A top politician remove from office
Uninstall Office from a PC
The following steps describe how to uninstall Office products on a PC (laptop, desktop, or 2-in-1). For Mac, see Uninstall Office for Mac.
Tip: Uninstalling Office only removes the Office applications from your computer, it doesn’t remove any files, documents, or workbooks you created using the apps.
Uninstall Office for your installation type
The steps to uninstall Office depend on the type of installation you have. The most common installation types are Click-to-Run and Microsoft Windows Installer (MSI). The other type is an Office installation from the Microsoft Store app.
Select the Click-to-Run or MSI or Microsoft Store tab below and follow those uninstall steps for your installation type.
Not sure which type of install you have?
Open an Office app to check your installation type
Note: If you can’t open an app to check your installation type, try the more common Click-to-Run or MSI uninstall steps first.
Create or open an existing file and select File > Account (or it might say Office Account).
Under Product information, find the About button and check for the following:
Click-to-Run installations have a Version and Build number, and include the phrase Click-to-Run.
Follow the Click-to-Run or MSI steps below.
An MSI installation doesn’t have a Version or Build number.
Follow the Click-to-Run or MSI steps below.
Microsoft Store installations have a Version and Build number, and include the phrase Microsoft Store.
If you have this installation type, select the Microsoft Store tab.
If you have a Click-to-Run or an MSI installation, uninstall Office using the Control Panel or download the uninstall support tool. If you can’t uninstall Office using either of those options, try uninstalling Office manually.
Option 1 — Uninstall Office from the Control Panel
Open the Control Panel.
Tip: If you installed the Office apps as part of a suite, such as Office Home and Student or Office 365, search for the suite name. For stand-alone apps search by the app name, such as Project or Visio.
In most cases you can’t uninstall an individual app if it’s included in your Office suite. The only way to uninstall an individual app is if you purchased it as a stand-alone app.
How you open the Control Panel depends on your version of Windows.
In the search box on the task bar, type control panel, then select Control Panel.
Select Programs > Programs and Features, then right-click your Microsoft Office product, and choose Uninstall.
Windows 8.1 or 8
Right-click the Start button (lower-left corner), and choose Control Panel.
Select Programs and Features, then right-click your Office product, and choose Uninstall.
Click Start > Control Panel.
Click Programs > Programs and Features.
Right-click the Office application you want to remove, and then click Uninstall.
Follow the prompts to complete the uninstall.
Note: If Office isn’t listed in the Control Panel you could have a Microsoft Store installation type. Select the Microsoft Store tab above and follow those uninstall steps instead.
To reinstall Office select the version you want to reinstall and follow those steps.
Option 2 — Completely uninstall Office with the uninstall support tool
Click the button below to download and install the Office uninstall support tool.
Follow the steps below to download the uninstall support tool according to your browser.
Tip: The tool may take a few minutes to download and install. After completing the installation, the Uninstall Office products window will open.
Edge or Internet Explorer
At the bottom of the browser window, select Run to launch the SetupProd_OffScrub.exe.
In the lower-lower left corner right-click SetupProd_OffScrub.exe > Open.
In the pop-up window, select Save File.
Next, from the upper-right of the FireFox browser window, select the downloads arrow and then select SetupProd_OffScrub.exe.
Select the version you want to uninstall, and then select Next.
Follow through the remaining screens and when prompted, restart your computer.
After you restart your computer, the uninstall tool automatically re-opens to complete the final step of the uninstall process. Follow the remaining prompts.
Select the steps for the version of Office you want to install or reinstall. Close the uninstall tool.
Uninstall Office manually
If the Office unistall tool doesn’t completely uninstall Office from your PC, you can manually uninstall Office.
Uninstall Office from Settings in Windows 10
Select Start > Settings > Apps.
Under Apps & Features select the version of Office you want to uninstall.
Note: If you installed an Office suite such as Office Home and Student or you have an Office subscription, search for the suite name. If you bought an individual Office application, such as Word or Visio, search for the application name.
Tip: If you can’t uninstall your Microsoft Store installation using Settings in Windows 10, then try to uninstall Office manually using PowerShell following the steps below.
Uninstall Office manually using PowerShell
Right-click Start and select Windows PowerShell (Admin).
In the Windows PowerShell window, type the following:
Get-AppxPackage -name “Microsoft.Office.Desktop” | Remove-AppxPackage
This takes a few minutes. Once it’s done, a new command prompt appears.
Verify Office was removed
In the Windows PowerShell window, type the following:
Get-AppxPackage -name “Microsoft.Office.Desktop”
If only a command prompt appears and no additional information, it means you successfully removed Office and you can close the Windows PowerShell window.
Note: If you’re not sure what operating system you have, see Which Windows operating system am I running?
There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office
It would take just three Republican senators to turn the impeachment vote into a secret ballot. It’s not hard to imagine what would happen then.
By JULEANNA GLOVER
November 12, 2019
Juleanna Glover has worked as an adviser for several Republican politicians, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Rudy Giuliani, and advised the presidential campaigns of John McCain and Jeb Bush.
By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?
A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will immediately move to hold a trial to adjudicate the articles of impeachment if and when the Senate receives them from the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution does not set many parameters for the trial, except to say that “the Chief Justice shall preside,” and “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” That means the Senate has sole authority to draft its own rules for the impeachment trial, without judicial or executive branch oversight.
During the last impeachment of a president, Bill Clinton, the rules were hammered out by Democrats and Republicans in a collaborative process, as then Senate leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle recently pointed out in a Washington Post op-ed. The rules passed unanimously. That’s unlikely this time, given the polarization that now defines our politics. McConnell and his fellow Republicans are much more likely to dictate the rules with little input from Democrats.
But, according to current Senate procedure, McConnell will still need a simple majority—51 of the 53 Senate Republicans—to support any resolution outlining rules governing the trial. That means that if only three Republican senators were to break from the caucus, they could block any rule they didn’t like. (Vice President Mike Pence can’t break ties in impeachment matters.) Those three senators, in turn, could demand a secret ballot and condition their approval of the rest of the rules on getting one.
Some might say transparency in congressional deliberations and votes is inviolable, and it’s true that none of the previous Senate impeachments have been conducted via secret ballot. But the Senate’s role in an impeachment is analogous to a U.S. jury, where secret ballots are often used. When Electoral College gridlock has resulted in the House picking the president—the House elected Thomas Jefferson in 1800 and John Quincy Adams in 1824—that vote has been secret. And, of course, when citizens vote for president, they do so in private.
Trump and those around him seem confident that he won’t lose the 20 Republican senators needed to block a guilty verdict. But it’s not hard to imagine three senators supporting a secret ballot. Five sitting Republican senators have already announced their retirements; four of those are in their mid-70s or older and will never run for office again. They might well be willing to demand secrecy in order to give cover to their colleagues who would like to convict Trump but are afraid to do so because of politics in their home districts. There are also 10 Republican senators who aren’t up for reelection until 2024 and who might figure Trumpism will be irrelevant by then. Senators Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski have been the most vocal Republicans in expressing concerns about Trump’s behavior toward Ukraine. Other GOP senators have recently softened in their defense of him, as well—all before the House has held any public hearings.
There’s already been some public speculation that, should the Senate choose to proceed with a secret ballot, Trump would be found guilty. GOP strategist Mike Murphy said recently that a sitting Republican senator had told him 30 of his colleagues would vote to convict Trump if the ballot were secret. Former Senator Jeff Flake topped that, saying he thought 35 Republican senators would vote that way.
While it’s unlikely Trump would support a secret ballot, it’s possible he might actually benefit from one in the long run. If a secret ballot is agreed on and Trump knows the prospect of impeachment is near, he could then focus his energies on his post-presidency. Once he leaves office, Trump faces multiple possible criminal investigations, at the federal, state and local level. He almost certainly knows that a President Pence could pardon him only for federal crimes. To avoid the prospect of serving time, Trump could negotiate a collective settlement—just as the Sackler family has done in the OxyContin matter—with all the jurisdictions now running independent investigations into his activities. Trump’s impeachment, followed by a quick resignation, might appease Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s and New York Attorney General Letitia James’s thirst for justice, making them more likely to agree to a deal.
Even McConnell might privately welcome the prospect of a secret ballot. He has always been intently focused on maintaining his Republican majority in the Senate. Trump’s approval numbers continue to languish, and support for impeachment has been rising. McConnell himself, facing reelection next year, has an approval rating of just 18 percent in Kentucky, not to mention that the Republican governor there just suffered a stunning upset in last week’s election. All of which suggests McConnell might warm to the possibility that he and his caucus could avoid a public up-or-down vote in defense of behavior by the president that’s looking increasingly indefensible.
A secret ballot might get Trump out of office sooner than everyone expects: The sooner any three Republican senators make clear that they will support nothing short of a secret ballot, the sooner Trump realizes his best course could be to cut a deal, trading his office for a get-out-of-jail-free card—a clean slate from prosecutors—just as Vice President Spiro Agnew did. And if Trump were to leave office before the end of the year, there might even be enough time for Republicans to have a vibrant primary fight, resulting in a principled Republican as the nominee.
UPDATE: Some constitutional scholars have pointed out that Article 1, Section 5, of the Constitution designates that 20 senators can oppose a secret ballot on “any questions,” but “questions” are defined as “Any matter on which the Senate is to vote, such as passage of a bill, adoption of an amendment, agreement to a motion, or an appeal.” No mention of impeachment proceedings is made. And, as others have pointed out, preceding this one-fifth requirement is crucial language: “Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy.” Precedents are so thin here, but it is clear the Senate has the power to make its own rules over the trial proceedings. Those rules have historically required a simple majority of support.
Real-Life Politician Removed From In-Game Office In EVE Online [UPDATE: Accusations Dropped]
You may also like
Jared Kushner Is a Goddamn Idiot
Here’s When You’ll Get Your Coronavirus Relief Check
SpaceX Starship Prototype Collapses in Third Failed Test
Popular Deals on The Inventory
Buy Committee: Should I Buy Hori’s Split Pad Pro Controller While It’s on Sale?
Friday’s Best Deals: Children’s Books, Circular Lamp, Memory Foam Pillows, Onsen Towels, and More
More from G/O Media
I Can’t Believe You Fuckers Made Me Solve the Andrew Cuomo Nipple Mystery
The Last of Us II Delayed Indefinitely
LaMelo Ball Has Become The NCAA’s Worst Nightmare
Jared Kushner Has Some Things to Say About Data
Your guide to gaming delivered to your inbox daily.
Yesterday, EVE Online player Brisc Rubal was permanently banned from the game and removed from the Council of Stellar Management, the game’s player-elected representative body. Outside of EVE, Rubal’s real name is Brian Schoeneman, and he’s a lawyer and a career politician, working as a lobbyist in the state of Virginia.
A d eveloper blog released by CCP Games on Monday claims that Rubal was “found to be sharing confidential information with a member of his alliance that was later used by another alliance member to conduct illicit in-game transactions.” The Council of Stellar Management, or CSM, participates in closed door discussions with EVE’s developers that operate under a non-disclosure agreement. The blog states that a member of the CSM approached CCP with evidence of the prohibited communications, which, after reviewing, forced them to take action. These actions included not only banning all of Rubal’s accounts, but the accounts of two other players who allegedly received confidential information from him and used it to further their own in-game goals.
[Update April 25, 11:44 am— CCP has exonerated Rubal of all accusations, including that he broke the non-disclosure agreement between him and CCP. Rubal and the other two implicated players will have their accounts reinstated and their in-game assets returned. Rubal will resign from the CSM and not run for re-election.
In a statement , Senior Communications Manager CCP Grendel formally apologized to Rubal, writing, “After reviewing our assessment of the information on which these allegations were based and having spoken repeatedly with everyone involved, it’s now clear that our initial actions were based on unsubstantiated assumptions.” CCP also provided the following statement to Kotaku:
Following the conclusion of CCP’s investigation, and the reversal of actions taken against him on April 8th, both CCP Games and Brian Schoeneman are satisfied with the final resolution of the incident as described below and in CCP’s full statement on the matter.
CCP Games apologizes to all involved parties and retracts the allegations, having confirmed upon further investigation that all information provided leading to the initial action declaring wrongdoing was unsubstantiated. CCP Games will be providing reparations, including the reinstatement of Schoeneman’s Brisc Rubal game accounts in EVE Online and rescinding the one-year bans placed upon the other two players.
Brian Schoeneman has accepted CCP Games’ apology. Schoeneman understands that while CCP’s response was in error, it was not conducted with prejudice or intent to harm, and Schoeneman holds no ill-will or residual acrimony against CCP.
Regarding Schoeneman’s status on the CSM, given the small amount of time left in CSM XIII, Schoeneman has chosen to resign from the CSM, and does not intend to run for CSM XIV. He is welcome to run for future CSMs, if he so chooses. CCP would like to thank him for his service and his contributions to EVE Online.
Due to the nature of the incident and the significant press coverage it has garnered, both parties wish this to be the final official word on this matter. No further statements will be made by either CCP Games or Brian Schoeneman on the resolution of the incident.]
Can lies in a bio or under oath remove a politician from office or cause other legal trouble?
Wendy Davis, a Texan Democrat candidate, made false statements about her past. She said how she was single at 19 when she’d actually gotten divorced at 21.
Davis might have separated from her first husband at age 19, but she was not «single» until she was 21. But «teenage single mother» is obviously a much better hardscrabble political talking point than the truth.
It’s still written in her bio, and I was wondering:
Is she legally guilty of a crime?
Can she be kicked out of office if she gets elected? (When she lied that she was single at 19), it was under oath.)
2 Answers 2
Lying about one’s past is not itself a crime. It is protected speech by the first amendment. In fact, the Supreme Court recently ruled that even lying that one had received a Medal of Honor was constitutionally protected speech.
Perjury is illegal, but a false statement made under oath is not necessarily going to result in a conviction of perjury. First, the person making the statement must know the statement is false. Given that the statement Wendy Davis made was about a significant event in her own past, she likely was aware of the truth value of the statement. However, perjury must also meet standards of materiality, which requires that the statement be one likely to influence the court’s decision. Given that the case in which she testified and made that statement was one about redistricting, it is unlikely that the age at which Wendy Davis got divorced would be considered material.
She could be kicked out of office, but what she said about the age at which she got divorced doesn’t necessitate impeachment. In Texas, a Governor can be impeached by a majority vote in the state House and 2/3rds majority vote in the state Senate. There are no specific impeachable offenses. The Texan congress could decide to impeach on the grounds that she mislead people in her biography, or on some other grounds, or could choose not to impeach at all.
By the way, this is the original article to which Brietbart was referring.
Politicians have held office while serving time in jail for crimes. Committing a crime before being elected, is thus obviously no barrier to holding office in all cases.
As for her calling herself a single mom, it is not only not a crime, it is not even objectively untrue as «single mom» could be taken to mean «raising one or more children without significant financial or time contribution from a partner» instead of «unwed mother».
This reminds me of the fuss about the character Murphy Brown being a unwed mother — IMO no one that hires a full time nanny can accurately be called a «single parent». They may not be married, but they obviously have assistance in providing the attention that a child needs, and have no need of any financial support.
Conversely, a married parent where the partner is unavailable (in jail or deployed in the military for instance) could fairly be called a single parent: they are raising the child without the aid of another parent.
Also, I would not call either partner a «single parent» if they were living together and raising the child together but just weren’t married. Even if they were not romatically involved, but were just jointly raising the child (i.e. providing food, shelter and attention).
In short legal martial status is not a defining characteristic of «single mother», which means that even if she said it under oath, it would not neccesarily be perjury.
Note: on reading your link, it seems that the «lie under oath» would be about when she divorced her first husband. That might possibly be sufficient to get a conviction for perjury, but I wouldn’t call it a slam dunk case. You’d have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn’t simply mis-speak or mis-remember. Absent a conviction it certainly isn’t sufficient to bar her from office. I don’t know if it would be legally sufficient under Texas law if she was convicted.
Edit: Did some reading, it looks like Texas law prevents felons from running for office, simple perjury is a misdemeanor.