- Sep 6, 2016
- 15,961
- 10,817
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Characterizing the conversations carried out by McCabe and others as a "coup" or a "coup attempt" is such a grotesque distortion of what actually happened as to qualify as a bald-faced lie.
Using the 25th amendment path to remove a president is 100% legal and constitutional, and does not involve force. That’s not a coup. Even the desire to record Trump demonstrates this, Rosenstein wanted evidence before acting.
When he gets amped up it reminds me of the aliens in Mars Attacks.HAHAHA! His voice is so annoying.
Only two Presidents have been impeached; Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Both were acquitted by the Senate, and so not removed from office.If it is legal to impeach a president, then it is reasonable that there will be people who will try to get a president evaluated for impeachment. And that if it is legal, then it is not a coup attempt to do what is legal, I suppose.
Of course, if they are making false allegations, may be they are trying to make a coup, under the guise of a legal proceeding.
So, they ones seeking impeachment should themselves be evaluated; this is to be expected, too.
When the Revolutionaries prepared to defect from England, they prepared a list of things they claimed were reasons the King of England had failed to function rightly in ruling the American colonies. And these were considered ample cause for the Revolutionaries to separate from British rule.
I might ask > how do these items compare with any list that people have prepared in order to try to impeach President Donald Trump?? Plus, how do they compare with how the government as a whole has functioned, including before Donald was President???? Has he really been that different, I mean in actual results?? If he does need to be impeached, does this make him very much different than a number of our previous presidents who have not been impeached? Why him, and not others, in case he's not really that different.
Lying about it afterwards, in the case of Bill Clinton. Johnson was impeached for attempting to fire the Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in defiance of the Tenure of Office Act.We have ones reported to have betrayed their own wives, by adultery; yet, they have been called great. What is the standard, then?
Removal of a President by the impeachment process is not the same as removal by the 25th Amendment. The first is for "high crimes and misdemeanors." It requires impeachment (indictment) by the House of Representatives and a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict and remove from office. The 25th amendment covers those more general (and non-criminal) situations in which the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." Removal of the President under the provisions of the 25th Amendment requires concurrence of the Vice President and two thirds of the Cabinet and a two thirds vote of both Houses of Congress.And, while we are at it > how does your list compare with how you need to be an example of how Jesus rules and cares for people and loves us as family?
If Trump leaves office prior to completing his term, it will be the logical and natural consequence his own actions.
Removal from office by Impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment are perfectly legal actions that are, by design, difficult to carry out.
And no one disagrees with you about that, not even McCabe and his cronies.While that is true, there has to be a valid reason, being opposed to his policies, or, not liking him at a personal level does not reach that standard.
Thank you for your time and effort to make these things clear.Removal of the President under the provisions of the 25th Amendment requires concurrence of the Vice President and two thirds of the Cabinet and a two thirds vote of both Houses of Congress.
Levin's histrionic hyperbole is laughable, but I'm not surprised that some folks eat it up.
Only two Presidents have been impeached; Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Both were acquitted by the Senate, and so not removed from office.
Lying about it afterwards, in the case of Bill Clinton. Johnson was impeached for attempting to fire the Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in defiance of the Tenure of Office Act.
Removal of a President by the impeachment process is not the same as removal by the 25th Amendment. The first is for "high crimes and misdemeanors." It requires impeachment (indictment) by the House of Representatives and a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict and remove from office. The 25th amendment covers those more general (and non-criminal) situations in which the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." Removal of the President under the provisions of the 25th Amendment requires concurrence of the Vice President and two thirds of the Cabinet and a two thirds vote of both Houses of Congress.
Which hardly fits the definition of a "coup."The two thirds from each chamber in Congress is only needed if there a dispute between the President and the VP (plus half the cabinet) in whether or not the President can discharge his duties. If there is no dispute then Congress need not be involved (other then receiving the letter).
However, you will be correct because there is almost no way Trump would go quietly into that good night if Pence tries to 25 him. It will take 2/3 vote from both sides of Congress to remove Trump this way.
It's an opinion piece by Levin however they try and dress it up.We should take the credibility of the article with a grain of salt since it was reported by Fox News.
Straw man.While that is true, there has to be a valid reason, being opposed to his policies, or, not liking him at a personal level does not reach that standard.
Wait, what investigations are being conducted on the president? We know his campaign is being investigated and now his inaugural committee. He was mentioned as Individual 1 in one of the indictments of his underlings...And, of course, his defunct "charity" foundation is also under investigation in New York, but that's not him. Of course, now that we have a Democratic House, we may get an investigation into money-laundering via real estate, but probably not before 2020.All the investigations currently being conducted on the president will continue until the election is decided on 2020.
If he simply paid them, no, it would not be illegal, but we know he lied about it, a lot, and tried to cover his trail with fake corporations and false names and got other people to front the money which amounted to felony illegal campaign contributions and coverups. (Source: Vox- "What’s illegal about Trump’s hush payments to women, briefly explained" )In the end, I really believe the only thing that can be pinned on President Trump is that he paid to aging strippers, in order to secure a non disclosure agreement, which, BTW, are not illegal.
On the contrary, if you've been following the indictments, you'll have noticed that they are leading closer and closer. Roger Stone seems particularly close to the president and Russian collusion, sorry to say.The longer these investigations go on, the less likely they have anything on the President.
No, not everyone is corrupt anyway. And so much for the Great Swamp Drainer story, eh?Besides, Everyone in DC has criminal knowledge on each other, hidden off shore accounts, mistrisses, bribes, and the list goes on, and on.
It's true no one cares, except perhaps Melanie and her young son, but this is about corruption, self-dealing and possibly mental decline to the point of incapacity (25thA and criminal defense).If the economy keeps booming, and unemployment/interest rates stay low, the President will be re-elected without much difficulty. Most people I have spoken to could care less about his affairs with the strippers a decade before he was elected to office.