Yahoo News explains: Removing a president under the 25th Amendment

In case you ever wanted to know,

This week a bombshell anonymous New York Times op-ed written by a “senior official in the Trump administration” claimed to be part of the “resistance” working within the Trump White House. One excerpt: “Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president.”


http://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/yahoo-news-explains-removing-president-25th-amendment-222621946.html

Liberal butthurt is amusing.

They have to have a majority of the cabinet with the Vice President. That's not going to happen. There maybe one or two that may go for it and if it even goes in that direction President Trump can dismiss his entire cabinet and he would be within the law.

If the Democratic party tried to remove Trump.
I do believe the Republicans will step up and fight it
If they lost, another Republican will take over POTUS.
Democrats will have to begin another. fight to get him out.

If the Democrats try to undo the will of the people then the people will revolt and take our country back.

The percentage of voters who want to impeach Trump is almost the same as the portion who wanted to impeach Nixon

In part,

The survey found that 42 percent of Americans today think Trump should be impeached, compared with the 43 percent who backed Nixon’s impeachment in March 1974. (When broken down by party, the support for impeachment is quite skewed, however. Seventy-seven percent of Democrats say Trump should be impeached, while just 9 percent of Republicans do.)

From here,

http://www.vox.com/2018/6/22/17492450/poll-trump-impeachment-nixon-watergate

http://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics/impeach-trump-nixon-support-bill-clinton-poll/index.html

Vox and cnn. Might as well quote MAD and Cracked magazines as your news source. When HGTv gets better ratings than cnn, you better start questioning your sources.

Oh that's right, mueller got a conviction of sorts. George Papadopoulos got a whole, whopping 14 days in jail for lying to the FBI. Bet Judge Janine Piro,and Greg Jarrett would give him their books to read while he's there.

so I guess that means 58% don't want him impeached. Seems like the impeach crowd are out numbered. So where do you go now. Impeachment of Donald Trump will never happen. Hopefully when the republicans win greater controll of congress than we can start a process of cleaning the corrupt officials out of our government and provide a clear path for the president to do his thing and make this country stronger and better than ever.

Lol...republicans already control all three branches of the government
right now...so what they gonna do, clean themselves out ?

Trump: How could he be impeached?

Speculation that Donald Trump may be impeached has been rekindled by fresh accusations that he paid hush money to women with whom he allegedly had affairs.

Coming on top of the Russia inquiry, the allegations emerging from the trial of his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, could probably merit pursuing in the criminal justice system were Mr Trump not the sitting president.

As legal scholars suggest that he cannot be prosecuted during his presidency, the only way he could be removed from office would be by impeachment.

But just how does that happen? And exactly who has been impeached in the past? The answer may surprise you...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39945744

Trump will undoubtedly face impeachment, says Watergate attorney

Remains to be seen.



Andrew Hall watched from within the courtroom as four of Richard Nixon’s top advisers were sentenced to prison for their roles in the Watergate coverup.

He had been hired as counsel by John D Ehrlichman, the former president’s senior adviser for domestic affairs, who was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury. Ehrlichman created “The Plumbers”, a covert special investigations unit inside of the White House that began conducting illegal operations under his watch, leading to one of America’s most extraordinary political scandals.

Now, Mr Hall says he’s watching history repeat itself, with Donald Trump and his associates awaiting a similar fate in the days and weeks ahead.


From here,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-robert-mueller-russia-investigation-bob-woodward-richard-nixon-john-ehrlichman-a8528241.html

Watergate memories spring to life with Trump’s troubles

In part,

For months, the Trump administration and its scandals have carried whiffs of Watergate and drawn comparisons to the characters and crimes of the Nixon era. But this week, history did not just repeat itself, it climbed out of the dustbin and returned in the flesh.

From here,

http://www.apnews.com/b527b31348644e07b9439abab36c1309

dammit you americans have the best president ever and cant see it, would love him to lead the uk, ive seen your fake news lmao

https://nypost.com/2018/09/11/ken-starr-proves-the-perils-of-prosecutors-probing-presidents/

Almost the whole gang’s here. The hottest names in the news today make appearances in the new book by Ken Starr, the independent prosecutor who tried to topple President Bill Clinton.

In addition to Bill, there’s Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Monica Lewinsky, John McCain and even today’s man of the hour, Brett Kavanaugh, newest nominee to the Supreme Court.

Just one name is missing — Osama bin Laden. On whom, more in a moment.

Starr’s book, out this week, is titled “Contempt.” It’s a memoir of the Clinton investigation that led to only the second impeachment of a president in our gloriously tumultuous political history.

Its headline news is that Starr was so irked by Hillary Clinton’s answers in the probe that he considered indicting the first lady for perjury. The book touches, though, on bigger issues.

Bigger, in particular, as another special counsel is investigating another president — in a case also involving talk of presidential perjury and obstruction of justice, not to mention sex.

Both probes raise the question of whether the independent or watered-down special counsels are even permitted by the Constitution to prosecute a sitting president.

My own view is that they’re not. I’ve opposed them all, from Archibald Cox (who went after President Nixon), to Starr, to Lawrence Walsh (who went after Reagan), to Robert Mueller, who’s targeting Trump.

It’s not a Republican or Democratic thing. It has to do with the president being the only officer the Constitution empowers — and requires — to take care that our laws are faithfully executed.
That is one reason why the president is given sole power to commission “all” federal officers. And why the Supreme Court has concluded that includes the power to fire them.

Starr, though, wasn’t appointed by his president. He was handed his job by a three-judge panel, acting under a law Congress used to filch powers the Constitution granted presidents.

That was in 1994. Starr couldn’t resist an exhaustive investigation of almost anything that came up, from the suicide of Clinton lawyer Vince Foster to presidential sex.

So Starr’s probe stretched to something like five years. He proved that even the most stalwart of lawyers cannot resist the temptation of unlimited power.

Starr reopened the investigation of Clinton counsel Foster, who, the previous counsel had concluded, committed suicide. Kavanaugh wrote that report.

Nor could Starr resist the so-called “Travelgate” scandal and Clinton’s affair with an intern, Monica Lewinsky, and the president’s perjury in a suit brought against him by Paula Corbin Jones.

The press (particularly the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the American Spectator) did a fine job of covering these scandals. It was, though, Starr’s lurid report that led the House to impeach Clinton for perjury and obstruction.

The case fell apart — and came up short — in the Senate.

Starr’s book takes on a carping, rueful tone. He says he “deeply” regrets taking on the Lewinsky part of the investigation. Yet the Senate never got close to the two-thirds vote needed to remove Clinton from office.

So in the end, Starr’s tale is a tragedy. A former solicitor general, he was once a logical choice to be on the Supreme Court. He forsook all that for the chance to go after Clinton.

Which brings the story back to the figure whom Starr fails to mention — Osama bin Laden. The terrorist serves as a ghastly footnote to the story of Starr’s investigation of Clinton.

This is covered in the official report of the 9/11 commission. It found that on four occasions between 1998 and 2000, our covert forces presented the White House with the chance to strike bin Laden’s lair.

Yet it didn’t happen. The 9/11 commission lays this to, at least in part, “extremely difficult domestic political circumstances. Opponents were seeking the president’s impeachment.”

It’s not my intention to blame Starr for 9/11 (only bin Laden gets blame for that, and he got his just deserts). It is my intention to press a point that Starr fails to address.

Justice Antonin Scalia made it when he dissented from the case that let independent counsels proceed. He warned they could affect the “boldness of the president.”

Lawmen with unlimited budgets and little oversight, Scalia feared, could rattle not only a president but his aides. Starr’s book leaves that question hanging as another special prosecutor pursues a president.

It has never happened that a President has been actually removed, but I also think it has never happened that a President was elected with no civil or political experience either.

so, who knows.


food for thought:

Only two U.S. Presidents have been impeached by the House of Representatives. The first was Andrew Johnson, in 1868, for dismissing Edwin M. Stanton as secretary of war and the second was Bill Clinton, in 1998 for charges of lying under oath in regards to sexual relations with a White House intern. Both presidents were acquitted in trials that were held by the Senate because the two-thirds majority votes needed to convict them, were not reached. This meant both presidents remained in office and served the remainder of their terms.

President Richard M. Nixon also faced impeachment after the Watergate scandal in 1974 but, as it was near-certain that he would be removed from office, Nixon decided to resign before the impeachment process could be completed.

http://www.historyonthenet.com/how-many-presidents-have-been-impeached/

https://i1.wp.com/www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Butt-Hurt-Salve-770x736.jpg

yep,VOX and CNN,two Publications you can trust implicitly!

Some people need to seriously quit huffing that main stream media ink..I mean I realize it can be an overwhelming thought cutting the strings from ones own puppet self but there is a life beyond the MATRIX..And are we back on those polls again..I wonder who it is they ask these questions of..probably no one ..just another song sung by the mockingbird media..but as long as the duped population believes them why spoil a good thing that has worked so well for so long...

Sorry to inform all you LIBS but Trump is going..NOWHERE..but Hillary and Obama are..GITMO..

smh

New bombshell revives debate on Trump fitness for office.

"Washington (AFP) - Donald Trump faced a new challenge to his authority Friday after US media reported that his deputy attorney general had discussed ways to force him from office on grounds of incompetence, just months into his presidency. In the latest bombshell to rock the troubled administration, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that Rod Rosenstein in May 2017 had suggested secretly recording Trump for evidence of White House dysfunction -- and using that to formally remove him from power".

http://www.yahoo.com/news/bombshell-revives-debate-trump-fitness-office-230940797.html