Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

17 minutes ago, twa said:

The President is different

That's the nice way of putting it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

There is actually ton of evidence that he committed crimes already in the public domain.  There isn't any conclusive evidence (yet), but there is a mountain of evidence.  

Please don't continue in @twa's attempt to convolute these two separate questions;

1) Should Trump be charged for Russian conspiracy?

and the question that I am asking

2) Should a President who is obviously guilty of crimes be allowed to remain in office if/when Congress refuses to hold POTUS accountable through impeachment?

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Please don't continue in @twa's attempt to convolute these two separate questions;

1) Should Trump be charged for Russian conspiracy?

and the question that I am asking

2) Should a President who is obviously guilty of crimes be allowed to remain in office if/when Congress refuses to hold POTUS accountable through impeachment?

 

My responses are:

 

1) Don't know for sure yet, but probably.

2) Even if the answer is no, short of a coup, what do you suggest would happen?

[twa]

20 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Answer the question that I asked please.

I am asking SPECIFICALLY about the idea that a criminal POTUS must be allowed to remain in office if/when Congress fails to uphold its accountable duties.

Now answer my scenario.

 

And for the love of god use the damn quote feature, I KNOW you know how, and I'm pretty sure I know why you don't.

 

Congress does not have a duty to impeach, they have the power to do so.

 

If you think they are not fullfilling their responsibilities you can try to remove them....that Will of the People thing.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

My responses are:

 

1) Don't know for sure yet, but probably.

2) Even if the answer is no, short of a coup, what do you suggest would happen?

We have a line of succession, but how could we leave a known murder in the White House simply because removing that murder would be difficult?

The President's primary responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution, he is subject to it, and is not above the law. The White House is not some Presidential get out of jail free card. The 25th Amendment already gives us the language: "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."

It does NOT stipulate that the President can only be removed from office by impeachment, death or resignation. That is the argument that @twais making.

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

Congress does not have a duty to impeach, they have the power to do so.

 

If you think they are not fullfilling their responsibilities you can try to remove them....that Will of the People thing.

Yawwwwnnnnnn....for the love of god do you have a condition that prevents you from answering a question?

[twa]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

It does NOT stipulate that the President can only be removed from office by impeachment, death or resignation. That is the argument that @twais making.

Yawwwwnnnnnn....for the love of god do you have a condition that prevents you from answering a question?

 

It does not stipulate any other way of removal.

 

Your question is based on Congress not doing it's duty in the way you wish.

Choosing not to exercise a power is a exercise of power.

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just now, twa said:

 

It does not stipulate any other way of removal.

 

Your question is based on Congress not doing it's duty in the way you wish.

Choosing not to exercise a power is a exercise of power.

 

So it is your position that if/when Congress refuses to act to remove a murder from the White House that the POTUS should remain to serve out his/her term?

What a brilliant idea. 

And I bet your ass you'd have a different answer if it was Obama.

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

We have a line of succession, but how could we leave a known murder in the White House simply because removing that murder would be difficult?

The President's primary responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution, he is subject to it, and is not above the law. The White House is not some Presidential get out of jail free card. The 25th Amendment already gives us the language: "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."

It does NOT stipulate that the President can only be removed from office by impeachment, death or resignation. That is the argument that @twais making.

 

Agree that the President is not above the law and this particular President has abdicated his oath of office.  The "removal" language is a direct cite to Article II, Section 4: "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."  The founders did not put another mechanism in because it does not appear to have occurred to them that a Congress could be so corrupt that it would refuse to remove a President that has been convicted of treason and/or other high crimes.  But here we are.

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Agree that the President is not above the law and this particular President has abdicated his oath of office.  The "removal" language is a direct cite to Article II, Section 4: "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."  The founders did not put another mechanism in because it does not appear to have occurred to them that a Congress could be so corrupt that it would refuse to remove a President that has been convicted of treason and/or other high crimes.  But here we are.

Which brings us to my question #1...

[twa]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

So it is your position that if/when Congress refuses to act to remove a murder from the White House that the POTUS should remain to serve out his/her term?

What a brilliant idea. 

And I bet your ass you'd have a different answer if it was Obama.

 

I'm fine with impeaching him, or Obama  for a bad haircut

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just now, twa said:

 

I'm fine with impeaching him, or Obama  for a bad haircut

 

 

Useless...you do this EVERY time you're forced to give an answer that you don't want to give.

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

Which brings us to my question #1...

 

But it doesn't bring us to question 1.  Question one is about whether he is criminally liable for conspiracy under the law.  Question 2 is whether, regardless of the answer to question 1, would the Republicans in Congress impeach him in the House and convict him in the Senate.  One is a legal question, the other is a political question.  

[twa]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Useless...you do this EVERY time you're forced to give an answer that you don't want to give.

 

I gave you the answer, you just don't agree with it. 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

Oh ffs Orrin. ?

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

But it doesn't bring us to question 1.  Question one is about whether he is criminally liable for conspiracy under the law.  Question 2 is whether, regardless of the answer to question 1, would the Republicans in Congress impeach him in the House and convict him in the Senate.  One is a legal question, the other is a political question.  

I just cannot believe that we are supposedly powerless to be subject to a POTUS who is a criminal because Congress refuses to act. There must be a true checks and balances, and that is left to the courts.

Just now, twa said:

 

I gave you the answer, you just don't agree with it. 

 

 

So you do believe that a known criminal must be allowed to serve out his/her term if Congress refuses to impeach.

[mistertim]

If Mueller comes out with an ironclad case that Trump did conspire with a hostile foreign power against the United States and is still beholden and compromised and Congressional Republicans refuse to impeach him then what?

 

We'd have a president in the oval office who is a direct national security threat to the country and who we now know truly is a Russian puppet and likely subject to blackmail. Do we just shrug?

[twa]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I just cannot believe that we are supposedly powerless to be subject to a POTUS who is a criminal because Congress refuses to act. There must be a true checks and balances, and that is left to the courts.

 

Would you feel the same if Obama was charged in a Judge Roy Moore court? 

 

Should POTUS recuse themselves till the appeals process run out?

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Agree that the President is not above the law and this particular President has abdicated his oath of office.  The "removal" language is a direct cite to Article II, Section 4: "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."  The founders did not put another mechanism in because it does not appear to have occurred to them that a Congress could be so corrupt that it would refuse to remove a President that has been convicted of treason and/or other high crimes.  But here we are.

 

"shall" means mandatory and without discretion for legislative intent purposes. 

 

"may" is the term used if the law is permissive and allows for discretion.

 

I am sure the "strict constructionists" such as Ted Cruz, Clarence Thomas and the late Scalia will demand a strict and plain meaning approach - i.e. congress has no discretion to decide to act or not act.

 

Not that Trump will every actually be charged or convicted of anything. This seems to be an exercise in academia. 

[twa]

2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Do we just shrug?

 

I'd suggest armed insurrection.

[AsburySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, mistertim said:

If Mueller comes out with an ironclad case that Trump did conspire with a hostile foreign power against the United States and is still beholden and compromised and Congressional Republicans refuse to impeach him then what?

 

We'd have a president in the oval office who is a direct national security threat to the country and who we now know truly is a Russian puppet and likely subject to blackmail. Do we just shrug?

Like I said, POTUS created the Constitutional crisis, NOT the special investigator.

Just now, twa said:

 

I'd suggest armed insurrection.

If we are as helpless as you suggest to remove a known criminal from office then what other options are there?

Elections were supposed to insure the peaceful transition of power, but when power is corrupted then what is left?

[twa]

2 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

"shall" means mandatory and without discretion for legislative intent purposes. 

 

 

Shall in that case means as a consequence of impeachment and conviction, it is not a direction to impeach or convict

[The Evil Genius]

Classic SHS.

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

8 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

"shall" means mandatory and without discretion for legislative intent purposes. 

 

"may" is the term used if the law is permissive and allows for discretion.

 

 

 

Yes, he will mandatorially be removed on impeachment and conviction.  The shall refers to what happens after those 2 things happen, not that those 2 things have to happen.

 

 

Edit:  I ****ing hate all of you for making me agree with twa.  For the record, I think this is a ****ty outcome, but it is what the law says.  

 

 

[NoCalMike]

Digesting everyone's comments & opinions on the subject of Impeachment and whether the President is "above the law."

 

I sort of tend to lean on the side that the President is above the law.....until Congress & The Senate (and perhaps the Judicial Branch if necessary) do something about it.  In other words, The President is not going to be arrested for anything, however the rest of the government can find the President's actions so abhorrent that he is impeached and then removed from office. 

 

Now I could be wrong, might very well be actually. I have no idea, but lets say the police show up to a crime scene and determine the President had murdered somebody.  Do they have the authority to arrest and book the President in Jail while he awaits a trial for the crime?   I have no idea.    

[twa]

7 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

Elections were supposed to insure the peaceful transition of power, but when power is corrupted then what is left?

 

term limits and elections ensure peaceful transition of power.

 

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 

 

Edit:  I ****ing hate all of you for making me agree with twa.  For the record, I think this is a ****ty outcome, but it is what the law says.  

 

 

 

You are agreeing with the law, it does make me wonder if I get conjugal visits out of our proximity though.