YES because the law states he must have the opportunity to defend himself against charges. Failing to provide him that opportunity is never acceptable in a society that follows the rules of law.

edit: mistook you for a different poster

No one has moved goal posts. Everyone else is saying he should be removed and I have said he should not be removed without a trial. Stop trying to misuse logical flaws as away of not addressing the actual argument.

I have to imagine Nazism isnt popular in France even in fascist circles.

The White House spent months alleging a connection. It proves how little Americans understood about Iraq or Al Qaeda that they thought they would collude

And that disagreement is whether we should follow the rule of law. You are advocating ignoring the law because it would grant you your preferred result and that is never ok.

“The chief executive officer of every city and the chief or commissioner of police, commissioner or director of public safety or other chief executive officer of the police force by whatever title he may be designated, of every city may be removed by the governor after giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. The power of removal provided for in this subdivision shall be deemed to be in addition to the power of removal provided for in any other law. The provisions of this subdivision shall apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any general, special or local law, ordinance or city charte”

I added emphasis to a critical bit you missed. He needs to be able to defend himself against the charges presented. Everyone here is pushing for her to remove him without this. It’s a bad precedent.

Also the wave of unemployment that is about to cone might push us into a recession

It’s sad that you have downvotes for this. It is a common practice in authoritarian states.

Humanity has, the one with the least propensity to experience crises is the one most nations are following.

Controlled economies are much less stable but Marx was unaware of that as economics in his time was less data driven and more philosophical.

If you believe the rule of law is important than you need to actually follow the laws you have on record. We don’t want to make it acceptable for a governor to remove a mayor because they feel like it.

You advocate for an unjust action so do you really believe in a just government and rule of law? You are willing to flout them in this case.

That simply isn’t true. There are thousands of economists all around the world trying to fix these problems.

What you are talking about is grandstanding politicians in America which isnt reflective of all nations.

Yes, after his first impeachment he should have been removed the difference is Trump had due process and faced an inquiry whereas Adams has not.

we shouldnt be punishing people over allegations no matter how compelling the evidence is.

Yes, because in absence of a trial it isn’t legal or appropriate.

So you don’t believe rule of law is important? If you believe what you claim you cannot support any form of a just government.

Yes, it is. He would be losing his elected position. He has not been proven guilty. We all suspect he is but that hasn’t been proven.

No elected politician should be removed without due process.

It is shocking how many pro-auth people there are here.

Trump is protecting Adams because he knows that Adams will deport people given the chance.

Regardless unless he has been convicted we can’t have governors removing mayors. This will permit others to just remove mayors they dislike.

That being said there is yet to be a system that does not have crises.

“Jesse Rothstein is an economist, and currently professor of public policy and economics at the University of California, Berkeley. In 2010, he was chief economist at the US Department of Labor. He is the founding director of the California Policy Lab, a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and is a member of the editorial boards of Education Finance and Policy, The Review of Economics and Statistics, American Economic Review, and Industrial Relations.[1][2][3][4]”

For those that don’t know the guy he’s got a solid pedigree

Is extra judicial punishment ever acceptable? It’s sad how many people on this site seem to think so.