Mon Mar 20, 2017, 04:08 PM
fleur-de-lisa (3,595 posts)
Republicans Close To Trump Say President Is Showing Signs Of Mental Illness
Yeah, I don't want to hear this bullshit . . . I want that traitorous fucker in prison, not in a rubber room. Republicans must be made to OWN this clusterfuck!!!
Republican strategist and MSNBC contributor Nicolle Wallace said that people outside of the administration who have spent time with Trump said that the president is showing signs of paranoia and delusion over his belief that Obama wiretapped him.
Wallace said, “I sense that they have no plans today of walking away from this claim. This is still the president’s belief. Some folks still close to the president, but not on the White House staff said it’s a word I can’t say on family-friendly TV, but the initials are B and S. Another person who spent time with the president this weekend in Florida said it was signs of paranoia and delusion around this idea that he’s so right. Interestingly, he has sought to have people outside the government corroborate this wiretapping claim, which either suggests this observation of paranoia and delusion is in fact operation or extreme ignorance of all the powers at his disposal and all the investigative powers of the federal government.”
These are Republicans close to Trump who claimed that the President Of The United States is paranoid, delusional, and believes that Obama wiretapped him. Wallace’s comments on MSNBC were a statement that the President might be mentally ill.
Before anyone asks, the constitutional standard for the removal of a president contains no discussion of mental fitness. It would be difficult to nearly impossible to remove Trump from office due to mental illness. It would have to be demonstrated that Trump is physically unable to perform the job of president.
6 replies, 1163 views
Republicans Close To Trump Say President Is Showing Signs Of Mental Illness (Original post)
|fun n serious||Mar 20||#5|
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Mon Mar 20, 2017, 04:19 PM
jberryhill (46,295 posts)
1. "It would have to be demonstrated that Trump is physically unable to perform the job of president."
The "Constitutional Standard" is the VP and a majority of the Cabinet, and then a Congressional vote if the president disputes the Cabinet vote. Period.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, 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.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session.
Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)
Mon Mar 20, 2017, 04:25 PM
Girard442 (563 posts)
2. Quite right. They could remove the POTUS because of a sneezing fit if they chose to.
Obviously there would be political fallout but constitutionally it would all be legit.
Response to Girard442 (Reply #2)
Mon Mar 20, 2017, 06:01 PM
jberryhill (46,295 posts)
6. There's this odd notion that people have
People tend to believe there is "someone in charge of things like that".
Like the questions that come up during elections along the lines of "if x is convicted of a crime, aren't they disqualified?" when there is no bar to a convicted felon running for office if he/she wants to, and if people want to vote for him/her.
It's not like there is the "office in charge of making sure crazy people aren't president". It simply comes down to a vote in Congress in the end, and not the pronouncement of some psychologist wearing a badge and a funny hat.
The people "in charge of things like that" are the people we elect to put them in charge of things like that and, ultimately, it is up to voters to elect people who demonstrate some sort of aptitude for the job at hand.
Which is why I never understand the mentality of electing people to government who believe that government is evil and necessarily screws things up. Well, sure, if those are the people you vote for, that's exactly what you'll get.