President Trump Fires James Comey

a reply to: face23785

Yes given the context of the conversation - Trump using an EO to extend his term - what you are talking about is not relevant to that conversation.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: face23785

Perhaps he's going to sign an executive order declaring that it's a permanent position. And then Vlad can move some stuff into the East Wing

And what are the possibilities of this happening?

Zero, since that can't be changed by an executive order.

Exactly. The original poster was postulating that could happen, when of course it can't.

Dont tell him that...

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: face23785

Perhaps he's going to sign an executive order declaring that it's a permanent position. And then Vlad can move some stuff into the East Wing

And what are the possibilities of this happening?

Zero, since that can't be changed by an executive order.

Exactly. The original poster was postulating that could happen, when of course it can't.

Yeah THAT can't happen, but he could still serve 10 years, via the scenario I outlined further up on this page. No matter how you guys try to spin it, as of right now, he could still potentially serve 10 years. That is a fact, it isn't a matter of your opinion, or sematics, or anything else.

Meanwhile (whilst you're all going "Trayy yeah" Tray no" )

Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had wanted a heads-up from Comey about what he would say at a May 3 hearing about his handling of an investigation into former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

When Comey refused, Trump and his aides considered that an act of insubordination and it was one of the catalysts to Trump’s decision this week to fire the FBI director, the officials said.

Reuters

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

Yes given the context of the conversation - Trump using an EO to extend his term - what you are talking about is not relevant to that conversation.

What I was talking about was someone identified 8 years as THE maximum amount of time Trump could serve as President. I've explained how that's incorrect. Some people just can't admit when they were wrong. I suggest some serious growing up. It's only an internet forum. It'll be ok.

a reply to: Damiel

Its a valid request since Comey, as FBI director, would fall under the executive privilege clause. However his termination was for more than just that. It looks like media is trolling in hopes of catching something else.

a reply to: face23785

What was the reasoning for the two term limit being imposed?

a reply to: face23785

and again given the context of the conversation, using an EO to extend his term, your info had no bearing on the conversation, since Trump cant extend his term in that manner. And again the max is 8 years as the rule and not your exception.

where is the Hillster at today?


No comments from her?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: face23785

What was the reasoning for the two term limit being imposed?

It was a reaction to FDR serving 3 terms (22 amendment). If you didnt want me to answer my bad.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

and again given the context of the conversation, using an EO to extend his term, your info had no bearing on the conversation, since Trump cant extend his term in that manner. And again the max is 8 years as the rule and not your exception.

It had bearing in that 10 years is the maximum he can serve and suggesting he can only serve 8 is incorrect. Sorry. Maybe you'll learn to accept it someday. The amount of dancing around you've done to avoid just being mature and saying yeah I forgot about that is astounding.

originally posted by: RickinVa
where is the Hillster at today?


No comments from her?

She is most likely heeding her lawyers advice to keep her mouth shut now that Comey is gone.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: face23785

What was the reasoning for the two term limit being imposed?

It was a reaction to FDR serving 3 terms (22 amendment). If you didnt want me to answer my bad.

Yeah leave it to a Democrat to ruin everything.

Those ballyhooed grand jury subpoena are for financial records and are nothing more than fishing expedition.

Love how you guys make out like it's some kind of criminal indictment.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Malfoy!...That's who Trey Gowdy looks like! Malfoy from Harry Potter..

What a dufus..

originally posted by: Phoenix
Those ballyhooed grand jury subpoena are for financial records

Ya...Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas..meh..No big deal..Circular file them along with the junk mail..

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Phoenix
Those ballyhooed grand jury subpoena are for financial records

Ya...Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas..meh..No big deal..Circular file them along with the junk mail..

They really aren't. When the case is brought before a GJ, then it is.

I will give you this however, the fact that he is being subpoenaed for anything means they think they can or are being forced to investigate.

Indictments are when its serious as I'm sure you know.

a reply to: face23785

If you read the 25th amendment the Vice President who assumes the Presidency has the title "acting President". Upon becoming acting President he does NOT take the oath of office to become "President". He merely holds the powers of the office.

So, again, 8 years max as President.

Acting President

Article I section 3 and Article II section 3 spell out succession and acting President. The 25th amendment clarified the line of succession even further, including acting president.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Phoenix
Those ballyhooed grand jury subpoena are for financial records

Ya...Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas..meh..No big deal..Circular file them along with the junk mail..

Federal Grand Jury subpoenas are like any other subpoena issued by a court with the exception they cannot be challenged (with very few, specific exceptions).

Unless you want to walk your way into a material witness warrant (as a subpoenaed witness).

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

If you read the 25th amendment the Vice President who assumes the Presidency has the title "acting President". Upon becoming acting President he does NOT take the oath of office to become "President". He merely holds the powers of the office.

So, again, 8 years max as President.

Acting President

Article I section 3 and Article II section 3 spell out succession and acting President. The 25th amendment clarified the line of succession even further, including acting president.

Lol and you accuse me of semantics. He is in effect the President, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities thereof. Yes you are correct technically he's not called the President for 10 years, but he still serves in the position for 10 years. Obviously the intent of the law is that he's the President, otherwise if he served 3 years as "acting President" it wouldn't render him ineligible to seek 2 full terms as "President" afterwards. But again, cool use of semantics. Anyway:

This was the original post:

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Now. The man has been given a chance. He doesn't know what he's doing.
How long do we wait?

I think it's a four year term in America?

That's a max first term. The absolute max is eight. At least it used to be. Perhaps he's going to sign an executive order declaring that it's a permanent position. And then Vlad can move some stuff into the East Wing (since Melania is kinda not so keen....or wait - maybe if Puti were there, she'd be more inclined to go to work as First Lady! Is there a Mrs Puti? Cause, she's totally his type, I bet. Those Eastern European eyes.....

anyway, I wax poetic) back on topic......

He can be removed very quickly. That is built into the constitution. Amendment 20-something about a president's disability preventing him from serving. He's proving it for us before we get on that, though.

Just so we all understand what we are looking at. Don't bang on the glass, though, it bothers him.

If you wanna talk context, I think it's safe to say the context this poster was getting at was something along the lines of "thank god the max we'd have to deal with this guy is 8 years", so my correction that it's actually 10 is still relevant in context. It's a shame, because you normally post quite intelligently, and I actually find myself starring many of your posts. You're out of left field on this one though. Just admit you were wrong. You were. Spinning about context when you were still wrong in context and made statements that are obviously factually incorrect, it's just embarrassing.