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

[EvenSteven]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

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?

 

The fact that you haven't answered the question and instead offered ad hominems - and not the first time either - confirms who lost the argument.  Maybe you should take some of your own advice and not argue through your own bruised ego.  Next.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lannarebirth]

 

I answered with your own quotes in the last post.

 

I never said you said that every Executive Order constitutes a constitutional crisis. I said ,(you said), that every Executive Order that is subsequently overturned by a court constitutes a constitutional crisis in that intervening period, and that is simply not true. I suggest you reread your own posts.

 

BTW, the term you're looking for to classify these episodes is "executive overreach" not "constitutional crisis". Ask any ninth grader.

Edited November 5, 2017 by lannarebirth

[EvenSteven]

Mitch McConnell stated he is not offering any protection to Mueller and his team on MSNBC today.  This could set up another constitutional crisis, if Trump decides to fire Mueller.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/hugh-hewitt/watch/one-on-one-with-sen-mitch-mcconnell-1088557123578

[CaptHaddock]

8 hours 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.

What you describe is a mere violation of the Constitution, not a constitutional crisis.  When a president violates the Constitution, there is a remedy under the Constitution, impeachment and removal from office.  The situation only rises to the status of crisis if the remedy fails.  If, for instance, following conviction by the Senate, the president refused to relinquish the office.  That would be a constitutional crisis, since there is no further remedy under the Constitution.

[CaptHaddock]

2 hours ago, EvenSteven said:

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.

 

The travel ban violated the Constitution, but the consititutional remedy, being overturned by a federal judge, was effective, so no crisis ensued.  No commentator at the time described it as a constitutional crisis, if you recall.  If, in response to the judicial decision overturning the ban, the Trump administration had insisted on enforcing the ban, then all the commentators would have been talking up the new constitutional crisis.  At that point there would have been no remedy since the federal judge could not order the army to seize the immigration dept.

[CaptHaddock]

22 minutes ago, EvenSteven said:

Mitch McConnell stated he is not offering any protection to Mueller and his team on MSNBC today.  This could set up another constitutional crisis, if Trump decides to fire Mueller.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/hugh-hewitt/watch/one-on-one-with-sen-mitch-mcconnell-1088557123578

Not really.  There is no actual provision in the Constitution for independence of the Dept of Justice under the Attorney General, since the office of Attorney General was not created by the Constitution.  Trump would only be violating a tradition of such independence.  So, it only becomes grounds for impeachment when a majority of the House decides it is, which isn't going to happen.  The tumult that would ensue following Trump's firing of Mueller would only be a difference of opinion between Dems and Repubs.

 

The power to enforce the law rests with the president.  The president may have delegated some or all of such power to the Dept. of Justice, but it still remains his to exercise directly if he chooses.

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, amvet said:

I listed the top three news sites.  Huffington, Beitbart, and Drudge.   I go to Drudge because it is a linking site.  Click on the links to see the news.  I started visiting Drudge when he broke the Lewinsky story. 

Again, as has been pointed out by many others here, terrible sites for news.  And it shows in your posts.  Drudge did break the Lewinsky story.  Hardly a reason to continue reading news from that site.  Many other sites have broken much bigger stories....after proper vetting.

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

Not really.  There is no actual provision in the Constitution for independence of the Dept of Justice under the Attorney General, since the office of Attorney General was not created by the Constitution.  Trump would only be violating a tradition of such independence.  So, it only becomes grounds for impeachment when a majority of the House decides it is, which isn't going to happen.  The tumult that would ensue following Trump's firing of Mueller would only be a difference of opinion between Dems and Repubs.

 

The power to enforce the law rests with the president.  The president may have delegated some or all of such power to the Dept. of Justice, but it still remains his to exercise directly if he chooses.

 

You are correct but I think a firing of the special counsel would be widely seen by reasonable people of all political persuasions as obstruction of justice, in appearance at least if not in fact. It would be an extremely stupid thing for Trump to do IMO and I think sets the countdown to the end of his presidency. If not by impeachment, then by his resignation.

Edited November 5, 2017 by lannarebirth

[CaptHaddock]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

You are correct but I think a firing of the special counsel would be widely seen by reasonable people of all political persuasions as obstruction of justice, in appearance at least if not in fact. It would be an extremely stupid thing for Trump to do IMO and I think sets the countdown to the end of his presidency. If bot by impeachment, then be his resignation.

I am not so sure.  Nixon resigned only when the Republican leaders of Congress explained to him that he would lose in the Senate on Republican votes.  I don't think firing Mueller would result in impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate.  As we all know, the Congress is much more deeply politicized now than in the Nixon era.  Trump fired Sally Yates and then Comey to shut down investigations of his Russia connection and neither of those actions resulted in a debate on articles of impeachment in the House.  You have more faith in the integrity of the Republican members of Congress than I do.

 

If Trump does fire Mueller, which I believe is inevitable, the controversy that would ensue would paralyze Trump's presidency, an outcome I personally would regard as optimal.  There would be mass demonstrations, maybe round-the-clock filibustering by Dem senators, etc.  The Republic would indeed be in crisis, but the assault on our democratic traditions is already in full swing, so a wider recognition of the situation would be a step forward.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, CaptHaddock said:

I am not so sure.  Nixon resigned only when the Republican leaders of Congress explained to him that he would lose in the Senate on Republican votes.  I don't think firing Mueller would result in impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate.  As we all know, the Congress is much more deeply politicized now than in the Nixon era.  Trump fired Sally Yates and then Comey to shut down investigations of his Russia connection and neither of those actions resulted in a debate on articles of impeachment in the House.  You have more faith in the integrity of the Republican members of Congress than I do.

 

If Trump does fire Mueller, which I believe is inevitable, the controversy that would ensue would paralyze Trump's presidency, an outcome I personally would regard as optimal.  There would be mass demonstrations, maybe round-the-clock filibustering by Dem senators, etc.  The Republic would indeed be in crisis, but the assault on our democratic traditions is already in full swing, so a wider recognition of the situation would be a step forward.

 

I don't think the Republicans in Congress have any allegiance to Trump. I think they back him if they think it helps their midterm chances and ditch him if they don't. They've got a rubber stamp president waiting in the wings who IMO is even worse than Trump. Be careful what you wish for.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I don't think the Republicans in Congress have any allegiance to Trump. I think they back him if they think it helps their midterm chances and ditch him if they don't. They've got a rubber stamp president waiting in the wings who IMO is even worse than Trump. Be careful what you wish for.

They may not have any allegiance to Trump but a big clump of their supporters do. A good percentage of these supporters might not turn out to vote if their reps vote to impeach Trump or vote in the primaries for a pro-Trump candidate.

Edited November 5, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[CaptHaddock]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I don't think the Republicans in Congress have any allegiance to Trump. I think they back him if they think it helps their midterm chances and ditch him if they don't. They've got a rubber stamp president waiting in the wings who IMO is even worse than Trump. Be careful what you wish for.

Neither Pence nor any other member of the sorry lineup of Repub wannabes would have beaten Hillary.  Trump is their sole chance to keep the White House and they all know it.  That's what they are loyal to.  The Repubs who can't stomach Trump are being forced out even as we speak, to wit, Flake, Crocker, and some others.  They all know what happened to Gerald Ford. 

 

It's Trump's party now.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

They may not have any allegiance to Trump but a big clump of their supporters do. A good percentage of these supporters might not turn out to vote if their reps vote to impeach Trump or vote in the primaries for a pro-Trump candidate.

 

Yeah, that's possible. I don't really have a handle on his supporters thoughts at present. I think in the 2016 election his support stemmed from loathing of his opponent and a pretty weak Democrat platform.

[Berkshire]

11 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I don't think the Republicans in Congress have any allegiance to Trump. I think they back him if they think it helps their midterm chances and ditch him if they don't. They've got a rubber stamp president waiting in the wings who IMO is even worse than Trump. Be careful what you wish for.

Hardcore Trump supporters have become a political force very much like the NRA.  An extremist group actually small in number, but very vocal and very well funded.  They can't change the hearts and minds of 300+ million Americans but they don't have to.  Just their mere mention terrifies politicians who's districts depend on their support.  That there is how American politics work. 

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Hardcore Trump supporters have become a political force very much like the NRA.  An extremist group actually small in number, but very vocal and very well funded.  They can't change the hearts and minds of 300+ million Americans but they don't have to.  Just their mere mention terrifies politicians who's districts depend on their support.  That there is how American politics work. 

I live in a Red county of a Blue state. Nobody I've talked to likes Trump at all and I've talked to a lot of people. But the thing is they really hate Hillary Clinton. They don't disguise their contempt in any way. I think Trump was an own goal score from the Democrats. As I look at the newly formed DNC it looks to me like they are getting ready to repeat some of their same mistakes.

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by lannarebirth

[CaptHaddock]

14 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I live in a Red county of a Blue state. Nobody I've talked to likes Trump at all and I've talked to a lot of people. But the thing is they really hate Hillary Clinton. They don't disguise their contempt in any way. I think Trump was an own goal score from the Democrats. As I look at the newly formed DNC it looks to me like they are getting ready to repeat some of their same mistakes.

 

So, it may appear if your sampling is a Red county in a Blue state, but those people had no effect at all on the outcome of the election. 

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

So, it may appear if your sampling is a Red county in a Blue state, but those people had no effect at all on the outcome of the election. 

That's true, but there are thousands of similar counties to mine across America and they don't all lie in Blue states. I' certain mine and many other counties would have been a Blue county (it has been historically) if the Democrats had put up a better candidate.

[CaptHaddock]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

That's true, but there are thousands of similar counties to mine across America and they don't all lie in Blue states. I' certain mine and many other counties would have been a Blue county (it has been historically) if the Democrats had put up a better candidate.

I am not convinced.  Since the margin of votes that determined the outcome in the Electoral College was very small, it can be said that any number of factors might have had determined the outcome, e.g. voter suppression in key states, HC's travel schedule, Russian-sponsored adverts on Facebook, etc. etc. 

 

At it happened there was not another Dem candidate who could have won the popular vote as HC did.  Certainly, not Bernie Sanders on whom the Repub propaganda machine never turned its guns.  He would quickly have become the Jew Communist candidate for pres.  Elizabeth Warren would have been McGovern redux. 

 

Next time there will be possibilities.  Al Franken, for example.  If we are still holding elections by then.

[Thakkar]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

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. 

 

On that note, it occurs to me that if a tape were to emerge of a president privately in hushed tones telling the DOJ and FBI to investigate his political enemies for Russian Collusion (the same crimes his campaign is being investigated for), it would be a major, major story, a very big deal that ANYONE who cares about separation of powers would denounce. 

 

Yet, we have been so inured to breaches of democratic norms that when Trump demands exactly this on Twitter, nobody bats an eyelid.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

On that note, it occurs to me that if a tape were to emerge of a president privately in hushed tones telling the DOJ and FBI to investigate his political enemies for Russian Collusion (the same crimes his campaign is being investigated for), it would be a major, major story, a very big deal that ANYONE who cares about separation of powers would denounce. 

 

Yet, we have been so inured to breaches of democratic norms that when Trump demands exactly this on Twitter, nobody bats an eyelid.

 

I think such a tape would be pretty explosive but it isn't a breach of seperation of powers. Those agencies all reside within the same branch of government.

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

I am not convinced.  Since the margin of votes that determined the outcome in the Electoral College was very small, it can be said that any number of factors might have had determined the outcome, e.g. voter suppression in key states, HC's travel schedule, Russian-sponsored adverts on Facebook, etc. etc. 

 

At it happened there was not another Dem candidate who could have won the popular vote as HC did.  Certainly, not Bernie Sanders on whom the Repub propaganda machine never turned its guns.  He would quickly have become the Jew Communist candidate for pres.  Elizabeth Warren would have been McGovern redux. 

 

Next time there will be possibilities.  Al Franken, for example.  If we are still holding elections by then.

That's speculative of course re a Sanders candidacy but polls then and now suggest he would have won. Yeah he would have got beat up some but there wasn't enough muck to find for it to have much legs IMO. Warren IMO is an extremely poor candidate. An opportunist not well disguised. Is The Al Franken Decade finally here?  We'll see.

[CaptHaddock]

11 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

That's speculative of course re a Sanders candidacy but polls then and now suggest he would have won. Yeah he would have got beat up some but there wasn't enough muck to find for it to have much legs IMO. Warren IMO is an extremely poor candidate. An opportunist not well disguised. Is The Al Franken Decade finally here?  We'll see.

"An opportunist?"  Are you feeling nostalgic for the naivete of your teenage years?  Do you seriously imagine that any aspirant for high office is in any sense not an opportunist?  "Opportunist" wouldn't be a surrogate for "female," would it?

Edited November 5, 2017 by CaptHaddock

[Thakkar]

11 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I think such a tape would be pretty explosive but it isn't a breach of seperation of powers. Those agencies all reside within the same branch of government.

I agree. It wouldn’t exactly be a technical breach, but certainly a breach of normalcy. My lament is that his tweet doing the same *should* be explosive, but isn’t.

[lannarebirth]

13 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

 "Opportunist" wouldn't be a surrogate for "female," would it?

 

No it isn't. She just does not seem very authentic to me. Take this week's me tooing about the rigged Democrat primaries. None of her actions she ever took suggested she cared about the fact the primaries were rigged, though she was in a position to know. Only once the cat was out of the bag does she try to distance herself from never endorsing Sanders and being in the bag for Clinton. That kind of thing. It wouldn't look good on anybody IMO whichever their gender.

[boomerangutang]

Just in the course of the past week, Trump has dribbled things out of his mouth that would be grounds for impeachment.   He's ensured that the NY City bomber gets a light sentence, he's undercut the prowess/reputation of the US military, he's done the same to the Justice Dept.

 

It's somewhat like a randy stand-up comic.  When the comic first says something outrageous, like "kill all niggers" .....people in the audience are aghast, and want to report him to authorities.  Yet, the comic keeps saying equally outrageous phrases throughout his routine.  And the comic doesn't stop after an hour - he keeps ranting for days and months, ...all his waking hours.

 

Trump's anti-Constitutional, impeachable, and other outrageous statements are like a pump-action shotgun with unlimited ammo.  He keeps spouting them out, day after day.  There are so many impeachable items, that it's hard to deal with.  That's why Mueller's is taking so long (Trumpsters want him to terminate today).  Mueller has so much to deal with, yet Trump (and Sessions, etc) keeps spouting off each day - adding new items relating to the Russian ombroglio and 'obstruction of justice.'

 

 

[CaptHaddock]

12 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

No it isn't. She just does not seem very authentic to me. Take this week's me tooing about the rigged Democrat primaries. None of her actions she ever took suggested she cared about the fact the primaries were rigged, though she was in a position to know. Only once the cat was out of the bag does she try to distance herself from never endorsing Sanders and being in the bag for Clinton. That kind of thing. It wouldn't look good on anybody IMO whichever their gender.

Perhaps, but it's hard not to notice that the politicians who seem to have provoked the most outrage from you are both smart, ambitious women,  Warren and HC.  You have to admit that an accusation of opportunism from an admitted Trump supporter will ring a little hollow to those of us on the other side.  Of all the fulsome praise that we have heard heaped on Trump by his coterie of sycophants, no one has ever described him as a highly authentic individual.

 

Maybe your standards are a little opportunistic.

Edited November 5, 2017 by CaptHaddock

[lannarebirth]

15 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

I agree. It wouldn’t exactly be a technical breach, but certainly a breach of normalcy. My lament is that his tweet doing the same *should* be explosive, but isn’t.

I think it is kind of explosive but in another way. I think agencies that might otherwise be inclined to do his bidding may take pause under the spotlight on themselves his stupid Tweets have created. That can manifest itself in many ways. Maybe it did in the Bergdahl verdict. Maybe it will in this latest Islamic terrorist attack. He's not providing those he wants to direct any cover and if there's anything that lawyers, judges and politicians understad it is to cover their own ass.

[boomerangutang]

Two reasons Dems in Congress aren't clamoring for impeachment at this time:

 

A.  A majority of Republicans wouldn't go along with impeachment proceedings, no matter what Trump says or does.   

 

B.  January 2019 is not far away, and there will hopefully be a majority of Dems, at least in the House.

 

As for Pence, ....what sad excuse for a man he is.  If he was a catcher on a baseball team, he would run and hide in a dark corner, as the first pitch was being unloaded, and he would stay there in catatonic terror for the rest of the week.

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

Perhaps, but it's hard not to notice that the politicians who seem to have provoked the most outrage from you are both smart, ambitious women,  Warren and HC.  You have to admit that an accusation of opportunism from an admitted Trump supporter will ring a little hollow to those of us on the other side.  Of all the fulsome praise that we have heard heaped on Trump by his coterie of sycophants, no one has ever described him as a highly authentic individual.

 

 

I'm not a Trump supporter. I can't stand the guy, for decades now. You may be confused because I blame the Democrats for Trump.

[Thakkar]

3 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I think it is kind of explosive but in another way. I think agencies that might otherwise be inclined to do his bidding may take pause under the spotlight on themselves his stupid Tweets have created. That can manifest itself in many ways. Maybe it did in the Bergdahl verdict. Maybe it will in this latest Islamic terrorist attack. He's not providing those he wants to direct any cover and if there's anything that lawyers, judges and politicians understad it is to cover their own ass.

Indeed. Looked at it that way, Trump’s blussteryness and lack of self control May be a blessing in disguise. I feel better thanks, I guess.

 

Sadly, that “feeling better” lasted only briefly—till I remembered that his lack of self control could also lead to thermonuclear war. It is a sign of our times that some diplomats may be more hopeful of Kim Jong Un showing some restraint!