Do you think Trump will be impeached or forced to resign?

[EvenSteven]

5 hours ago, CaptHaddock said:

what steps might Trump take to hang on to power?  My list to watch for is as follows:

 

1.  Fire Sessions or instigate his resignation, appoint an acting AG who would fire Mueller or restrict his investigation to the point where Mueller resigns.

2.  Pressure Sessions to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate HC or the DNC.

3.  Pardon immediately Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, himself, his family, and anyone else for any federal crimes they might have committed.

4.  Provoke North Korea to fire on a US military ship or plane, the traditional American way to start a war.

5.  In response to an attack of some kind against US civilians or widespread protest, suspend habeas corpus, declare martial law, and suspend investigations as "aiding the enemy." 

6.  Suspend elections because of widespread voting fraud until reforms can be enacted.

7.  Permanently exclude from the WH news media unfriendly to Trump.

These are all quite possible.  There is no doubt that Trump is a dictator and tyrant and the only thing stopping him is the constitution, the possibility of losing control of the Senate in 2018 and of course the fall out from that.

 

But don't put it past him to create a situation where he can suspend the constitution and rule as he wants.  Even though millions will fill the streets of the US, Trump will call out the National Guard on the people as other dictators like Putin and Erdogan  have done.  And all the right wing propaganda mills like FauxNews and social media trolls will cover his back and media outlets not supportive of the dictator will be shut down.  Dictators are extremely dangerous and need to be dealt with asap.

Edited November 4, 2017 by EvenSteven

[Jingthing]

16 minutes ago, amvet said:

He can fire Comey for any reason he wants to.  Check the official reason.  He has never lied under oath as President hence no impeachment. 

You don't understand impeachment. The legal bar to Impeach is not what you think it is. There is legally enough to Impeach him now ten times over. That does not mean he will be impeached. That's more about politics. 

[Meljames]

28 minutes ago, amvet said:

He can fire Comey for any reason he wants to

Unless of course he fired him in order to obstruct justice.

 

28 minutes ago, amvet said:

He has never lied under oath as President hence no impeachment. 

Plenty more impeachable offenses other than lying under oath or to Congress.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Meljames

[boomerangutang]

23 minutes ago, amvet said:

He can fire Comey for any reason he wants to.  Check the official reason.  He has never lied under oath as President hence no impeachment. 

To know Trump is to know he lies as easily as taking a breath of air.  He has lied in many court cases against him - that is, when he doesn't invoke the 5th (decline to answer for reasons of self-incrimination).  In one case, Trump took the 5th 99 times.  He will probably do the same vacillations if/when he's ever questioned directly about his Russian connections:  back and forth between lying and invoking the 5th.   It's as natural to him as it's natural for a fly to lay eggs in turds.

[amvet]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You don't understand impeachment. The legal bar to Impeach is not what you think it is. There is legally enough to Impeach him now ten times over. That does not mean he will be impeached. That's more about politics. 

No you don't understand impeachment.  The legal bar to impeach depends on which party is in power.  There is no where near enough to impeach as long as the Republicans are in power.  Shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.  Do you understand what the founding fathers were getting at?  Treason, bribery and stuff like that.  

[EvenSteven]

21 minutes ago, amvet said:

He can fire Comey for any reason he wants to.

False.  The Trump campaign is under investigation and Trump is part of the campaign.  The president can not obstruct justice, for that is an indictable offense.  And he has created a constitutional crisis in the process with a Congress that will not impeach him for it.

 

23 minutes ago, amvet said:

Check the official reason.

Huh?  Official reason?  Please explain what this legally means and provide what it is that you are trying to say.

 

26 minutes ago, amvet said:

He has never lied under oath as President hence no impeachment. 

Non sequitur.  Haven't you heard of the 25th Amendment?  It's tailored for such an unfit rogue as Trump.

 

Btw, Trump refuses to speak under oath.  That speaks volumes.

[amvet]

4 minutes ago, Meljames said:

Unless of course he fired him in order to obstruct justice.

 

Plenty more impeachable offenses other than lying under oath or to Congress.

Nothing that rises to the standard of a high crime.  He can fire Mueller and it's not a high crime.  Breaking into an office of the DNC and stealing records would be a high crime.  Lying under oath would be a high crime. 

[amvet]

3 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

False.  The Trump campaign is under investigation and Trump is part of the campaign.  The president can not obstruct justice, for that is an indictable offense.  And he has created a constitutional crisis in the process with a Congress that will not impeach him for it.

 

Huh?  Official reason?  Please explain what this legally means and provide what it is that you are trying to say.

 

Non sequitur.  Haven't you heard of the 25th Amendment?  It's tailored for such an unfit rogue as Trump.

 

Btw, Trump refuses to speak under oath.  That speaks volumes.

I think you have a valid point with the 25th amendment.  If the cabinet has any guts they will act.  However guts are rationed in Washington and normally not enough to go around. 

[EvenSteven]

6 minutes ago, amvet said:

No you don't understand impeachment.  The legal bar to impeach depends on which party is in power.  There is no where near enough to impeach as long as the Republicans are in power.  Shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.  Do you understand what the founding fathers were getting at?  Treason, bribery and stuff like that.  

Your flipping from the issue of the grounds for impeachment, which you've been proven wrong, to the issue of the politics of enacting impeachment proceedings which we all know.  Nice try.  Next.

Edited November 4, 2017 by EvenSteven

[Meljames]

6 minutes ago, amvet said:

Nothing that rises to the standard of a high crime.  He can fire Mueller and it's not a high crime.  Breaking into an office of the DNC and stealing records would be a high crime.  Lying under oath would be a high crime. 

Your confused on this issue.

 

If, Mueller discovers that firing Comey was obstruction of justice than Trump will be in the same position Nixon got himself into. Whatever support he has in Congress now will fade the same way Nixon's did.

 

It's been played out before and is about to happen again.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Meljames

[amvet]

2 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

Your flipping from the issue of the grounds for impeachment, which you've been proven wrong, to the issue of the politics of enacting impeachment proceedings which we all know.  Nice try.  Next.

Who has the ability to prove me right or wrong?  Is there some legal moderator that determines impeachment or not?  It is bad enough that JT gets away with being dismissive and encouraging flames with next but why are you starting? 

[amvet]

2 minutes ago, Meljames said:

Your confused on this issue.

 

If, Mueller discovers that firing Comey was obstruction of justice than Trump will be in the same position Nixon got himself into. Whatever support he has in Congress now will fade the same way Nixon's did.

 

It's been played out before and is about to happen again.

Of course it was obstruction of justice but not in a legal sense.  Do you think Nixon got impeached for firing Cox?  Nine months after Nixon fired Cox no one had filed impeachment charges. 

[EvenSteven]

5 minutes ago, amvet said:

Who has the ability to prove me right or wrong?  Is there some legal moderator that determines impeachment or not? 

If you can't see the Constitutional crisis Trump has created by firing Comey, as countless legal experts have pointed out, then that is your problem.

[Meljames]

1 minute ago, amvet said:

Of course it was obstruction of justice but not in a legal sense

Give it a rest pal.

[amvet]

Just now, EvenSteven said:

If you can't see the Constitutional crisis Trump has created by firing Comey, as countless legal experts have pointed out, then that is your problem.

There is no Constitutional crisis. 

 

3 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

If you can't see the Constitutional crisis Trump has created by firing Comey, as countless legal experts have pointed out, then that is your problem.

Constitutional crises arise out of the failure, or strong risk of failure, of a constitution to perform its central functions.  We are not there and you are incorrect preying on uneducated persons fears.  

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

No you don't understand impeachment.  The legal bar to impeach depends on which party is in power.  There is no where near enough to impeach as long as the Republicans are in power.  Shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.  Do you understand what the founding fathers were getting at?  Treason, bribery and stuff like that.  

It seems you deliberately chose to misinterpret my post. That is very annoying, dude. I already covered what you're saying here. The politics of impeachment OBVIOUSLY implies that even though there are grounds for impeachment, the votes won't be there in the current house to get it started.

 

Next ... 

[Skywalker69]

15 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It seems you deliberately chose to misinterpret my post. That is very annoying, dude. I already covered what you're saying here. The politics of impeachment OBVIOUSLY implies that even though there are grounds for impeachment, the votes won't be there in the current house to get it started.

 

Next ... 

It´s not the first time he have done that! We better stop feeding this troll!

[Skywalker69]

2 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

It´s not the first time he have done that! We better stop feeding this troll!

[CaptHaddock]

The confusion about grounds for impeachment seems to be endless.  Impeachment was expressly established as a political, not a legal, process even though the process is analogous to a judicial trial and the grounds for impeachment are described in terms from English law.   In fact, however, grounds for impeachment are, as Gerald Ford once asserted, whatever a majority of the House of Representatives say they are.  Period. 

 

There is, therefore, no point in arguing that some particular crime does or does not meet the criteria as grounds for impeachment, even if such an interpretation can be argued from the usage of the legal terms in English law.  There is no body of case law on which to draw for precedent and, more importantly, there is no higher body with the authority to review and overturn the decision of the Senate in an impeachment trial.  If there were such a higher body to which to appeal a verdict of the Senate, then an appeal might well turn on whether the actions of the president satisfied the criteria as grounds of impeachment.  In the complete absence of such a court of appeal, no argument can be made from definitions can be made. 

 

If Mueller believes that Trump has obstructed justice whether by firing Comey or by some other action or inaction and that that obstruction of justice falls into the category of a high crime or misdemeanor, then he may make a recommendation to the House to consider an article of impeachment to that effect.  So, the question will not be whether Trump's actions constitute obstruction of justice in any legal sense, but only whether they do so in the sense of a majority of the House of Representatives. 

 

In my opinion, a constitutional crisis has not yet arisen.  We would be in a constitutional crisis if a part of the government demonstrably failed to perform its duties under the Constitution and the remedy under the Constitution failed.  For instance, Attorney General Sessions has refused to answer questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee in its role as overseer of the Department of Justice.  Sessions did so under an entirely bogus constitutional theory that the possible future invocation of the right of executive privilege by the president to protect that testimony entitled him immediately to refuse to testify.  The Senate may exercise its right to a remedy of this unconstitutional refusal by bringing a case before the Supreme Court to test Sessions' theory.  The Senate has not done this, so no constitutional crisis has arisen.  If the Senate were to bring a case before the Supreme Court compelling Sessions' testimony and the Court decided in favor of the Senate and Sessions still refused to testify, then that would constitute a constitutional crisis. 

Edited November 4, 2017 by CaptHaddock

[EvenSteven]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

Constitutional crises arise out of the failure, or strong risk of failure, of a constitution to perform its central functions.

A Constitutional crisis is a breach in the Constitution or a violation in the duty of upholding the Constitution.  By law, the president has a duty to uphold the Constitution when he is sworn into office.  He has not.  Trump over-stepped his powers on at least five occasions that challenges the Constitution, as countless legal experts have pointed out, and the Congress will not act on it.  These include Trump's firing of Yates and Comey both of whom while in the duty of upholding the Constitution, Trump's smearing of a judge, Trump's profiting from the office of the WH and his travel ban.  All of these are in violation of the duty to uphold the Constitution.

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, EvenSteven said:

A Constitutional crisis is a breach in the Constitution or a violation in the duty of upholding the Constitution.  By law, the president has a duty to uphold the Constitution when he is sworn into office.  He has not.  Trump over-stepped his powers on at least five occasions that challenges the Constitution, as countless legal experts have pointed out, and the Congress will not act on it.  These include Trump's firing of Yates and Comey both of whom while in the duty of upholding the Constitution, Trump's smearing of a judge, Trump's profiting from the office of the WH and his travel ban.  All of these are in violation of the duty to uphold the Constitution.

 

By your definition , every time a president signs an executive order that subsequently gets overturned by a court a constitutional crisis will have arisen. That's not a crisis, that's the constitution doing what it was designed to do. Ask any ninth grader.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, amvet said:

Sorry no.  Comey works at the pleasure of the Pres.  Trump has to lie under oath like Bill Clinton. 

You remind me of the 1970's when the Nixon supporters kept saying "not grounds for impeachment".

 

As CaptHaddock correctly pointed out, grounds for impeachment are whatever the House of Representatives says they are, and if the Senate agrees. the President will be impeached.  Trump can be impeached if the House decide that his hair is a national embarrassment that rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors". I would agree with them.

 

However you can keep insisting the grounds for impeachment are narrow and precise.  Congress will take no note.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump can be impeached if the House decide that his hair is a national embarrassment that rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors". I would agree with them.

 

 

Thank you for the insight into how I should regard your views.

[EvenSteven]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

By your definition , every time a president signs an executive order that subsequently gets overturned by a court a constitutional crisis will have arisen. That's not a crisis, that's the constitution doing what it was designed to do. Ask any ninth grader.

A executive order overturned by a judge is the work of the judicial branch, acting in accordance with the Constitution, hence no Constitutional crisis.

[lannarebirth]

33 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

A executive order overturned by a judge is the work of the judicial branch, acting in accordance with the Constitution, hence no Constitutional crisis.

That's correct. But by your definition the intervening period between the unconstitutional order and the subsequent overturning of the order by a court is a constitutional crisis. It is not.

 

You said:

 

Quote

A Constitutional crisis is a breach in the Constitution or a violation in the duty of upholding the Constitution. 

 

Edited November 4, 2017 by lannarebirth

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Intelligent people formed negative opinions about Trump and Clinton 25-30 years ago. Intelligent people saw nothing in the intervening period to have elevated those negative opinions. Stupid people tend to vote for the "least worst" candidate. People who are even more stupid aggressively defend their least worst candidate because as it turns out it is not about the candidate at all but their own egos.

You're rambling.  You should call it a night.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You're rambling.  You should call it a night.

 

I was simply trying to put your insulting post in its proper context.

[EvenSteven]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

But by your definition the intervening period between the unconstitutional order and the subsequent overturning of the order by a court is a constitutional crisis. It is not.

Straw man.  You have falsely misrepresented what I've said by saying "every time a president signs an executive order that subsequently gets overturned by a court a constitutional crisis will have arisen."  Where did I say that an executive order necessarily challenges the Constitution?  I didn't.  Executive orders can challenge the Constitution, but who said they are necessarily in themselves a violation of the Constitution?  When they do challenge the Constitution though, they become a crisis.

 

Trump's travel ban was a good example of an order that violated the Constitution and it was a crisis during the intervening period, namely, up until the courts relieved the crisis.  And many people had to suffer as a result, but that is another matter and one in which the WH violated the Constitution again.

 

[lannarebirth]

31 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

  You have falsely misrepresented what I've said by saying "every time a president signs an executive order that subsequently gets overturned by a court a constitutional crisis will have arisen."  

 

Trump's travel ban was a good example of an order that violated the Constitution and it was a crisis during the intervening period, namely, up until the courts relieved the crisis. 

You said:

Quote

You have falsely misrepresented what I've said by saying "every time a president signs an executive order that subsequently gets overturned by a court a constitutional crisis will have arisen."  

Then you said:

Quote

Trump's travel ban was a good example of an order that violated the Constitution and it was a crisis during the intervening period, namely, up until the courts relieved the crisis. 

You don't seem to know what a Straw Man argument is. I know you  like to insult people by asking them "how far did you go in school". Out of curiosity, did your own studies advance far enough to learn what a petard is?

Edited November 4, 2017 by lannarebirth

[ilostmypassword]

Here's a possible impeachable offense on Trump's part. The first paragraph is taken from the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon:

In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

In short, the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach Nixon because he sought to turn the immense power of the Justice Department and federal criminal investigative agencies against his political adversaries. Although these articles of impeachment were never approved by the full House of Representatives because Nixon resigned before a vote could be taken, it received more votes in committee than any other proposed article.