Wie kann Trump als US-Präsident legal entfernt werden?

Überlegungen von Demokraten und einigen Republikanern, wie man Trump von der Macht entfernen könnte, ohne ihn zu töten. Allerdings kann sih der Präsident wehren und die Entfernung aus dem Amt ist nur möglich, wenn Zweidrittel des Kongresses für  die Machtübertragung an den Vizepräsidenten zustimmt.

Das wäre eine Form der „sanften Palastrevolte“.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-19/democrats-go-there-invoke-25th-amendment-unless-trump-gets-grip

After questioning President Trump’s sanity earlier in the week, it appears Democrats have found another narrative to cling to – invoke the 25th Amendment unless Trump „gets a grip.“

With a growing number of Democrats openly questioning President Trump’s mental health.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) in a floor speech this week called for a review of the Constitution’s procedures for removing a president. He warned the 25th Amendment of the Constitution falls short when it comes to mental or emotional fitness for office.

 

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) during a weekend interview with CNN’s “State of the Union” said that “a few” Republican colleagues have expressed concern to him about Trump’s mental health.

 

 

And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) plans to introduce legislation that would require the presence of a psychiatrist or psychologist in the White House.

Justifying their questions by pointing to Trump’s habit of making demonstrably false claims.

“It’s not normal behavior. I don’t know anybody in a position of responsibility that doesn’t know if they’re being rained on. And nobody I work with serially offers up verifiably false statements on an ongoing basis,”

And now that narrative has grown louder as CNN’s State of The Union just discussed invoking the 25th Amendment unless President Trump „gets a grip“

http://fave.api.cnn.io/v1/fav/?video=politics/2017/02/19/sotu-panel-part-2.cnn&customer=cnn&edition=domestic&env=prod

In fact, The Atlantic’s David Frum joked after the election, “Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Article 4. We’re all going to be talking a lot more about it in the months ahead.”

So, what’s Article 4 to the 25th Amendment? In the abstract, the amendment itself is about presidential succession, and includes language about the power of the office when a president is incapacitated. But Digby recently highlighted the specific text of growing relevance:

“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.”

What does that mean exactly?

Well, it means Congress isn’t the only institution that can remove a president from office between elections. Under the 25th Amendment, a sitting vice president and a majority of the executive branch’s cabinet could, on their own, agree to transfer power out of the hands of a sitting president. At that point, those officials would notify Congress, and the vice president would assume the office as the acting president.

And what if the challenged president wasn’t on board with the plan to remove him/her from the office? According to a recent explainer, “If the president wants to dispute this move, he can, but then it would be up to Congress to settle the matter with a vote. A two-thirds majority in both houses would be necessary to keep the vice president in charge. If that threshold isn’t reached, the president would regain his powers.” All of this comes up in fiction from time to time, and in all likelihood, Americans will probably never see this political crisis play out in real life. And that’s probably a good thing: by all appearances, the intended purpose of the constitutional provision was to address a president with a serious ailment – say, a stroke, for example – in which he or she is alive, but unable to fulfill the duties of the office.

In other words, for the first time, the concept of a „soft palace coup“ has been officially brought up on public media; we expect such speculation will only get louder.

The ball is now in Trump’s court.

Advertisements

Goldman Sachs hat auch Trumps Kabinett gekapert

Alles verbale Schiessen von Trump gegen Clinton und Obama, dass sie mit Goldman Sachs bzw. der Wall Street eng verbunden sind, zeigt sich nun als Illusion, wenn Trump selbst die besten Verbindungen zu Goldman Sachs hat und deren Leute als Berater und Finanzminister in die Regierung holt.

Wie ein richtiger Banker sicherte sich Goldman Sachs beide Wahlausgänge und in Anbetracht der Wichtigkeit von Einfluss und Gewinn der Bank in den folgenden Jahren unter einer neuen Regierung ist die Investition in die demokratische und republikanische Seite vor den Wahlen vernachlässigbar.

Actually, Goldman Sachs ‘Hacked’ the Presidential Election

January 13, 2017   |   Carey Wedler

(ANTIMEDIA) As the media continues to parrot American intelligence agencies’ as-of-yet unsubstantiated claims that Russia hacked the U.S. election, there is far more evidence to implicate an equally dangerous infiltrator: Goldman Sachs.

The infamous banking company, which was widely implicated in the 2008 economic crash, appears to have come out on top in the most recent U.S. presidential election.

On one hand, Goldman Sachs was hedging its bets on a Hillary Clinton victory. Considering the banking monolith was one of her top donors — and that she received harsh criticism for accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from the firm — it’s clear the powerful financiers had every intent of influencing the election and politics in general.

When Clinton lost, many Americans celebrated the electoral rebuke of policies past. In contrast to many politicians, Trump aggressively criticized Goldman Sachs on the campaign trail, scolding Clinton for her ties to the company. He also criticized Ted Cruz because his wife worked for Goldman Sachs and because he received loans from the bank. By electing Trump, according to some narratives, the people rejected candidates funded by special interests in direct defiance of the established order.

“I know the guys at Goldman Sachs,” Trump said last February. “They have total, total control over [Cruz]. Just like they have total control over Hillary Clinton,” he claimed, referencing the funding Clinton and Cruz received.

But as much as Trump’s rhetoric reflected the sentiments of millions of Americans  — and though he refused donations from bankers — his actions since clinching the role of commander-in-chief have betrayed his initial position. In fact, before he even won the presidency, Trump was employing Steven Mnunchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive, as his campaign finance chairman.

Trump rewarded Mnunchin for his campaign efforts by nominating him for the position of treasury secretary. But one affiliation with a former Goldman Sachs employee admittedly does not mean Trump is siding with corporate banking interests.

Appointing several Goldman Sachs employees, however, begins to cast doubt on his priorities. This week, the President-elect added two more former Goldman Sachs employees to his administration. His top donor, Anthony Scaramucci, is a former Goldman employee who will now serve as a senior White House advisor. Dina Habib Powell, who heads “charitable efforts” for the firm, will be a “senior counselor for economic initiatives.” She previously worked in the Bush administration.

But there’s more. As the New York Daily News summarized:

They’ll join White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon…National Economic Council Chairman-appointee Gary Cohn and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman nominee Jay Clayton as top Trump appointees who held senior Goldman positions.

Cohn, a registered Democrat, is particularly worrisome considering he still works as Goldman Sachs’ COO (Chief Operating Officer), a top position.

Regardless of who won the 2016 election, apparently, Goldman Sachs has retained its influence — just as it did throughout the Obama administration, demonstrating the financial giant ‘hacked’ not just the 2016 election, but also the 2012 and 2008 elections, as well as others before.

Goldman Sachs employees were top donors to Barack Obama in 2008 and also contributed to his campaign in 2012. John McCain and Mitt Romney also received funding from the company.

Once elected in 2008, Obama lined his cabinet with former employees of major banking firms who cashed in on government bailouts and donated to his campaign. For example, Rahm Emanuel, who served as his chief of staff from 2008 to 2010 before successfully running for mayor in Chicago, had previously been on Goldman Sachs payroll, both during his time in the Clinton administration and when he was an elected congressman.

Obama’s administration failed to produce any significant prosecutions for the 2008 crisis and, incidentally, between 2009 to 2012, 95% of income gains went to the top 1 percent of Americans.

Though some Trump supporters might espouse argument that Trump needs experts in business and industry to truly effect change and beat back government corruption, Barack Obama already took that approach — and it failed.

Goldman Sachs leaves nothing to chance. Its employees and political action committee donate not only to presidential candidates but also to individual lawmakers and both the Republican and Democratic national committees. Former Goldman Sachs employees make up four of twelve Federal Reserve board chairman.

Considering Trump’s slew of Goldman Sachs appointments, it’s likely this established order will continue to prevail despite the President-elect’s vows to drain the swamp.

As Trump’s pick for treasury secretary, Steven Mnunchin, said last May:

I wouldn’t in any way say I distanced myself from Wall Street. I have very good friends on Wall Street.


This article (Actually, Goldman Sachs ‘Hacked’ the Presidential Election) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Carey Wedler and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

Bann von Bargeld im Schatten des Aufruhr über den zeitweiligen Einreisebann von Bürgern aus 7 Staaten, gegen 5 von denen die USA aktuell Krieg führt

Das Ziel ist die bargeldlose Gesellschaft und in vielen Teilen der Welt wird stetig daran gearbeitet, dieses Ziel zu erreichen.

Offizielle begründung: Grosse bargeldbeträge können von Terroristen, Schmugglern, Dealern und Kriminellen benutzt werden für ihre unlauteren Taten.

Leider stimmt das nicht, denn diese Leute operieren problemlos auch in Staaten, in denen wertloses Bargeld existiert bzw. bereits grössere Scheine bereits aus dem Bargeldzahlungsverkehr gezogen sind.

Was könnte sonst der Grund sein?

Die Abhängigkeit und Kontrolle der Bevölkerung von den Zahlungsinstituten und über entsprechende Gesetze auch von der staatlichen Kontrolle und Überwachung. Steuern lassen sich problemlos einziehen, Rettungsaktionen für Banken z.B. ohne Probleme finanzieren.

Die Kriminalität läuft dann wie heute bereits über andere Kanäle bzw. ist von staatlichen Institutionen gebilligt (Geheimdienste finanzieren ihre Missionen u.a. durch schwarze Kassen, die sie über Waffen und Drogenhandel füllen. Diee Krominalität ist also Teil des Staates und wird nicht verschwinden, wie es offiziell gesagt wird.)

 

Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Most of the world is in an uproar right now over the travel ban that Donald Trump hastily imposed late last week on citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries.

But there was another ban that was quietly proposed last week, and this one has far wider implications: a ban on cash.

The European Union’s primary executive authority, known as the European Commission, issued a “Road Map” last week to initiate continent-wide legislation against cash.

There are already a number of anti-cash legislative measures that have been passed in individual European member states.

In France, for example, it’s illegal to make purchases of more than 1,000 euros in cash.

And any cash deposit or withdrawal to/from a French bank account exceeding 10,000 euros within a single month must be reported to the authorities.

Italy banned cash payments above 1,000 euros back in 2011; Spain has banned cash payments in excess of 2,500 euros.

And the European Central Bank announced last year that it would stop production of 500-euro notes, which will eventually phase them out altogether.

But apparently these disparate rules don’t go far enough.

According to the Commission, the presence of cash controls in some EU countries, coupled with the lack of cash controls in other EU countries, creates loopholes for criminals and terrorists.

So that’s why the European Commission is now working to standardize a ban on cash, or at least implement severe restrictions and reporting, across the entire EU.

The Commission’s roadmap indicates that forthcoming legislation, likely to be enacted next year.

This is happening. And it may serve as the perfect case study for the rest of the world.

A growing bandwagon of academics and policy makers in other countries, including the United States, UK, Australia, etc. has been calling for prohibitions against cash.

It’s always the same song: cash is a tool for criminals and terrorists.

Harvard economist Ken Rogoff is a leading voice in the War on Cash; his new book The Curse of Cash claims that physical currency makes the world less safe.

Rogoff further states “all that cash” is being used for “tax evasion, corruption, terrorism, the drug trade, human trafficking. . .”

Wow. Sounds pretty grim.

Apparently pulling out a $5 bill to tip your valet makes you a member of ISIS now.

Of course, this is total nonsense.

A recent Gallup poll from last year shows that a healthy 24% of Americans still use cash to make all or most of their purchases, compared to the other options like debit cards, credit cards, checks, bank transfers, PayPal, etc.

And the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco released a ton of data late last year showing that:

  • 52% of grocery purchases, along with personal care products, are made in cash
  • 62% of purchases up to $10 are made in cash
  • But even at much higher amounts over $100, nearly 1 in 5 purchases are still made using physical cash

This doesn’t sound life nefarious criminal activity to me.

It seems that perfectly normal, law-abiding citizens still use cash on a regular basis.

But that doesn’t seem to matter.

A bunch of university professors who have probably never been within 1,000 miles of ISIS think that a ban on cash would make us all safer from terrorists.

You probably recall the horrible Christmas attack in Berlin last month in which a Tunisian man drove a truck through a crowded pedestrian mall, killing 12 people.

Well, the attacker was found with 1,000 euros in cash.

The logic, therefore, is to ban cash.

I’m sure he was also found wearing pants. Perhaps we should ban those too.

This idea that criminals and terrorists only deal in bricks of cash is a pathetic fantasy regurgitated by the serially uninformed.

I learned this first hand, years ago, when I was an intelligence officer in the Middle East: criminals and terrorists don’t need to rely on cash.

The 9/11 attackers spent months living in the United States, and they routinely used bank accounts, credit cards, and traveler’s checks to finance themselves.

And both criminal organizations and terrorist networks have access to a multitude of funding options from legitimate businesses and charities, along with access to a highly developed internal system of credit.

A cash ban wouldn’t have prevented 9/11, nor would it have prevented the Berlin Christmas attack.

What cash controls do affect, however, are the financial options of law-abiding people.

These policymakers and academics acknowledge that banning cash would reduce consumers’ financial privacy. And that’s true.

But they’re totally missing the point. Cash isn’t about privacy.

It’s one of the only remaining options in a financial system that has gone totally crazy.

Especially in Europe, where interest rates are negative and many banks are on the verge of collapse, cash is a protective shelter in a storm of chaos.

Think about it: every time you make a deposit at your bank, that savings no longer belongs to you. It’s now the bank’s money. It’s their asset, not yours.

You become an unsecured creditor of the bank with nothing more than a claim on their balance sheet, beholden to all the stupidity and shenanigans that they have a history of perpetrating.

Banks never miss an opportunity to prove to the rest of the world that they do not deserve the trust that we place in them.

And for now, anyone who wishes to divorce themselves from these consequences can simply withdraw a portion of their savings and hold cash.

Cash means there is no middleman standing between you and your savings.

Banning it, for any reason, destroys this option and subjects every consumer to the whims of a financial system that is stacked against us.