I’m not purposely trying to be negative, but I do expect the worst from this administration.
If they were able to delete something incriminating and left metadata behind, the GOP would handwave that away and say sure, something was deleted but since there’s nothing there now Ha ha we win! Nothing you can do, get over it!
I do feel that trump is more on the run than he used to be and is probably spiraling down and gradually losing support in the Senate, but it will take A LOT to get them to actually convict if the House impeaches and I’m not counting on anything.
Like what? Afaik, most of what people are worried about already have laws against them or are things within the gaps of the Constitution that are not readily corrected with normal legislation
The Mueller report was frustrating for me. It seemed like so much of it was “well, the Trump people wouldn’t cooperate, so what are we supposed to do?” I guess, give up and let them get away with whatever. :mad:
I have to say, I’m way more hopeful in the last two weeks than I have been since 11/2016. Feels like the tide is turning.
People talk as though Trump-Giuliani releasing the notes on phone call to Ukraine was a stupid blunder. I think it was clever. Had they stone-walled it would have looked like they had something to hide; and they already knew there was a whistle-blower ready to spill. As is, they have “if I did anything wrong why did I release the notes?” Flimsy, but flimsy is plenty enough for Trumpists to rally around.
[quote="JKellyMap, post:1388, topic:840771"]
Again with the false equivalency. You’ve heard this a million times, but here we go with the million-and-first:
1. Blow job
2. Using the foreign policy tools of the US government to force another country (contrary to US interests) to manufacture bullshit for the sole purpose of furthering one’s personal political future.
Not the same.
[/QUOTE]
So you agree? The blow job was far far worse?
I’m not sure, it needs thought but I want actual consequences. Not just Impeachment as a remedy. I want sitting presidents to be indictable. I heard Democrats are drafting all kinds of new laws to address any future Presidents that are corrupt.
And if a president is removed, I want all their benefits for them and their family cut off. It drives me crazy that I will help pay for the protection of this hideous family until they die.
I can’t agree. I do love the principle of “no man is above the law” but, perhaps paradoxically, being able to indict a sitting President subverts democracy. It would essentially be entrusting impeachment to the judicial/law enforcement bureaucracy. To legitimately remove an elected president, it must be a public trial performed by the people’s representatives.
And pettiness is not a way to move forward. If Trump gets killed by some loony after he leaves office because you yoinked his security detail, do you really think that would be a good thing?
The problem with this particular president is that he’s got the base sewn up so tightly (they are Svengalied for whatever reason) that the GOP is afraid to cross him because they will be primaried and lose their seat and power. But the GOP didn’t exactly fully cross Nixon until the incriminating tape came out, so it’s not exactly the first time this has happened. But this is probably the worse it’s ever gotten in terms of a President getting away with a lot of corruption in part because his party won’t stop him, and the Dept of Justice isn’t helping either. So new rules may not really work if people are too afraid to use them properly or the various parties won’t push back or are corrupted as well. Plus, a future Congress could corruptly use those new powers. However, new rules crafted just right might help put up better guardrails for the future. I think an Inspector General for the White House may help whistleblowers alert people to presidential corruption. And Congress needs to put some bite into its subpoena powers that includes arresting people and not waiting for a court to do it (or having a court on standby to order people to be arrested if the reason is important enough)
Also, the various wags keep calling this “Stupid Watergate” and I have to agree as we see things go along. Though really, it’s more like Stupider Watergate, because the core of Watergate was pretty stupid to begin with
I think there need to be more guardrails. I’m not sure what all they should be as I am far from knowledgeable. I don’t know about indicting a sitting president because even though I think trump should be, an adversarial Congress could use that power to remove a president because they don’t like him/her and not because of actual severe corruption or violation of laws. But I don’t think a president should be above the law. Just not sure what to do about that one.
I do suspect there could be other laws that could help. Limiting the term of service for Supreme Court justices and/or requiring the SC to be bipartisan and made up of equal parts conservatives and liberals, maybe rotation of judges from lower federal courts, etc. That way a president can’t get a stranglehold on the court system not only while he/she is in office but for years and years to come.
I actually think one guy from Kentucky (or anywhere) shouldn’t be able to keep a stranglehold on the Senate for so many years. I don’t live in Kentucky so I didn’t elect him, but he controls so much of Congress’ actions that it’s ridiculous IMO.
I think we need to close that loophole about emergency funds.
@Skypist
I don’t think anything you suggested sounds Constitutional. Limited terms is specifically prohibited and there’s no way to compel the President to alternatively appoint liberal and conservative judges. Rotating judges in and out is just an entirely different system.
Term limits for SCOTUS would require an Amendment. Is this feasible? Well, it was one of the centerpieces of the Jeb Bush campaign in 2016…make of that what you will…
Eh, I prefer he got shanked in prison cuz he bragged to the wrong dude, but I see your point.
I see your point on indicting a sitting prez as well.
One thing I’d like to see happen is stopping the appointments to jobs that are supposed to be confirmed by the Senate. I think there are remedies available to stop the flouting of norms by making some of them actual laws.
Yeah there would need to be some amendments and that’s not too likely. Not necessarily would all these suggestions need to be done, maybe just one. Maybe we need a little bit different system. I don’t think the founding fathers foresaw such hyperpartisanship that could break our “norms”. I’m just saying separation of powers that’s supposed to be in place doesn’t work when the current conditions are in place. But yes an amendment would be required for a lot of this.
Congress could revoke the emergency funds loophole without an amendment if they could get their act together.
But I am probably very off topic at this point and definitely not an expert on what I am talking about!
There are undoubtedly some serious reforms that would require no Constitutional tinkering and rein in a President but frankly, they are things that have been abused for awhile so I don’t even really think of them as Trump-solving ideas. First and foremost, the president should be stripped of his ability to wage economic and military action at will. Then, at the very least, we don’t have to worry about the President launching a trade or very real war just to prop up his numbers.
