Senate The US Politics discussion

Sean Spicer quits White House. (Skynews)

 

That took a bit longer than I expected.

 

Here we go.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40687521

 

Poor Spicey, he died as he lived - mostly surrounded by people who aren't sure why he got the job in the first place.

 

Dippin Dots is behind this.

 

Sean Spicer right now:

 

Huckabee Sanders can handle Trump. Or not.

On another note, Mueller has told the White House to save all documents pertaining to Donny Jr's meeting. We'll see if they listen. Personally, I think the shredding party's already come and gone.

 

Article on the President's pardoning powers: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...68/trump-pardon-power-constitution-preemptive

Pretty scary, he basically has the ability to issue a blanket pardon on anyone and everyone involved in the Russian investigation with no consequences. Congress which is supposed to be a check and balance on the President's powers won't step in so I give this a 100% chance of happening.

 

already a video circulating from two years ago with Trump and Scaramucci calling each other Hacks.

 

The Onion Remembers Press Secretary Sean Spicer: A Valiant Hero In The War Against Journalism

 

I don't think that's true, for reasons I outlined above. As mentioned, anyone he pardons loses their ability to avoid answering questions to a Congressional commitee (and they may still be subpoened). It also carries with it an acceptance of guilt. Pardoning anyone in his administration would not come without consequence.

Also, the more I read, the more I'm convinced that the president does not have the power to pardon himself.

 

The President does not. He is not a Monarch. Presidents are not above the law.

 

From the article: “He can definitely pardon people who haven’t been charged yet,” Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University and author of Constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies, says. “And, contrary to a common misconception, it doesn’t require as a legal matter that he say they are guilty.”

If Congress won't act on what Trump Jr./Kushner et al say during their testimony, who cares what their testimony says even if it's an admission of criminal offences? They've already been pardoned.

 

That's just it-- they've been pardoned. There's no need or reason to avoid answering questions about themselves at that point. They can then implicate anyone who hasn't been pardoned, like the president (who I really don't think can pardon himself).

 

Trump might believe he can though.

 

Right, but a sitting President can't be indicted. The only way to remove him is through impeachment - and there's no way no matter how bad the evidence comes out at those hearings that 2/3 of the Senate will vote to convict him. He may get impeached by the House if the Dems take back the House in 2018, but he'd be acquitted in the Senate.

 

We're probably going to find out one way or another.

 

Am I the only person who thinks Republican congressmen have a bit more spine than people give them credit for?

Maybe this is just coming from wishful thinking on my part, but I can see them impeaching Trump. I definitely think if evidence comes to light Trump's support base could fracture, and Republicans won't be as afraid to get rid of him as they are now.

But, maybe wishful thinking.

 

Maybe. Congress is probably aware they have one shot to bring Trump down and have to carefully choose when to move against him.

 

See,"by and large."

Now, for those who are challenged let me explain that "by and large" does not mean "only." And I'll stand by that statement, as it means "most." But let me clarify, addiction is a mental disorder.

 

This is actually pretty unlikely given the significant overlap of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and mental illness with none of those statistics individually breaking a percentage representation of 40% amongst the homeless population, or at best you're maybe looking at a slim majority under this conveniently generous to your argument scheme of classification.

It also ignores the fact that systemic poverty increases the likelihood of substance abuse patterns developing, rather obviously increases the chances one might end up homeless (I think even you'll agree with that thesis), and makes it more likely that a mental health issue goes untreated which, in turn, can lead the person with the mental health issue to attempt to self-medicate (hence the significant overlap I mentioned earlier). Similarly a person with a lower income who develops a pattern of substance abuse is more likely to incur jail time (which can lead to forfeiture of property to the state, resulting in homelessness, or make it more difficult to find a job in an already precarious financial situation, again, increasing the likelihood of homelessness) or wind up spending enough money on the substance that they can no longer afford a home.

Not really getting this desire to erase the economic element here.