It absolutely was not. It won’t go before a jury because it’s not sedition.
How irrelevant! Trump kept him around, and still does. And he was confirmed by a R senate majority. No skirting this one.
I’m sorry if that offends anyone.
Who decides which evidence is valid enough that the “plotting” isn’t sedition?
Is any discussion regarding whether evidence exists sedition? Is any discussion regarding whether the 25th applies sedition?
There’s a convenient dichotomy with some Trump supporters. On one hand they’ll whine about the will of the people, mob rule and wax philosophically about the original structure of the government which removed most of the government from any form of popular election because the people cannot be trusted to have too much power.
Then on the other hand they’ll fly into a mad rare that “unelected” bureaucrats can wield any form of power in the government.
All of them.
And I see my post about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson remains unanswered by the way.
Careful - posting anonymously on an internet forum about how the 25th amendment might work may one day be considered “sedition.”
The evidence is all around us all. You just have to open your eyes and let go of your emotional investment in the man.
Wouldn’t video of ANY public appearance be admissible as evidence? Granted, he often claims to not have said what he was recorded on tape as saying, but I would think it still counts.
Seriously, even his innumerable gaffes and lies wouldn’t make him non compos mentis. But I don’t see in the language of the amendment where he must be physically or mentally incapacitated. He simply has to be “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office…”, and being wholly compromised by the Russians would certainly satisfy that condition. Reasonable people can disagree about whether he’s compromised.
BTW, the amendment doesn’t state that the Vice President has to come up with the idea, nor that a member of the DOJ or FBI can’t come up with it.
The 25th amendment doesn’t require “evidence”. It requires a majority of cabinet and a 2/3 majority of congress to simply will it.
Oh, I’m aware-even discussing the discussion has me worried. Us talking about the reasons for a potential invocation of the 25th amendment…that’s sedition.
Unless we’re elected or something. Then I think it’s less seditiony.
Yes he was. Rosenstein.
Not it is not in this case.
Yes, it does. Evidence of inability to perform duties.
But great post. Thank you.
If they were “just doing their duty!” Why are they lying about it?
Which part of the 25th demands evidence to be declared for the removal of the president? I’ll even help you by posting Section 4, which discusses the process of removal
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.
It says “…that the president is unable,” not “why he is unable.”
If there’s some case law that supports your assertion, then feel free to smash egg all over our faces by citing it.
Cite in the 25th amendment where evidence is required.
It requires a “why”.
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread. As I’ve said before, there are some really quality posters on this board. One can learn a lot.