And it never will…there’s this document they call the constitution that has this amendment to it. They call that the 25th amendment and it a outlines legal succession to the presidency when the current president may not be capable or fit to be president. And merely discussing it, is not illegal. Merely discussing wearing a wire is not illegal. So the needle stays where it is.
Huh?
10huh
LOL! We’ve been over this one already.
Yes and Trump has exhibited some of those symptoms which raised concerns that he was senile.
I wish we didn’t have to talk about this.
Is merely discussing a terrorist attack illegal? Is merely planning it illegal? If a person is discovered before they took any action on their discussions should they be charged?
Me I say yes they should be charged with plotting or at the very least sent to a facility that can provide them with the help they need.
Remember they had and have no evidence that they have shown that Trump is in any way unable to preform his duties. In my way of thinking just discussing wearing a wire shows the mind set of the DOJ. And none of the players in these discussions have provided any evidence that Trump had done anything wrong.
This all may well not be illegal but do we want a law enforcement organization deciding without proof that they are above the law and can remove a president that they dislike.
That this was even discussed within the DOJ and FBI should be troubling to everyone. We all should be calling DC and let our congressmen know that this is not right and it should be looked into to see just how far it went and who all the players were.
It is not against the law for them to consider the 25th
What should be the consequence suffered?
1 Like
There’s a constitutional amendment allowing for terrorist attacks?
Wow! I didn’t know this! Can you point it out?
2 Likes
If the 25th Amendment were a terrorist attack (which is illegal), then your analogy would make sense. Because the 25th Amendment is not a terrorist attack, but rather a constitutionally-presribed mechanism for removal of a President, your analogy fails.
You can be “troubled” all you want by this. But we don’t charge people with crimes because we are “troubled” by what they do. We charge crimes based on laws, not feelings.
2 Likes
How can they be acting above the law if what they did wasn’t illegal?
You keep forgetting that they had no proof that Trump was unable to perform his duties.
And the fact that you want to give another agency in the government more power is troubling too. Party before country right.
What power would they have gained?
Where in the 25th does it require proof?
Pence is a Democrat?
That people want to ignore that the 25 amendment was not written for this purpose and that the people who crafted the 25 amendment have stated this is proof that people really don’t care about the constitution. For them this is just pay back.
How did these FBI / DOJ officials garner “more power” through their discussion of approaching cabinet members about the 25th amendment here? Does not the ultimate power remain vested solely in cabinet members and eventually 2/3rds of both houses of Congress, per the 25th Amendment?
I will not speak for another poster, but I think he/she may be saying they acted in bad faith, and this bad faith makes their discussion criminal, because it makes him/her feel “troubled.”
It does not mater that it would be pence as president to most people. Since the night Trump was elected both sides of the aisle have been running around with their hair on fire trying to figure out a way to remove him form office.
What do you think the wire was for?
Could you cite the authors stating what you claim?
Than they should have been doing their job and letting the congress do their job. I will say this again it was not within their power to remove Trump by using the 25 amendment. It is not their job to decide to use the 25 amendment.
It is their job to investigate and report their findings. People can defend this all they want but when something like this happens to a president on the left just let it be known that when this could have been stopped it was not. It was cheered on and defended.
