Andrew McCabe: 25th Amendment was discussed by Justice Department to remove Trump from office

Why does it matter if it originates outside the cabinet?

The VP and top executive officials are the ones who ultimately would make the call to invoke 25-4.

Let me ask you a question.

When Congress impeached Andrew Johnson, they offered up a bunch of vague charges as their justification for doing so. The one particular they did offer…that Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act by firing Stanton…wasn’t even true.

Had Johnson been convicted and removed from office, he would have been replaced not by someone who was aligned with him, but by Ben Wade, who was aligned with the very Radical Republicans who were leading the drive for impeachment.

Would this have been a coup?

No, he is not. I cannot believe the wailing and gnashing of teeth over this President, the undeserved hatred people are drumming up. We could have had a great four years…but people did not not want a great four years. It is not, What is wrong with President Trump, it is, What is wrong with us? We had better find out and face up to it.

What is your factual evidence for claiming “we could have had a great four years” or “the question is not what is wrong with Trump, but what is wrong with us”?

McCabe informed the Gang of 8 who was under investigation and why.

https://www.axios.com/andrew-mccabe-gang-of-8-fbi-trump-investigation-fc5d835f-fb33-41e7-bd72-814fdf56711b.html

That’s the important part here, no one objected. Not on legal grounds, not on constitutional grounds and not based on fact," he said.

Anyone remember that day Diane Feinstein and Chuck Grassley came out of an intel briefing looking like they’d both seen a ghost?

I’m pretty sure that was that day.

2 Likes

How is it sedition to discuss something Constitutional?

How is having people discuss a CONSTITUTIONAL process sedition?

3 Likes

Might as well be sedition to talk about the upcoming presidential election.

Be careful of your thoughts…they lead to words. The words had progressed to the point of discussing actions (wearing a wire, for example). Be careful of your words, they lead to actions.

In this case, it all stopped with words. I have maintained that while not actionable, these words were highly inappropriate in their origination within the FBI and Justice Departments. Others have proper oversight. The FBI does not, especially when it comes to judging another human being as a lunatic and medically unsound.

That sounds like great advice for Trump

Now its out that McCabe briefed the gang of 8 on the counter investigation and none of them objected on any grounds.

Not that it surprises me, the words and actions of our President warranted an investigation. Now if Trump comes out clean on this, great. It is weird though that he has gone out of his way to derail this investigation from the very beginning.

Starting with asking Comey for a loyalty pledge, asking him to let Flynn off the hook, eventually firing Comey and labeling the SCO a which hunt all the while his campaign staff getting convicted for lying about Russian contact’s.

I have even better advice for President Trump: Do not pursue the lie. He has spent too much time on that.

Weird right?

Why does he spend sooo much time trying to derail this investigation I wonder :thinking:

Human nature. Hear a lie about yourself, and it is simply natural to want to–and try to–set the record straight. Who we are matters to us. Ironically, it is saying nothing that works better, to do nothing. Doing nothing simply goes against the grain. We need to practice doing more of it. Hear me, Mueller?

Ah yes human nature that must be it!

Just like its human nature to lie constantly in order to conceal a not so flattering truth. That must by why his campaign team lied about all their contacts with the Russians.

Human nature

The FBI reports to one of those individuals so named in the Constitution in 25-4…the attorney general.

Entirely appropriate for people underneath him, who advise and consent him, who might have uncovered reasons why the President ought to be removed via that amendment, to discuss ways to go about doing it.

It’s silly to think because the amendment specifies who may actually activate the procedure that only those individuals may discuss activating it.

Extremely silly.

1 Like

The gang of 8 was briefed on the counter intelligence operation opened against the president and none objected on any grounds.

Now to Trumpers this is because everyone hates Trump even Republicans in Congress secretly hate Trump.

To everyone else, they did not object due to the obvious reason that Trumps own words and actions along with the behaviour of his team warranted further investigation.

Working within Constitutional boundaries is, by definition, not treasonous. Venture out of Conspiracyville for a bit and perhaps you’ll understand.

What’s wrong with us?

Well, I’d prefer a president that doesn’t lie to me.

Every.

Single.

Day.

That’s just for starters.

Yeah but Obama said something about getting to keep your doctor so that means Trump can lie his butt off since you know…same thing

You’re asking several different questions there. Discussion among members of the FBI and DOJ would, one would think, be a likely start for such a discussion since they are concerned with the security of the country. But the wording of the 25th would govern where it goes from there. The FBI and DOJ can suggest it, though, and wouldn’t be out of line for doing such.

Again, a reminder for the legal scholars among us.

Amendment XXV

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.

“Sedition” will be the BOO-YAH! (“let’s scare 'em”) word in conservative media for the next two years.