Pelosi and Schumer: 25th or Impeachment

And here we go.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have called on Vice President Pence and the cabinet to remove President Trump under the provisions of the 25th Amendment. Absent that, they threaten a second impeachment proceeding, this one related to Trump’s instigation of yesterday’s rioting inside the US Capitol.

As noted this morning, the 25th would be the fastest way to remove Trump from power. It is, alas, incredibly unlikely to happen. Indeed, reports are that Pence has refused to take Pelosi’s phone call to even discuss the matter. And, with Elaine Chow’s resignation this afternoon as Transportation Secretary, it looks like the rats are more likely to leave the sinking ship then wrest control from a mad captain.

Pelosi could almost surely get articles of impeachment passed this afternoon if she so desired. At least, if she hadn’t adjourned the House until after the inauguation.

It is, alas, inconceivable that there are 67 votes in the Senate to convict Trump and bar him from future office. It would be a huge favor to the Republican Party to remove the possibility that he heads the ticket again in 2024 but there’s just no reason in the world to think that enough GOP Senators would risk the ire of their base to do so.

FILED UNDER: Congress, Donald Trump, Twenty-Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution, US Politics
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. An Interested Party says:

    It is, alas, inconceivable that there are 67 votes in the Senate to convict Trump and bar him from future office. It would be a huge favor to the Republican Party to remove the possibility that he heads the ticket again in 2024 but there’s just no reason in the world to think that enough GOP Senators would risk the ire of their base to do so.

    Not even yesterday’s events will convince enough in the GOP that Trump is a poison that needs to be expunged from their party…his continued presence in Republican politics should be used as a cudgel by the Democrats against the GOP at every opportunity…

    ReplyReply
    12
  2. inhumans99 says:

    You are right and she needs to explain to the GOP that they have a chance to take out the king and not miss, but time is running out. If they join her and agree to impeach and convict they could slowly unwind the damage that Trump and his supporters have wrought on the country.

    Everyone always says if you try to take down the king make sure you do not fail in your endeavor and I agree, if the GOP can just agree to work together with Pelosi and the Democratic caucus we could theoretically be done with Trump. He would not be able run again, and other than the Lucianne or Parler type sites no one else would see him anymore as a force to be reckoned with.

    There might be a better than 0% chance that they consider working with Pelosi after yesterday’s events. Pre insurrection attempt by Trump there was less than a snowball’s chance in hell of marginalizing Trump until the 20th rolled around as he would just continue being Trump until a second before he had to vacate the White House, now I am honestly not so sure that it is pointless to try and convict Trump.

    Some members of the GOP might find themselves struggling to be elected dog-catcher a couple years from now, and Trump will be transactional and will never stop only wanting to do something if he can somehow derive a benefit from the action, I suspect the GOP would prefer not to have to spend the next 10-20+ years (Trump could easily live to a ripe old age) tethered to the guy…Pelosi really is doing them a favor and giving them a way out.

    Take the shot GOP, now is your time to make a break with Trumpism, take the shot now or be prepared to forever hold your peace.

    ETA: The TL:DR point of my post is to say that while the GOP should have convicted Trump in the first impeachment trial, they now have an extremely rare opportunity to take another bite of the apple and repudiate Trumpism.

    ReplyReply
    7
  3. Kathy says:

    If this were a movie, Pelosi would have reconvened the House yesterday to vote on impeachment, and McConnell would have found redemption by agreeing to a trial later that night, and Biden’s certification would have proceeded today.

    This is not a movie.

    I won’t make predictions, but I wouldn’t oppose impeachment. I just don’t see the Senate even holding a trial and voting before January 20th.

    ReplyReply
    7
  4. drj says:

    What else can they do? A President who sends a violent mob into the Capitol isn’t something you can let slide.

    ReplyReply
    7
  5. Kathy says:

    I like this charge:

    18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    (emphasis added)

    ReplyReply
    6
  6. mattbernius says:

    Pelosi could almost surely get articles of impeachment passed this afternoon if she so desired. At least, if she hadn’t adjourned the House until after the inauguration.

    This. Dear God so this. Yes, it might be pyrrhic, but at some point, someone needs to be adults in the room.

    And it’s clear that the majority of Republicans–both in Congress and in our communities–have abandoned that sense of responsibility.

    Again, call your Representatives. And Republicans who actually believe everything they’ve told us about American Exceptionalism, and are embarrassed about Trump and what just happened, we need you to join us in this too.

    As I saw on Twitter today, the entire of “let history judge them” fails in a country that’s still divided* on removing Confederate Statutes and removing the names of the Confederate Generals from military bases. At some point we need to finish the work that was abandoned in reconstruction or we will be back here again (and perhaps with more competent leadership for the insurgents).

    ReplyReply
    9
  7. Jay L Gischer says:

    Hmm, particularly with the House adjourned, this seems like an empty gesture. But still, Trump sent a mob into the Capital to disrupt the core proceedings of an election, which is the bedrock of our political system. So they need to draw a line, to call this out as unacceptable.

    ReplyReply
    3
  8. Jon says:

    At least, if she hadn’t adjourned the House until after the inauguration.

    I thought it was the Senate, not the house, that was adjourned until after the inauguration. It looks like the House has a pro-forma session scheduled for 1/11, but I’m not really sure what that means so it may be basically the same as being adjourned.

    ReplyReply
  9. flat earth luddite says:

    @drj:

    What else can they do? A President who sends a violent mob into the Capitol isn’t something you can let slide.

    Of course they can set it slide. And they will. They are more afraid of losing their cushy positions then the destruction of the society they live in. If their heads aren’t up their collective ass, their heads are deep in the sand (or concrete).

    @Kathy:
    I’d be interested in seeing how this would play out in front of a Federal grand jury. I don’t suspect they’d be able to get 12 locals to vote the bill of indictment, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

    ReplyReply
    5
  10. Michael Reynolds says:

    The point is to force Republicans to vote, knowing that they’ve been supporting a thug. We should take every opportunity to hang this around their necks, particularly since we don’t know what Fuckwit Fascist has planned next.

    He will certainly try to pardon himself now. Like the absolute moron he is he’s alienated Pence which presumably closes off that avenue of escape. He’ll pardon himself and his gang members, which will leave it to the Supremes to decide whether he can self-pardon. I’d say that the court cannot possibly support the idea, but then who’d have thought justices would be stupid enough to give corporations the rights of individuals, or kill off the Voting Rights Act?

    ReplyReply
    14
  11. Gustopher says:

    Twitter and Facebook suspending Trump means he is silent… so I think there won’t be a continuing push to remove him.

    I think the Democrats should do it, and give the Republicans an opportunity to repudiate Trump, even if they won’t take it. I expect that some would, though.

    ReplyReply
    1
  12. Kathy says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    The point is to force Republicans to vote

    Not a bad notion.

    Having thought a bit more about this, though, the trail should be held off until January 20th. An acquittal would pretty much allow him to do whatever he wanted without restraint. So let it come when he has no time to do squat.

    He will certainly try to pardon himself now.

    I’d wager money on it (note to self: check the prediction markets). However, I don’t think he’s stupid enough not to know he cannot pardon himself for crimes he has yet to commit. So his self-pardon ought to be literally the last thing he does while in office, possibly within the hour before Biden’s inauguration.

    If he is that stupid, then his self-pardon won’t matter. In that case, he should issue it right now.

    ReplyReply
    5
  13. SKI says:

    @Kathy:
    I think this one is more applicable.
    18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

    ReplyReply
    4
  14. CSK says:

    @Gustopher:
    Did Twitter extend Trump’s suspension? I thought it was only for 12 hours.

    I do know that he tweeted something on an aide’s account earlier today.

    ReplyReply
  15. Andy says:

    One thing I hate about members of Congress is how they constantly abdicate responsibility. That’s what Pelosi and Schumer are doing by putting the 25th amendment option first – an option they both know won’t happen. They are abdicating their responsibility and being political cowards by expecting Executive branch officials to utilize the 25th amendment contrary to its intended purpose so that they don’t have to do an impeachment.

    Pelosi should do her damn job and put articles of impeachment up for a vote.

    ReplyReply
    6
  16. inhumans99 says:

    @CSK:

    Heh, sounds like Trump has already figured out a workaround to the ban by using other WH members twitter accounts to post. Here is the thing though, if all of a sudden this aide’s twitter account starts to post a bunch of garbage that reads suspiciously like something Trump would have posted on his real Donald Trump twitter handle that account will quickly get suspended/banned from using Twitter.

    That this makes it harder for Trump to spew his vainglorious garbage to his Maga moron crowd is of course a plus. Anything that slows down the garbage being spewed from Trump is awesome news.

    ReplyReply
    2
  17. drj says:

    @Andy:

    One thing I hate about members of Congress is how they constantly abdicate responsibility. […] Pelosi should do her damn job

    Yeah, let’s bitch about the adult instead of the sad sacks who effectively put her into an impossible position.

    How emboldened do you think Trump is going to be in his final days if the Senate refuses to convict?

    Alternatively, doing nothing demonstrates implicit acceptance of the fact that the President can send a violent mob into the Capitol.

    The Republic is in crisis and Pelosi absolutely needs GOP support to protect it, in one way or another.

    And here you are, bitching that she’s doing it wrong.

    If the GOP wasn’t made up of a bunch of seditious assholes, Pelosi would actually be in a position to do it right. Blame them, not her.

    ReplyReply
    15
  18. Andy says:

    @drj:

    Yeah, let’s bitch about the adult instead of the sad sacks who effectively put her into an impossible position.

    Pelosi is the House leader by choice. She wanted this job and all the responsibility that comes with it. She doesn’t and shouldn’t get any slack for having to make difficult decisions – this is what she signed up for.

    And this decision shouldn’t be difficult at all. She’s not in an impossible position – quite the contrary. She doesn’t have to support impeachment herself if she doesn’t want to, but she should at least allow it to come up for a vote.

    ReplyReply
    3
  19. drj says:

    @Andy:

    Pelosi is the House leader by choice. She wanted this job and all the responsibility that comes with it.

    My God, you’re such an intellectual coward.

    Instead of honestly engaging with the specific and limiting circumstances Pelosi finds herself in, you start spouting some comfortable banalities about individual choice and personal responsibility.

    “Totally Pelosi’s fault that the likely actions of the treason caucus might further endanger the safety of the Republic. If she hadn’t taken the job in the first place, it wouldn’t be her problem.”

    How old are you? 14?

    ReplyReply
    16
  20. SKI says:

    @CSK: I think it was 12 hours after he deletes the tweets…

    ReplyReply
    1
  21. Matt says:

    @drj: Andy’s default position seems to be that it’s the democrats or the left’s fault.

    My favorite part is how he pretends that Pelosi hadn’t already gotten articles of impeachment passed. As if the results would magically change this time for sure. Like charlie brown running at that football….

    ReplyReply
    6
  22. CSK says:

    @SKI:
    It’s been about 24 hours. Do you suppose he’s been relieved of his phone?

    ReplyReply
  23. Kathy says:

    @Matt:

    Only Democrats have agency, don’t you know?

    So, let’s examine the choice of actions agency allows:

    First and foremost, Pelosi’s job as Speaker is political. As Michael Reynolds pointed out, it’s useful, and important, to let the Republicans vote on impeachment and show how far they back Trump, after the insurrection of January 6th.

    Likewise, it’s important to give the GOP the opportunity to handle their Trump mess in house via the 25th amendment first. They won’t, and we know they won’t, and Madam Speaker surely knows they won’t. But their inaction will be on the record.

    Why not try impeachment right away? Same reason: the GOP won’t vote to convict and remove, and we all know they won’t.

    So, faced with the impossibility of removing Trump from office when he’s most dangerous, et the GOP fail to do so twice, and first when they alone could have done it.

    ReplyReply
    6
  24. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    If they join her and agree to impeach and convict they could slowly unwind the damage that Trump and his supporters have wrought on the country.

    Alas, it’s not in their interests to unwind the damage–slowly or any other way. The damage is done is what GOP policy looks like. What we’re seeing is what they intended to have happen, only at an amazingly incompetent level.

    ReplyReply
    2
  25. Matt says:

    @Kathy: Then pass the articles of impeachment after the seating of the new senate. The extra democratic votes plus the few disgusted GOP members might be enough to actually do something about it.

    ReplyReply
    3
  26. Pylon says:

    Cynically, Cruz, Cotton, Hawley, Rubio, Romney and any other Senator with 2024 ambitions should be motivated to vote to convict Trump and prevent him from running.

    ReplyReply
    6
  27. Matt says:

    @Pylon: You do have a good point but Cruz wouldn’t dare alienate Trumps base which he sees as key to his chances. Hawley seems to be taking a similar route as Cruz. The rest though might be a yea vote in the next senate..

    I have to wonder how much Cruz’s fight with Beto scared him. That’s the closest a senate election has been in Texas since the 70s. A modern progressive dem was only 2.6% points behind him.

    ReplyReply
  28. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    The point is to force Republicans to vote…

    That may well be the point for you, but I think you already have close to 100% of the support that you’re going to get on this question.

    I know, for example, that you wept bitter tears at the betrayal of the country by Nixon. I didn’t! To this day while I will agree that he was stupid and short-sighted–especially about that whole automatic taping every time someone in a room spoke thing–I still believe that the charges were still a nothingburger with no fries and no coke. I’m not changing my mind about this. Yes, I know it compounds my status as an ignint cracker and a seditionist and whatever else you want to accuse me of. I simply don’t care. And I am confident that 65% of Republicans in the House, 7 Republican Senators, and roughly 95% of the people who vote them into office year in and year out, feel exactly about Trump as I do about Nixon.

    Go ahead and get them on record–again. As many times as you want to. It doesn’t matter. 47% of the voters in the country are even more deranged than I am.

    ReplyReply
    2
  29. steve says:

    “Instead of honestly engaging with the specific and limiting circumstances Pelosi finds herself in, you start spouting some comfortable banalities about individual choice and personal responsibility.”

    No. It sounds a lot more like a critique of leadership to me. Sure she is in a difficult position. Yes, it is due to the GOP. So what? If you only want to be a leader when things are easy you shouldn’t have the job. Instead of saying she wants a cabinet of Trump appointees get rid of him (zero chance of happening) she should take action where she has some actual control.

    Personally, Think there is also zero chance of impeachment. You wont find GOP Senators to support it. Pelosi is just trying to embarrass GOP leaders. As if that was possible.

    Steve

    ReplyReply
    3
  30. Andy says:

    @drj:

    My God, you’re such an intellectual coward.

    ….stupid word salad….

    How old are you? 14?

    Clearly further “discussion” with you is a wasted effort. I’ve been a regular on this blog for 15+ and those here who know me understand that I won’t tolerate attacks on my character. But as far as attacks on me at OTB go, this is both the weakest and stupidest in memory. The imagined quote in the word-salad screed is especially charming. I’m not even offended actually.

    I will say it’s pretty bizarre that I’m being accused of being a “coward” (LOL!!!) because I want Democrats to impeach Trump. I won’t pretend to understand how that computes in terms of actual logic or reason.

    Oh, and right on queue, here’s another one:

    @Matt:

    @drj: Andy’s default position seems to be that it’s the democrats or the left’s fault.

    My favorite part is how he pretends that Pelosi hadn’t already gotten articles of impeachment passed. As if the results would magically change this time for sure. Like charlie brown running at that football….

    Just as a point of fact I haven’t blamed “Democrats” for anything here. And the entire second paragraph you wrote is just you making shit up. I’m on record here for supporting Trump’s impeachment over the Ukraine deal. My position is that he should be impeached AGAIN. And if you’d bothered to ask nicely and not be a dick, I would have told you why. And the why isn’t what you’ve alleged in your comment, which is entirely fiction.

    This is a weird attack even by OTB standards. I’m merely criticizing Speaker Pelosi for failing to commit to impeaching a President who deserves it. If you’re going to criticize me for that, at least have the courtesy to criticize what I’ve actually said and not some strawman figment of your imagination.

    I’m very accustomed to the left-leaning regulars here complaining whenever Democrats get any criticism for anything (“bothsiderism!!!!!”), but this is really a new low.

    Pelosi, like any politician, can be criticized. As the Speaker of the House who controls the House agenda, any decision to impeach the President goes through her. I think she is wrong for pawning her chamber’s responsibility off when it comes to holding the President accountable for yesterday’s events.

    Others can disagree and that’s fine, I have no qualms with disagreement. But I would appreciate it if the disagreement came in the form of arguments based on what I’ve actually said and not snide and dishonest inanities. I can see the merits of arguments that Pelosi should not waste her powder on impeachment. I don’t agree with them, but I can see the merits. It would be nice if the people here would spend their time making those arguments based on the merits instead of calling me a coward or spewing some other ad hominem bullshit because I had the temerity to criticize Saint Pelosi. Grow the fuck up.

    This convo is done. Feel free to have the last word, I won’t be responding.

    ReplyReply
    6
  31. dazedandconfused says:

    Trump conceded the election on Twitter tonight.

    I suspect it may have been a gambit and this the desired result. This may have enabled Pence to go to Trump and say he either concedes or it’s the 25th. Rumors are Pence is as pissed off he anyone has ever seen him, and maybe there were some conversations between him, Mitch, and Nancy in a quiet corner of the bunker yesterday. They had time to kill, after all.

    ReplyReply
    3
  32. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:

    I still believe that the charges were still a nothingburger with no fries and no coke.

    You’re wrong.

    Go ahead and get them on record–again.

    I think you misunderstand my purpose. 1) It’s less about the past and more about what may come in the next 13 days. And, 2) It may drive a wedge between Republicans, and that’s a good thing.

    ReplyReply
    4
  33. Erik says:

    @dazedandconfused: You heard it as a concession, and most people probably did. But his followers emphatically did not. They are interpreting the fact that he did not name Biden to mean that the “new administration” will be a Trump administration with all the “traitors” purged. And that the last line about the journey having just begun makes that clear.

    ReplyReply
    2
  34. Paine says:

    Devos is out. Though she spelled “judgment” wrong in her resignation letter, which I found ironic.

    ReplyReply
    2
  35. Kurtz says:

    @Andy:

    One thing I hate about members of Congress is how they constantly abdicate responsibility. That’s what Pelosi and Schumer are doing by putting the 25th amendment option first – an option they both know won’t happen.

    So, they are held responsible by putting the 25th amendment first, because they know it won’t happen.

    But they also know that Trump won’t be removed by the Senate, so doesn’t the same apply there?

    It seems you’re bending over backwards to blame D leadership in a situation entirely created by Rs. You’re putting the weight on two Ds rather than criticizing the vast majority of the party who lit how many fires and lost the key to the fire extinguishers.

    Actually, they may have:

    -forgotten to have the key made

    -stolen the key and are privately auctioning it off or funneling the added work to companies they own

    -claimed there isn’t enough money to deliver said key or distribute the extinguhers

    -claimed the fires are a hoax

    But yes, the Dems are to blame in any of those plausible possibilities.

    ReplyReply
    4
  36. Gustopher says:

    @Andy:

    How old are you? 14?

    Clearly further “discussion” with you is a wasted effort. I’ve been a regular on this blog for 15+

    Fine, you’re 15. Maybe even 16. Big Whoop. Impressive early literacy, but you kind of plateaued early too.

    Trump is mentally unbalanced. Removing the President for a mental heath issue seems to be entirely within the domain of the 25th Amendment, and appropriate in the circumstances because he can be removed suddenly.

    Because of his declining mental health, he has also committed impeachable offenses. Impeachment takes longer, and gives the mentally unbalanced man more time to wreck havoc. It’s a less favored option.

    I expect that Pelosi’s call for the 25th is a gambit in counting votes as much as anything, and getting that conversation started in case there are further outbursts from the man who cannot be trusted to post to Facebook but can be trusted with the nuclear codes.

    The legal other option is to wait it out and hope for the best.

    Maybe someone can trick him into resigning by telling him he is signing ObamaCare repeal, rather than a letter of resignation. That would be fine.

    ReplyReply
    3
  37. dazedandconfused says:

    @Erik:
    At least some of the people whom he said he loved yesterday noticed he’s calling for their prosecution today, but they will be silent.

    ReplyReply
  38. Matt says:

    @Andy:

    My position is that he should be impeached AGAIN.

    Why? We already know where that leads and it’ll just unify the GOP.

    I would of written a longer post but you provided no reasons why Pelosi should do what you’re advocating. All you did was attack Pelosi for not doing it. No one had even submitted articles of impeachment yet but that didn’t stop you from claiming Pelosi was blocking any attempt.

    ReplyReply
    1
  39. de stijl says:

    Public Enemy – Rebel Without A Pause off It Will Take A Nation Of Millions….

    Impeach the President

    Terminator X. Ter… Terminator X.

    Chuck D is the man. And the best Flava performance ever. “Hey, Chuck! They just don’t understand.”

    ReplyReply
    1
  40. de stijl says:

    @An Interested Party:

    Smart messaging folks are gonna Sun Tzu the crap out of Trump and R subservience to him.

    Low hanging fruit.

    ReplyReply
  41. de stijl says:

    I am fascinated as to how Texas voters will process and react to Cruz’ actions leading up to 1/6.

    He is clearly toxic, and a cuckold to boot, in my mind, but I am not a R Texas voter.

    How will this play out for Cruz in TX and Hawley in MO? They were the guys who inspired this madness. Will there be blow-back?

    I have zero respect for Cruz. Less than zero. Trump humiliated you in 2015 and yet you support him now? Have you no shame, Senator?

    Hawley is new. I do not know him other than as a Trump loyalist. It seems as if his 2024 ambitions got squashed on 1/6. Failed insurrectionist is not a good look.

    AOC totally pwned Cruz yesterday.

    ReplyReply
    1
  42. de stijl says:

    @Paine:

    Devo was a fucking brilliant band. They had a backstory. It was nonsense, but it was really fucking cool. De-evolution. Jocko Homo. Effing brilliant. The Mothersbaugh bros probably had a very interesting family.

    Best band from Ohio? I would certainly pick Guided By Voices, but Devo is a close second. I have a friend who is DEVO freak fan. I respect her conviction.

    Betsy Devos last minute pearl – clutching is sad. You knew him and what he was capable of and yet you signed up anyway.

    Btw, Devos is clearly the worst DOE Secretary of all time and it will take years to unwind her weird rules on culpability on sexual abuse cases/Title IX.

    Devos should ashamed and dunned for the rest of her life. She chose to serve under an utterly unfit President and wrecked the DOE on purpose. Fuck her.

    ReplyReply
    1
  43. de stijl says:

    Robert Pollard was a math substitute teacher before he became a lo-fi indie rock god.

    Can you imagine being taught the fundamentals of geometry by Pollard?

    How fucking cool is that?

    Glad Girls, Motor Away, My Valuable Hunting Knife, Game Of Pricks, etc.

    You got taught geometry by the closest thing between us and ascended godhood.

    Those kids were blessed.

    ReplyReply
  44. SC_Birdflyte says:

    I think Pence (and perhaps others) have tacitly invoked the 25th and have passed the word that no orders from Trump are to be followed unless Pence gives his okay.

    ReplyReply
    1
  45. CSK says:

    I’m not the first person to make this observation, but Trump looked as if he was being forced to deliver his concession speech last night at gunpoint. What do you think they said to him to make him do it. “Here’s what you have to say. Say it or we boot you out of office?”

    How long will it be before he repudiates it?

    ReplyReply
    3
  46. CSK says:

    @SC_Birdflyte:
    I think Pence has been Acting President since Wednesday afternoon. They’re just not making it public for fear of more rioting.

    ReplyReply
    5
  47. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @SKI:

    I’d argue that they are not mutually exclusive. 2384 is, at basis, entering into a conspiracy to violate 2383. Any competent prosecutor would bring both forward for consideration by the GJ.

    ReplyReply
    1
  48. SKI says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I agree they aren’t exclusive and should both be pursued. That said, I think the wording of 2383 may be a bigger challenge as it requires “rebellion or insurrection” and 2384 only requires interference in attempt to delay execution of the laws. I think it would be an easier sell to a jury (not that a DC jury is going to quibble much with either).

    ReplyReply
    1
  49. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Andy:

    I think perhaps you are scope locked on a too rigid interpretation of Section 4 that doesn’t comport with reality. As I argued in the other thread, contained within the power granted to the acting body (whether that’s the cabinet or whatever alternative Congress may designate together with the VP) to strip the sitting president of his powers (contrary to popular opinion, the 25th does not remove him/her from office) either temporarily or indefinitely is the implicit power to determine for themselves when, and on what justification, he/she in unable to discharge the duties of office.

    I don’t impugn your motives at all, just your interpretation.

    ReplyReply
    3
  50. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @SKI:

    I don’t disagree. The problem with 2384 is that it is a conspiracy statute, which means that you are going to have to find somebody else who knowingly took action in furtherance of the conspiracy in concert with Trump. It’s not enough to sustain 2384 that Trump acted; somebody else has to have knowingly acted in concert with him. I’m not sure who that would be, or worse how you’d prove they acted in coordination. It’s a stretch, but hands down no argument that I’d take it to the GJ anyway. It’s pasta; grab a handful and throw it at the wall. Whatever sticks is ready to eat. 😀

    ReplyReply
    1
  51. SKI says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Honestly, I was thinking less about Trump and more about the mob, given the numbers involved and the online planning that occurred conspiracy shouldn’t be an issue.

    ReplyReply
    3
  52. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @SKI:

    Oh absolutely. 100 percent, without question. When you stop to consider the lunacy of fomenting a conspiracy to engage in sedition via social media, in public view, with an audit trail and record retention, these people have already made that case for you. It’s a slam dunk IMO. They’ve never been accused of being bright though. All passion, no street smarts 🙂

    ReplyReply
    1
  53. al Ameda says:

    Ohers before me have said it: Congress needs to go on the record here.

    This was an unprecedented act of insurrection that was clearly, openly, and directly incited by the President. All of it was viewed by all of us in real time. Honestly, I was dreading the possibility that Members of Congress, the Vice President, or Congressional Staff were being held hostage or were murdered.

    Congress, despite time limitations, must see it through to act on an emergency basis, to draft an Article of Impeachment, and go on the record with a vote to impeach and convict. Perhaps Republicans will again decline to convict, but I suspect that more that 1 Republican would vote ‘yes’ this time.

    ReplyReply
    4
  54. Owen says:

    @An Interested Party: Although true that the Senate is unlikely to provide the 67 required votes, I think it would benefit the nation to get those votes (and House votes) on record. Even without engaging in witch hunts through Special Counsels or DoJ priorities, enough criminal activity is going to be drug into the news over the next two years to impact the 2022 elections.

    ReplyReply
    3
  55. Andy says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I don’t impugn your motives at all, just your interpretation.

    Thanks, I appreciate that. I didn’t intend to capture you in my rant, or anyone beyond those I directly responded to.

    ReplyReply
    2
  56. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Andy:

    Not at all, I didn’t take it that way. Just wanted to be clear about what I was questioning. Your integrity or motives wouldn’t ever be it.

    ReplyReply
    1
  57. charon says:
  58. charon says:

    3rd page

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErPF4YvW4AMMCQD?format=jpg&name=small

    https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1347534423458197506

    I think we have the 67 votes to convict now.

    Lisa Murkowski etc. etc been saying stuff too.

    ReplyReply

Speak Your Mind

*