https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/po...dment.html
Disgusting conduct on the part of the DOJ and any cabinet members that entertained the concept. Wearing a wire, directing an investigation to look into Trump's Russian connections and possible obstruction of justice, that's all fine, but counting heads to figure out who would be with or against you in an effort to remove a sitting President without cause? That's a coup d'etat in the planning stages.
So a Coup is cool as long as you didn't hire them?
(02-14-2019, 11:29 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/po...dment.html
Disgusting conduct on the part of the DOJ and any cabinet members that entertained the concept. Wearing a wire, directing an investigation to look into Trump's Russian connections and possible obstruction of justice, that's all fine, but counting heads to figure out who would be with or against you in an effort to remove a sitting President without cause? That's a coup d'etat in the planning stages.
It's quite concerning and has had reinforcement by the passage of certain spy bills over the years. Left unchecked and it snow balls. This action is disgusting and shows the type of damage the can be done by political elites and their protectionism entities. I'm afraid that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly, the attempt to push the president out are still ongoing and in a different form, ie. the unilateral hiring of two prominent lawyers by the House.
https://www.apnews.com/82f7d6eb9edc4f7a9b3d97613a491ea6
(02-14-2019, 11:29 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/po...dment.html
Disgusting conduct on the part of the DOJ and any cabinet members that entertained the concept. Wearing a wire, directing an investigation to look into Trump's Russian connections and possible obstruction of justice, that's all fine, but counting heads to figure out who would be with or against you in an effort to remove a sitting President without cause? That's a coup d'etat in the planning stages.
Um, the 25th amendment literally makes these kinds of conversations part of a cabinet member's duties. They are supposed to happen privately, but, they are supposed to happen if any of them doubt the President's abilities for any reason.
(02-14-2019, 11:56 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 11:29 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/po...dment.html
Disgusting conduct on the part of the DOJ and any cabinet members that entertained the concept. Wearing a wire, directing an investigation to look into Trump's Russian connections and possible obstruction of justice, that's all fine, but counting heads to figure out who would be with or against you in an effort to remove a sitting President without cause? That's a coup d'etat in the planning stages.
Um, the 25th amendment literally makes these kinds of conversations part of a cabinet member's duties. They are supposed to happen privately, but, they are supposed to happen if any of them doubt the President's abilities for any reason.
Pretty sure nobody is arguing over the 25th amendment or its intent. This is a matter of who was in discussion and the framework to try to reinforce it. This situation was a cart before the horse one.
(02-14-2019, 11:56 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 11:29 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/po...dment.html
Disgusting conduct on the part of the DOJ and any cabinet members that entertained the concept. Wearing a wire, directing an investigation to look into Trump's Russian connections and possible obstruction of justice, that's all fine, but counting heads to figure out who would be with or against you in an effort to remove a sitting President without cause? That's a coup d'etat in the planning stages.
Um, the 25th amendment literally makes these kinds of conversations part of a cabinet member's duties. They are supposed to happen privately, but, they are supposed to happen if any of them doubt the President's abilities for any reason.
The Amendment was written with the Kennedy assassination in mind. It was not written to be a tool for removing the President in lieu of impeachment or while impeachment proceedings were underway. If the President was mentally incapable of doing his job, then the 25th Amendment could be put into place, with the understanding that proving that is going to be a high bar to cross. If there was unquestionable proof that the President was acting on behalf of a foreign power, invoking the 25th Amendment would likely be appropriate to avoid further influence while impeachment proceedings are drawn up, but doing so because you
think he committed a crime in removing an official doesn't fall under that category. That's what impeachment is for.
(02-14-2019, 12:05 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 11:56 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Um, the 25th amendment literally makes these kinds of conversations part of a cabinet member's duties. They are supposed to happen privately, but, they are supposed to happen if any of them doubt the President's abilities for any reason.
Pretty sure nobody is arguing over the 25th amendment or its intent. This is a matter of who was in discussion and the framework to try to reinforce it. This situation was a cart before the horse one.
If I grant you that point, "coup" still wouldn't be the right word. The constitution is supreme above the president. If the constitution is still in effect, with checks and balances, it's not a coup.
(02-14-2019, 12:16 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 12:05 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty sure nobody is arguing over the 25th amendment or its intent. This is a matter of who was in discussion and the framework to try to reinforce it. This situation was a cart before the horse one.
If I grant you that point, "coup" still wouldn't be the right word. The constitution is supreme above the president. If the constitution is still in effect, with checks and balances, it's not a coup.
If the Constitution is misused to remove a political opponent or unpopular leader from power under false pretenses, it might as well be a coup.
(02-14-2019, 12:16 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 12:05 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty sure nobody is arguing over the 25th amendment or its intent. This is a matter of who was in discussion and the framework to try to reinforce it. This situation was a cart before the horse one.
If I grant you that point, "coup" still wouldn't be the right word. The constitution is supreme above the president. If the constitution is still in effect, with checks and balances, it's not a coup.
So, let me ask you this... When does the 25th Amendment come into play and who is the deciding group to determine the POTUS is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office?" After pondering those questions, what word would you use to describe a back door attempt to overthrow a sitting POTUS?
(02-14-2019, 12:32 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 12:16 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If I grant you that point, "coup" still wouldn't be the right word. The constitution is supreme above the president. If the constitution is still in effect, with checks and balances, it's not a coup.
So, let me ask you this... When does the 25th Amendment come into play and who is the deciding group to determine the POTUS is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office?" After pondering those questions, what word would you use to describe a back door attempt to overthrow a sitting POTUS?
We both have freedom of speech and the freedom to seek redress of grievances.
If either of us come to believe, for any reason, that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," we are within our rights to petition the vice president and cabinet to exercise their authority in this area.
Now, neither of us are likely to be intimately familiar with the rigors of the Presidency, and neither of us have personally or candidly interacted with Trump. So neither of our opinions would count for much.
But it would be 100% constitutional for us to express them.
(02-14-2019, 12:36 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 12:32 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]So, let me ask you this... When does the 25th Amendment come into play and who is the deciding group to determine the POTUS is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office?" After pondering those questions, what word would you use to describe a back door attempt to overthrow a sitting POTUS?
We both have freedom of speech and the freedom to seek redress of grievances.
If either of us come to believe, for any reason, that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," we are within our rights to petition the vice president and cabinet to exercise their authority in this area.
Now, neither of us are likely to be intimately familiar with the rigors of the Presidency, and neither of us have personally or candidly interacted with Trump. So neither of our opinions would count for much.
But it would be 100% constitutional for us to express them.
You writing an email to your representative to say that you believe Trump is unfit to hold the office is one thing. Senior DOJ officials discussing whether or not they have enough cabinet members on board to remove a sitting President without cause is a wee bit different, wouldn't you agree?
(02-14-2019, 12:52 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 12:36 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We both have freedom of speech and the freedom to seek redress of grievances.
If either of us come to believe, for any reason, that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," we are within our rights to petition the vice president and cabinet to exercise their authority in this area.
Now, neither of us are likely to be intimately familiar with the rigors of the Presidency, and neither of us have personally or candidly interacted with Trump. So neither of our opinions would count for much.
But it would be 100% constitutional for us to express them.
You writing an email to your representative to say that you believe Trump is unfit to hold the office is one thing. Senior DOJ officials discussing whether or not they have enough cabinet members on board to remove a sitting President without cause is a wee bit different, wouldn't you agree?
The difference is that Andrew McCabe is more informed about the duties and powers of the office and more informed about the abilities of Donald Trump than any of us. that doesn't mean his opinion is right, of course. in fact his opinion may not have been based on these things but just based on personal animus. That said, his opinion is more informed than either of ours
Given that he held this opinion, the loyalty of a government official is to the Constitution first, President second.
(02-14-2019, 12:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2019, 12:52 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]You writing an email to your representative to say that you believe Trump is unfit to hold the office is one thing. Senior DOJ officials discussing whether or not they have enough cabinet members on board to remove a sitting President without cause is a wee bit different, wouldn't you agree?
The difference is that Andrew McCabe is more informed about the duties and powers of the office and more informed about the abilities of Donald Trump than any of us. that doesn't mean his opinion is right, of course. in fact his opinion may not have been based on these things but just based on personal animus. That said, his opinion is more informed than either of ours
Given that he held this opinion, the loyalty of a government official is to the Constitution first, President second.
I'd be curious to know which doctors he consulted when forming the opinion that the President was unfit for duty. Failing that, I'd like to see the evidence he had that was bulletproof enough regarding the President being a Russian agent, and why that evidence wasn't immediately presented to House and Senate committees. I mean, a foreign agent in the Presidency...you'd think you wouldn't want to wait for a special counsel report to get that bit of news out there.
(02-14-2019, 11:29 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/po...dment.html
Disgusting conduct on the part of the DOJ and any cabinet members that entertained the concept. Wearing a wire, directing an investigation to look into Trump's Russian connections and possible obstruction of justice, that's all fine, but counting heads to figure out who would be with or against you in an effort to remove a sitting President without cause? That's a coup d'etat in the planning stages.
So, this is Andrew McCabe who is claiming this, in the process if selling his book, and everyone else seems to be denying it. Do believe him?
While I detest Trump, this story is coming from a guy with an axe to grind, who's selling a book, and I didn't read any corroboration of his story in the article. It's just a claim he's making.
This is all a little drama-queenish. Finish the melodrama - Donald was in league with a foreign adversary to steal the election and the DOJ/FBI is charged with preventing such a thing.
Just exploring their constitutionally charged mandate.
See how that works.
I suspect Marty is closer to the truth. Did any action re the 25th Amend. actually take place? I know Trump has a cabinet of snakes, but does anyone think this would have gone anywhere?