Sign in to follow this  
TheCid

Impeachment AND Conviction, 25th Amendment or Censure

199 posts in this topic

POLITICO‏Verified account @politico 6h6 hours ago

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lawyers representing Trump’s aides are giving clients a simple piece of advice: don’t lie to protect the president

http://politi.co/2xuXMSD

 

And Trump's lawyers had warned him that Kushner should be fired due to his Russian connections. That aides could be subpoenaed if they overheard Jared, and that Trump shouldn't meet with Jared without a lawyer. Of course Trump only makes things worse for himself by not listening to his lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

45]IErRl7YK_bigger.jpgKeith BoykinVerified account @keithboykin

 

 

More

 

Here's just a few things that should be "fireable offenses" in the White House.

DJopusaXcAAQkCc.jpg

 

 

You wish. The President is above most laws - and most of the above are not laws to begin with - and those that might be haven't been broken in a provable way.

 

If there were laws against being an a-hole, most of us would be in the *****er some time or other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Lawyers Clash Over How Much to Cooperate With Russia Inquiry-

 

"WASHINGTON — President Trump’s legal team is wrestling with how much to cooperate with the special counsel looking into Russian election interference, an internal debate that led to an angry confrontation last week between two White House lawyers and that could shape the course of the investigation.

 

At the heart of the clash is an issue that has challenged multiple presidents during high-stakes Washington investigations: how to handle the demands of investigators without surrendering the institutional prerogatives of the office of the presidency.

Similar conflicts during the Watergate and Monica S. Lewinsky scandals resulted in court rulings that limited a president’s right to confidentiality.

 

The debate in Mr. Trump’s West Wing has pitted Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, against Ty Cobb, a lawyer brought in to manage the response to the investigation.

Mr. Cobb has argued for turning over as many of the emails and documents requested by the special counsel as possible in hopes of quickly ending the investigation — or at least its focus on Mr. Trump....

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/17/us/politics/trump-lawyers-white-house-russia-mcgahn-ty-cobb.html?_r=0&referer=

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to be coming up again, so I thought I would revive it.


 


Impeachment keeps coming up on different threads, so I thought might be a good time to separate it out and to explain it.


Anybody with a different description, please feel free to post.


 


Impeachment is the process that the House of Representatives uses to determine there is reason to believe that the president or other official has committed an action which warrants removal from office.


Sort of like an indictment in regular courts.


Takes a simple majority to vote for impeachment.


 


If impeachment bill is passed, it goes to the Senate where a hearing is held.  I believe the Chief Justice presides.  Certain members of the House are certified to present the "case." 


The Senate must vote by 2/3's majority to convict and remove the person from office.


 


Impeachment is only the first of two steps.  Conviction is the important one.


 


There have only been two impeachments of presidents (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) and neither resulted in a conviction.  Both times, the opposition party controlled both houses of Congress.


Currently, the Republicans (Trump's party) controls both houses of Congress, especially the House.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25th Amendment has four sections and section 4 is about president being removed.

Veep and majority of cabinet has to determine that pres. is unable to perform duties and inform pres. pro-tem of senate and speaker of house.  Veep becomes pres.

But, when pres informs pres. pro-tem and speaker that he is no longer unable to perform duties, he becomes pres. again.  Unless the veep and majority of cabinet informs pres pro-tem and speaker within four days that pres is still unable.

Then Congress has 21 days to determine the issue.  Takes a 2/3 vote of both houses to remove pres.  Otherwise, pres is back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did Trump Break the Law by Telling NFL Owners to Fire Players?

 

"U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 11, Section 227, which is titled, “Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch.” It states:

(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity —

(see entire)......

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/11/donald-trump-nfl-owners-national-anthem-law/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A House Democrat offered a resolution Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump but let it die before action was taken, saying he would force a vote later.

 

The move by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, edged his party toward a confrontation craved by some of its most liberal supporters but opposed by many others — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — who consider it ill-advised and premature. It would have no chance of succeeding in the Republican-run chamber.

Green presented his 15-page articles of impeachment to the House as a privileged resolution, a special procedure that could have forced a vote within the next two days. When his name was called later to consider his proposal, he was not in the chamber and the resolution died....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Trump Break the Law by Telling NFL Owners to Fire Players?

 

"U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 11, Section 227, which is titled, “Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch.” It states:

(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity —

(see entire)......

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/11/donald-trump-nfl-owners-national-anthem-law/

 

No.  Trump did it because they were unpatriotic, not because they belonged to a partisan political group.

Also, the law does not apply to the president.  Many of the laws regulating behavior, etc. for Congress and government employees and officials do not apply to the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Trump did it because they were unpatriotic, not because they belonged to a partisan political group.

Also, the law does not apply to the president.  Many of the laws regulating behavior, etc. for Congress and government employees and officials do not apply to the president.

 

"

(B)In this section, the term “covered government person” means —

(1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;

(2) an employee of either House of Congress; or

(3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code)...."

 

??

:unsure:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

( B)In this section, the term “covered government person” means —

(1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;

(2) an employee of either House of Congress; or

(3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code)...."

 

??

:unsure:

Do you have a cite for that?  Always had the impression that Congress could not pass laws regulating what the president did as it violated the separation of powers.  It could regulate anyone else in the administration though.

Below is from Cornell U School of Law.  Note it says appointed by the president, not the president.

 

(a)For the purpose of this title, “employee”, except as otherwise provided by this section or when specifically modified, means an officer and an individual who is—

(1)appointed in the civil service by one of the following acting in an official capacity—
(A)
the President;
(B)
Member or Members of Congress, or the Congress;
©
member of a uniformed service;
(D)
an individual who is an employee under this section;
(E)
the head of a 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/11/donald-trump-nfl-owners-national-anthem-law/

 

What Long linked to was U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 11, Section 227, which is titled, “Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch.”

I clicked on all the links and it goes back to Cornell U. Legal Information Institute.  Which means it is somebody's version of what the actual law states.  The source I used (GPO) shows the Section title as relating to "Members of Congress."  Can't get it to open Sec. 227.

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?collectionCode=USCODE&searchPath=Title+18%2FPart+I%2FCHAPTER+11&granuleId=USCODE-2010-title18-partI-chap11&packageId=USCODE-2010-title18&oldPath=Title+18%2FPart+I%2FCHAPTER+11&fromPageDetails=true&collapse=true&ycord=1200

 

This was also in the referenced article:

5 US Code, Sec. 2105:  (a)For the purpose of this title, “employee”, except as otherwise provided by this section or when specifically modified, means an officer and an individual who is—

(1)appointed in the civil service by one of the following acting in an official capacity—
(A)
the President;
( B)
Member or Members of Congress, or the Congress;
©
member of a uniformed service;
(D)
an individual who is an employee under this section;
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"....Even before Corker’s remarks, some West Wing advisers were worried that Trump’s behavior could cause the Cabinet to take extraordinary Constitutional measures to remove him from office.

 

Several months ago, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation, former chief strategist Steve Bannon told Trump that the risk to his presidency wasn’t impeachment, but the 25th Amendment—the provision by which a majority of the Cabinet can vote to remove the president.

When Bannon mentioned the 25th Amendment, Trump said, “What’s that?”

 

According to a source, Bannon has told people he thinks Trump has only a 30 percent chance of making it the full term."

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/donald-trump-is-unraveling-white-house-advisers

 

:lol:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"....Even before Corker’s remarks, some West Wing advisers were worried that Trump’s behavior could cause the Cabinet to take extraordinary Constitutional measures to remove him from office.

 

Several months ago, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation, former chief strategist Steve Bannon told Trump that the risk to his presidency wasn’t impeachment, but the 25th Amendment—the provision by which a majority of the Cabinet can vote to remove the president.

When Bannon mentioned the 25th Amendment, Trump said, “What’s that?”

 

According to a source, Bannon has told people he thinks Trump has only a 30 percent chance of making it the full term."

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/donald-trump-is-unraveling-white-house-advisers

 

:lol:

The only way Trump leaves is if he chooses to resign and I don't see that happening.  Even if Mueller or others found evidence threatening impeachment and conviction, Trump would not accept it as a possibility.  Definitely not with the GOP in control of the House and Senate.

His ego will not let him resign because that would be "firing" himself.

He would have to have over 46 Republicans in House vote with ALL the Democrats to be impeached.  Then 2/3's of Senate would have to vote for conviction.  By the time it came to a Senate vote, it is likely that the GOP will have 60 or more senators.

 

There are 15 actual cabinet members.  There are also 8 cabinet-level officials, such as Nikki Haley, UN Ambassador, but I don't think the 25th Amendment intended to include them.

So for the 25th, it takes Pence and 8 cabinet members, all of whom were appointed by Trump.  All of whom could be dismissed by the next president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way Trump leaves is if he chooses to resign and I don't see that happening.  Even if Mueller or others found evidence threatening impeachment and conviction, Trump would not accept it as a possibility.  Definitely not with the GOP in control of the House and Senate.

His ego will not let him resign because that would be "firing" himself.

He would have to have over 46 Republicans in House vote with ALL the Democrats to be impeached.  Then 2/3's of Senate would have to vote for conviction.  By the time it came to a Senate vote, it is likely that the GOP will have 60 or more senators.

 

There are 15 actual cabinet members.  There are also 8 cabinet-level officials, such as Nikki Haley, UN Ambassador, but I don't think the 25th Amendment intended to include them.

So for the 25th, it takes Pence and 8 cabinet members, all of whom were appointed by Trump.  All of whom could be dismissed by the next president.

 

We discussed this before;  While I tend to agree with you that the odds are LOW that a GOP lead Congress would take action against a GOP President,   in the case of Trump we might see that happen.     

 

The main concern of all members in Congress is winning their next election.   IF GOP members felt that cutting Trump lose would improve their chance of winning,  that might change how they would vote.    Of course that would mean that a majority of GOP voters in their district\state no longer favor Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We discussed this before;  While I tend to agree with you that the odds are LOW that a GOP lead Congress would take action against a GOP President,   in the case of Trump we might see that happen.     

 

The main concern of all members in Congress is winning their next election.   IF GOP members felt that cutting Trump lose would improve their chance of winning,  that might change how they would vote.    Of course that would mean that a majority of GOP voters in their district\state no longer favor Trump. 

Not in all states, but in most with GOP the biggest fear for incumbents is being primaried from the extreme right.  These are normally Trump supporters.

The issue in most states (all but CA?) is that if you don't win the Republican primary, it doesn't matter how many Dems and independents vote for you in Nov.

That is enough to keep GOP senators from voting for conviction and probably enough GOP reps. to not vote for impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in all states, but in most with GOP the biggest fear for incumbents is being primaried from the extreme right.  These are normally Trump supporters.

The issue in most states (all but CA?) is that if you don't win the Republican primary, it doesn't matter how many Dems and independents vote for you in Nov.

That is enough to keep GOP senators from voting for conviction and probably enough GOP reps. to not vote for impeachment.

 

I agree and that is why I stated "Of course that would mean that a majority of GOP voters in their district\state no longer favor Trump".  I.e. a GOP member of Congress that is openly anti-Trump can only win the GOP primary if the majority of GOP voters are anti-Trump (and that isn't likely in most areas).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Group of House Dems Organizing New Articles of Impeachment Against Trump

" Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) has announced that he is spearheading the first collective effort in Congress to impeach President Donald Trump, and that "before thanksgiving a group of colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee are going to file Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States." ....

"We believe he's unfit to be president of the United States, and we believe that he's violated the Constitution such that he should be impeached," Gutierrez said. He declined to say which specific grounds for impeachment the group will cite, but emphasized, "we're going to use a lot of constitutional scholars and really make a case that the president should be impeached." .......

... some Democrats may resist an aggressive push for impeachment while Robert Mueller continues to investigate allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election, but also said he is growing impatient and warned that "history won't be kind" to those in government who sit back while concerns continue to mount about the Trump presidency. ....

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/11/01/group-house-dems-organizing-new-articles-impeachment-against-trump?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us