Trump must conform with constitution or he will be removed, ex Bush adviser Richard Painter says


The Trump presidency is only days old and already there are serious moves to have him forced out of office, and the man leading the charge is from the President's own political party.

Richard Painter is a lawyer who advised former president George W Bush on ethics. He could not bring himself to vote for Donald Trump, admitting he supported instead Mr Trump's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

He has many concerns about the new President — his attitude to the media, his pledge to ban Muslim immigration, and deporting Mexicans — but he is really zeroing in on the billionaire businessman's connections to international companies and countries.

    "What is unconstitutional is for anyone holding a position of trust within the United States Government to be receiving profits and other benefits from dealing with foreign governments and companies controlled by foreign governments," Mr Painter told 7.30.

Unconstitutional? Yes, according to Mr Painter. He says other constitutional lawyers support his view. That means Mr Trump could face impeachment proceedings.

Mr Painter said Mr Trump could also be exposed in ways other than those relating to his business dealings.

"By having the President's name on buildings, that is a potential terrorist target," he said.

"There are complications that could come up with the President's investments overseas in countries where there's tensions and the United States has to resolve — for example a dispute between Russia and Turkey.

"We shouldn't have a president invested in either Russia or Turkey. He should not have a dog in the hunt."

Mr Trump has distanced himself from his business interests, handing control of his companies to his sons. Mr Painter maintains that is not good enough.

    "The key issue is who owns the businesses? If he owns the businesses, then he is in receipt of the foreign government money that is paid to the businesses and that's a violation of our constitution."

Mr Painter conceded impeachment was highly unlikely.

He said he expected Mr Trump would "figure this out".

But Mr Painter said that did not mean just sorting out his business affairs — the President will need to be careful in all areas of his administration.

"That also means the provisions of the constitution that protect Americans from discrimination based on their religious faith," he said.

"We are not going to be keeping a registry of Muslims in America, we are not going to be deporting Muslims, we are not going to be barring people from coming into our country because of their religion."

Of course, Mr Trump won office by pledging to, "make America great again". He rallied many of his supporters by targeting those groups he believes are a threat to the US.

Mr Painter admitted he did not vote for Mr Trump, despite his strong ties to the Republican Party.

But, he said Mr Trump was his President — the President for all Americans — and he must be held to account.

"He will conform with the constitution or we will remove him. That is done in the United States," he said.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-23/trump-will-conform-or-be-removed-former-bush-adviser-says/8205094


;D ;D ;D ;D


and so the dog and pony show begins .....

where are all the trumpites? busy with their heads shoved up their arses?

The bloated douche-bag is going down    ;D

I think the trumpites were hoping he would have something up his sleeve..kinda looks like what they saw is what they actually got, but more awesome than in his actual campaign.. ? :D

I'm not surprised..

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 8:33pm:

The bloated douche-bag is going down    ;D

and it's the traditional republicans who will drag him down.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 8:33pm:

The bloated douche-bag is going down    ;D

Unlike you obviously. You clearly stated you would leave if Trump became President,.

You Sir are nothing more than a common f vicking liar.

I do hope that ALL on this forum acknowledge this and make no comment on your comments forthwith. 

kemal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 8:43pm:

Unlike you obviously.

you could try to impeach him?


of course, if that doesn't work, you can always get over it.

greggerypeccary
Gold Member
Re: The Establishment are scared stiff of Donald Trump
Reply #9 - Nov 5th, 2016 at 5:46pm
 




I thought you said Trump was going to win.

Don't sit on the fence - make a decision.

I can tell you right now, that without a shadow of a doubt, Trump will not win the upcoming Presidential election.

If the people with whom I disagree, all leave the Forum, it won't be any fun anymore.

issuevoter wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 10:37pm:

If the people with whom I disagree, all leave the Forum, it won't be any fun anymore.

Exactly.

Imagine how boring that would be.

"Sprinty, I think Trump is just divine".

"Oh, so do I , Panther. So do I".

"Okay, well ... talk tomorrow then? Bye".

"Bye".

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 11:00pm:

issuevoter wrote on Jan 23rd, 2017 at 10:37pm: If the people with whom I disagree, all leave the Forum, it won't be any fun anymore. Exactly. Imagine how boring that would be. "Sprinty, I think Trump is just divine". "Oh, so do I , Panther. So do I". "Okay, well ... talk tomorrow then? Bye". "Bye".

Thank heavens the bin-straighteners are back in charge.

John Smith wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 6:22pm:

[i     "What is unconstitutional is for anyone holding a position of trust within the United States Government to be receiving profits and other benefits from dealing with foreign governments and companies controlled by foreign governments," Mr Painter told 7.30. Unconstitutional? Yes, according to Mr Painter. He says other constitutional lawyers support his view.

So why are the lefties silent about the Saudis and Qatar giving money to Hillary, did they buy the DemocRATS to help with the sunni vs shia war in Yemen?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 12:13am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 23rd, 2017 at 6:22pm: [i     "What is unconstitutional is for anyone holding a position of trust within the United States Government to be receiving profits and other benefits from dealing with foreign governments and companies controlled by foreign governments," Mr Painter told 7.30. Unconstitutional? Yes, according to Mr Painter. He says other constitutional lawyers support his view. So why are the lefties silent about the Saudis and Qatar giving money to Hillary, did they buy the DemocRATS to help with the sunni vs shia war in Yemen?

Or why Russia gave Hillary millions to pave the way for ownership of 20% of Americas uranium?
Conflict of interest ....... nah! Anything Hillary did was OK - Everything Donald does is a crime.

  Simple narrative for simple minds.

John Smith wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 6:22pm:

"What is unconstitutional is for anyone holding a position of trust within the United States Government to be receiving profits and other benefits from dealing with foreign governments and companies controlled by foreign governments," Mr Painter told 7.30.

That is old and for the most part irrelevant news. No question the the fat dayglo orange Julius Caesar will be impeached but not for this.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 11:00pm:

issuevoter wrote on Jan 23rd, 2017 at 10:37pm: If the people with whom I disagree, all leave the Forum, it won't be any fun anymore. Exactly. Imagine how boring that would be. "Sprinty, I think Trump is just divine". "Oh, so do I , Panther. So do I". "Okay, well ... talk tomorrow then? Bye". "Bye".

Pecker: They're not illegal immigamts; they're  unlawful non citizens.
John Smith: Pecker; you're a genius. Can I suck your balls?
Mothra: Do you mind if I watch?

Richdude wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 6:17am:

Anything Hillary did was OK.

Really?

You're on your own there.

You're the first one in this forum to come out and publicly support Clinton.

How does that feel?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 11:00pm:

issuevoter wrote on Jan 23rd, 2017 at 10:37pm: If the people with whom I disagree, all leave the Forum, it won't be any fun anymore. Exactly. Imagine how boring that would be. "Sprinty, I think Trump is just divine". "Oh, so do I , Panther. So do I". "Okay, well ... talk tomorrow then? Bye". "Bye".

Yep it would be dead within a month..

kemal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 8:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23rd, 2017 at 8:33pm: The bloated douche-bag is going down    ;D Unlike you obviously. You clearly stated you would leave if Trump became President,. You Sir are nothing more than a common f vicking liar. I do hope that ALL on this forum acknowledge this and make no comment on your comments forthwith.

To be pedantic... he said if Trump won the election. Because of the refusal to hold a recount in critical states and Clintons massive popular vote lead, we can never know for sure if Trump really won the election or not.

But also, peccahead is a liar, that is for sure. But is it fair for the same people that wont hold Trump true to his word to then demand peccahead do the same?

the entire election was full of lies.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 11:15am:

kemal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2017 at 8:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23rd, 2017 at 8:33pm: The bloated douche-bag is going down    ;D Unlike you obviously. You clearly stated you would leave if Trump became President,. You Sir are nothing more than a common f vicking liar. I do hope that ALL on this forum acknowledge this and make no comment on your comments forthwith.  To be pedantic... he said if Trump won the election.

Correct.

I did not say "I'll leave when Trump wins the election".

He won, and as a result, I will leave.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 12:13am:

So why are the lefties silent about the Saudis and Qatar giving money to Hillary

the guy pushing this is a rightie dopey  ;D ;D ;D


Marla wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 7:04am:

That is old and for the most part irrelevant news

we're behind with the news

As I have elaborated in the recent past about the Process &/or Possibility of Impeachment, there are some that obviously either didn't read, or are so blinded by their hate of United States President Donald J. Trump chose to ignore the facts surrounding any Impeachment of a Sitting President of the United States.

No, it's not like here in Australia where a few men & women go behind closed doors, & then emerge a short time later with the news that the Prime Minister has been outed, long live the new Prime Minister.......far from that silliness......in America, a Constitutional Republic, which is subject to a 'Rule of Law'.....The United States Constitution........there is but one extensive process outlined on the procedure needed to be followed to the letter for Impeaching a President (which BTW is only a first step towards removal from office)


Quote:

1. The United States Senate is the only place on the planet that can try a sitting President of the United States. He can not be tried in any other lower court anywhere, for any crime, until after he leaves the office of the President at the end of his term, or via expulsion by the Senate after being found guilty of High Crimes & Misdemeanors.        ★  President Trump must be referred for Impeachment from the House of Representatives after an extensive political hearing, by a simple majority of 218 Representatives out of a total of 435 Representatives.     2.  Then the President must be found guilty, after an extensive political Senate trial, of "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" by a Super Majority of 67 United States Senators out of a total of 100 Senators. ➤  The President is a Republican. ➤  The House of Representatives is comprised of 241 Republicans & 194 democrats.....They need a vote of 218 for referral. Without referral, there will be no Senate trial. ➤  The Senate is comprised of 54 Republicans, 44 democrats, and 2 Independents......They need a guilty vote of 67 to convict. A Conviction could carry expulsion from the office of President. Of the 45 Presidents of the United States since 1789, only two (2) Presidents were Impeached (referred to the Senate for trial for "High Crimes & Misdemeanors")  Andrew Johnson, & Bill Clinton. JFYI....Richard Nixon was never Impeached by The House, nor convicted in the Senate. Both Impeached Presidents were subsequently acquitted (not found 'not guilty' or 'innocent' ... only acquitted of the charges) after an extensive trial by the United States Senate. The odds are that you would probably be more likely to find 5 truck loads of hens teeth during a blizzard on the Equator than seeing Republican President Trump Impeached for High Crimes & Misdemeanors in the Republican Senate, after a Referral of Impeachment from the Republican House of Representatives.        [img]http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/chuckle002.gif

Now, after reading that, if you still think there is any likelihood of Impeaching the President of the United States of America, please.....I'd like to hear it & read your source material.....which must, by the way, be the United States Constitution & only the United States Constitution. ;)

So, is the statement "Trump faces impreachment - ALREADY" .....besides it being spelled bass ackwards..... is that statement anything other than ridiculous??

Outside of "Wishfull Thinking" by some Extreme American Leftists, & a handful of daft Australian Forum members, the answer is a resounding NO!!!

Panther wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 12:16pm:

Now, after reading that, if you still think there is an easy way to remove a sitting President of the United States of America, please.....I'd like to hear it & read your source material..

I don't believe anyone ever said there was .... are you sure you have the right thread?

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 12:27pm:

Panther wrote on Jan 24th, 2017 at 12:16pm: Now, after reading that, if you still think there is an easy way to remove a sitting President of the United States of America, please.....I'd like to hear it & read your source material.. I don't believe anyone ever said there was .... are you sure you have the right thread?

Indeed.

Nobody ever said it would be easy.

It's possible, but it won't be easy.

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 12:27pm:

Panther wrote on Jan 24th, 2017 at 12:16pm: Now, after reading that, if you still think there is an easy way to remove a sitting President of the United States of America, please.....I'd like to hear it & read your source material.. I don't believe anyone ever said there was .... are you sure you have the right thread?

I see what you mean John, & I agree, so I will change a few words in my conclusion...    http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/hatsoff.gif...otherwise I need only read the title of this thread to know what I've posted, as quoted, is absolutely apropos.

"He will conform with the constitution or we will remove him. That is done in the United States"

Panther wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 12:16pm:

As I have elaborated in the recent past about the Process &/or Possibility of Impeachment, there are some that obviously either didn't read, or are so blinded by their hate of United States President Donald J. Trump chose to ignore the facts surrounding any Impeachment of a Sitting President of the United States. No, it's not like here in Australia where a few men & women go behind closed doors, & then emerge a short time later with the news that the Prime Minister has been outed, long live the new Prime Minister.......far from that silliness......in America, a Constitutional Republic, which is subject to a 'Rule of Law'.....The United States Constitution........there is but one extensive process outlined on the procedure needed to be followed to the letter for Impeaching a President (which BTW is only a first step towards removal from office) Quote: 1. The United States Senate is the only place on the planet that can try a sitting President of the United States. He can not be tried in any other lower court anywhere, for any crime, until after he leaves the office of the President at the end of his term, or via expulsion by the Senate after being found guilty of High Crimes & Misdemeanors.        ★  President Trump must be referred for Impeachment from the House of Representatives after an extensive political hearing, by a simple majority of 218 Representatives out of a total of 435 Representatives.     2.  Then the President must be found guilty, after an extensive political Senate trial, of "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" by a Super Majority of 67 United States Senators out of a total of 100 Senators. ➤  The President is a Republican. ➤  The House of Representatives is comprised of 241 Republicans & 194 democrats.....They need a vote of 218 for referral. Without referral, there will be no Senate trial. ➤  The Senate is comprised of 54 Republicans, 44 democrats, and 2 Independents......They need a guilty vote of 67 to convict. A Conviction could carry expulsion from the office of President. Of the 45 Presidents of the United States since 1789, only two (2) Presidents were Impeached (referred to the Senate for trial for "High Crimes & Misdemeanors")  Andrew Johnson, & Bill Clinton. JFYI....Richard Nixon was never Impeached by The House, nor convicted in the Senate. Both Impeached Presidents were subsequently acquitted (not found 'not guilty' or 'innocent' ... only acquitted of the charges) after an extensive trial by the United States Senate. The odds are that you would probably be more likely to find 5 truck loads of hens teeth during a blizzard on the Equator than seeing Republican President Trump Impeached for High Crimes & Misdemeanors in the Republican Senate, after a Referral of Impeachment from the Republican House of Representatives.        [img]http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/chuckle002.gif  Now, after reading that, if you still think there is any likelihood of Impeaching the President of the United States of America, please.....I'd like to hear it & read your source material.....which must, by the way, be the United States Constitution & only the United States Constitution. ;) So, is the statement "Trump faces impreachment - ALREADY" .....besides it being spelled bass ackwards..... is that statement anything other than ridiculous?? Outside of "Wishfull Thinking" by some Extreme American Leftists, & a handful of daft Australian Forum members, the answer is a resounding NO!!!

You missed one option. Section 25 of the Constitution empowers the Cabinet to remove a President from office by a simple majority vote.

Panther wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 12:16pm:

Outside of "Wishfull Thinking" by some Extreme American Leftists, & a handful of daft Australian Forum members, the answer is a resounding NO!!!

A. The guy starting this is a former bush advisor and a republican, he's no more a leftie than you are.

B. the probability of success is neither here nor there. He is facing impeachment from traditional republicans ... if you want to continue to shove your head up your arse and pretend it's not happening or that it isn't important in the grand scheme of things, than that's your business.


It doesn't change the fact that Trump is going to get attacked from both sides. He has no party loyalty he can rely on because almost all the republicans hate him just as much as the democrats. That they're willing to play along for now because they have no choice does not mean they support him.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 2:23pm:

Panther wrote on Jan 24th, 2017 at 12:16pm: As I have elaborated in the recent past about the Process &/or Possibility of Impeachment, there are some that obviously either didn't read, or are so blinded by their hate of United States President Donald J. Trump chose to ignore the facts surrounding any Impeachment of a Sitting President of the United States. No, it's not like here in Australia where a few men & women go behind closed doors, & then emerge a short time later with the news that the Prime Minister has been outed, long live the new Prime Minister.......far from that silliness......in America, a Constitutional Republic, which is subject to a 'Rule of Law'.....The United States Constitution........there is but one extensive process outlined on the procedure needed to be followed to the letter for Impeaching a President (which BTW is only a first step towards removal from office) Quote: 1. The United States Senate is the only place on the planet that can try a sitting President of the United States. He can not be tried in any other lower court anywhere, for any crime, until after he leaves the office of the President at the end of his term, or via expulsion by the Senate after being found guilty of High Crimes & Misdemeanors.        ★  President Trump must be referred for Impeachment from the House of Representatives after an extensive political hearing, by a simple majority of 218 Representatives out of a total of 435 Representatives.     2.  Then the President must be found guilty, after an extensive political Senate trial, of "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" by a Super Majority of 67 United States Senators out of a total of 100 Senators. ➤  The President is a Republican. ➤  The House of Representatives is comprised of 241 Republicans & 194 democrats.....They need a vote of 218 for referral. Without referral, there will be no Senate trial. ➤  The Senate is comprised of 54 Republicans, 44 democrats, and 2 Independents......They need a guilty vote of 67 to convict. A Conviction could carry expulsion from the office of President. Of the 45 Presidents of the United States since 1789, only two (2) Presidents were Impeached (referred to the Senate for trial for "High Crimes & Misdemeanors")  Andrew Johnson, & Bill Clinton. JFYI....Richard Nixon was never Impeached by The House, nor convicted in the Senate. Both Impeached Presidents were subsequently acquitted (not found 'not guilty' or 'innocent' ... only acquitted of the charges) after an extensive trial by the United States Senate. The odds are that you would probably be more likely to find 5 truck loads of hens teeth during a blizzard on the Equator than seeing Republican President Trump Impeached for High Crimes & Misdemeanors in the Republican Senate, after a Referral of Impeachment from the Republican House of Representatives.        [img]http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/chuckle002.gif  Now, after reading that, if you still think there is any likelihood of Impeaching the President of the United States of America, please.....I'd like to hear it & read your source material.....which must, by the way, be the United States Constitution & only the United States Constitution. ;) So, is the statement "Trump faces impreachment - ALREADY" .....besides it being spelled bass ackwards..... is that statement anything other than ridiculous?? Outside of "Wishfull Thinking" by some Extreme American Leftists, & a handful of daft Australian Forum members, the answer is a resounding NO!!! You missed one option. Section 25 of the Constitution empowers the Cabinet to remove a President from office by a simple majority vote.

You're Totally & Completely Wrong.....Absolutely incorrect!!!

I'm guessing you actually mean the XXV Amendment, because there is no such thing as a Section 25, which provides for 'temporary' replacement due to the incapacity of the President.....like when Reagan was shot, & needed surgery & recuperation.....which usually is requested by the President himself, like when Reagan need polyp removal surgery, but in the future might come about otherwise if the President is totally incapacitated.....

There is no part of that Amendment that provides for an actual Removal from Office, if you read you will note that upon the notification that the President is fit again, that the President will resume his Presidency relieving whomever was at the helm during his absence/incapacity. Now, if say the President never returns to capacity, which has never happened, the normal chain of succession would come into play.

Read Below, for everyone's edification....

Source:      The United States Constitution      
Quote:

Amendment XXV (1967) Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. Section 4. 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. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Pays ta read.....dunnit!?

Don't ya hate that!   http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif

Panther wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 4:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 24th, 2017 at 2:23pm: Panther wrote on Jan 24th, 2017 at 12:16pm: As I have elaborated in the recent past about the Process &/or Possibility of Impeachment, there are some that obviously either didn't read, or are so blinded by their hate of United States President Donald J. Trump chose to ignore the facts surrounding any Impeachment of a Sitting President of the United States. Quote: 1. The United States Senate is the only place on the planet that can try a sitting President of the United States. He can not be tried in any other lower court anywhere, for any crime, until after he leaves the office of the President at the end of his term, or via expulsion by the Senate after being found guilty of High Crimes & Misdemeanors.        ★  President Trump must be referred for Impeachment from the House of Representatives after an extensive political hearing, by a simple majority of 218 Representatives out of a total of 435 Representatives.     2.  Then the President must be found guilty, after an extensive political Senate trial, of "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" by a Super Majority of 67 United States Senators out of a total of 100 Senators. ➤  The President is a Republican. ➤  The House of Representatives is comprised of 241 Republicans & 194 democrats.....They need a vote of 218 for referral. Without referral, there will be no Senate trial. ➤  The Senate is comprised of 54 Republicans, 44 democrats, and 2 Independents......They need a guilty vote of 67 to convict. A Conviction could carry expulsion from the office of President. [size=11][font=Georgia][i]Of the 45 Presidents of the United States since 1789, only two (2) Presidents were Impeached (referred to the Senate for trial for "High Crimes & Misdemeanors")  Andrew Johnson, & Bill Clinton. JFYI....Richard Nixon was never Impeached by The House, nor convicted in the Senate. Both Impeached Presidents were subsequently acquitted (not found 'not guilty' or 'innocent' ... only acquitted of the charges) after an extensive trial by the United States Senate. The odds are that you would probably be more likely to find 5 truck loads of hens teeth during a blizzard on the Equator than seeing Republican President Trump Impeached for High Crimes & Misdemeanors in the Republican Senate, after a Referral of Impeachment from the Republican House of Representatives.        [img]http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/chuckle002.gif  Now, after reading that, if you still think there is any likelihood of Impeaching the President of the United States of America, please.....I'd like to hear it & read your source material.....which must, by the way, be the United States Constitution & only the United States Constitution. ;) So, is the statement "Trump faces impreachment - ALREADY" .....besides it being spelled bass ackwards..... is that statement anything other than ridiculous?? Outside of "Wishfull Thinking" by some Extreme American Leftists, & a handful of daft Australian Forum members, the answer is a resounding NO!!! You missed one option. Section 25 of the Constitution empowers the Cabinet to remove a President from office by a simple majority vote. You're Totally & Completely Wrong.....Absolutely incorrect!!! I'm guessing you actually mean the XXV Amendment, because there is no such thing as a Section 25, which provides for 'temporary' replacement due to the incapacity of the President.....like when Reagan was shot, & needed surgery & recuperation.....which usually is requested by the President himself, like when Reagan need polyp removal surgery, but in the future might come about otherwise if the President is totally incapacitated..... There is no part of that Amendment that provides for an actual Removal from Office, if you read you will note that upon the notification that the President is fit again, that the President will resume his Presidency relieving whomever was at the helm during his absence/incapacity. Now, if say the President never returns to capacity, which has never happened, the normal chain of succession would come into play. Read Below, for everyone's edification....

Yes, the 25th amendment makes Cabinet able to remove a sitting president from office due to inability to perform the duties. Now try and work out how a President as uncontrollable, thin-skinned and unqualifed as Trump might be considered 'unfit to continue'.

Not that hard to imagine and btw, this was not my idea but rather that of a senior constitutional lawyer.

So, it is another way to protect the world from this crazy bastard.

Panther wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 4:13pm:

Source:      The United States Constitution       Quote: Amendment XXV (1967) Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. Section 4. 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. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. Pays ta read.....dunnit!? Don't ya hate that!   http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif

You should have tried reading it yourself. It confirms what I said and that Congress would then support the motion.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 4:27pm:

Yes, the 25th amendment makes Cabinet able to remove a sitting president from office due to inability to perform the duties. Now try and work out how a President as uncontrollable, thin-skinned and unqualifed as Trump might be considered 'unfit to continue'. Not that hard to imagine and btw, this was not my idea but rather that of a senior constitutional lawyer. So, it is another way to protect the world from this crazy bastard.

Wrong.......Sorry, you've been busted again.... http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/busted.gif ... geez, today ain't your day......your lyin' ass is down fer the count yet again!




Source:      The United States Constitution      
Quote:

Amendment XXV (1967) Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. Section 4. 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. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Not an interpretation, but the actual law......read it.......you're absolutely wrong. It's temporary, not permanent.

Panther wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 24th, 2017 at 4:27pm: Yes, the 25th amendment makes Cabinet able to remove a sitting president from office due to inability to perform the duties. Now try and work out how a President as uncontrollable, thin-skinned and unqualifed as Trump might be considered 'unfit to continue'. Not that hard to imagine and btw, this was not my idea but rather that of a senior constitutional lawyer. So, it is another way to protect the world from this crazy bastard. Wrong.......Sorry, you've been busted again.... http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/busted.gif ... geez, today ain't your day......your lyin' ass is down fer the count yet again! Source:      The United States Constitution       Quote: Amendment XXV (1967) Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. Section 4. 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. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. Not an interpretation, but the actual law......read it.......you're absolutely wrong. It's temporary, not permanent.

Damn, you really are stupid. It states that the PResident can be removed if unfit for office until he becomes 'fit' again. If Trump were removed under that provision he would remain 'unfit' as he is incapable of change.

And once again, this is a constitutional authority speaking, not someone with access to Google.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

Panther wrote on Jan 24th, 2017 at 4:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 24th, 2017 at 4:27pm: Yes, the 25th amendment makes Cabinet able to remove a sitting president from office due to inability to perform the duties. Now try and work out how a President as uncontrollable, thin-skinned and unqualifed as Trump might be considered 'unfit to continue'. Not that hard to imagine and btw, this was not my idea but rather that of a senior constitutional lawyer. So, it is another way to protect the world from this crazy bastard. Wrong.......Sorry, you've been busted again.... http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/busted.gif ... geez, today ain't your day......your lyin' ass is down fer the count yet again! Source:      The United States Constitution       Quote: Amendment XXV (1967) Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. Section 4. 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. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. Not an interpretation, but the actual law......read it.......you're absolutely wrong. It's temporary, not permanent. Damn, you really are stupid. It states that the PResident can be removed if unfit for office until he becomes 'fit' again. If Trump were removed under that provision he would remain 'unfit' as he is incapable of change. And once again, this is a constitutional authority speaking, not someone with access to Google.

Unless your unnamed "Constitutional Authority" is the SCOTUS, they have no Constitutional Authority, or the authority to have any final say on Constitution matters. All they have is an opinion, which weighs no more, no less than ours....period.

So, Damn.... if I'm stupid, you're irreversibly brain dead .....nowhere in this Amendment does it provide for a "removal" of a President!

Any replacement is only temporary, an acting President, unless the incapacity is so grave it is beyond being overcome (as in death...Trump's good, but...), which has never happened. Whenever the President determines he is fit is fit to return to duty, he will return replacing the acting President.

This is, & was, the reasoning behind this 25^th Amendment (do your research), not "removal" of a sitting President, & if necessary the Supreme Court will have the very final say, for the Supreme Court is the only body/group that can interpret the Constitution with any final authority.....Not Congress, not the VP, not any Cabinet, not any person. So if the Supreme Court wishes to decide that any Amendment reads any way it wishes it to read, it can, & nothing short of insurrection culminating in a firing squad can stop them. ;)

Geez, I left that wide open......Now you be creating some fantasy that the SCOTUS will conspire to "remove" the President. As I said, it's possible, but only you could find the logic for them to want to do it!     http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/lolfun.gif

Far fetched?? Not really....

So far you suggested that his hand picked Cabinet can do it.......with the help of his hand picked VP. http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/chuckle002.gif

Then you seem to allude to that a conspiring Republican Congress can do it, along with the VP! http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/chuckle002.gif

So, why not the Pope in concert with the SCOTUS & Inspector Clouseau!?

You need to stop watching those Pink Panther reruns!!! http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/taunt.gif

Panther, that flying knee was brutal. I don't think lomgy can come back from that.

Donald Trump blasts department store Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka's line, raising new concern on business ties

US President Donald Trump's Twitter attack on Nordstrom for dropping his daughter Ivanka's clothing line has raised concerns about the use of his White House platform for his family's businesses.

n response to the Twitter comment Mr Trump posted criticising the department store, White House spokesman Sean Spicer characterised the company's action as a "direct attack" on the president's policies.

"My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!" Mr Trump tweeted.

It was re-tweeted more than 6,000 times in less than an hour, including from the official, taxpayer-funded @POTUS account.

Nordstrom shares dropped 0.7 per cent after the tweet but later recovered to trade up 3.7 per cent on the New York Stock Exchange.

Nordstrom said its decision to drop Ivanka Trump branded merchandise from its stores and online was based on the brand's performance.

"Over the past year, and particularly in the last half of 2016, sales of the brand have steadily declined to the point where it didn't make good business sense for us to continue with the line for now."

Nordstrom said it informed Ivanka Trump about its decision in early January.

A day after Nordstrom's statement, luxury retailer Neiman Marcus Group also said it had stopped selling Ivanka Trump's jewellery line on its website and a store in New Jersey, according to Yahoo News.

The move by the retailers comes amid an ongoing campaign called #GrabYourWallet, which encourages shoppers to boycott products with ties to President Trump, his family and his donors.

'Totally inappropriate': Democrats flag ethics office

The President's comments underscore the complicated relationship that the wealthy New York real estate developer has with his sprawling family business interests amid criticism from Democrats and others about the ethics and legality of the arrangement.

During a White House briefing, Mr Spicer painted Nordstrom's action as an attack on the President's daughter.

"For someone to take out their concern with his policies on a family member of his is just not acceptable — the President has every right as a father to stand up to them," Mr Spicer said.

Ivanka Trump ran a clothing and jewellery business bearing her name, in addition to other work for the Trump Organisation, before saying she would resign when her father was sworn in as president last month.

A spokeswoman for the Ivanka Trump brand declined to comment.

The Republican President's complaint, however, drew swift criticism from Democrats.

US House of Representatives' minority leader Nancy Pelosi said the tweet was inappropriate, but that it was typical of Mr Trump.

    "I think it's inappropriate, but he's a totally inappropriate President, so it's totally in keeping with who he is," Ms Pelosi said.

"What I think is more inappropriate, though, is for him to refer to a judge who made a ruling that he didn't agree with as a 'so-called judge'. Now we're talking about the separation of power, not the thin skin of an incompetent president," she said.

Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat, in a tweet indicated that the matter should be referred to the Office of Government Ethics.

The President has declined to sell off his businesses despite calls to do so from critics, instead turning his empire over to his adult sons.

Mr Trump's web of international companies remains a bit opaque since he has refused to release his tax returns, which experts have said would provide a clearer view of his business interests.

Since winning the US presidential election on November 8, Mr Trump has targeted specific companies on Twitter. But this is his first tweet criticising a business tied to his family since the victory.

It is also not the first time Mr Trump's tweets have at least temporarily affected a stock.

US carmakers, Boeing and Carrier have also suffered after his comments on Twitter.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-09/donald-trump-tweets-that-nordstrom-treated-ivanka-unfairly/8254256


tick tock dickhead, your impeachment is fast approaching. :D :D

What kind of monster sticks up for his daughter?

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 4:05pm:

What kind of monster sticks up for his daughter?

;D ;D ;D ;D

he's having a tantrum, not sticking up for her.

As a businessman trump should understand that if a product isn't selling, it goes.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 4:05pm:

What kind of monster sticks up for his daughter?

Up, or it up?


http://www.joemygod.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/trrr-605x330.jpg

another day, another tantrum.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 12:13am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 23rd, 2017 at 6:22pm: [i     "What is unconstitutional is for anyone holding a position of trust within the United States Government to be receiving profits and other benefits from dealing with foreign governments and companies controlled by foreign governments," Mr Painter told 7.30. Unconstitutional? Yes, according to Mr Painter. He says other constitutional lawyers support his view. So why are the lefties silent about the Saudis and Qatar giving money to Hillary, did they buy the DemocRATS to help with the sunni vs shia war in Yemen?

Since Clinton isn't President its irrelevant, we're talking about the current Presidents misdemeanours.

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 4:10pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:05pm: What kind of monster sticks up for his daughter? ;D ;D ;D ;D he's having a tantrum, not sticking up for her. As a businessman trump should understand that if a product isn't selling, it goes.

PLus he has to get on with the fact, he is no longer a businessman.


Interesting to see Kellyanne Conway may have broken the law over this today.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 8:38am:

Interesting to see Kellyanne Conway may have broken the law over this today.

I think thrump is incapable of separating his business/private life from his role as president.

That then leads to his minions crossing boundaries they shouldn't cross.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 9:05am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 8:38am: Interesting to see Kellyanne Conway may have broken the law over this today. I think thrump is incapable of separating his business/private life from his role as president. That then leads to his minions crossing boundaries they shouldn't cross.

Indeed, from what I saw on 4 corners, I also wouldn't be surprised if its also cause he doesn't have complete faith in his kids to run the business

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 9:07am:

Indeed, from what I saw on 4 corners, I also wouldn't be surprised if its also cause he doesn't have complete faith in his kids to run the business

from reports I've read, he has always been a control freak ... giving total control to anyone is beyond him, including family

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 9:07am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 9:05am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 8:38am: Interesting to see Kellyanne Conway may have broken the law over this today. I think thrump is incapable of separating his business/private life from his role as president. That then leads to his minions crossing boundaries they shouldn't cross. Indeed, from what I saw on 4 corners, I also wouldn't be surprised if its also cause he doesn't have complete faith in his kids to run the business

Absolutely.

Let's face it though, would you have faith in Beavis & Butthead.


http://media.salon.com/2016/03/eric_donald_jr_trump2.jpg

The one on the left looks likes he's going yeah bruh, I'm hungry for some nachos.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 9:25am:

The one on the left looks likes he's going yeah bruh, I'm hungry for some nachos.

I wouldn't even trust them to order take-away.


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/8c/a6/f5/8ca6f54e650e084d253d84cf4e8e9ce3.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c

"When asked on MSNBC if Congress is heading for four more years of stalemate, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) dropped a truth bomb and said that she doesn’t expect Trump to be in office for four years because he is vulnerable to impeachment."

"The stench of corruption is so strong around President Trump that members of Congress are discussing impeachment less than a month into his first term."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c

Preliminary Impeachment Papers Filed Against Donald Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c

https://malialitman.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/trump-orange-is-the-newstupid.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c

http://f.tqn.com/y/politicalhumor/1/W/U/a/6/trumps-wives-immigrants.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c

https://i0.wp.com/www.fiz-x.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/6457686283446c50ac028ba90350fe0c.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c

https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/code4-e1478069841509.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 10:38am:

Preliminary Impeachment Papers Filed Against Donald Trump

zzzzzzzz       more FAKE NEWS FROM GWEGGY

when will he ever learn.

cods wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:22am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 10:38am: Preliminary Impeachment Papers Filed Against Donald Trump zzzzzzzz       more FAKE NEWS FROM GWEGGY when will he ever learn.

"The people frustrated with this Trump Administration might be getting what they want, as a top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has filed an “Articles of Inquiry” into the president.

"For those unaware of what that means, this is the first step in the process of attempting to impeach a federal official."

http://nadler.house.gov/sites/nadler.house.gov/files/documents/Nadler%20-%20Resolution%20of%20Inquiry.pdf

Game on, bitches.

Congressman Nadler Introduces Resolution of Inquiry to Force GOP Vote on Trump’s Conflicts, Ethics Violations, and Russia Ties

"Washington, D.C. -- Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a Resolution of Inquiry directing the Department of Justice to provide the House of Representatives with any and all information relevant to an inquiry into President Trump and his associates’ conflicts of interest, ethical violations—including the Emoluments Clause—and Russia ties. 

"If the House Judiciary Committee does not schedule the resolution for a Markup within 14 legislative days, it becomes a privileged resolution and can be brought to the floor in front of the full House for a vote."

Nice work, Jerry    :)


http://nadler.house.gov/sites/nadler.house.gov/files/styles/section_front_boilerplate/public/JN%20with%20Pin%20-%20High%20Resolution%20edit.jpg