Trump publicly admits he fired White House official as retaliation for impeachment testimony

Can you imagine what kind of post apocalypse **** hole the USA would be after 40 years of Trump rule?

 

We have been overr this time and time again.
.
Even if all of that were to happen he would not be president until things wind through court, Nancy Pelosi would be the defacto president in this case.

You are pretty much wrong about everything.

 

In the scenario presented before Pelosi would be the defacto president.

 

We would all be living in Kansas.

 

Why the nasty tone? I don’t think its a bad idea to at least test out and understand the process. It helps calm the waves to dissect the processes for what comes next. The scoffing tone especially coming from someone on the left is not helpful. I expect it from a Trumper.

I absolutely think it’s also a process that the Dem candidates are not prepared for because they are afraid of seeming conspiratorial. It’s not imo. If you think Trump won’t try something in Dec-January after a loss, you just haven’t been paying attention.

Also the POTUS is the POTUS when they are sworn in from the Chief Justice. Pelosi doesn’t become defacto anything unless Roberts swears her in. I can’t see a ruling that gives validity in the end, but I could see Roberts allowing a stay that keeps Trump in power post inauguration.

Sorry for soaking up your time by going over this “time and time again” as you say but I have yet to see any real answers to this problem. What you imply as to Pelosi just taking power isn’t supported by anything I see in the constitution. The one area I see that is clear in the constitution is that the swearing in by the Chief Justice is what the infrastructure of the government recognizes as the official transition of power.

 

Nasty tone?

I don't see where I was nasty and you are wrong about most of those things.

How do you see Trump stopping Roberts from swearing the elected president in?

I certainly cannot be done by an EO and yes if things are tied up in court past inauguration Pelosi is the president I have posted that before.

I don't care what Trump tries he does not have the power or mechanism to just stay as president after the election if he does not win.

Please show me where you are getting your info?

 

Maybe it's just lost in the lack of nuance that typed posts have. Whatever... it is what it is with your tone I'm picking up.

Reg your q- I don't see Trump stopping Roberts. I see Roberts taking up the case against the EO that Trump issues, I see the DOJ bending over backwards to justify Trump's claims for issuing the EO, and I see Roberts bending over backwards to give the EO the benefit of the doubt that his Executive Order has a basis for being recognized as legitimate & constitutional. Sorry but I just haven't seen any evidence that Bill Barr, the Senate, and ultimately John Roberts are trusted guardians of the backbone of the constitution IF... the laws & the executive power laid out in the constitution can be stretched or bent to interpretation.

I do see Roberts as someone who cares about stability & credibility of the courts & the rule of law, but not someone who won't give Trump the benefit of the doubt IF the laws stated in the EO are credibly crafted by the White House counsel. I just don't think Roberts sees himself as that kind of Chief Justice. He sees himself as someone who is more of a guide through the roadblocks of law rather than a Shepard who keeps the flock in order. I absolutely think the White House counsel can draft an Executive Order that has some sort of national security legal basis that the Supreme Court will give credibility to.

Where I'm at a loss is what happens from there. Can the White House and the DOJ create enough of a case to get the Supreme Court to issue a recount in several states? That worked out well for George W. prior. Could the Supreme Court order a re-election?.... based on what I know about the constitution, it certainly seems like they have the power to do so. In that case, all bets are off in terms of the vote results on a re-count or re-vote.

I mean you guys act like this has never happened before. Bush v. Gore wasn't some distant memory from when we were still ruled by King George.

Article II of the Constitution of the United States. This is where the idea of the "Executive Order" originates. Republicans obviously have a broad interpretation, and really the courts in the past only see Executive Orders as illegal if they violate law. So in order to Trump not to be able to get the Courts to uphold an Executive Order in regards to a "National Security Issue that calls for a recount or revote of 2020" would be if Congress passes a veto proof law that clearly states that the President is not allowed to issue this EO, and it is law that the results of November 2020 are final, or not allowed to be checked by the Executive Branch.

The Congress can absolutely over rule Trumps EO, and then Chief Justice Roberts would obey that law and swear in newly elected President in 2021.

However I have NO faith in the Senate to do this, and I have no faith in John Roberts to not give credence to a Trump EO on the election IF Congress does not pass a bill into law that overrules the EO.

 

It was already trending downward before Trump... and will do so after. Started under Bush but certainly wasn't helped by a lazy ass Clinton admin.

 

I am not trying to be mean but those questions can be answered with a little research.

The states themselves have to want to do a recount, Trump can't just tell the SC to to issue a recount, him nor the SC have that power.

What do you think happened in Bush vs Gore?

 

There is a special place in hell for this man

 

Trump’s got something juicy on him...something so bad that Lindsey basically has Trump’s hand up his butt at this point, spouting off whatever nonsense that Trump wants him to. Got to be so bad that Lindsey can’t even retire and quietly walk away in shame because Trump won’t let him.

Nobody switches on a dime like he did without being blackmailed.

 

You guys are crazy with this kinda talk .... This isn't some 3rd world sh!thole , this is America.

 

Was Bush v Gore not a Supreme Court decision? You said the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to issue a recount but in Bush v Gore it was the SCOTUS that issued a halt on the recount which resulted in Bush winning the presidency.

You say “answered with little research” but then seem to have very little understanding of a major case involving the Supreme Court being involved in a presidential election case. A lawsuit was filed, it went up to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS made a ruling that the state followed.

You do make a good point about the state attorney generals involvement in a presidential election contest. What state the Trump admin claims malfeasance in will be a huge factor. The Dems winning the AG in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota might be a saving grace in the fight to avoid a contest.

 

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Instead of explaining and talking through the process of election contests, people like you just say you are crazy and scoff.

The purpose of my posts is the need to pressure test the electoral contest process. It is dangerous to NOT take Trump, Barr, McConnell, etc. seriously at their ability to successfully contest a close election in Trumps favor.

 

You were insinuating that Chief Justice Roberts would be complicit .... That's crazy.


Look , without question , if Trump loses the election , he's gone. If he wins , he's gone after that second term - No doubt about it.

Congress might have looked the other way over his misdeeds with regard to Ukraine .... but they wouldn't sit by and let the things you guys are talking about go down. King Trump is a joke of epic proportions.


I saw a spot on CNN a couple weeks ago where they were saying Trump was going to invalidate all the votes in the entire state of California .... All I can do is laugh.


You guys have really bought into the leftwing media's scare tactics that Trump is so dangerous that he can destroy our entire system of government.

 

Okay so you think Mitch McConnell will do the right thing in a contested election to strike down an executive order and you think I’m the crazy one.

I never said Roberts would help rig the election in Trumps benefit. I said if Trumps White House counsel could provide a legitimate case to argue for a contest, Roberts would give them the benefit of the doubt if the White House counsel has a constitutional argument. The history of this Supreme Court is pretty clear they’ll give them the benefit of the doubt as long as there is an articulate constitutional reason.

Your dismissal of the Republicans ability to contest a close election is what is crazy to me.

 

They cant contest the validity of an election , at worst they can demand a recount in area's where its close and we saw that happen a few years back in Florida.

Trump cant issue an EO on election results.

 

You claimed that Trump could ask the SC to do a recount which they cannot.

The decision of the SC was 7-2 it was not along party lines.

My point was that Trump can't order anybody to do anything to stop an elected candidate from taking office.

 

Dark Pac money in the billions.

They're all high class hoes, just uglier and supposedly more respectable

 

Which SC decision are you referring to?

Bush V. Gore was decided 5 - 4. It was definitely along party lines. If you referring to one of the decisions leading up to that or something else I apologize. I realize I'm butting into a conversation. I just wanted to clarify the Bush V. Gore decision was 5 against 4.