Now that I think about it, that's probably the right way to relieve America of the dreaded Hillary/Trump choice. Whichever one wins, impeach the crap out of them, convict them, and drag them from the Oval Office kicking and screaming! That's the way it would happen on House of Cards. In fact, that's probably how Underwood's wife will become President after she gets elected as his VP. She'll double-cross him and reveal all his crimes, thus persuading enough Senators to vote for conviction, while she stands just outside the Oval Office waiting, with her box of office supplies in hand.
Saturday, September 03, 2016
Is the impeachment of the next president an inevitability?
Is the impeachment of the next president an inevitability?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Or, you know, vote Johnson and avoid both.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't solve the problem. If you vote Johnson, either Trump or Hillary will still be president.
ReplyDeleteUnless everyone who doesn't like either candidate actually voted for Johnson. Only around 35 to 40 like either. He'd win big.
ReplyDeleteEven if 30% voted Hillary and 30% voted Trump and 40% voted Johnson. Johnson wouldn't win the electoral college and we would have president Ryan
ReplyDelete1.I think the original post is engaging in false equivalency. Hillary Clinton is far from perfect, but the amount of alleged and proven corruption against Donald Trump is unprecedented in a major party Presidential nominee (at least since Aaron Burr.)
ReplyDeleteWoboz, if Johnson gets 40% of the vote, how can you know he wouldn't get a majority of electoral college votes. If he gets 40% of the vote, I think he could easily win enough states to get over 270 votes.
Also, nobody getting 270 electoral votes wouldn't make Paul Ryan President, it would just throw the election to Congress and they have a somewhat odd process of deciding the President.
I don't buy into The Hill's analysis. They are using information from several months ago in regards to Trump's behavior; behavior that has moderated a lot as his handlers get him more under control. What was the last outburst you heard from him? Nearly everybody who has any brains or an ounce of critical thinking ability says his visit to Mexico showed him to be a very presidential personality who can handle international relations. As for Johnson, even with 40% of the vote, if he doesn't get the 4 biggies - CA, FL, NY and TX, he won't get the necessary electoral votes to claim the presidency.
ReplyDeleteBull, anybody who has brains or critical thinking ability knows that, as usual, Trump lied about the discussions in the meeting and told Nieto one thing and then said something completely different in his speech.
ReplyDeleteSo, that was all the last outburst of lies and garbage that we've heard from him, and that was just 3 days ago.
Every time the wonks run the numbers and come up with Trump having about 1 chance in 6 of winning, I picture America putting one round into the chamber, giving it a spin...
ReplyDeleteThat Hil isn't winning by double digits - that there's any doubt here - shows how bad she is, not how good Trump is.
& hey - doesn't there have to be a "crime" (beyond being a waste of skin)before you can impeach?
While the Constitution requires "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," in practical terms an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is. There is no provision for removing a President who obviously seems mentally ill, neglectful or incompetent, for example, but Congress could still do so because they own the process and, unlike any other kind of trial, there is no possible appeal. (The Supreme Court cannot dismiss an impeachment/conviction as unconstitutional, for example.)
ReplyDeleteImpeachment itself, the act of indicting a president in the House of Representatives, could easily happen to any President whose party lacks a majority in that body, but that process is almost totally symbolic. Actual removal from office is virtually impossible. While the House may draw up the impeachment with a simple majority vote, the Senate trial requires a 2/3 vote to remove the President from office. No President has ever been removed from office through that process, nor has any Supreme Court justice.
(The Senate failed to convict Andrew Johnson by a single vote, but no vote would come close today unless the President did something bat-shit crazy.)
Well, Adam T, I have both brains and the ability to think critically. I tend to believe what I see rather than let my pre-conceived notions lead me around like a puppy on a leash. I saw Trump on TV, sitting next to Nieto, who was getting a translation of what Trump was saying they had talked about and I saw no objection in Nieto's face. So I guess it comes down to 'will you believe what you see and hear' or " will you believe only what you want to because that's the way you think'?
ReplyDeleteActually, the 25th Amendment does provides an additional option for removal of the President. If the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet send a letter to Congress, the President is out temporarily. Congress has then 21 days to determine if the VP is right and the President is permanently out.
ReplyDeleteIn so far as what everybody sees and hears, or thinks they see and hear is filtered through what they already think, I think your distinctions are false.
ReplyDeleteIf you want me to believe that you have both brains and the ability to think clearly, you shouldn't accuse those who disagree with you of having neither.
In terms of the press conference with Neito and Trump, I don't know if your perception of Neito's face is accurate or not, but I do know that a great deal of what Trump said in that press conference he completely contradicted in his speech later that same day.
Oh, hey, yeah, Trump hasn't uttered some completely fucked-up outrage in about two days. That obviously means he's showing himself to be presidential.
ReplyDeleteThe 25th Amendment route is even more difficult. It requires a 2/3 vote in BOTH houses to remove the President, which is approximately as likely as my becoming President. About the only thing that could move Congress like that is if the President replaced the NFL Sunday games with mandatory Islamic beheadings in each stadium.
ReplyDeleteYou only mention impeachment here, but isn't there also something that a President can be removed from office if some certain people determine that the President is off his/her rocker (I think this has something to do with the Commander in Chief part of the Presidency)?
ReplyDeleteI had heard this before, but many of the idiot Trump supporters use this to somehow try and reassure people that they have no need to worry that Trump might lob a few nuclear missiles if the leader of some other nation gets under his very thin skin.
do you actually, stupidly think that Trump will be allowed to just push a nuke button on his own...you really must be a Clinton dick sucker. truly amazing...i will take what Trump stupidly says than what Clinton actually does...the Clintons are a fucking nasty virus...Benghazi...emails...Bill was already impeached by raping a dozen women just while in the office alone...Clinton Foundation scandal...sad...really sad...i just cant imagine anyone ever wanting to vote this scumbag in,she is really evil
ReplyDelete25th Amendment, Section 4:
ReplyDelete"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."
Sort of vague, but presumably would be interpreted as the VP plus a majority of the Cabinet. Although Congress apparently has the power to designate "such other body" to determine the President's competency, which could open up a can of worms.
You have to keep reading the rest of the 25th. If the president simply says he is NOT incompetent, and the original accusers repeat their assertion, then it goes to the Congress to decide, and removal requires 2/3 of both houses. For all practical purposes, the process will result in removal only if one of two things occur: (1) The President is literally unable to respond for some reason (like being in a coma); or (2) the President does something so utterly batshit that 2/3 of both houses want him gone.
ReplyDeleteYes, correct. Was only trying to address the specific question of Adam T a couple of posts above.
ReplyDeleteAlthough you have to think if it came to a dispute between the President and his VP/Cabinet about his competence, it would be a Really Big Deal and those people would be politically astute enough to do it only if they knew they had the 2/3 majorities.
And again, I find it interesting that Congress could simply appoint a special commission to decide the President was incompetent (assuming the VP was on board).
Thanks fwald and Uncle Scoopy.
ReplyDeleteChris D, You just proved my point "However deranged Trump may be, he can't just launch nuclear missiles on his own initiative."
I can assure you, that's not very reassuring. How about the United States just elect a person to the Presidency who we don't have to worry so insane that we have to be worried they might launch nuclear weapons because some foreign leader annoyed them?
This is getting good. Adam T you almost sounded rational when you said, "If you want me to believe that you have both brains and the ability to think clearly, you shouldn't accuse those who disagree with you of having neither." (clearly and critically, btw, are two different things) But then a few comments down, you erased that impression with, "but many of the idiot Trump supporters..." Speaking of accusing those who disagree with you. However, you seem to be under the impression that the President can simply open his desk drawer and push a button to launch nukes. Being an Air Force person from some years ago, I can assure you this is a false assumption. There is a very exacting procedure in place that prevents that very action. The first step in that procedure is that the US has to be at Defense Condition (DefCon)1, which means war with another country is imminent (and that takes a lot of things to happen). If we are not at DefCon 1, I don't care how thin skinned the President might be, he cannot start a nuclear strike against anybody. It simply does not work that way.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the reason I won't vote for trump has nothing to do with what kind of president he will be. What concerns me is that he will give legitimacy to a lot of the hatred that a large part of this nation has. Bigotry, sexism and persecuting those who are different. This country has made some incredible strides to make racism and bigotry and sexism traits that are not acceptable. Trump is an icon for all of those who believe that white skin is better than black. Or that men are better than women. Or that all people of certain religions and skin colors are terrorists. Those people should continue to have to hide and be embarrassed by their biases. Instead, trump will give them hope that all of that hate is alive and well in the US and totally acceptable.
ReplyDeleteThe Gent, I think you are wrong. You may be correct that the U.S has to be at (DefCon)1 before nuclear weapons can be launched, but it's the President in the role as Commander in Chief who has the ultimate authority to determine when the U.S is at (DefCon)1.
ReplyDeleteThis article disagrees with you and also makes no mention of (DefCon)1:
http://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes
If President Trump decided to use nukes, he could do it easily.
In 2008 Vice President Dick Cheney said
"He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.
This may sound like Cheneyian hyperbole. But Ron Rosenbaum, a journalist who wrote a book about America’s nuclear weapons, looked into Cheney’s claims as part of a 2011 Slate piece. He concluded that they were basically accurate.
"No one could come up with a definitive constitutional refutation of this," Rosenbaum writes. "Any president could, on his own, leave a room, and in 25 minutes, 70 million (or more than that) would be dead."
Now, there’s a slight wrinkle: The secretary of defense is required to verify the president’s order to launch. But he or she doesn’t have veto power. If the president orders a nuclear launch, the secretary is legally obligated to do it. He or she could theoretically choose to resign rather than carry out the order, but then it would fall to the secretary’s second-in-command to order the strike."
"It's up to the president," Kingston Reif, the director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, tells me. "The advisers that make up the national command authority are obliged to obey and execute the order."
ReplyDeleteAgain, what is insane to me, is that some people are considering voting for this deranged psychopath Trump and when asked about the very real possibility of his launching nuclear weapons due to his incredibly thin skin, rather than be able to say "of course he wouldn't do that" they say "of course he doesn't have the ability to do that by himself."
Why would anybody consider voting for such a person in the first place? And, if the Vox article is correct, this deranged psychopath Trump actually does have the ability to effectively do it by himself. Order it to be done anyway, but it's inconceivable that the military wouldn't carry out their Commander In Chief's orders.