Trump Impeachment 2.0

[WuDrWu]

If the Dems wanted to solidify the middle and ensure power (at least until their sure to fail politics fail) they would immediately get to work doing the people's business.

[SB Shock]

Trump can be eliminated from ever holding public office again by being convicted in an impeachment. That could be attractive to some Republican senators. I've heard it reported from legal scholars that even if he is not convicted, the Senate can, by a majority vote, prevent him from ever holding a federal office. I haven't heard that before and haven't checked it out.

1st you have have articles impeachment in the House. 2nd you then have to convict in the Senate with 67 votes. That will then get you the following:

The Constitution, under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, says that "judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."

After remove him from office, then there is 2nd vote in the senate to disqualify him from holding office. There is a question of whether simple majority or super-majority is required.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a supermajority vote of two-thirds is required for disqualification. If the Senate were to vote to disqualify a President from future office with a simple majority, it would be the unprecedented, and it could set off a high-stakes battle in the courts.

Senate is adorned until January 19. Hard to have a trial in 1 day.

That would mean having an impeachment trial after the new Senate is seated. That in itself will be a legal fight. Then you will have a 2nd legal fight on majority/super majority question on barring from future office if they win the first legal fight and can actually find the votes.

[Aargh]

If the Dems wanted to solidify the middle and ensure power (at least until their sure to fail politics fail) they would immediately get to work doing the people's business.

Many of them think it is the people's business to bring charges that lead to an investigation of the level of involvement of the President in an act of insurrection. There is some feeling that the impeachment trial in the Senate should not be the Senate's highest priority until an investigation can be done by DoJ and those results can be known when the Senate considers impeachment. If DoJ did the heavy investigating, which they will be obliged to do based on the number of people who violated so many Federal statutes, the Senate can spend much less of their time on the impeachment.

Much like the insurrection, which some see as an attempted coup, like it or not the impeachment is coming, It was known there would be at minimum a major protest in D.C. on January 6. Trump told everyone at his rallies to come to D.C. that day. Then he told them he would join them in marching on the Capitol. Giuliani told them there was a need for combat.

If the Dems want to take the risk of alienating independent voters, that's on them. They're not going to gain or lose Republican voters based on whether or not they impeach.

[Aargh]

1st you have have articles impeachment in the House. 2nd you then have to convict in the Senate with 67 votes. That will then get you the following:



After remove him from office, then there is 2nd vote in the senate to disqualify him from holding office. There is a question of whether simple majority or super-majority is required.



Senate is adorned until January 19. Hard to have a trial in 1 day.

That would mean having an impeachment trial after the new Senate is seated. That in itself will be a legal fight. Then you will have a 2nd legal fight on majority/super majority question on barring from future office if they win the first legal fight and can actually find the votes.

Thanks for the info. It is appreciated.

[WuDrWu]

With his cabinet more or less disintegrated (Scott Wolf out today) or MIA I don't see Article 25 as an option, though I am no constitutional scholar.

Doesn't he have 4 days to answer the challenge anyway? I too am nothing close to a Constitutional Scholar, but I don't think it's like Iris Gaines, Floyd Gondolli & the Honorable Harvey Hale (before he dropped dead of a heart attack and was replaced by Roger Murtaugh) discussed.

[Aargh]

Doesn't he have 4 days to answer the challenge anyway? I too am nothing close to a Constitutional Scholar, but I don't think it's like Iris Gaines, Floyd Gondolli & the Honorable Harvey Hale (before he dropped dead of a heart attack and was replaced by Roger Murtaugh) discussed.

What I've picked up is that he has 21 days to answer. It is an absolute fallacy that the 25th Amendment could be used at this time. I believe it was John Kelly who said it and I believe it was Section 4 of the 25th Amendment that gives the President 21 days to respond. If there is an appeal form the President, then it goes to Congress.

Invoking the 25th Amendment now would be nothing other than symbolic. Maybe it's too soon for dark humor, but timing has never been my strong suit. With the rate at which WH staffers are leaving, Trump may have had to type up the appeal himself.

[RoyalShock]

Here is the full text of the 25th Amendment:

Twenty-Fifth Amendment
Section 1
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4
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.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Unless there has been legal ruling since it's adaptation there is no reference to the President having 21 days to respond. See the first paragraph of Section 4, which is exactly how season 7 of Homeland (which I just watched over the last 2 weeks) interpreted it. And we all know how perfectly accurate TV is!

[Shockm]

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/1...r-impeachment/

The danger of such claims is manifestly obvious.The 25th Amendment was primarily designed for physical disabilities of a president. It is astonishing that there remained a glaring uncertainty in our Constitution until 1967 on how to handle a president suffering from an incapacity.

It was not something that the Framers did not contemplate. The issue was raised in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 by Delegate John Dickinson of Delaware, but it was left unaddressed. The issue still remained unaddressed when President William Henry Harrison died a month after taking office.It was not until President Dwight Eisenhower suffered a stroke that serious efforts were made toward an amendment — a move that accelerated after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Various presidents have used the amendment to temporarily transfer power during surgeries or brief incapacities. The nuclear option, under Section 4, has never been used.

To do so with a perceived mental disability is a particular concern. As shown by the Goldwater controversy, there are always psychiatrists willing and eager to declare a president insane even from a distance. Politicians often portray their opponents as mentally unbalanced since only an insane person would hold an opposing view some issues. If we were to remove a president on such a basis, it could open the floodgates for such removals in the future.

Democrats have vividly shown this danger with calls for impeachment for issues ranging from Trump’s criticism of the NFL kneelers to his tweets. The same could be true with the 25th Amendment.

The 25th Amendment is designed to address constitutional, not character, flaws. Trump’s speech Wednesday was not just unpresidential but reckless. He actively encouraged the protesters to march on Congress, and the speech was timed to end just before the proceedings in the joint session to count electoral votes.

Trump was preceded by his son, Donald Jr., who whipped the crowd into a frenzy with such lines as, “If you’re gonna be the zero and not the hero, we’re coming for you and we’re going to have a good time doing it.” Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani declared that it was time for “trial by combat.” It was a shameful and inciteful display.

However, Trump’s speech alone is not evidence of incapacity or insanity. Being obnoxious and narcissistic is not grounds for removal. Indeed, such a standard would leave much of Washington vacant.

Even if there were evidence to support such a move, it would result in a likely removal for just four days. Under Section 4, Vice President Mike Pence and a majority of the Cabinet can sign a declaration to Congress that Trump is incapable of holding office. In such a highly unlikely circumstance, Pence would immediately assume power. However, Trump would have four days to object. In that case, Pence and the Cabinet would have to send a second declaration. The Congress would then have to vote by two-thirds vote to remove the president. That is, both chambers (unlike impeachment, which only requires a two-third vote on the Senate). Congress has 21 days for that vote, but for Trump, it would have to happen virtually immediately to beat the natural end of his presidency. Congress can also create a body to make such a finding of disability, but that would likely take even more time.

Of course, if Congress can secure a second declaration from Pence, it could run out the clock on the vote and leave Trump in constitutional quarantine until Jan. 20. The vote would then become moot.

Yet, what would be achieved? Trump has already pledged an orderly transfer of power to President-elect Joe Biden. In order to impose this ignoble moment on Trump, the Congress would create precedent for future such removals on ill-defined mental disabilities. If it wanted to do this, it should have moved years ago.

As stated in “The Caine Mutiny,” “wasted hours destroy your life just as surely at the beginning as at the end — only in the end it becomes more obvious.” For naval mutinies and presidential removals, there is nothing more precious or flitting than time.

[ROOT ANGRY!]

Liz Cheney, #3 in House Republican hierarchy:

"There has never been a greater betrayal by the President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution ...The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled this mob, incited this mob, and lit the flame of this attack."
"I will vote to impeach the President."

[ROOT ANGRY!]

It's not every day a Cheney calls for regime change.

[wsushox1]

Seems as if McConnell is at least open to it. Scavino is the smoking gun.

[WstateU]

What I've been thinking about more and more lately is the knowledge Trump has of highly sensitive national security information. He is almost assuredly going to be sharing that with the wrong people in hopes of ingratiating himself and profiting from it. How can the U.S. protect itself from a loose-lipped former president? I will promise you this, there will be an overhaul of top-secret protocol the likes of which nobody has ever seen once Orangeman is gone. Of course the easiest solution is if he just ends up missing. But no doubt his kids are "well informed" as well. What a mess...

There is a book and it has the information you need. The President's Book of Secrets. A collection of documents for President's eyes only. The truth behind the JFK conspiracy. The missing minutes from the Watergate tapes. And of course, Area 51 and the alien virus.

[ABC]

Scavino is the smoking gun.

How so?

[wsushox1]

How so?

Perhaps through his contacts, posting, and information gathering on r/TheDonald or TheDonald.win . What did he communicate? What did he know? Was he directed to communicate anything?

I suspect he will be pardoned either way.

[wufan]

Perhaps through his contacts, posting, and information gathering on r/TheDonald or TheDonald.win . What did he communicate? What did he know? Was he directed to communicate anything?

I suspect he will be pardoned either way.

Holy ****. I had no idea you were QAnon.