Not a very “strict constructionist-y” argument.
So why haven’t they been arrested?
The tool is irrelevant, the plot is the problem.
Attempting to convince and recruit others to declare the President as unable to discharge his duties while he is discharging his duties because he fired your chogy boy is sedition
That is what impeachment is for.
But seeing as they had no proof of any wrong doing they couldn’t use impeachment.
And we know from the words of one of the people who helped craft the 25 amendment that it was never intended to be used for a criminal offence.
There was no plot.
They talked about stuff that they didn’t do.
Jeez guys… get a grip.
1 Like
A plot does not require you to act. It is the act of conspiring, in this case to commit sedition.
The authoritarians are the ones trying to make it illegal to question their king.
If they had specific conditions or limitations they meant to be included in the law, they would have… included them in the law.
"… unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office… " leaves a lot of room. No reason to think that wasn’t intentional.
1 Like
So why haven’t they been arrested?
1 Like
It absolutely didn’t happen the way you say just because you say so.
Also, I know no such thing. I see this guy on TV, they see him as part of their jobs. I don’t know what they saw or knew and neither do you.
I do know if you didn’t have their own words, you wouldn’t even know this happened. Because it went no further than talking.
Getting caught on tape with women-who-get-paid-to-exhibit-a-morally-casual-attitude (hope that avoids a flagging) isn’t a crime. Neither is being hopelessly entangled financially with actors friendly to a hostile foreign power. But either leaves you open to extortion, which certainly renders you unable to faithfully discharge your duties, as your oath requires.
It would be sedition if they weren’t doing it by invoking the US constitution. As it stands, they were, so it wasn’t.
Absolutely correct, it’s not because I said so. It’s by their own admission.
Every move he has made has been under a microscope. Then there’s the timing. It doesn’t take Inspector Lewis Erskine.
Uh no. It wouldn’t be sedition if he was unable to discharge his duties.
Uh yes. “Unable” is not defined.
Suppositions not in evidence. The 25th does not say “faithfully”.
Your only problem is they had no proof or Trump would have been impeached by now. You can’t just make things up and say this is what I want to have happened you have to have proof. And if they had had proof you can bet they would have presented it to congress.
I understand that you so want to have what the MSM has been pushing to have happened but so far there is only innuendo and assumption.
Well yeah, but, have you SEEN that guy?
yes.
Your objection is noted. As is your willingness, then, to apply the law exactly as written. My examples render him unable.
