Hold accountable…or, frame? When Trump are proven wrong, what will you recommend then?
Frame…lol
Ima go out on a limb here, and suggest that when Trump are proven wrong, Trump are getting impeached.
1 Like
Larry Craig? Wait, maybe that was wide principles.
1 Like
Oh please. Being concerned about our country is not “conspiring”. Such hyperbole. And I don’t think the jury ruled on the “duly elected” part.
that’s what voting is for…anything more than that means you believe your will is more important than the will of the people and that my friend…is treasonous.
Not in these dire circumstances. Trump is the traitor and good Americans were being watchful. To see anything else in this illegitimate puppet is delusional.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The defense rests. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^6
I hope this gets investigated, labeled for what it is and punished accordingly.
1 Like
Most likely the lies will win the day. The lies are too many and the liars are too prelific.
Yes they do. That isn’t a “special right” which seems to be a term you just made up.
Is voting against Trump treason?
Did their discussions say THEY would be the ones to invoke the 25th?
No…this is what the discussions were purportedly about.
that they discussed whether to recruit cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office.
And what is the text of 25-4?
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…
Looks like the FBI knew they didn’t have the authority to invoke 25-4.
Some coup…
You are correct. Force is the key. That’s what I was looking for, thanks.
ETA, also a key word in that law is “or”. Conspire to overthrow doesn’t require the use of force in this instance. Talking about the 25th is one thing, but lobbying cabinet members to see if you have the votes for such an act is quite another. I’m wondering where the line is drawn.
1 Like
It would depend if they had the backing of Sessions and/or Coats.
Thank God adults are discussing the reckless words and actions of our President.
1 Like
Did they lobby anyone in the Cabinet? My understanding is that they merely discussed it amongst themselves and it never progressed out of internal discussion.
And even if they did raise the prospect with members of the Cabinet, I don’t see any statutes that would prevent them from such discussions.
Considering they ultimately did nothing, we will never know.
But the idea that merely discussing how to go about invoking 25-4 is “seditious”, “treason” or “a coup” is ludicrous…a complete abuse of the meanings of those words.
They didn’t have the votes, means to me that it progressed out of internal discussion.
I read that as they believed they didn’t have the votes after discussing each Cabinet member. Meaning it never progressed out of internal discussions. But even if it had, and they sat each Cabinet official down and asked them direct, there is no law against that which I am aware of.
Which is why I asked when does simply discussing the 25th cross the line into trying to invoke the 25th? Lobbying for votes? Counting votes? Where do you draw the line when an entity outside the cabinet is pushing the levers?
