Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

StringerBell

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I found it strange that he bought it up - it seems that his team of lawyers see it as a distinct possibility

It's good politics from his point of view.

He needs to make the midterms about him, he needs to be on the ballot in some way, it's him and his team pushing it as a referendum on his impeachment.

That's why he brought it it, to energise his base.

Cheerful Spring

Leroy42 wrote: »

He has actually been pretty quiet on Twitter. Certainly in the past such stories would have brought him out all guns blazing but I reckon he just can't think of a way out, at least yet.

Its really been a catastrophic couple of days and Cohen has really put him in deep dodo.

Even the Fox News interview, he was almost pleading with the interviewer. As was said on CNN, the fact that POTUS is talking about impeachment is extraordinary. Even more so given the GOP controls both houses

Media is pushing impeachment, but the Democrats know they are not there yet. To bring down Trump there looking for something big to come out. I have a feeling if they ever got him it be about fraud anyway like embellishing money or laundering Russian money, or taking money from someone. It should be enough to impeach him for hush money during a campaign but as we know Trump is a special case any other president he is impeached. There always the risk of violence if they remove him for something that his supporters don't think is a big deal.

Akrasia

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Pence serves out the remaining two years after Trump is impeached....then beats Clinton in 2020...serves his full two terms .......Welcome to 10 years of President Pence....bet the house on it

For all of Americas 'Checks and balances' what an unbelievably awful system is this fixed term and 'lines of succession' nonsense. In what world is it a good idea to allow someone being removed for gross incompetence/treason/criminal behaviour etc to decide his own replacement....

If the president and vice president were elected separately that might be something at least, but as it is, it's insanity. Democracy should have a way of recalling its representatives if they betray the trust of the electorate. Anything less than this is just going through the motions

LeinsterDub

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They could take the midterms

Polls are showing only 28% of young Americans are committed to vote in them, whilst 76% of seniors are

Despite sentiment in the country, the GOP has always been able to rely on foot-fall on polling day

Have you ever seen the lines to vote in the US? I've never missed a vote in Ireland but given I get home from work after 7 if I was voting in some places in America I'd be struggling to make the closing time.

Itssoeasy

Akrasia wrote: »

For all of Americas 'Checks and balances' what an unbelievably awful system is this fixed term and 'lines of succession' nonsense. In what world is it a good idea to allow someone being removed for gross incompetence/treason/criminal behaviour etc to decide his own replacement....

If the president and vice president were elected separately that might be something at least, but as it is, it's insanity. Democracy should have a way of recalling its representatives if they betray the trust of the electorate. Anything less than this is just going through the motions

How is a line of succession nonsense ? The 25th amendment which covers the ways in which a President can be removed from office was partially in response to the assassination of JFK. There had been up to 1967 three presidents assassinated( I can only think of three off the top of my head lincoln 1865 or there abouts, Mckinley(1901), and kennedy(1963)) and I think two died in office(roosevelt in 1945 and one other whose name isn't coming to me) and no formal process for how to clear it up.

The US does have recall elections though to recall an elected official who as you say betrays the electorate.

LeinsterDub

Itssoeasy wrote: »

How is a line of succession nonsense ? The 25th amendment which covers the ways in which a President can be removed from office was partially in response to the assassination of JFK. There had been up to 1967 three presidents assassinated( I can only think of three off the top of my head lincoln 1865 or there abouts, Mckinley(1901), and kennedy(1963)) and I think two died in office(roosevelt in 1945 and one other whose name isn't coming to me) and no formal process for how to clear it up.

The US does have recall elections though to recall an elected official who as you say betrays the electorate.

Can the president be recalled?

aloyisious

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Pence serves out the remaining two years after Trump is impeached....then beats Clinton in 2020...serves his full two terms .......Welcome to 10 years of President Pence....bet the house on it

The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) to the United States Constitution sets a limit on the number of times a person is eligible for election to the office of President of the United States, and also sets additional eligibility conditions for presidents who succeed to the unexpired terms of their predecessors.[1] Congress approved the amendment on March 24, 1947, and submitted it to the state legislatures for ratification. That process was completed on February 27, 1951 and the amendment took effect from that date.



Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.[2]

… The amendment was ratified within the required 7 years. Congress approved the amendment on March 24, 1947 - ratified on February 27, 1951, after the amendment had been ratified by the requisite 36 out of 48 states. So it looks that if Mike Pence assumes office as president after Don leaves while serving, and Mike serves more than two years as Don's replacement before the next election, he can only run for one [1] further term.

Itssoeasy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Can the president be recalled?

I don't think so.

amandstu

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Can the president be recalled?

I thought that if he was judged to be medically unfit he could be removed from ofveficee by a group of senior men (can't remember which).

His comment to his interviewer on Fox this evening " how can they impeach someone who is doing a great job" started to ring alarm bells in my mind and I had the impression that his unfitness for the job was showing through-a kind disorientation perhaps?

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) to the United States Constitution sets a limit on the number of times a person is eligible for election to the office of President of the United States, and also sets additional eligibility conditions for presidents who succeed to the unexpired terms of their predecessors.[1] Congress approved the amendment on March 24, 1947, and submitted it to the state legislatures for ratification. That process was completed on February 27, 1951 and the amendment took effect from that date.



Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.[2]

… The amendment was ratified within the required 7 years. Congress approved the amendment on March 24, 1947 - ratified on February 27, 1951, after the amendment had been ratified by the requisite 36 out of 48 states.

The important word there is elected president. Pence hasn't and LBJ wasn't elected president but LBJ could have run in 1968 after winning election in 1964 after completing just under a year of Kennedy's first term. So had Johnson won in 1968 and not nixon then had Johnson lived(he died soon after he would have finished his second term as president) so we could have had 9 years of LBJ. It was in January 1973 he died so just about.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The important word there is elected president. Pence hasn't and LBJ wasn't elected president but LBJ could have run in 1968 after winning election in 1964 after completing just under a year of Kennedy's first term. So had Johnson won in 1968 and not nixon then had Johnson lived(he died soon after he would have finished his second term as president) so we could have had 9 years of LBJ. It was in January 1973 he died so just about.

But if Don resigns before his term is over and Mike takes up the left-over term [EDIT - held the office of president for more than two years] he can only run for one more term by election. Don was sworn in at the start of 2017. It all depends on the next 4 months. The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) to the United States Constitution also sets additional eligibility conditions for presidents who succeed to the unexpired terms of their predecessors.

aloyisious

I'm a bit surprised that Jeff has finally responded in public to another put-down by Don. It might mean that phonecalls and letters between them has not had the desired effect from Jeff's POV.

amandstu

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm a bit surprised that Jeff has finally responded in public to another put-down by Don. It might mean that phonecalls and letters between them has not had the desired effect from Jeff's POV.

I was wondering if he was feeling more confident in his position for some reason.What he said was certainly what needed to be said.

Does he feel Trump is wounded or weakened now?

aloyisious

amandstu wrote: »

I was wondering if he was feeling more confident in his position for some reason.What he said was certainly what needed to be said.

Does he feel Trump is wounded or weakened now?

Actually I've just heard his statement again on CNN and it left me wondering if it meant more than I took it to mean the first time, his reference to holding people to account if they didn't perform their job properly. I assumed he meant it solely towards people in the DOJ. Could he have been sending a coded message to Don?

rossie1977

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Pence serves out the remaining two years after Trump is impeached....then beats Clinton in 2020...serves his full two terms .......Welcome to 10 years of President Pence....bet the house on it

For all of Trump's faults he is an extremely charismatic individual. Pense on the other hand has all the charisma of a foot so would be extremely unlikely to win a national election.

amandstu

aloyisious wrote: »

amandstu wrote: »

I was wondering if he was feeling more confident in his position for some reason.What he said was certainly what needed to be said.

Does he feel Trump is wounded or weakened now?

Actually I've just heard his statement again on CNN and it left me wondering if it meant more than I took it to mean the first time, his reference to holding people to account if they didn't perform their job properly. I assumed he meant it solely towards people in the DOJ. Could he have been sending a coded message to Don?

Doubt it.According to the BBC article he is very determined but shy.It read to me like a defence of his approach albeit with a hint of "don't mess with me".

But we don't know what information he might be privy to...

aloyisious

amandstu wrote: »

Doubt it.According to the BBC article he is very determined but shy.It read to me like a defence of his approach albeit with a hint of "don't mess with me".

But we don't know what information he might be privy to...

On the legal technical side, Is the SDNY investigation LEGALLY separate from the Meuller's Russian collusion Investigation, despite it being a Fed case? People seem to say it is. If so, then it could be that Jeff is NOT recused from access to any info or reports made by FBI agents involved in that SDNY investigation, and anything that has subsequently come to FBI attention. That would include stuff some lawyers representing defendants have not revealed to the public because of deals their clients have struck with the FBI.

amandstu

aloyisious wrote: »

amandstu wrote: »

Doubt it.According to the BBC article he is very determined but shy.It read to me like a defence of his approach albeit with a hint of "don't mess with me".

But we don't know what information he might be privy to...

On the legal technical side, Is the SDNY investigation LEGALLY separate from the Meuller's Russian collusion Investigation, despite it being a Fed case? People seem to say it is. If so, then it could be that Jeff is NOT recused from access to any info or reports made by FBI agents involved in that SDNY investigation, and anything that has subsequently come to FBI attention. That would include stuff some lawyers representing defendants have not revealed to the public because of deals their clients have struck with the FBI.

Thought it was quite separate.Did you listen to the Rachel Maddows clip a few pages back?

It sure is intrigue all the way.Getting really "noir"

LeinsterDub

amandstu wrote: »

I thought that if he was judged to be medically unfit he could be removed from ofveficee by a group of senior men (can't remember which).

He can be removed by the Veep and the cabinet. But I don't think he can be recalled.

Stallingrad

Hurrache wrote: »

That tweet was instantly leaped upon and discredited with facts by South African politicians and media outlets.

I'm surpised at that. Land expropriation is very real in SA, as is violance against farmers. Trumps sudden interest in it is just his usual diversion.

Hurrache

Stallingrad wrote: »

I'm surpised at that. Land expropriation is very real in SA, as is violance against farmers. Trumps sudden interest in it is just his usual diversion.

It's not the issue it's being made out to be. Murder is a very small percentage of crime in South Africa, and generally, and against against farmers, it has taken a large drop. 50 or so against farmers last year vs over 150 at its height. Still a problem and it's something white nationalists like to run with though.

Check out the #whitesouthafricanfarmers hashtag to see the dog whistle it is.

And here's a thread with facts and figures
https://twitter.com/PieterHowes/status/1032558663855206400?s=19

circadian

amandstu wrote: »

Doubt it.According to the BBC article he is very determined but shy.It read to me like a defence of his approach albeit with a hint of "don't mess with me".

But we don't know what information he might be privy to...

I wouldn't put it past Sessions to be targeting Trump in his statement. He's someone that's been in this job a lifetime, he's a survivor and Trump is as subtle as a brick to the face so I doubt he's even pick up on it.

Trump has been mouthed Sessions at every opportunity and there's the occasional "will he, won't he?" over firing Sessions but I think it would be foolish to do so.

Rosenstein has kept his head down and there have been a series of indictments, arrests and charges brought under the DOJ. Sessions and Rosenstein are tipping away at Trump, there's no love lost there I would imagine. All said and done, I think Sessions might make it out of this by the skin of his teeth, unless there is solid evidence at being involved in any wrongdoing as well.

everlast75

Hurrache wrote: »

It's not the issue it's being made out to be. Murder is a very small percentage of crime in South Africa, and generally, and against against farmers, it has taken a large drop. 50 or so against farmers last year vs over 150 at its height. Still a problem and it's something white nationalists like to run with though.

Check out the #whitesouthafricanfarmers hashtag to see the dog whistle it is.

And here's a thread with facts and figures
https://twitter.com/PieterHowes/status/1032558663855206400?s=19

Yep! As usual, Trump (lead by Fox and in this case Carlson) is way off on his assertions. Facts matter... to everyone but Trump.

circadian wrote: »

I wouldn't put it past Sessions to be targeting Trump in his statement. He's someone that's been in this job a lifetime, he's a survivor and Trump is as subtle as a brick to the face so I doubt he's even pick up on it.

Trump has been mouthed Sessions at every opportunity and there's the occasional "will he, won't he?" over firing Sessions but I think it would be foolish to do so.

Rosenstein has kept his head down and there have been a series of indictments, arrests and charges brought under the DOJ. Sessions and Rosenstein are tipping away at Trump, there's no love lost there I would imagine. All said and done, I think Sessions might make it out of this by the skin of his teeth, unless there is solid evidence at being involved in any wrongdoing as well.

Graham is on record as saying that after the midterms, Sessions' job will not be as safe as it is now.

Two other points. The way I see if R Paul, D Nunes and L Graham are compromised. There is no other explanation for their behaviour. Hopefully it'll come out.

Secondly, I see Trump stepping down in some sort of deal with the Feds, who are now free to have a go at Trump Inc, ie. Donny, Eric and Ivanka as a result of the subpoena served on Cohen and the investigations surrounding Trump Inc.

Cohen has already spoken to the Feds.. literally the day he received the Summons and is more than eager to do so. Unfortunately politicians seem to be able to avoid charges by agreeing to step down. So for what its worth, that's my guess.

Leroy42

The process to remove Sessions is underway. Lindsey Graham stated yesterday that Trump should have confidence in his AG and possibly should look at making a change after the mid-terms. So basically the GOP are saying that they are happy for Trump to dump Sessions but would prefer to wait until after the mid-terms.

MadYaker

What are the implications for the mueller investigation if sessions goes?

Pelvis

MadYaker wrote: »

What are the implications for the mueller investigation if sessions goes?

Trump could replace him with someone who doesn't have to recuse himself, therefore taking charge and shutting it down.

everlast75

MadYaker wrote: »

What are the implications for the mueller investigation if sessions goes?

Sessions recused himself from the probe, so technically there are none.

If he replaces someone who then fires Rod Rosenstein, the deputy AG, then there are bigger implications.

However, there would be hallmarks of Nixon and the Saturday night massacre, which politically would be almost certain suicide

Penn

MadYaker wrote: »

What are the implications for the mueller investigation if sessions goes?

I *think* it means Trump could then directly fire Rod Rosenstein, who is under Sessions and has authority over the Mueller investigation since Sessions recused himself. Trump could then appoint someone else to be Attorney General, likely someone who would then shut the Mueller investigation down.

I'd be shocked if Mueller didn't have a contingency in place however, such as being ready to transfer all evidence to another crime investigation department who may be capable of proceeding with the information already gathered, and proceed with charging people based on the evidence already gathered by Mueller.

Leroy42

everlast75 wrote: »

However, there would be hallmarks of Nixon and the Saturday night massacre, which politically would be almost certain suicide

How do you figure that?

Nixon went because the GOP turned on him and no longer willing to support him. Graham has indicated that the GOP would be perfectly happy for Trump to get rid of Sessions.

And at no point in this saga have they any shown any inclination to be after the truth. The only thing that will effect Trump is the economy and his ability to get votes. If the economy continues as it currently is going then the GOP will continue to stand behind him regardless of what happens.

amandstu

everlast75 wrote: »

However, there would be hallmarks of Nixon and the Saturday night massacre, which politically would be almost certain suicide

Given the levels of outrageous behaviour already accepted by the GOP and his base why would this be a step to far?

Is the only leverage they have over him the promise of a pardon for himself after office if he resigns?(not sure about his family if it is NY State related)