The Impeachment of Trump?

[iNow]

Right process. Wrong processor. Congress needs to do it's GD job.

[Airbrush]

From the Huffington Post:

 

"We’re just one week into the administration of the 45th President of the United States and already we’ve seen signs the end might be near. These are truly unprecedented times in the history of this country.

 

"Never before has a president taken the oath of office with such high disapproval numbers. Before this year, the highest disapproval rating for an incoming president was George W. Bush’s mark of 25 percent. President Trumps disapproval rating the moment he put his hand on the Bible was nearly double that at 45 percent. Anyone wondering how this vitriol and animosity by nearly half the country would manifest itself needed to wait only 24 hours. The day after the inauguration, the largest protest ever to hit the nation’s capitol took to the streets to voice their displeasure over our new president."

 

To Russia With Treason

"There is far too much smoke to believe there isn’t a fire in the area of dubious dealings between Vladimir Putin and Trump’s inner circle. It seems more than conspicuous that most of Trump’s key people all have a close connection with Russia. Most notably, Secretary of State and Rex Tillerson raised eyebrows at his confirmation hearing when he refused to frame Putin’s international aggression as war crimes."

 

Business Conflict of Interest

"President Trump thinks he won by not putting his business interests in a blind trust but, in doing so, may have sowed the seeds of his downfall. The reason why every modern president who preceded him has done so is two-fold. It is to ensure the president doesn’t manipulate his business interests so as to profit from actions he takes while in office. But it is also to protect him against such allegations. The blind trust is a way to close off that speculation before it actually begins."

 

His Ill-Advised War With The Media

"President Trump has spent his whole life experiencing media coverage from the vantage point of being a celebrity. If People Magazine or Vanity Fair was going to print something he didn’t like he could easily bully or cajole them into backing down. He never had to worry about the harsh and brutal truth seeing the light of day. So when the press caught wind of the allegations of sexual misconduct and then the Access Hollywood tape surfaced, Trump became furious that the press was digging for the truth."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-trump-wont-serve-his-full-1st-term_us_588ced75e4b06364bb1e2652?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_1448757&

 

Now his most recent series of rants in an impromptu press conference, Trump spent most of his time attacking the "lying media," except for Fox News, in Trump's opinion. I heard that yesterday while watching Fox News. I'm there sometimes to spy on the enemy.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Airbrush

[Airbrush]

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution​ makes it a little easier to get rid of a dysfunctional president than impeachment.

 

"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."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

All Pence needs to do is continue to act presidential until a majority around him realize Trump is not getting any better at his job.

[Phi for All]

All Pence needs to do is continue to act presidential until a majority around him realize Trump is not getting any better at his job.

 

Wouldn't that seem more like a coup to his supporters, like The Swamp Strikes Back? I don't think his supporters care much for "the majority around him", and would not support a vote of no confidence. With impeachment there is a chance hard evidence will at least be appraised by supporters and detractors alike (but without an objective media, I guess it makes little difference).

[Airbrush]

All Trump needs to do is, after this "smooth honeymoon spell" is over, is piss off Pence and most of the department heads he just hired, by getting carelessly abusive to them. Then mutiny!

 

America loves to see an arrogant a$$hole fall flat on their face, and slink out in shame like Nixon.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Airbrush

[swansont]

I don't think anything will happen until the GOP thinks this will cost them in future elections. And if they do nothing, and this is enough to convince people to go and vote for democrats (and get people who didn't vote before to the polls) and it's enough to change the balance in congress, then something can be done in ~2 years.

[Phi for All]

I don't think anything will happen until the GOP thinks this will cost them in future elections. And if they do nothing, and this is enough to convince people to go and vote for democrats (and get people who didn't vote before to the polls) and it's enough to change the balance in congress, then something can be done in ~2 years.

 

I'm hoping for a big Archie Bunker effect to move folks in that direction. 99% of us know something has to change, so hopefully enough people will see him as the antithesis of what we want to become.

 

I have to admit that it would be interesting to see if Congress based a no-confidence declaration on his connections to Russia, or if they'd go after his obvious shortcomings with... most everything. Could Congress make the case that he's a victim of Dunning-Kruger effect on a level never seen before?

[Airbrush]

"Since Trump declared his intention to run for president, there has been speculation on his mental state. Terms like “narcissistic personality disorder” and “borderline personality” began to appear more and more frequently in references to him, both in the press, and in the words of his opponents and their proxies."

 

"...Frances explained that he “wrote the criteria that define narcissistic personality disorder,” the condition some mental health professionals, and journalists, have said they believe Trump suffers from. But, Frances asserts, Trump does not meet those criteria “because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder.” He goes on to argue that:

"Mr. Trump

causes severe distress rather than experiencing it

and has been richly rewarded, rather than punished, for his grandiosity, self-absorption and lack of empathy. It is a stigmatizing insult to the mentally ill (who are mostly well behaved and well meaning) to be lumped with Mr. Trump (who is neither)."

 

"But leaving the question of Trump’s mental condition to a group of professionals is an avoidance strategy that is becoming more transparently irresponsible by the day."

 

http://www.cjr.org/analysis/trump-mental-health.php

 

It is time to review the Goldwater Rule of 1973. They assume nothing of scientific value can be obtained merely by observing a person's words and actions. Interviewing the patient results in lies and subjectivity, while much can be known by analyzing their candid words and actions because those are more authentic than any interviews.

 

Trump is going through the most stressful period of his life. All his life he could always get his way, now as president he is NOT getting his way. How long until his fragile mental state is shattered by the final straw that breaks the camel's back, and he has a nervous breakdown? Trump may not be impeached for any one criminal act, but by the accumulation of evidence that he has a mental illness.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Airbrush

[iNow]

Our constitution says nothing of preventing those with mental illness from holding office, nor should it. Mental illness is a real issue that affects a lot of wonderful people and they should not be discriminated against. Further, were those with mental illness prevented from holding office, I suspect that at least 80% of congress would be immediately thrown out (though, this outcome does sound attractive now that you mention it).

[swansont]

 

I'm hoping for a big Archie Bunker effect to move folks in that direction. 99% of us know something has to change, so hopefully enough people will see him as the antithesis of what we want to become.

 

I have to admit that it would be interesting to see if Congress based a no-confidence declaration on his connections to Russia, or if they'd go after his obvious shortcomings with... most everything. Could Congress make the case that he's a victim of Dunning-Kruger effect on a level never seen before?

 

 

I don't think his disapproval rating will get much above 70%. His core think he's doing the right thing (while ironically talking about following the Constitution)

 

Right now, everybody on the right seems to be afraid of overtly crossing Trump lest they be the only one, and draw his ire. Right now any resistance on the right has been passive, in the form of not barnstorming in support of the president's so-called policies. How many things has the congress sent to the president so far? I think two. The rest have been executive actions of some sort. Congressional action has been pretty much limited to senate confirmations. So congress may yet constrain the president. Or it might not.

[dimreepr]

 

 

I don't think his disapproval rating will get much above 70%. His core think he's doing the right thing (while ironically talking about following the Constitution)

 

Right now, everybody on the right seems to be afraid of overtly crossing Trump lest they be the only one, and draw his ire. Right now any resistance on the right has been passive, in the form of not barnstorming in support of the president's so-called policies. How many things has the congress sent to the president so far? I think two. The rest have been executive actions of some sort. Congressional action has been pretty much limited to senate confirmations. So congress may yet constrain the president. Or it might not.

 

We seem to have come full circle on this topic, this question was essentially the OP in my original thread.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93445-donald-trump/

[Airbrush]

Our constitution says nothing of preventing those with mental illness from holding office, nor should it. Mental illness is a real issue that affects a lot of wonderful people and they should not be discriminated against. Further, were those with mental illness prevented from holding office, I suspect that at least 80% of congress would be immediately thrown out (though, this outcome does sound attractive now that you mention it).

 

Yes, mental illness should not be discriminated against, but if it results in a disabled presidency, that's different.

 

If the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, due to mental illness, the 25th amendment may apply. If someone has a mild mental illness that does NOT result in themselves, or others around them, to "suffer from the distress and impairment" required to diagnose mental disorder, then they should not be impeached, or discriminated against.

[swansont]

 

Yes, mental illness should not be discriminated against, but if it results in a disabled presidency, that's different.

 

If the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, due to mental illness, the 25th amendment may apply. If someone has a mild mental illness that does NOT result in themselves, or others around them, to "suffer from the distress and impairment" required to diagnose mental disorder, then they should not be impeached, or discriminated against.

 

 

If the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office for any reason, the 25th amendment would apply. Mental illness need not enter the discussion.

 

We seem to have come full circle on this topic, this question was essentially the OP in my original thread.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93445-donald-trump/

 

And we don't know the answer yet, since very little has gone through congress.

[Airbrush]

How about becoming disabled by senile dementia? He is 70 and shows lapses from reality routinely. When will it result in severe consequences? Maybe in a year or two, under the severe stress from being president in such a confrontational environment, his lapses from reality could get worse.

[StringJunky]

 

 

If the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office for any reason, the 25th amendment would apply. Mental illness need not enter the discussion.

 

And we don't know the answer yet, since very little has gone through congress.

Is there a precedent set for when the number of executive orders issued is seen as abuse? I mean if all he did was produce these then he'd become an autocrat, wouldn't he?

Edited February 23, 2017 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Doesn't matter if he appears to be autocratic. Only matters whether his orders are constitutional.

[StringJunky]

Doesn't matter if he appears to be autocratic. Only matters whether his orders are constitutional.

So, can he just keep doing them and suffer no consequences, constitutional or not?

[iNow]

If it's not constitutional, the courts will strike it down. That's the check that keeps the balance...

[swansont]

Is there a precedent set for when the number of executive orders issued is seen as abuse? I mean if all he did was produce these then he'd become an autocrat, wouldn't he?

 

 

Not to my knowledge.

 

EOs are somewhat limited in their impact — he ultimately can't contravene established law or constitutional boundaries, which is why the courts were able to quickly reverse the travel ban.

[StringJunky]

 

 

Not to my knowledge.

 

EOs are somewhat limited in their impact — he ultimately can't contravene established law or constitutional boundaries, which is why the courts were able to quickly reverse the travel ban.

So he has no real need for the rest of his Republican kin to support it, or am I wrong? I must admit I'm not looking very closely. Can they bring him to task?

[swansont]

So he has no real need for the rest of his Republican kin to support it, or am I wrong? I must admit I'm not looking very closely. Can they bring him to task?

 

 

They can speak out against him, or vote against his Senate-confirmable appointments, but they can't do anything directly to stop the EOs. All indications are that they won't do anything, at least not yet. Most if not all of what's being implemented is actually GOP-approved, at least in principle.

[Delta1212]

So he has no real need for the rest of his Republican kin to support it, or am I wrong? I must admit I'm not looking very closely. Can they bring him to task?

There is, theoretically, a limited degree of scope to what a president can do with executive orders that relates to his personal domain of authority.

 

The Courts can strike down executive orders that wander outside of this scope of authority, and if Confress really doesn't like a particular order, they can, for the most part, pass a law or laws that override it.

 

Generally speaking, you can think of most executive orders as being like memos that provide operational guidelines for the executive branch of the government. The number of them matters much less than the content, since such changes to operational policy can be either incredibly mundane or have much wider repercussions for the country at large depending on what exactly they are.

[StringJunky]

 

 

They can speak out against him, or vote against his Senate-confirmable appointments, but they can't do anything directly to stop the EOs. All indications are that they won't do anything, at least not yet. Most if not all of what's being implemented is actually GOP-approved, at least in principle.

 

There is, theoretically, a limited degree of scope to what a president can do with executive orders that relates to his personal domain of authority.

 

The Courts can strike down executive orders that wander outside of this scope of authority, and if Confress really doesn't like a particular order, they can, for the most part, pass a law or laws that override it.

 

Generally speaking, you can think of most executive orders as being like memos that provide operational guidelines for the executive branch of the government. The number of them matters much less than the content, since such changes to operational policy can be either incredibly mundane or have much wider repercussions for the country at large depending on what exactly they are.

Thanks for the clarifications.

[iNow]

if Congress really doesn't like a particular order, they can, for the most part, pass a law or laws that override it.

Who would sign them? They're not laws until the President agrees...

(though, if he vetoed, they'd have the option to override)

[Delta1212]

Who would sign them? They're not laws until the President agrees...

(though, if he vetoed, they'd have the option to override)

The point is that they could if they really wanted to, but yes, that is not going to happen without an overwhelmingly opposed Congress dedicated to restricting executive power, which is pretty much the opposite of what we now have.