Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 356: amBushed

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/mikesacksesq/status/1346905565260181504?s=21

There was also a fun story from one of his former Yale classmates about how when he ran against (and beat) her to become President of Yale Laws chapter of the Federalist society he rallied a bunch of non-regular members to vote for him (in a piece calling him out for his current shit):

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/01/05/trump-lost-senator-josh-hawley-accept-result-like-i-did-column/4114231001/

---

Amendment 25 continues to be an unlikely option, but the vortex growing around it has been pretty rapid.

---

The problem about the 25th Amendment is:

1. With so many "Acting" heads instead of Confirmed Appointees do they even count for this? I'm not sure but that would have to be considered.
-a. What I mean here is keep in mind while Acting Cabinet heads are okay in certain situations, that's legally outlined with like time limits and such that this administration has just ignored and therefore courts have been declaring some orders made by them are to be thrown out because they should not be considered to be executing the true power of the position they are acting for. If they can't legally discharge duties of their acting position why would they be able to count here from a legal standpoint?
2. With so many of the relative "adults in the room" chased out are we even remotely confident the current Cabinet isn't just almost completely replaced by lackeys who won't stand up to Trump

It's why I think Impeachment and Removal is the better option even if it has its own issues in terms of how quickly it can be accomplished. I legit think McConnell will go along with it the only question is if he can get ~18 more Senators on the Republican side.

---

xp1337 posted...

The problem about the 25th Amendment is:

1. With so many "Acting" heads instead of Confirmed Appointees do they even count for this? I'm not sure but that would have to be considered.
-a. What I mean here is keep in mind while Acting Cabinet heads are okay in certain situations, that's legally outlined with like time limits and such that this administration has just ignored and therefore courts have been declaring some orders made by them are to be thrown out because they should not be considered to be executing the true power of the position they are acting for.
2. With so many of the relative "adults in the room" chased out are we even remotely confident the current Cabinet isn't just almost completely replaced by lackeys who won't stand up to Trump

It's why I think Impeachment and Removal is the better option even if it has its own issues in terms of how quickly it can be accomplished. I legit think McConnell will go along with it the only question is if he can get ~18 more Senators on the Republican side.

It could be possible. Loeffler sounded like she was broken when she spoke, I doubt she's the only one.

---

I actually think it might be harder to get to 2/3 in the House

A majority of House Rs went along with this shit even after what happened today.

---

https://twitter.com/GlobalistBoi/status/1347010483556134913

---

I'm honestly not sure how I will feel if Pence gets his very slight "redemption arc" by knocking off Trump in his final moments before he can do something even more insane.

The second in command takes out the big bad at the crucial moment! Plot twist!?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I actually think it might be harder to get to 2/3 in the House

A majority of House Rs went along with this shit even after what happened today.

Don't need it.

Impeachment is 50%+1 in the House
2/3 in the Senate
Disqualification is 50%+1 in the Senate upon a conviction.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/GlobalistBoi/status/1347010483556134913

They pretty much all hate Hawley's guts now and I don't see it ever changing.

---

xp1337 posted...

Don't need it.

Impeachment is 50%+1 in the House
2/3 in the Senate
Disqualification is 50%+1 in the Senate upon a conviction.

I meant for maintaining the 25th Amendment through the 20th

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I meant for maintaining the 25th Amendment through the 20th

There's a 21 day clock before they have to decide on that.

literally the one and only time mcconnell could use his bullshit gridlock for good

---

By the way, underrated point here: Claire McCaskill's idiocy is why we have him as a Senator.

She then goes on tv and talks about how you have to win while being the biggest loser ever for losing to this piece of shit.

Let's get some things done the next 2 years, thanks

---

Also, as an aside, as small a matter as it may seem in the moment - in addition to the technical issues I raised earlier, I genuinely feel that Impeachment is the correct remedy here not the 25th Amendment.

The 25th Amendment is really only meant for when the President is basically physically unable to perform the duty. Now, if Pence and the Cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment on the grounds of Trump being unfit from a mental competence standpoint that would be an appropriate use of the 25th Amendment. And to be clear, I think that case can be made. But the 25th Amendment was not intended to be used to depose a President who is "technically" able to discharge the duty.

If Pence, the Cabinet, and the GOP want to argue that Trump has become mentally unhinged and is therefore unable to discharge the duty of President then fine. But if they're not this Amendment wasn't meant as a "break glass if grossly fascist" that's still Impeachment. It would be another dereliction of duty by Congress to dodge what they might perceive as a tough vote (but it really, really isn't, especially after yesterday)

Again, I know a lot of people might not want to hear about precedent and shit but I'm not arguing "Oh do nothing because the precedent would be bad" I'm saying there are two options here that lead you to the same result and one is better suited for this moment - barring Pence and company going a route I don't think they will take (and even then it's still the better option because Impeachment can allow for disqualification.)

---

The Garland pick is official:

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1347144852480421889

---

xp1337 posted...

Also, as an aside, as small a matter as it may seem in the moment - in addition to the technical issues I raised earlier, I genuinely feel that Impeachment is the correct remedy here not the 25th Amendment.

The 25th Amendment is really only meant for when the President is basically physically unable to perform the duty. Now, if Pence and the Cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment on the grounds of Trump being unfit from a mental competence standpoint that would be an appropriate use of the 25th Amendment. And to be clear, I think that case can be made. But the 25th Amendment was not intended to be used to depose a President who is "technically" able to discharge the duty.

If Pence, the Cabinet, and the GOP want to argue that Trump has become mentally unhinged and is therefore unable to discharge the duty of President then fine. But if they're not this Amendment wasn't meant as a "break glass if grossly fascist" that's still Impeachment. It would be another dereliction of duty by Congress to dodge what they might perceive as a tough vote (but it really, really isn't, especially after yesterday)

Again, I know a lot of people might not want to hear about precedent and shit but I'm not arguing "Oh do nothing because the precedent would be bad" I'm saying there are two options here that lead you to the same result and one is better suited for this moment - barring Pence and company going a route I don't think they will take.

I definitely agree it's not the intended use and that impeachment would be better, but I'll take what I can get at this point (and yeah I think it would be an argument that he's mentally unfit (due to his narcissistic death spiral over his loss) to even do basic shit like call in the National Guard to stop terrorists from storming the Capitol).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I definitely agree it's not the intended use and that impeachment would be better, but I'll take what I can get at this point (and yeah I think it would be an argument that he's mentally unfit (due to his narcissistic death spiral over his loss) to even do basic shit like call in the National Guard to stop terrorists from storming the Capitol).

Trump was described as "borderline enthusiastic" as he watched news of the riot for hours, which likely is a total understatement.

He had no interest in stopping it.

---

Crescent-Moon posted...

Trump was described as "borderline enthusiastic" as he watched news of the riot for hours, which likely is a total understatement.

He had no interest in stopping it.

Yeah for sure. They're his fans, so just like with Charlottesville I'm sure he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing even his "go home (but we love you)" video.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I definitely agree it's not the intended use and that impeachment would be better, but I'll take what I can get at this point (and yeah I think it would be an argument that he's mentally unfit (due to his narcissistic death spiral over his loss) to even do basic shit like call in the National Guard to stop terrorists from storming the Capitol).

I get you.

Still, Omar said she's drafting articles of impeachment so that's the route I want. I don't know if it will go anywhere. I've generally defended Pelosi here because I think many attacks against her have been off-base or misguided but if she chooses to keep it from advancing (and I haven't seen any reports that she would so don't take this as some dumb attack vector) I will absolutely say she should be replaced as Speaker.

From there let the Senate decide if they have any moral courage and integrity.

---

Anyway, back to the 25th. There's 15 Cabinet members who qualify under the text.

12 are confirmed, 2 are acting (SecDef and the AG), and 1 is acting unlawfully (DHS)

It's not really an encouraging lineup and I'm not entirely sure you get to 8 members here to join Pence (if Pence is even willing to go along). Like if pushed to guess I'd say your best chances would be with Transportation (Chao; McConnell's wife) and... Mnuchin of all people.

DeVos, Wilbur Ross, Pompeo? I mean this is our cabinet.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Looks like the fist fight that almost broke out was from Allred stopping Harris from rushing Lamb.

Allred is a former linebacker. Think he can hold that line.

That's my Rep! Good guy.

Pelosi was like "you say that to me everyday" was pretty nice.

Like, the difference between even someone like Pelosi who I dislike and the circus on the other side can't be overstated. Pelosi is bad, but she's not an actual dare I say maybe literal ghoul.


---

I think we see how today goes. If Trump starts trying something impeachment might be worth it but otherwise I would just let the clock run out.

---

masterplum posted...

I think we see how today goes. If Trump starts trying something impeachment might be worth it but otherwise I would just let the clock run out.

Yes because sending the message that what happened yesterday at Donald's direct encouragement is even remotely ok and not worth punishing is a good thing to do

Reg posted...

Yes because sending the message that what happened yesterday at Donald's direct encouragement is even remotely ok and not worth punishing is a good thing to do

You act like impeachment would be guaranteed to succeed. If he doesnt do anything today you arent going to get 2/3 support. You barely got 2/3 of the house to not say the vote wasnt rigged

---

masterplum posted...

You act like impeachment would be guaranteed to succeed. If he doesnt do anything today you arent going to get 2/3 support. You barely got 2/3 of the house to not say the vote wasnt rigged

Again, you don't need 2/3's of the House. That's just a straight up-or-down vote. Only the Senate requires 2/3's if you're using that vote as the metric here it was 93-6 and then like 92-7. I'd agree it's uncertain if 2/3's exists there because you're still talking needing about 40% of the Senate Republicans.

---

Ah, I thought you needed 2/3 of the house to remove from office.

Hmm, I dont know then. I wouldnt do it if you obviously couldnt get the votes in the senate, which means Pence would probably have to be on board.

---

Too bad invoking the 25th isn't as common as it is in 24.
---

Dummies are acting like the Congress riot shouldn't be news if the Antifa/BLM protests weren't. Yep, totally the same thing.

---

Mulvaney, Trump's former Chief of Staff (and current envoy to Northern Ireland so no one majorly important now) resigns.

How it started / How it's going version:

https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/1347166471391211521

---

masterplum posted...

I think we see how today goes. If Trump starts trying something impeachment might be worth it but otherwise I would just let the clock run out.

Plum.
Are you fucking blind? Or do you just choose to stick your head in the sand? Ffs

---

uh-oh too many people voted in georgia

https://twitter.com/ajc/status/1347151763640619008

GA Assembly proposing strict absentee ballot limits in the wake of record turnout.

---

I want impeachment now because I want every single R to have to vote if they think yesterday was acceptable or not.

---

Exactly.

---

So the Republican response is to again try to steal the vote from as many people as possible so they can whine when even more people vote against them for it.

Great strategy.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I want impeachment now because I want every single R to have to vote if they think yesterday was acceptable or not.

And if they mostly think it was?

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Pelosi was like "you say that to me everyday" was pretty nice.

Like, the difference between even someone like Pelosi who I dislike and the circus on the other side can't be overstated. Pelosi is bad, but she's not an actual dare I say maybe literal ghoul.

Exactly this. Ive grown increasingly frustrated with the both sides argument over the past couple years because the past four years should render this view 100% moot.

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

And if they mostly think it was?

Then, ideally, voters would take notice and vote the pieces of shit out.

But what if the voters just... wont.

"But but, the BLM protests!"
---

htaeD posted...

"But but, the BLM protests!"

It's still both perplexing to me and disturbing to me that every black person on my team found everything that happened yesterday to be "fun to watch" and "hilarious" to the point where it drove the two white ones completely out of the room. This isn't hyperbole, this is exactly as it happened. I commented on it as it was happening. We both ducked out of that room unnoticed.

They seemed to have zero actual concern for what was going on. They didn't even care that people died. It's still bugging me that they reacted this way and I just don't get why.

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

But what if the voters just... wont.

Who cares about that now?

I want every Republican member in congress to have to vote and reckon with the fact they enabled this idiocy and treason and see now if, after everything, theyre still willing to excuse it. If theyre still willing to furrow their brow and talk about how gravely concerned they are while DC burns at his hands. Make them vote. Make them acknowledge all of this. I would love something to be done but at the absolute least you know where all they stand and you can pound the message over and over again in 2022.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Who cares about that now?

I want every Republican member in congress to have to vote and reckon with the fact they enabled this idiocy and treason and see now if, after everything, theyre still willing to excuse it. If theyre still willing to furrow their brow and talk about how gravely concerned they are while DC burns at his hands. Make them vote. Make them acknowledge all of this. I would love something to be done but at the absolute least you know where all they stand and you can pound the message over and over again in 2022.

But who's going to listen to the message then that isn't listening now?

---

I dont know what youre asking or how it is relevant to what Ive said I want (I hope that doesnt come off as rude - I feel like you and PCZ arent making arguments against what I want so I just dont know how to respond at this point.)

But forcing them to vote prevents them from wriggling away two years from now if theyre pressed on abetting Trump in his final days. Youre going to have plenty that are still vocal supporters. But the party is fractioning and I want those republicans in competitive districts to take a stance. Either help us now or wear it for the rest of your life.

---

The point is, their constituents are not set in stone. Voters come, voters go. If they try for higher office, their voter pool grows enormously.

I want every single one of them to be on record for this so that they can't weasel out of it in the future. There needs to be a record so that they are held to account for every single future election that they compete in.

Edit for further clarification - it might not matter for their next election. But an election ten years from now? The voter base will assuredly be changed slightly by then. People die, people turn 18, people move!

---

Peace___Frog posted...

The point is, their constituents are not set in stone. Voters come, voters go. If they try for higher office, their voter pool grows enormously.

I want every single one of them to be on record for this so that they can't weasel out of it in the future. There needs to be a record so that they are held to account for every single future election that they compete in.

Oh that's perfectly fine. 12-16 years from now this turns into fodder to use against them. Won't be anytime soon though.

---

Crescent-Moon posted...

Won't be anytime soon though.

Could be as soon as 2024 for shitbird Cruz. Maybe 2022 for some senators?

I just feel like they arent going to be forced to vote on it and if they are theyll still vote like what happened was no big deal and anyone who isnt already convinced by this point will remain just complacent. Everyone just wants to get back to status quo as fast as possible and thats not taking politicians to task thats them weaseling out of it and making a half-hearted enough excuse that most voters will be too apathetic to question.

Lets say they invoke the 25th and remove him.

The doesn't preclude Pence from still pardoning him, right?

Would Pence have the audacity to do such a thing after yesterday? (I supposed this question still stands if he was impeached and removed.)

---

Seanchan posted...

Lets say they invoke the 25th and remove him.

The doesn't preclude Pence from still pardoning him, right?

Would Pence have the audacity to do such a thing after yesterday? (I supposed this question still stands if he was impeached and removed.)

No, the sole limits on presidential pardons is that they can't be used in cases of impeachment and that it only applies to federal crimes.

Literally from the Constitution: "[The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

---

The exception to Impeachment means that you can't use a pardon to save him from being impeached or reverse it, not that you can't pardon the things he is/could be impeached for.

However, in the case of the 25th Trump is still the president albeit temporarily stripped of power, so it would still fall into the territory of self-pardoning and there is no way Pence crosses that bridge.
---