It is a rare case in American politics when both sides of
the aisle are against the same candidate; in the 2016 Presidential election,
this was the case. The nomination of Donald Trump has fractured the party of
Lincoln.
Some party stalwarts rejected Trump after his initial
refusal to denounce former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who had endorsed him
and many had enough after Trump attacked the Hispanic judge, Gonzalo Curiel, who
is presiding over lawsuits against Trump University.
Donald Trump's “alleged” attack on a Gold Star military
family didn’t help either. I think the defining moment that scared Republicans
away from Trump was a leaked "Access Hollywood" tape from 2005, in
which Trump can be heard making vulgar comments about his treatment of women.
But then something happened, something strange. The
Republicans stopped their bickering and decided to support him. The reasons
they gave varied but the main reason was that they supported their “party” but
not necessarily the candidate.
Were the Republicans that disparate to get their party back
in charge? Maybe. It was either endorse Trump or sit through 4 more years of
President Barack Obama’s policies via Hillary Clinton. There were many reasons
to support Trump if you were a Republican, if Trump was elected then the
Supreme Court vacancy would be filled with a right-leaning judge, a 5-4 court.
Plus, the Republicans would have control of both the Senate
and the House, at least for two years at best. They could dismantle President
Barack Obama’s legacy, specifically Obamacare.
But maybe there was another reason to support Trump. Donald
Trump is unpredictable and is considered to many a “loose cannon,” but Vice
President Pence is predictable, he is hawkish and is an evangelical, just far
enough right to please the party. So Trump may have been used as a tool to get
Pence into the White House and ultimately in the seat of the Presidency.
Donald Trump is cozying up to President Vladimir Putin and
wanting to have good relations with the Russia Republic and lift the [Russian]
sanctions. In a joint interview with the Times
of London and the German publication Bild,
Trump said, "They have sanctions against Russia — let's see if we can strike
a few good deals with Russia.”
This in itself would be a threat to NATO, in which Trump
called “obsolete” because it was “designed many, many years ago” and the
American war-machine. NATO needs to have a threat in order to exist and to
manufacture wars, and that threat is Moscow.
Donald Trump (and the Republicans) want to pick apart
Obama’s legacy which consists of a questionable claim that unemployment is at
4.7 percent, at the expense of older Americans; environmental protections at
the expense of coal miners; labor policy; and LGBT rights (transgender
bathrooms?) but more specifically Obamacare. They want to systematically tear
apart anything that has been successful for Obama.
There are two fronts working on removing Trump from office:
The Deep State and Obama. The Deep State wants to remove Trump because if he
thaws relations with Russia, then NATO practically becomes unnecessary. As for
Obama, he wants to keep his legacy intact and will do whatever it takes.
Would impeachment work? Not really. Only two Presidents have
ever been successfully impeached: Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson. These two
presidents went on to finish out their terms and as for Clinton, he became one
of the most popular presidents ever.
Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court
proceedings, which is handled by the lower house of the legislature; trial by
the other house, the upper house is analogous to the trial before judge and
jury in regular courts. As I noted previously, both Johnson and Clinton were
successfully impeached but were unsuccessfully tried.
As for Trump? He thrives on litigation. Litigation is a
Trump hallmark. The aggressive shout “See you in court” is a phrase used in
commercial and other civil litigation in which Donald Trump is a veteran of. So
if Trump was to be successfully impeached, would it be advisable to start court
proceedings?
Trying Trump in court isn’t like trying a regular person.
First, Trump isn’t a regular person and secondly? Unlike others, Trump has the
money (anywhere between $4 billion to $10 billion) to drag his case out until
his term is up. Thirdly, there would be attorney’s knocking down Trump’s door
to represent him and in most cases for free. Defending a sitting President
[successfully] could set a Law Firm up for life. And finally, Trump could use
this to his advantage for reelection. He would spin a story of how the system
is out for him and his supporters.
Outside of ass******tion, how could Trump be removed from
office? Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution is
how Trump could be peacefully (hopefully) removed. It has never been tried so
there is no precedent set as far as how it had been tried in the past.
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
asserts:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of … the principal officers of the executive departments … transmit to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting President.If Pence quietly initiated a 25th Amendment process behind the scenes, are there leaders in the cabinet who might be open to agreeing? Definitely. Remember all the Republicans who spoke out against Trump during the Primaries? What about all the Republicans who were silent and probably didn’t want to vote for Trump but did anyway for the Party?
And would the president pro tempore of the Senate agree to
this. The current president pro tempore is the 83 year-old, seven-term Senator Orrin
Hatch and he campaigned for Trump in his home state of Utah.
I think Trump knows about the 25th Amendment and may believe
that it could be used against him. I say this because Trump encouraged Sen. Hatch
into running for an eighth-term. This would ensure that Sen. Hatch would be the
president pro tempore throughout Trump’s term.
As for the speaker of the House, it is Paul Ryan and we know
how he really feels about Trump. No need to continue.
Congress would need a 2/3 vote in both Houses to keep Pence
over Trump. Here is the explanation:
“If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.”If Pence was to invoke the 25th Amendment and to fail, then it would be political suicide for those, including Pence who voted to remove Trump from office.
But I believe that Pence may be preparing in case he is approached to invoke the 25th Amendment. “The vice president seems to be building on his foreign affairs experience, finding a niche in that arena,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), who served with Pence in Congress. “He brings a level-headed steady hand to the foreign policy of the administration. He’s also building up his own team.”
Inside the White House, Pence is in the room during most of
the president’s interactions with world leaders. He receives the presidential
daily brief. As head of the transition, Pence could be bringing in people who
would support him if the 25th Amendment was to be invoked.
If Impeachment and Section 4 fails, what next? We saw with
the release of “Vault 7” by Wikileaks that the CIA can replicate the fingerprints
of different hackers. But most importantly, we’ve found things revealed in the
‘Year Zero’ Wikileaks drop that the Central Intelligence Agency may be able to hack
vehicles and conduct “undetectable assassinations.”
The related portion of WikiLeaks’ official press release on
the leak reads:
As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the
vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. The purpose of such
control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly
undetectable assassinations.
Remember Michael Hastings? On June 18, 2013, Hastings died
in a single vehicle automobile crash in his Mercedes C250 Coupé. A witness said
the car “seemed to be traveling at maximum speed and was creating sparks and
flames before it fishtailed and crashed into a palm tree.”
Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security,
Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard A. Clarke said that
what is known about the crash is "consistent with a car
cyber-attack". He was quoted as saying "There is reason to believe
that intelligence agencies for major powers — including the United States —
know how to remotely seize control of a car. So if there were a cyber-attack on
[Hastings'] car — and I'm not saying there was, I think whoever did it would
probably get away with it.
With the Justice Department secretly eyeballing AP
reporters’ phone records and the NSA drag netting everyone else’s metadata, it
didn’t seem totally crazy to imagine the government may have been investigating
Hastings.
Ass******tion have changed a lot since John F. Kennedy’s
death. There doesn’t have to be a lone gunman involved anymore, just a few
strokes on a keyboard is all that’s needed today.
# # #
# # #
Like this? Then please subscribe. . . it's FREE! There's no obligation, here's
the link TheNewAmericanStatesman
Supporting this page gets you updates on new articles and it
allows you to register for future give aways for such items as iPads, Google
Gear, Kindles, gift cards, and Fitbits.
You can check out more of my posts at iPatriot, Eagle Rising, or my Facebook page The New American Statesman.
If you enjoyed this post, I’d be very grateful if you’d help
it spread by emailing it to a friend, or sharing it on Twitter or Facebook.
Thank you!