Removing Mr. Trump from office.....

by mikeflood 93 Replies latest social current

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @Spoletta:

    Criteria for mentally unfit? The last 2 years.

    There you go. How is it you have the testicles to level these claims at the "usual suspects"? Completely unreasonable.

  • Della Street
    Della Street

    My other question for those who support Trump: What about the American Citizen who was killed by the Prince of Saudi Arabia? I understand he was a journalist, but still - he was an American. I cannot remember a time when such a public event was ignored by the White House.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @Della:

    Jamal Khashoggi was not a US citizen. What do you think should have occurred? A war perhaps?

  • Della Street
    Della Street
    I could rebut all of your allegations against Trump, but I think that you are missing the whole purpose of this thread.
    Now, if he is as bad as you said; please tell me about the process to remove him from office and whether or not it has been followed by the FBI and the DOJ?

    Hecce,

    The process to remove a President from office is generally through impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors." The House and Senate investigates through committees and a special counsel is appointed. Charges brought by the House is equivalent of an indictment through a grand jury. A simple majority in the House approves the impeachment. Once the House has impeached a President, they remain in office while awaiting trial in the Senate. Senate must have a 2/3 super majority to convict and remove the President from office.

    Mueller, as you know is the special counsel. The investigation is still active. So, it is still to be seen if there is any standing to impeach the President or not. Once all the evidence has been examined, then it will be known. It may well be, after all is said and done, that the President himself is cleared of any accusations. I am waiting like everyone else for the results of the investigation to be made public.

    The question I am left with at the moment is - most of the principal players in both the campaign and at the White House have been shown to have some relationship (usually a business tie) to Russia on some level. If everything was on the up and up, what are they all lying about? Why would they not be forthcoming ( i.e. register as an agent for a foreign government) or why would they deny or lie about meetings, etc?

    Even if it turns out there is nothing there, the amount of lying makes everyone look suspicious.

  • Della Street
    Della Street

    @MeanMrMustard Thanks for the correction. I was misinformed. No, I didn't expect a war, but it did strike me as very odd that a President was silent on the murder of a citizen. I stand corrected. :-)

  • minimus
    minimus

    Spoletta , I would not my family to be around the clintons. Either of them, especially the rapist husband. But guess what? Nothing happens to these high profile Democrats . They have a history of underhandedness and deceit . They get away with it from the news media and the government.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @Della:

    No problems here. But still, what do you think should have happened? Do you think his response is justification under the 25th Amendment for possible removal?

  • Della Street
    Della Street

    @MeanMrMustard,

    No. I don't think a lack of response qualifies as justification to invoke the 25th Amendment. I think the 25th Amendment requires the individual in office to be considered unfit due to being compromised mentally/physically, conflicts of interest, or illegal/unconstitutional actions.

    Had Khashoggi been a citizen, I would have expected some response in terms of sanctions or diplomatic consequences of some kind. Military action should always be a last resort, in my opinion.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @Della:

    ...due to being compromised mentally/physically,...

    True, but only in the sense that the President can’t discharge his duties. If you asked the left if Trump is “mentally compromised”, the answer would be ‘yes’. Does that mean he should be removed? No, because they consider anyone that doesn’t agree with them to be mentally compromised.

    Also, “physically compromised” would only mean in the sense of discharging the presidential duties. After all, I don’t think you would agree that a man in a wheelchair can’t be President, right?

    We have to be careful not to bring in weasel words that reduce “fitness for office” to “positions I agree with”. I’m not saying you are doing this, but the details matter.

    conflicts of interest,

    What do you mean here? This is too vague.

    or illegal/unconstitutional actions.

    No, I disagree here. Impeachment is meant to take care of this scenario, not the 25th Amendment. In other words, if the President shot a man in the face, murdered a man, you wouldn’t invoke the 25th Amendment. Rather, you would impeach.

  • Della Street
    Della Street

    @MeanMrMustard:

    mentally would have to consist of something more than just "I don't agree with him"... it would be serious mental impairment that made it impossible for him to function. What that looks like is different for every individual. It could be memory issues, incapacitating depression or anxiety, delusions or hallucinations....many people function well with any of these issues - so the key is incapacitating - something so severe he was unable to make rational decisions or carry out his duties.

    physically it would be something like a coma. He could serve as President even if he was a quadriplegic or on bed rest if he was otherwise well.

    conflicts of interest I was thinking if the President started working against the interests of the US in favor of a foreign government, or was otherwise actively attempting to dismantle or thwart the government.

    The 25th Amendment was adopted after Nixon. Gerald Ford had to replace Spiro Agnew as VP, and then Nixon as President because they were both crooks. The wording is "President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," - that is open to interpretation kind of like "high crimes and misdemeanors" So, I'm not sure the intention is that it is only used when the President is incapacitated mentally or physically.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit