We need to talk about Donald: cursing and swearing allowed

[Brian Peacock]

One of Donald Trump's closest advisers has warned a bloody civil war would erupt if the US President was impeached.

Roger Stone predicted "an insurrection like you've never seen" if politicians sought to remove the US leader from the White House and claimed any politician who voted to topple him "would be endangering their own life".

Talk of impeachment has endured throughout Mr Trump's presidency amid allegations of collusion between Russia and the billionaire Republican's election campaign....

"Try to impeach him, just try it. You will have a spasm of violence in this country, an insurrection like you’ve never seen. The people will not stand for impeachment. A politician that votes for it would be endangering their own life."

...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 11691.html

[Sean Hayden]

That sounds like a threat.

[Animavore]

Very much so.

[Jason]

The US is on the verge of civil war and I'm not surprised.

[Scot Dutchy]

So due process of the law cant take place?

[Svartalf]

apparently the law has become a joke in the old US of A, the most lawyer ridden place in the world

[Animavore]

McCain's response on Trump's scumbag pardon.

http://reverepress.com/news/mccain-rele ... on-arpaio/

[Brian Peacock]

Donald Trump trampled on the US constitution and rule of law to score a cheap political point with his base when he pardoned former sheriff Joe Arpaio, ex-White House officials argued on Saturday.

Such voices were not alone in speculating that Trump is testing his pardon powers in readiness for the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into his election campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia.

The president spared Arpaio, a loyal supporter and immigration hardliner, possible jail time for wilfully defying a court order to stop racially profiling Latino people in Arizona.

...

Trump previewed the pardon at a raucous campaign-style rally in Phoenix, Arizona, on Tuesday night. He asked the crowd if they liked Arpaio – who styled himself as “America’s toughest sheriff” – and there was a roar of approval. He asserted, without evidence, that the sheriff had been “convicted for doing his job”, an explanation missing from the official statement.

...

Bauer, a professor at New York University School of Law, added: “It all seems to come down to that: Trump disrupted the operation of the criminal justice process to score a political point, and he believes that the ‘complete power to pardon’ gives him all the space he needs for this maneuver and requires of him only the most pro forma, meaningless explanation of his action.

“He has managed, however, to make a very clear statement about the ‘rule of law’ in his government, and he has miscalculated if he somewhat imagines that it will not come back to haunt him.”

...

Other analysts agreed that the timing was suspicious. Richard Painter, former White House ethics lawyer for president George W Bush, told the Guardian: “It was not done in the normal way where you have pardons done by the Department of Justice and then recommendations made to the president.

“It was done for political reasons and it is no coincidence that it was done on the same day as the firing of Sebastian Gorka. The problem is the ‘alt-right’, who are obsessed with ethnic supremacy and need something else to distract them, so they threw the pardon for Sheriff Joe into the mix. It certainly wasn’t appropriate.”

Painter added: “I don’t think the pardon will be challenged but we have potentially serious constitutional issues with President Trump. If he tries to use pardons with the Russia investigation, potentially pardoning members of his own family, there will be a ruckus.”...

...

Martin Redish, a professor of constitutional law at Northwestern University, suggested that this takes Trump into unchartered territory and could leave him vulnerable to a unique legal challenge.

“Should the president indicate that he does not think Mr Arpaio should be punished for that, he would signal that governmental agents who violate judicial injunctions are likely to be pardoned, even though their behavior violated constitutional rights, when their illegal actions are consistent with presidential policies,” Redish wrote in the New York Times, before the pardon was announced.

“Many legal scholars argue that the only possible redress is impeachment – itself a politicized, drawn-out process. But there may be another route. If the pardon is challenged in court, we may discover that there are, in fact, limits to the president’s pardon power after all.”...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... _clipboard

[Feck]

Gorka is gone I can't keep up .
How long can this toxic man stay President ?

[pErvinalia]

The US is on the verge of civil war and I'm not surprised.

Hang on, weren't you just telling us that the loony right is only 0.02%?

[Tero]

Media can't turn off Trump
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... mp-w499649
because he is the best thing that happened to them in a long time.

[Animavore]

If anything, Trump proves that JFK conspiracy theorists are full of shit. They believe that "they" shot JFK because he was shaking things up. That the "powers that be" had him killed because he was a threat to their power structure.

Where are "they" now?

[Animavore]

I just saw this and realised it hasn't been updated in a while.

[Animavore]

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... io-arizona

[Hermit]

I just saw this and realised it hasn't been updated in a while.

On the contrary. It gets updated daily.