Merged Trump Fires Comey....

[Aridas]

I still think that if Trump gets impeached (and convicted) because of Russian collusion, Gorsuch needs to either resign or risk impeachment himself.

On what grounds?

 

[fuelair]

On what grounds?

Being a republicker ******* is quite sufficient for me - and others should go with him - about 4 others would be perfect.....but only if the line of succession for trumpf all die (accidents will work just fine by me) till it reaches a trustworthy Democrat!!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

I consider having Bozo the Clown as the sitting president of the United States to be a problem. However, if I were a member of the Russian oligarchy, or part of TheGreatSatan collective, I'd probably consider it the answer to a problem.

In all fairness, that is an unwarranted slur on Bozo the Clown!!!!

 

[acbytesla]

I still think that if Trump gets impeached (and convicted) because of Russian collusion, Gorsuch needs to either resign or risk impeachment himself.

You may think that and I agree that Gorsuch is illegitimate given that the President that nominated him was also illegitimate. But there is no basis for Impeachment. Gorsuch didn't commit a crime and a Republican House and Senate aren't going to go along. Even if and that's a huge if, if Trump is impeached we will still be left with Pence and Gorsuch just as we were left with Ford after Nixon resigned.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

^The illegitimacy alone is sufficient cause to remove him.

 

[acbytesla]

^The illegitimacy alone is sufficient cause to remove him.

You think? Or just wish? The problem is there is no process to undo the ramifications of the election. Pence is going to be an illegitimate President after Trump's impeachment and I am pretty sure Gorsuch was one of his choices. Both Pence and Trump took power as a result of the same tainted election.

And even if the Republican could possible be persuaded to consider dumping Trump, how much more difficult would the task be if it also meant undoing Gorsuch and Pence?

 

[Cain]

On what grounds?

Essentially, the answer comes from the first sentence of this post:

You may think that and I agree that Gorsuch is illegitimate given that the President that nominated him was also illegitimate. But there is no basis for Impeachment. Gorsuch didn't commit a crime and a Republican House and Senate aren't going to go along. Even if and that's a huge if, if Trump is impeached we will still be left with Pence and Gorsuch just as we were left with Ford after Nixon resigned.

First off, the position is normative, and does not concern itself with political viability. I also took the normative position that Obama's Supreme Court choice of Merrick Garland should have been given a hearing. That didn't happen. Senate Republicans broke norms rather than laws. Second, the Nixon comparison does not quite track. Fun fact: Nixon's '72 victory was slightly more impressive than Trump's (he won over 500 electoral votes), and there was no question of his legitimacy (though there arguably should have been, but more so for '68 because of shenanigans regarding the Paris peace talks). As for Pence, people voted for him on their ballots, and he'll be contained politically. Gorsuch is another matter because he can help deliver 5-4 rulings for decades. Ideally, he would resign because of the black cloud of impropriety. You make a good point about actual grounds for impeaching Gorsuch, and while they can always get him on some trumped up charge, that would probably do more harm than good.

Finally, regarding the "huge if" -- that's exactly the point. It's all conditional. I do not think Trump will get impeached, let alone convicted, in part because I do not believe the Russians are stupid enough to either risk collaboration, or leave behind evidence of collaboration. In terms of parsimony, it's more likely they would just aid Trump's chances of electoral victory.

 

[Babbylonian]

You think? Or just wish? The problem is there is no process to undo the ramifications of the election. Pence is going to be an illegitimate President after Trump's impeachment and I am pretty sure Gorsuch was one of his choices. Both Pence and Trump took power as a result of the same tainted election.

And even if the Republican could possible be persuaded to consider dumping Trump, how much more difficult would the task be if it also meant undoing Gorsuch and Pence?

And then at the end of the day, end up with Paul Ryan as President? Trading hateful monster for a worshiper of a hateful monster doesn't seem particularly desirable.

No, getting rid of the beast is worthwhile, but this needs to happen as a result of its own actions, not attempting to undo an election - that was determined to be legitimate by standard constitutional procedure - by what could only be extra-constitutional means

 

[SezMe]

Thanks. I thought that one might be too esoteric for the room.

It's really hard carrying this whole crowd by ourselves, eh?

 

[acbytesla]

Essentially, the answer comes from the first sentence of this post:



First off, the position is normative, and does not concern itself with political viability. I also took the normative position that Obama's Supreme Court choice of Merrick Garland should have been given a hearing. That didn't happen. Senate Republicans broke norms rather than laws. Second, the Nixon comparison does not quite track. Fun fact: Nixon's '72 victory was slightly more impressive than Trump's (he won over 500 electoral votes), and there was no question of his legitimacy (though there arguably should have been, but more so for '68 because of shenanigans regarding the Paris peace talks). As for Pence, people voted for him on their ballots, and he'll be contained politically. Gorsuch is another matter because he can help deliver 5-4 rulings for decades. Ideally, he would resign because of the black cloud of impropriety. You make a good point about actual grounds for impeaching Gorsuch, and while they can always get him on some trumped up charge, that would probably do more harm than good.

Finally, regarding the "huge if" -- that's exactly the point. It's all conditional. I do not think Trump will get impeached, let alone convicted, in part because I do not believe the Russians are stupid enough to either risk collaboration, or leave behind evidence of collaboration. In terms of parsimony, it's more likely they would just aid Trump's chances of electoral victory.

I agree with all this. BTW, I didn't think that was a 'fun' fact. That was what was totally absurd about the Watergate scandal. Nothing they did really helped Nixon's reelection. Nixon was going to be reelected easily. All it managed to do was send a lot of people to jail and send Nixon back to California.

 

[logger]

Stop, you're killing me! I'm lolling like a lolling loller that I never saw it before.

C'mon, tell us all again how Nixon "didn't even know about the half assed burglary." Man!

Obviously you're ignorant of the history. There's this internet thing called google.

 

[logger]

What is an extreme leftist?

You really don't know do you?

 

[SezMe]

Finally, regarding the "huge if" -- that's exactly the point. It's all conditional. I do not think Trump will get impeached, let alone convicted, in part because I do not believe the Russians are stupid enough to either risk collaboration, or leave behind evidence of collaboration. In terms of parsimony, it's more likely they would just aid Trump's chances of electoral victory.

Good summary of my view.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

You think? Or just wish? The problem is there is no process to undo the ramifications of the election. Pence is going to be an illegitimate President after Trump's impeachment and I am pretty sure Gorsuch was one of his choices. Both Pence and Trump took power as a result of the same tainted election.

And even if the Republican could possible be persuaded to consider dumping Trump, how much more difficult would the task be if it also meant undoing Gorsuch and Pence?

They may not have a choice, SCOTUS has upheld that in the event of fraud, the "losing" candidate gets the office (Stinson decision 1995-96 in PA).

As for your other question, set process or not the decisions and actions of an illegitimate office holder cannot be legitimate and are therefore null and void.

On other topics, evidence has surfaced that Trump does in fact tape his office, or at least has people listening in.

https://t.co/t5RgFzyfA4

 

[jimbob]

If he colluded with the Russians in the release of the emails I would hope he is impeached but I don't think it qualifies as treason.

I agree that it seems that it *legally* wouldn't be treason, however, given Russian actions and Russian foreign policy, I think that it would be treasonous

 

[ChristianProgressive]

^ And if/when we find out it was more than just the emails (though that would be more than enough).

 

[Trebuchet]

And then at the end of the day, end up with Paul Ryan as President? Trading hateful monster for a worshiper of a hateful monster doesn't seem particularly desirable.

Agreed, except I'd take Ryan over the fundie Pence any day.

 

[acbytesla]

You really don't know do you?

Nope. And it doesn't matter what I think. You're the one that used the label. To me it's highly subjective, depends on the issue and changes over time. Being chummy with the Russians and China would have been one time considered 'extreme left'. I hold positions on some issues that have liberal friends tell me that maybe I'd be more comfortable being a Republican. I wouldn't.

Is George Will a 'lefty'? I agree very little with Will, but our attitudes about Trump, process and the rule of law are very similar. Positions you dismiss out of hand as meaningless leftist nonsense. So again, what do you considered to be extremely left?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The entire Watergate criminal operation was just to get under leftist's skin!

No it was ANOTHER leftist witch hunt to take down a republican president who didn't even know about the half ass burglary.

And our little friend at last lets the mask slip.

Good job, log - you really had me fooled. You've sustained it longer than Daniel Day-Lewis probably could. Do you work this over-the-top, wacky right-winger character anywhere else on the internet? Must be a gas.

Honest, I applaud you.

Stop, you're killing me! I'm lolling like a lolling loller that I never saw it before.

C'mon, tell us all again how Nixon "didn't even know about the half assed burglary." Man!

Obviously you're ignorant of the history. There's this internet thing called google.

It may not be fair to expect logger to know more American history than an American President who, soon after learning Abraham Lincoln was a Republican (who knew?), said Andrew Jackson "was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, “There’s no reason for this.”"

Many fine, upstanding Americans have no use for history. Here's another example, from Donald Westlake's What's the Worst That Could Happen?, a Dortmunder novel:

Grinning, Andy said, "John? You planning a burglary at the Watergate?"

"I'm planning to get my ring back," Dortmunder told him, "if that's what you mean."

Andy still had that little crooked grin. "No big deal," he suggested. "Just a little third-rate burglary at the Watergate."

Dortmunder shrugged. "Yeah? So? What's the worst that could happen?"

"Well," Andy said, "you could lose the presidency."

(...skipping ahead 84 pages...)

Anne Marie said, "Where's this house exactly?"

"Well, it's an apartment, is what it is," Andy said. "In the Watergate."

This time she felt she could show her amusement, and did. "John? You want to pull a burglary at the Watergate? A little third-rate burglary at the Watergate?"

Andy said, "I already tried that on him, and it didn't work. John isn't much of a history buff."

 

[BobTheCoward]

I agree that it seems that it *legally* wouldn't be treason, however, given Russian actions and Russian foreign policy, I think that it would be treasonous

When you think about treason generally it is like this

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as a "citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]".

And I don't think to get a legally eligible candidate elected is necessarily that. It feels more like the film die hard where it is all that work for ultimately petty thievery.