Serious questions for the lawyers and scholars:

Which aspects of the government derive their authority from the chief executive? if he is found to be illegitimate, wouldn't they also be illegitimate?

Is following an order from an illegitimate chief executive, or an element of the government that derives it's legitimacy from the chief executive, itself an illegal act?

After all, "just following orders" is not an acceptable defense.

"...Naïve, harmless people usually guide their perceptions and actions with a few simple axioms: people are basically good; no one really wants to hurt anyone else; the threat (and, certainly, the use) of force, physical or otherwise, is wrong. Those axioms collapse, or worse, in the presence of individuals who are genuinely malevolent. Worse means that naïve beliefs can become a positive invitation to abuse, because those who aim to harm have become specialized to prey on people who think precisely such things. Under such conditions the axioms of harmlessness must be retooled. In my clinical practice I often draw the attention of my clients who think that good people never become angry to the stark realities of their own resentments.

No one likes to be pushed around, but people often put up with it for too long. So, I get them to see their resentment, first, as anger, and then as an indication that something needs to be said, if not done (not least because honesty demands it). Then I get them to see such action as a part of the force that holds tyranny at bay - at the societal level, as much as the individual. Many bureaucracies have petty authoritarians within them, generating unnecessary rules and procedures simply to express and cement power. Such people produce powerful under currents of resentment around them which, if expressed, would limit their expression of pathological power. It is in this manner that the willingness of the individual is to stand up for him or herself protects everyone from the corruption of society.

When naïve people discover the capacity for anger within themselves, they are shocked, sometimes severely. A profound example that can be found in the susceptibility of new soldiers to post-traumatic stress disorder, which often occurs because of something that has happened to them. They react like the monsters they can truly be in extreme battlefield conditions, and the revelation of that capacity undoes their world. And no wonder. Perhaps they assumed that all of history's terrible perpetrators were people totally unlike themselves. Perhaps they were never able to see within themselves the capacity for oppression and bullying (and perhaps not their capacity for assertion and success, as well). I have had clients who were terrified into literally years of daily hysterical convulsions by the sheer look of malevolence on their attackers' faces. Such individuals typically come from hyper-sheltered families, where nothing terrible is allowed to exist, and everything is fairyland wonderful (or else).

When the wakening occurs-when once-naïve people recognize in themselves the seeds of evil and monstrosity, and see themselves as dangerous (at least potentially)-their fear decreases. They develop more self-respect. Then, perhaps, they begin to resist oppression. They see that they have the ability to withstand, because they are terrible too. They see they can and must stand up, because they begin to understand how genuinely monstrous they will become, otherwise, feeding on their resentment, transforming it into the most destructive of wishes. To say it again: There is very little difference between the capacity for mayhem and destruction, integrated, and strength of character. This is one of the most difficult lessons of life.

Maybe you are a loser. And maybe you're not-but if you are, you don't have to continue in that mode. Maybe you just have a bad habit. Maybe you're even just a collection of bad habits. Nonetheless, even if you came by your poor posture honestly-even if you were unpopular or bullied at home or in grade school-it's not necessarily appropriate now. Circumstances change..."

-12 Rules For Life, pg. 24-25

Correct me if im wrong but if (or should i say when) Trump becomes President again, if he doesnt have control of both Houses, his second Presidential term would be a pointless, lame duck session with nothing that he wants to do getting done?

The key for next year has to be to get rid of all the Rinos. If any are still there beyond. next year they will just vote with democrats.

Also, isnt it a fact that in mid terms there is always a swing against the sitting President? Isnt that what the great Rush Limbaugh would always say. If thats the case, Republicans should take back both Houses next year, paving the way for Trump to run again.

Mini Pelosi move