in it, as far as I know. Trump is an idiot.

 

[dasmiller]

No, they couldn't.
Or if they did, Congress could ignore them.

Concur. If "Separation of Powers" means anything, it means that neither the Executive Branch nor the Judicial Branch can tell the Legislative Branch what they're allowed to hold hearings on.

If the House wants to hold hearings on impeachment, they can.

 

[jeremyp]

Impossible. Impeachment is not a law; it's a political process. SCOTUS has no say in it, as far as I know. Trump is an idiot.

It is a law. It's in article 2 of the US Constitution.

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.

I haven't bothered to look up the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanours" but Trump could argue that whatever the House wants to impeach him for doesn't fall under that definition. If he were correct, then his impeachment would be unconstitutional. How else would you stop Congress from doing something unconstitutional other than by getting SCOTUS to rule on it?

 

[jeremyp]

Concur. If "Separation of Powers" means anything,

What does "checks and balances" mean? How would you apply checks and balances to the legislature if the other two branches are not allowed to interfere to uphold the constitution?

 

[Crossbow]

It is a law. It's in article 2 of the US Constitution.



I haven't bothered to look up the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanours" but Trump could argue that whatever the House wants to impeach him for doesn't fall under that definition. If he were correct, then his impeachment would be unconstitutional. How else would you stop Congress from doing something unconstitutional other than by getting SCOTUS to rule on it?

You should take a closer look at Article 2, because in Section 2 it goes on to say:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Therefore, House of Representatives deals with the impeachment of a President and not the courts.

Also, in Section 5 of Article 2, the US Constitution says:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Therefore, the only function that the courts have is in the Chief Justice presiding the case in the Senatorial trial.

P.S.: there really is no definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" because that determination is made by the House of Representatives.

 

[dasmiller]

I haven't bothered to look up the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanours"

The constitution does not provide further definition. It's whatever congress decides it is.

but Trump could argue that whatever the House wants to impeach him for doesn't fall under that definition. If he were correct, then his impeachment would be unconstitutional.

Trump can argue whatever he wants in front of congress, but the decision is ultimately up to congress.

How else would you stop Congress from doing something unconstitutional other than by getting SCOTUS to rule on it?

It's congress' role to oversee the president, and the two houses of congress provide checks on each other. It's not the president's role to oversee congress.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The constitution does not provide further definition. It's whatever congress decides it is.



Trump can argue whatever he wants in front of congress, but the decision is ultimately up to congress.



It's congress' role to oversee the president, and the two houses of congress provide checks on each other. It's not the president's role to oversee congress.

Can they impeach him for not obstructing justice? What if the reason given is he explicitly did not break the law and it is Congress's wish that he had broken the law, and are punishing him for not breaking it?