pardon me?

[Hypoxia]

Issuing a pardon, as Ford did, was well within the president's authority. I believe it was also the right thing to do. Any legal pursuit of Nixon would have served no purpose, and would have been strictly divisive. For the same reason, probably, no legal action has been taken against Hillary and will not be, even though she did break some laws.

I'll repeat: Congress gets to define just what's an impeachable offense. Congress (each individual there) gets to decide just how much shit they want to stir up, whether being divisive or calming or whatever will best serve their interests.

We see Team Tromp now actively engaged in constitutional and criminal violations. Will a Congress that calls him leader impeach and remove him? Will such serve their interests? Yes, Ford's pardon was probably best for the national interest. But if Dums then were as shitheaded as Gups now, he could well have been axed.

 

[Hard_Rom]

So you fill out your own security clearance forms? You don't delegate the responsibility to a secretary who combs your old appointment records and fills out pertinent sections.

"Nah! Don't worry about that. We can just claim you 'forgot' if the fools in congress or the press get wind of it."

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'll repeat: Congress gets to define just what's an impeachable offense. Congress (each individual there) gets to decide just how much shit they want to stir up, whether being divisive or calming or whatever will best serve their interests.

We see Team Tromp now actively engaged in constitutional and criminal violations. Will a Congress that calls him leader impeach and remove him? Will such serve their interests? Yes, Ford's pardon was probably best for the national interest. But if Dums then were as shitheaded as Gups now, he could well have been axed.

I doubt there will be as many Constitutional violations as there were by Obama.

The House is the body that rules whether or not to impeach, but SCOTUS can stop them by saying a specific act does not meet the definition of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." There have been two impeachments in US history. Neither was justified, but there were some grounds for them. So far, I don't believe there are any for Trump, but there may be later.

 

[sr71plt]

I doubt there will be as many Constitutional violations as there were by Obama.

Oh, bullshit. You are such an idiotic tool, Box.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Oh, bullshit. You are such an idiotic tool, Box.

So, what Constitutional violations have there been in the present administration? I strongly doubt the Emoluments Clause objections constitute one. Obama had several violations, such as his change in a law (Obamacare) after it had been passed by Congress and signed into law and his failure to get the approval of the Senate on what, by whatever name, were treaties.

I can probably think of some more.

 

[sr71plt]

Trump tears at the fabric of the Constitution three or four times every day. You are utterly ridiculous in every way, Box.

 

[Hypoxia]

I doubt there will be as many Constitutional violations as there were by Obama.

Sorry, you can't get me to defend Obama; and Whatabout Obama? just won't fly now because he's not in power and Tromp is. Dubya was a habitual constitutional violator but Whatabout Dubya? didn't fly under Obama -- although it should have. The crimes of Dubya's gang have shitslapped USA. Will Tromp exceed their record?

The House is the body that rules whether or not to impeach, but SCOTUS can stop them by saying a specific act does not meet the definition of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Since the Constitution gives SCOTUS no explicit role in the impeachment process, their intervention would constitute overreach -- unless they say otherwise and they can have their ruling enforced. Same as if they order Tromp's removal, or the dissolution of Congress, or any other restructuring.

Or maybe Congress *does* impeach, try, convict, and attempt to remove Tromp -- and he ignores them, or declares a state of emergency and suspends them (and SCOTUS), or just has all 'opponents' liquidated. Mao said, "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." As Commander-In-Chief, Tromp controls the guns. Can we expect a mass mutiny?

Hope for the best but prepare for utter disaster.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

If a president can pardon his or herself, there is no incentive for that president to ever follow the law.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Trump tears at the fabric of the Constitution three or four times every day. You are utterly ridiculous in every way, Box.

So name some already.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sorry, you can't get me to defend Obama; and Whatabout Obama? just won't fly now because he's not in power and Tromp is. Dubya was a habitual constitutional violator but Whatabout Dubya? didn't fly under Obama -- although it should have. The crimes of Dubya's gang have shitslapped USA. Will Tromp exceed their record?

Since the Constitution gives SCOTUS no explicit role in the impeachment process, their intervention would constitute overreach -- unless they say otherwise and they can have their ruling enforced. Same as if they order Tromp's removal, or the dissolution of Congress, or any other restructuring.

Or maybe Congress *does* impeach, try, convict, and attempt to remove Tromp -- and he ignores them, or declares a state of emergency and suspends them (and SCOTUS), or just has all 'opponents' liquidated. Mao said, "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." As Commander-In-Chief, Tromp controls the guns. Can we expect a mass mutiny?

Hope for the best but prepare for utter disaster.

SCOTUS has no specific role, but they do interpret the Constitution. If the House wants to impeach Trump for picking his nose in public, for instance, SCOTUS could certainly step in and stop it by ruling that such an act, although gross, does not constitute "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

.

 

[Hypoxia]

If a president can pardon his or herself, there is no incentive for that president to ever follow the law.

Which would likely provoke a coup. If it succeeds, bad. If it fails, worse. Cf Turkey.

I've mentioned legal points. A pardon is an act of mercy granted to another, not given to one's self. And one may not judge their own case. Will SCOTUS agree?