RAW STORY
November 18, 2024
A New York Times columnist was criticized as being naive after he wrote a fact-check claiming recent suggestions Donald Trump might stay in power after his next term as president are impossible.
Writing Monday, Neil Vigdor wrote Trump "cannot run for re-election again," citing constitutionally set two-term limits.
Trump made a comment to the House Republican Conference last week suggesting he would stay in office if they could "figure something out."
His campaign said that the statement was nothing more than "a joke."
However, two former federal prosecutors pointed out that the Times' writer doesn't take into consideration that Trump has violated the Constitution before with no consequences.
Also Read: A mysterious group of Republicans is secretly rewriting the Constitution
"The Constitution also says he requires the 'advise and consent' of the Senate to approve his nominations," said Joyce Vance on Blue Sky.
She was referencing the Trump team teasing that they might push through some Cabinet appointments without Senate confirmation by calling for recess appointments.
Jill Wine-Banks, known for her participation in the legal team that prosecuted the Watergate cases, agreed with Vance, pointing to other times Trump ignored the rules outlined in the Constitution.
"Joyce is right to be skeptical. Criminals find ways around inconvenient laws, and in Trump’s case, the Constitution," Wine-Banks posted on Blue Sky.
"He violated the Emoluments Clause with no consequences," she pointed out. "He’s getting away with violating criminal laws because of SCOTUS. But this is even worse because if he gets away with recess appointments, it destroys the foundation of our democracy."
November 18, 2024
A New York Times columnist was criticized as being naive after he wrote a fact-check claiming recent suggestions Donald Trump might stay in power after his next term as president are impossible.
Writing Monday, Neil Vigdor wrote Trump "cannot run for re-election again," citing constitutionally set two-term limits.
Trump made a comment to the House Republican Conference last week suggesting he would stay in office if they could "figure something out."
His campaign said that the statement was nothing more than "a joke."
However, two former federal prosecutors pointed out that the Times' writer doesn't take into consideration that Trump has violated the Constitution before with no consequences.
Also Read: A mysterious group of Republicans is secretly rewriting the Constitution
"The Constitution also says he requires the 'advise and consent' of the Senate to approve his nominations," said Joyce Vance on Blue Sky.
She was referencing the Trump team teasing that they might push through some Cabinet appointments without Senate confirmation by calling for recess appointments.
Jill Wine-Banks, known for her participation in the legal team that prosecuted the Watergate cases, agreed with Vance, pointing to other times Trump ignored the rules outlined in the Constitution.
"Joyce is right to be skeptical. Criminals find ways around inconvenient laws, and in Trump’s case, the Constitution," Wine-Banks posted on Blue Sky.
"He violated the Emoluments Clause with no consequences," she pointed out. "He’s getting away with violating criminal laws because of SCOTUS. But this is even worse because if he gets away with recess appointments, it destroys the foundation of our democracy."
No comments:
Post a Comment