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

[WuWei]

their written declaration

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

their written declaration

Please point out the requirement that the written declaration requires evidence.

[WuWei]

Perhaps the seditionists were the ones afraid of the Mueller investigation…

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

Perhaps the seditionists were the ones afraid of the Mueller investigation…

Q… trust the plan.

[party-free]

Yes, it is your opinion. We know.

[WuWei]

“Q”? What does that mean?

[adroit]

@WuWei

Yes, it does. Evidence of inability to perform duties.

No, it doesn’t.

A majority of the cabinet transmits their declaration.
The president transmits his declaration that he is able.
The majority of the cabinet transmits their declaration again.
The congress votes. If 2/3 agree with the cabinet, POTUS is removed. Otherwise he stays.

The reason they think he’s unfit could literally be because they think he’s a poopy head.

[madasheck]

@Smyrna

@mobulis

Except for the fact that the majority DIDN’T vote for trump.

That has NOTHING to do with attempting to over throw the election of 2016. If you don’t understand that, go take a civics class.

Nobody was attempting to overthrow an election. Being God-wedded to a President doesn’t mean he’s perfect or invulnerable to being removed with reason. And that’s what they were examining.

[WuWei]

Wrong. It says unable. Not poopy head. Not unfit.

But have a nice day.

Please don’t defend seditionists.

[JayJay]

Still no response to my impeachment of Andrew Johnson post…which was done with absolutely ZERO evidence of any high crimes and misdemeanors and if successful would have removed the President and replaced him with a man who was in a group of the President’s staunchest foes.

FAR beyond two guys in a room discussing how they MIGHT go about getting 25-4 invoked, which faced a long hard road and even if it succeeded in removing Trump, would have replaced Trump with his ally Pence.

These guys- who had no actual power to do anything…were a threat to our Republic…but the Congress was just “exercising its power of impeachment”.

[WuWei]

@madasheck

Nobody was attempting to overthrow an election. Being God-wedded to a President doesn’t mean he’s perfect or invulnerable to being removed with reason. And that’s what they were examining.

No, no. They don’t need a reason. Your little friends said so.

Impeach him. He has never been unable to perform his duties.

Don’t defend seditionists.

[WuWei]

Impeachment is not under discussion.

Why are they lying about it?

[JayJay]

@WuWei

Impeachment is not under discussion.

Why are they lying about it?

it is under discussion.

I made it a part of the discussion.

Andrew Johnson’s political foes in the House used impeachment not because they though Johnson was guilty of any high crimes and misdemeanors, but because they hated him and he was blocking what they wanted to do.

Seditionists or not?

[party-free]

@WuWei

unable.

The 25th does not demand a written summary of the inability. It just demands certain people state THAT he is unable.

[WuWei]

No, it is not. They were not plotting impeachment.

[adroit]

@WuWei

Wrong. It says unable. Not poopy head. Not unfit.

And the only thing that constitutionally matters is whether a majority of the cabinet and 2/3 of congress agree that being a poopy head makes him unable. The only thing.

[WuWei]

Sedition.

[JayJay]

@WuWei

No, it is not. They were not plotting impeachment.

The Radical Republicans were…and they did so.

Seditionists or not?

[dantes]

It doesn’t define unable. That’s left to the cabinet and Congress to decide.

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

Wrong. It says unable. Not poopy head. Not unfit.

But have a nice day.

Please don’t defend seditionists.

Unable isn’t defined in any sense.

It could mean anything.