Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A majority of "Likely voters" want a special prosecutor to be appointed by new Attorney General William Barr to investigate what appears to have very possibly been an attempted coup against President Trump by members of the DOJ and the FBI, with very active collusion and support by the mass media.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe senior federal law enforcement officials are likely to have broken the law in their discussions in May 2017 to oust Trump, with 37% who say it is Very Likely. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 36% consider that unlikely, with 19% who say it’s Not At All Likely that they broke the law.
Fifty-one percent (51%) think a special prosecutor should be named to investigate the discussions among senior Justice Department and FBI officials in May 2017 to remove the president from office. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree, but 11% are undecided.
Should a special counsel be appointed to investigate evidence of an attempted coup by these people?
Surely the people who supported the special counsel investigation assertions that President Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton without any solid evidence will support this currently proposed special counsel into assertions that are backed by a great deal of evidence. Yes?
The democrats will likely object.
Having reaped the benefit of a weaponized gov. for the last two plus years they want to preserve their gains. More likely to be against receiving the same treatment they dished out.
Thataway...holler SQUIRREL at the top of your lungs.
(Hint) read Section 4 of the 25th Amendment:
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. 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.
It's all about checks and balances, folks. Not even close to a "coup".
The democrats will likely object.
Having reaped the benefit of a weaponized gov. for the last two plus years they want to preserve their gains. More likely to be against receiving they same treatment they dished out.
What difference does it make if they object? It is up to the AG to appoint one if he thinks it is necessary. Rosenstein took that on himself when Sessions recused himself from these matters. Barr will not do that, so it is up to him.
Someone please cite the law(s) that prohibit discussing acting according to an Amendment.
There ain't none.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
