Robert Reich: Republicans Considering Impeachment of Trump

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Subsonic

That was a hilarious read! That read like some sort of comedy skit.

So if everyone bailed on Trump, that would be grounds for impeachment? Can you confirm this?

HAHAHAHAHA! Good one!

Pence is the only reason he hasn't been taken out by the 25th so far. All other members are in agreement.

LINK

Several months ago, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation, former chief strategist Steve Bannon told Trump that the risk to his presidency wasn’t impeachment, but the 25th Amendment—the provision by which a majority of the Cabinet can vote to remove the president. When Bannon mentioned the 25th Amendment, Trump said, “What’s that?” According to a source, Bannon has told people he thinks Trump has only a 30 percent chance of making it the full term.

Things are pretty bad in the white house. Trump doesn't even know what the 25th amendment is

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: pavil

Nixon was a wack-job, we survived it and Gordon Liddy as well.

The truth is ANYONE as President can make decisions we can't predict. To get our undies all in a bunch because we just recognized this little factoid seems a little silly to me.

The checks and balances WORK and are there for a reason no matter who's in office. No President has ever been able to do what they wanted and despite the Libs having fits it's not going to change.

Checks and balances work to an extent. Trump has done irrepairable harm to the State department, and a few other agencies. However, as far as getting things passed goes, Trump is largely impotent. He mismanaged the executive branch into being the weakest executive in the countries history, and congress is hostile to him.

Unfortunately, he can still provoke world leaders, and he can order nuclear strikes or military action. With the exception of Gorusch, everything he has done so far will be undone days after he leaves office. But that doesn't change the fact, that he spends between 2 and 4 hours a day screaming in the Oval Office at people who aren't even in the room, that he has been isolated by Kelly into being allowed to see very few people, and that he has already been stripped of 80% of his job.'

That's the system at work, minimizing a harmful influence. The only step left is to either weather the storm or to kick him out. And whichever happens is going to depend on how the Mueller situation plays out.

originally posted by: network dude
If you read it closely, he can't do it alone. Which is the point. I don't know if you know who Ronald Reagan was, but in his last 4 years as president, he had dementia and Alzheimers, which degraded him quickly, and was still president. There are fail safes in place to ensure the big red button is respected. It's a good thing we have a system like this. (IMHO)

No, there aren't. Go reread it. There are no (legal) failsafes on a President ordering a nuclear strike. That's by design. If a strike needs to be ordered, the system is designed to carry out that order, not to argue over the merits of it. The only check is by the Secretary of Defense, whose only job in the whole thing is to confirm that the President ordered the strike, not to debate if the order is warranted.

That's why I say we need to revise this policy. It may have made sense during the Cold War where we wanted to maintain the threat of being able to launch a decapitation strike, but given the geopolitics and second/third strike capabilities of nations around the globe, this policy no longer makes sense. We should adopt a no first strike policy so that the US cannot have a President go crazy and order a strike... while maintaining the current system if a counter strike needs to be ordered, so that our ability to deter attacks remains at full strength.

a reply to: Gothmog

Ahh, so you would make a giant power grab and start issuing orders over the fitness of members of Congress, even though that's well outside the scope of your powers.

Good start there.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Does Trump have any support within the GOP ?

Nope, I don't think so. I've always contended that Trump is effectively the first independent to be voted in as president, at least in the modern era. He only ran as a Republican because the system is set up for two parties, so he had to pick one. He has no allies on either side because he doesn't have a side, his views just blow to wherever the wind may take him.

THE RINOs better HURRY they have only a LITTLE time left before MIDTERMS...

a reply to: Subsonic

AS we expected from an outsider,not a lawyer.

yay, more unsubstantiated random quotes people will jump on as being fact.

embarrassing... seriously people... why do you allow yourselves to be taken as such fools!!!

a reply to: Subsonic

Well, they better proceed with their bloodless coup before midterms. Because after that, I'm pretty sure nearly every Republican incumbent will be voted out of office.

Yeah, I think Trump sucks.

But that OP did not read like a real conversation.

It read like one guy's internal musings.

a reply to: network dude

I appreciate the response. I don't think you're exactly correct in believing that the POTUS can't direct a nuclear strike at will. If the SECDEF disagrees then Trump can fire the SECDEF on the spot, then who's to stop POTUS from launching a strike? The under SECDEF?

It seems that Trump can just fire people until they agree with him.

Even the commander of United States Strategic Command (in charge of the US's nuclear arsenal) said just as much in an interview with 60 Minutes, paraphrasing; 'If the President orders the launch, I follow the order.' If anything Trump could just point to any one of the recent AUMF's as a reason to launch just one nuclear weapon against North Korea.

I've tried to get a range of sources for this:

No one can stop President Trump from using nuclear weapons. That’s by design.

Could the secretary of defense refuse to carry out a presidential order for a nuclear attack? The legal and constitutional aspects are not clear. The official doctrine that has been released says nothing about this question, and the cryptic public responses to official inquiries, even from Congress, indicate that it is not something that can be openly talked about. “Only the president can authorize the use of nuclear weapons” is essentially the only reply officials ever give to any questions about nuclear controls. Could the president simply fire the defense secretary and move on to the deputy secretary, the secretary of the Army and so on through the chain of command? Maybe. Such an action would at least slow things down, even if the refusal to carry out the order was illegal. But the secretary may not even be formally required to participate — U.S. Air Force doctrine does not indicate he is a necessary part of the chain of command, and holds that the president can communicate directly with the military, in the form of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to order a nuclear strike.

Can the president launch a nuclear strike on his own?

There are many checks and balances built into the elaborate system to control America's nuclear weapons -- except when it comes to the sole decision-making of the president of the United States.

Can Anyone Stop Trump If He Decides to Start a Nuclear War?

The Madman Theory forced the world to consider a more frightening option: That the man in charge of the nukes might not be rational at all.

If President Trump decided to use nukes, he could do it easily

The president has basically unconstrained authority to use nuclear weapons, a seemingly insane system that flows pretty logically from America’s strategic doctrine on nuclear weapons. The US needs a system to launch weapons fast for deterrence to work properly, which means one person needs to be able to order the use of nukes basically unencumbered. The president is the only possible choice.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
THE RINOs better HURRY they have only a LITTLE time left before MIDTERMS...

If most of the party is "RINOs," I think you have to change your definition of Republican. Because the membership defines the party.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Gothmog

Ahh, so you would make a giant power grab and start issuing orders over the fitness of members of Congress, even though that's well outside the scope of your powers.

Good start there.

Being a US citizen first and foremost , and an informed US citizen at that , I would follow the rule of law. Anyone found unfit to serve would be asked to step down .
Yet , it would not be my determination .
So , what problem do you have with that ?
I think I know...

a reply to: Dudemo5

I thought THAT IDed traditional Republicans?

a reply to: Aazadan

UNTIL a fool proof TEST is devised to find SOCIOPATHS,by scanning ...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Dudemo5

I thought THAT IDed traditional Republicans?

The Republican party platform has changed several times. It's going to change again in the future.

There's really no such thing as a RINO.

a reply to: Dudemo5

...OK ...ALL the people ,IN THE REPUBLICAN party who are active seeking to pursue prior established strategic objectives based on nation building and are actively supporting the Dems in obstruction of the "outsider" by their voting.
NATION BUILDING:
fas.org...

a reply to: Subsonic


Isn't Robert Reich the ABC darling who's even tinier than George Stephenopulosus?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Subsonic


Isn't Robert Reich the ABC darling who's even tinier than George Stephenopulosus?

He is indeed quite a wee man. Wee Little Reichie runs through the town...

a reply to: Subsonic

I am of the opinion this is B.S. Some of these republicans need to go . Deep State