Reports that Rod Rosenstein Has Verbally Resigned To John Kelly

originally posted by: Grambler
But here is dershowitz saying rosenstein bringing up the 25th should disqualify him from his poistion, and it would have been a crime for them to invoke it.

I agree that is should disqualify him. As to the legality aspect Section 4 has never been invoked, let alone for political purposes instead of health-related.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Sedition or not, Rosenstein should familiarize himself with the "unlawful enemy combatant" designation our CINC is able to assign to significant national security threats

...including the threat of some individual who is not part of the Constitutional process of removing a sitting President attempting to otherwise facilitate that process. I'm sure there is a lawyer on the Government's payroll who could justify just about anything. And unless they plan to start arresting former Presidents, I imagine the precedent set post 9/11 alone gives the President some very powerful and very unaccountable tools for dealing with national security threats

What we need to do is bring back the subversive person act (or was it subversive alien act?)

But by no stretch of the imagination do I believe this massive effort should end at Rosenstein. There are far more subversive and traitorous elements within our precious public Institutions who also need rooted out, exposed very publicly, fired and prosecuted. For those the President can't describe the "cause" in "terminated for cause" he may simply opt to revoke their security clearance (which is entirely above reproach) thus disqualifying them from the job and future clearances. I believe one question on the clearance application is whether or not a clearance has been denied/revoked.

Trump needs to stop slapping these traitors with child gloves. This isn't a game, it is a true fight for the soul of this nation.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Are you messing with me or what?

The 25th amendment doesn’t have to be used but you can “conspire” to use it to overthrow a president. You can conspire to commit a crime but never commit it. Such as conspiracy to commit murder .


There would be no implementation of the 25th amendment whatsoever. One of the legal definitions of conspiracy says “use legal means to obtain a illegal result” ( which debunked your entire argument because the 25th amendment would be legal means)


Which brings me back to my point it would be all about “motive”.


Here I’ll post this again before you ask for it again.

conspiracy
n. when people work together by agreement to commit an illegal act. A conspiracy may exist when the parties use legal means to accomplish an illegal result, or to use illegal means to achieve something that in itself is lawful. To prove a conspiracy those involved must have agreed to the plan before all the actions have been taken, or it is just a series of independent illegal acts. A conspiracy can be criminal for planning and carrying out illegal activities, or give rise to a civil lawsuit for damages by someone injured by the conspiracy. Thus, a scheme by a group of salesmen to sell used automobiles as new, could be prosecuted as a crime of fraud and conspiracy, and also allow a purchaser of an auto to sue for damages for the fraud and conspiracy.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
The 25th amendment doesn’t have to be used but you can “conspire” to use it to overthrow a president.

Using the Constitution is not a 'conspiracy' regardless of how many quotation marks you feel like plopping around the word.

a reply to: [post=23802726]AugustusMasonicus]

Sure thing bub.

a reply to: Fallingdown


You don't need to tell me I'm right, we'll just assume it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Fallingdown


You don't need to tell me I'm right, we'll just assume it.

Lol

It’s not a conspiracy against the 25th amendment it’s conspiracy against the president . The 25th amendment is only the tool or as you confirmed earlier mechanism .


Or is your position that it’s OK to conspire against a sitting president ?

I’m still waiting on Silly to respond concerning our bet.
I said unless Kavanaugh admits to these allegations, he will be confirmed.
She said she’s never lost a bet and she bets he will not be confirmed.
Loser never posts on here again. No new screen names.
Put up or shut up

originally posted by: Fallingdown
It’s not a conspiracy against the 25th amendment it’s conspiracy against the president . The 25th amendment is only the tool or as you confirmed earlier mechanism .

And when it's used to remove the President it cannot be a conspiracy, it's in the Constitution.

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

She lost bets on Hillary's great gambit.
I think she's from the UK, Welsh perhaps.
They still call those people welchers right?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Why not?

By the way you didn’t answer my question. For most people that would show weakness of position. But personally I just think you missed it ......


Or is your position that it’s OK to conspire against a sitting president ?

a reply to: Fallingdown


Isn't it weird that some Democrat came up with the idea of using the 25th Amendment, about 1 week before the "Rosenstein coup" news was published by the New York Times? I wish I could recall which Democrat started the 25th Amendment removal talk.

a reply to: carewemust

Don’t remember the names either. But I’ve heard quite a few Democrats calling for the 25th amendment .

a reply to: shooterbrody

She may be, but she claims to be from North Carolina, or Virginia. I can’t remember which
But me being a conservative I actually value my integrity and will honor the bet if I lose.
We know from her posts and this Kavanaugh circus that integrity and honor mean nothing to her and her kind.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Why not?

Because the Constitution makes no mention of what the rationale should be, only the process. The President can challenge and reason and let the Congress decide.

By the way you didn’t answer my question. For most people that would show weakness of position. But personally I just think you missed it ......


Or is your position that it’s OK to conspire against a sitting president ?

The is such a broad range of potential actions it beggars the quesiton. I already told you I dont think it was in this case, I'm not playing some moronic hypothetical game. Do you think it was alright what Lincoln's Cabinet did to him? Becasue next to Lincoln what may have happened to Trump is amatuer hour.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Why not?

Because the Constitution makes no mention of what the rationale should be, only the process. The President can challenge and reason and let the Congress decide.

By the way you didn’t answer my question. For most people that would show weakness of position. But personally I just think you missed it ......


Or is your position that it’s OK to conspire against a sitting president ?

The is such a broad range of potential actions it beggars the quesiton. I already told you I dont think it was in this case, I'm not playing some moronic hypothetical game. Do you think it was alright what Lincoln's Cabinet did to him? Becasue next to Lincoln what may have happened to Trump is amatuer hour.

Tell me what’s your definition of the word conspiracy how does motive play into it ?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Tell me what’s your definition of the word conspiracy how does motive play into it ?

The one in the dictionary.

I asked you a question.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What specifically happened in Lincoln‘s cabinet ?


By the way here’s your dictionary definition.

Conspiracy
An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.
Conspiracy is governed by statute in federal courts and most state courts. Before its Codification in state and federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was simply an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intent to carry out the act. Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of the agreement.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
What specifically happened in Lincoln‘s cabinet ?

I'm not here to educate you on the topic, you need to do your own research.

By the way here’s your dictionary definition.

That's nice, call me when Cheetolini Swamp Drainer the First has him brought up on conspiracy charges. I mean this is serious stuff, right?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I asked you a question .