This is the very essence of the difference that should exist between a President and a King. From Federalist 69:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.
The failure of the Republican party to support this kind of check on Presidential power is why we’re having this crisis now.
What they’re doing as a result of constituent pressure is voting ‘no’ on everything. It’s not having a huge impact yet because confirming cabinet appointments only needs 51 votes, and Republicans have that with a few to spare.
The place it’ll be meaningful is on the debt ceiling increase, where it will take Democratic votes to pass it in both houses.
which it will. the impotent party couldn’t even push aside an extremely malnourished fuckface to get into a building.
voting no, lol.
The “malnourished fuckface” was working for Triple Canopy, part of what used to be called Blackwater. Talk is easy. Taking a bullet is not.
yeah? they were going to shoot the entire democratic party?
Which of the elected representatives at the front of that line do you nominate to have taken the bullet since you weren’t there?
all of them