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


I don’t think two cabinet members agreed but the story says that they thought they’d have support from Sessions and DHS secretary, do Kelly (if I’m getting the timing right).

I don’t know if they’ll get a hearing but I can guarantee that Graham is going to make a circus of this. He’s lost his mind after Kavanaugh.


Graham should make as much hay out of this as possible.

Maybe he will scream “SEDITION!!!” from his chair.


If it is true, it is not a circus.
If it is all based on lies, it is already a circus and those involved in it need to have their credibility on any subject brought into question.

Ps. What story says Sessions and Kelly? link?


Your argument of confirmation bias is supported by your own confirmation bias. How did you determine the threshold of biased investigators that could or could not have any impact on the outcome of the investigation? Who are the many, many people working on the investigation with equal ability to impact the scope and direction of an investigation lead by executive staff such as the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division?


The NY Times story which is the basis for the OP.


I’m going with the IG report on the subject. It’s worth a read.


Yeah…I know and if you believe that, it will one day bite you. Then…you’ll understand how wrong you are.


I do know it because I don’t like in a feverish world of conspiracies everywhere, fed by conspiracy media.

Everyone has biases…EVERYONE…even you

The trick is knowing this.

That you don’t know this is revealed in the media you choose to believe…that you have ADMITTED you choose to believe.


Has being wrong about the many conspiracies you’ve espoused ever come back to bite you? Has being wrong ever made you reconsider your frame of reference?


I’m not explicitly opposed to a congressional hearing. If they can investigate whether Barry Bonds’ junk shrunk…

That said, I’ve seen many conservatives argue here that to legally start an investigation, i.e. the Mueller probe, you must have evidence of a crime or conspiracy to commit a crime. If so, what is the crime here? If you don’t want to hear “Russian collusion”, don’t apply terms like “coup” to discussions of the 25th Amendment. Is it illegal for government officials to have that discussion? Is it illegal to poll other officials for their opinion? Please cite the relevant statutes.

The only dicey claim I’ve heard is Rosenstein offering to wear a wire with Trump. I HAVE to assume that would require a court order, and it wouldn’t be done without one. In any case it WASN’T done.

So what are these trampled laws again?


Congress is not a criminal investigative agency. They have oversight of the FBI and do not need “probably cause” to evaluate how the FBI has and is being run.


I’m so far gone, I still believe I’m right but due to the deep state, it’s yet to be exposed. There has been no evidence to repudiate what I’ve stated here and plenty to substantiate it.


Which addresses only a minor concern already stipulated (“Congressional hearing OK by me.”), and completely ignores my main point:

what specific laws were in jeopardy of being broken here?

Try again?


Why should I? There is no requirement for there being laws broken to have a hearing.

I would be satisfied with something like the authorization for the special counsel which was to search for evidence of collusion and prosecute any laws broken “if found”.
Except, of course, Congress does not prosecute laws at all.
That is not their job.
Your question is irrelevant.


OK…then was is improper about FBI officials discussing whether or not to talk to Cabinet officials about invoking 25-4 that an investigation by Congress would be required?


One would have to find out what they did it and the basis for their actions to find out if it was improper. I presume that if the DOJ or FBI thought the President might be completely incapacitated from handling his job, that this might be something that the Congress would want to know.
If there was not basis for such discussions instead of Trump hate, and if lies were told by officials to keept the story going, that Congress might also want to know about that.
It comes down to the competency of the President and the legitimacy of decisions by FBI officials.

I am getting the feeling that some people don’t want this to be looked into at all. Curious.


Would you acknowledge any evidence if it were presented to you?


So, to summarize your deflection:

“I have no idea if any laws were broken, and I don’t care whether they were. But I WOULD like to see a special counsel appointed to embark on the same kind of “fishing expedition” or “witch hunt” we’ve been whining about for 2 years.”


When my opinion is summarized, why is it never my opinion?

I never said anything about appointing a special counsel for this. I am talking about the Justice oversight committee in Congress holding hearings on actions by the FBI, as is their job.


Are you honestly trying to say the what the DOJ did was not politically motivated.
The evidence of page and stroz emails did more to degrade our institutions than anything Trump has said.
The DOJ has been revealed to be a highly partisan bunch and willing to leak information and twist the truth to push their agenda.
Ask yourself what their motivation was instead of just believing the people who have been feeding you information.