It is unconstitutional to use the 25th Amendment to circumvent impeachment provisions. The 25th can be used only if POTUS is physically or psychiatrically incapacitated. Any other use is unconstitutional. I challenge anyone to argue differently'And here he is last night on Tucker Carlson, saying the same thing much more vehemently (replete with the word "treason"):
Meanwhile:
Trump just said; “I didn’t need to do this. But I’d rather do it much faster.”— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) February 15, 2019
Whatever a national emergency may be, that’s not it.
That quote is going right in the lawsuit. https://t.co/FzwS4xIaMw
ADDED: Poll results:
पोस्ट्स
१०४ टिप्पण्या:
Ann, one of these things is not like the other.
False equivalence.
OK so Trump just said there's no real emergency. That'll torpedo any chance of this succeeding. I think its obvious that Trump is really and Amnesty Open borders guy like all Billionaires - but just decided it was good "campaign rhetoric" to say the opposite.
Or maybe trump is just stupid. Certainly his numerous appointments of people who despise him and have stabbed him in the back - maybe that's that's the real reason
For some reason Trump REFUSES to fight with McConnell. He's given way every time Mitch has opposed him. Whether its signing off on horrible budget deals, supporting Strange for Alabama Governor, doing Obamacare first and then tax cuts, he's been Mitch's poodle.
Not one veto in 3 years. I think that's a record.
If Dems don't like it, Dems should've spoken up when Obama abused the sweet bejesus out of Executive Orders, rather than saying "He has no choice! Congress is broken!"
And Republicans should've spoken up when Bush abused the EO too.
And that's how we got here!
Rush is cheer-leading for Trump. Does his usual shtick of saying the "Republicans in Congress" are out to get Trump - but REFUSES to name names.
One of the rules IS the 25th Amendment. I don't understand all of this talk about a "coup d'état" or "treason." A handful of lawyers at the FBI talked about the application of the 25th Amendment. There's nothing about that, that is remotely illegal. And a court would have been involved, in any search warrant, wiretap, or 25th Amendment challenge.
As for the President's invocation of the National Emergencies Act of 1976, that too will be reviewed by a federal court. What is wrong with that? I do worry that the federal courts might ultimately decide that the National Emergencies Act of 1976 CAN be used the way that Trump proposes, because I worry what a progressive/Democratic president might do with such power. But I expect that the record will ultimately show that Trump's "emergency" isn't an emergency at all.
So no, Althouse; I am not playing your game of they are both equitable as "the easy way" or not.
The process of removal via the 25th amendment is a more complicated process that requires a larger support from Congress than simple impeachment does. Combined with the improbability of getting enough members of the Cabinet, all chosen and nominated by Trump, to do it, any prospect of 25th amendment's use to dispose of a non-disabled president is thin.
These are not the same thing at all.
Complete garbage.
I would be embarrassed to try to make this point.
rcocean said...
Rush is cheer-leading for Trump. Does his usual shtick of saying the "Republicans in Congress" are out to get Trump - but REFUSES to name names.
Yeah, with "friends" like Rush, who needs enemies?
Hannity too.
What Trump is doing is unconstitutional, because the Constitution says whatever progressives want it to say. He can use his pen and his phone, but that's all. How in the hell did we get a congress (both parties) that steadfastly refuse to do what they were elected for, yet demand that no one else do their job for them. That the Republican conferees agreed to this monstrosity of a bill shows why they should all be primaried next election. It would be hard to get someone worse.
CHuck, however, is happy to cheerlead for Pelosi and Schumer.
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Matthew 7:13-14
The easy way is almost always the wrong way. The hard way, even when it's very hard, is almost aways easier in the end.
The core function of the government, indeed it's part of its basis for its legitimacy is national defense and border integrity. Trump is required to do both. He is trying to do both. The Democrats in Congress with the tacit approval of various Republicans are actively undermining his Constitutional requirement to do both. Trump's problem is in he doesn't articulate this very well.
Watching McCabe speak on camera is a real treat. He is a master deceiver. He is a master manipulator. It would be nice to get him drunk, loosen him up, and have him dish on what's really on his mind.
So glad that the FBI fired his ass for lying.
Amy Klobuchar put it enignmatically: "Let’s stop seeing those obstacles as obstacles on our path.... Let’s see those obstacles as our path."
The obstacles ARE the path!
Chuck:
One of the rules IS the 25th Amendment. I don't understand all of this talk about a "coup d'état" or "treason."
Yes you do. You are lying for Team Dem again.
Unexpectedly.
As long as there are national emergency statutes on the books I see no reason why Trump shouldn't use them, as other presidents have done. If those statutes give the president too much power, congress should revise them. Should the president not protect the states from invasion? Doing so is not merely a domestic infrastructure project (as it has been called by some).
Here's the text of the relevant part of the 25th Amendment, which Dershowitz says is obviously limited to things like what happened to Woodrow Wilson (that is, he has a stroke and he isn't able to do his work or communicate his resignation — he's just alive).
"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."
You could take that word "unable" and use it for any President you want to characterize as incompetent. Dershowitz obviously thinks that's wrong, so obviously wrong that even to talk about whether it could apply to a President you just think has a strange mind and pattern of behavior that's dangerous is to be plotting a coup. But it's not hard to find legal experts who will stretch the word "unable" and break free of the historical context (which was the immediate aftermath of the JFK assassination (what if a brain-damaged JFK were still alive).
"Whatever a national emergency may be, that’s not it." Don't see why really. An emergency is exactly that, when something needs to be done fast even though it could eventually be done slowly.
It seems to me that using the 25th Amendment to remove a president from office (and perhaps only temporarily, at that) is actually harder than using the Impeachment clause (whereby such removal would be permanent). Impeachment requires only a majority of the House, with Conviction then requiring agreement by two-thirds of the Senate.
On the other hand, the 25th Amendment seems to give the Vice President a veto over the entire procedure. If the VP doesn't concur with invoking the 25th, the process of removing the president in that way cannot even begin. Moreover, assuming that the VP and a majority of the Cabinet do agree on his removal, the President's objection to that effort would require two-thirds of both houses of Congress (not just the Senate) to uphold such a removal.
It's pretty perturbing that the top leadership of the FBI has time to sit around fantasizing about achieving things that have pretty close to a zero possibility of happening. Basically, their thought process seems to have been: we have no chance to remove Trump from office via the impeachment process because Congress is controlled by Republicans, so let's strategize about something that has even less chance of succeeding, because it will also require Mike Pence's assent, in addition to the approval of even more members of that very same Republican Congress.
Obama declared 13 national emergencies during his tenure and I cannot remember any of them. Apparently it is not a high bar.
rcocean said...
OK so Trump just said there's no real emergency.
Do you have an exact quote for that, preferably with a link?
One of these things are functionaries in government conspiring to abuse a constitutional provision to overturn the results of a free and fair election. That should care the bejesus out of anyone who believes that democracy matters. Which, it seems, are not most of the people who call themselves Democrats. And hangers on, like Chuck.
Bay Area Guy said...
Watching McCabe speak on camera is a real treat. He is a master deceiver. He is a master manipulator. It would be nice to get him drunk, loosen him up, and have him dish on what's really on his mind.
So glad that the FBI fired his ass for lying.
We should just skip that part...
THat doesn't mean it was improper to discuss it. Perhaps they came to the same conclusion as Dershowitz and thus dropped it. They were just doing their job by considering their options in the event the evidence showed Trump was a Russian agent. Impeachment/trial take a long time. 25th amendment is quicker and has built in safeguards. You need 2/3 vote in both House and Senate. And approval of VP and a majority of the Cabinet.
Ann Althouse said...
You could take that word "unable" and use it for any President you want to characterize as incompetent.
I find it interesting that democrats and their supporters like Ann wish their enemies to be restrained by words they refuse to accept.
You people can take "unable" and stretch it to mean anything you want.
It would still be a coup.
And you would immediately have civil war 2.
Personally, I don't think it is an emergency. In terms of executive powers, my opinion counts for squat. The law gives Trump the authority to decide what is an emergency. Not me. Not the Democrats. Not the courts.
Note that the law does place limits on what powers Trump gets to exercise based on the declaration of an emergency, and I have no idea whether what he plans to do falls within those limits. I'm sure that will be litigated, and I don't know how it will or should turn out. But the declaration of an emergency should stand.
steve uhr said...
THat doesn't mean it was improper to discuss it. Perhaps they came to the same conclusion as Dershowitz and thus dropped it. They were just doing their job by considering their options in the event the evidence showed Trump was a Russian agent. Impeachment/trial take a long time. 25th amendment is quicker and has built in safeguards. You need 2/3 vote in both House and Senate. And approval of VP and a majority of the Cabinet.
Everyone in that room knew Hillary took $145 million from Russia ans sold them Uranium.
They didn't give two shits about the law.
They knew exactly what they were doing.
They were plotting a coup.
The 25th Amendment assumes the POTUS is smart enough to surround himself with a VP and cabinet officers who have some loyalty to him.
They never imagined someone like Trump who would surround himself with enemies and backstabbers!
I like Dershowitz! But the only problem is unless someone goes after people like McCabe (assuming this is truthful) then we are only talking out of the wrong side of our mouth.
Again, I find it hilarious that we talk constantly about Rothenstein, Comey, and McCabe - and NEVER about Jeff Sessions - the AG.
Evidently, McCabe never bothered about Sessions either. All he had to do was talk to Rothenstein because Sleepy Jeff would rubber-stamp everything or more interested in playing Parcheesi or something.
steve uhr said...
They were just doing their job by considering their options in the event the evidence showed Trump was a Russian agent.
Bullshit. If Trump turned out to be a Russian agent, the 25th amendment would not be an option. A Russian agent is capable of performing the duties of the President, he just chooses not to.
And note that they were not just debating if the 25th amendment applied. They were counting heads.
There was absolutely ZERO reason for McCabe and Rothenstein to be talking about a silent Coup. But then, they were the ones who illegally wiretapped Trump so it all makes sense from that perspective.
Not seeing "Veto the damn bill and then declare an emergency -- for wall funding and a loan pool to support out of work federal employees"
Who ran the show when Garfield was dying?
Ignorance is Bliss said...
And note that they were not just debating if the 25th amendment applied. They were counting heads.
And planting wires.
This all about politics, not about what is right or proper or best. It is extremely discouraging to watch important things boil down to power struggles between parties rather than what is right and proper and best. People want Trump out of office, not because he actually deserves ouster, but because they don't want him in there and they lost using the more traditional ways. So, instead they try and subvert the system to gain political power. The whole POINT of the system was to make things hard so that short-term political motivations would not drive the long term trajectory.
As for the border wall, there is NO justification for allowing illegal immigration. Zero. Absolutely NONE. It is ridiculous that people would create these horrible moral hazards as a way to gain political power. It is despicable and evil. We should have absolute control over who we allow in and we should make it clear that there are penalties for trying to cheat, there are bigger penalties for exploiting children, running drugs raping women etc. In what sick perverted mind does it make sense to encourage that behavior and foster it by handcuffing the government and not letting it prevent exploitation, cheating and and drug running? You want more refugees? You want more immigrants? Fine. Fight THAT battle. Don't do it through the back door of illegal trafficking. Create legislation that increases the number of refugees. Relax the the requirements for entry so that you don't need a PHD or computer skills to get admitted. Argue THAT in congress and PASS a bloody bill for goodness sake.
As for the "emergency", that is hard to argue for. The President SHOULD have the ability to enforce the law, but congress gets to pass the funding. So if congress doesn't want a law enforced, they cut the funding. That is how it is supposed to be done. If he didn't like the bill, veto it and take his case BACK to the people. "Here is the law. here is what I want to do to enforce the law. Call your congress-critter and tell them to stop trying to undermine the law through passive-aggressive behavior. Either allow me to enforce the law or change the law." Let the chips fall where they may. But people seem to be idiots and there are those who absolutely will undermine the law for political gain rather than have the integrity to get the law changed.
Tucker Carlson is one of the ONLY honest journalists on TV.
CNN and MSDNC are joke-hack networks with guests who include other hacks such as the creepy porn lawyer and this guy, over an over.
If AA wants to compare the president's power to declare an emergency with anything, the attempt of Congress to usurp the Executive Branch's powers by inserting micro-management provisions into legislation might be a better example.
In this case, I think both are heading to the courts, and it will be interesting to see if the Supremes will take a hand or just tell them: A pox on both your houses; this is political and you need to settle it between you.
Or maybe the 2020 election will do it for them.
Farmer said...
If Dems don't like it, Dems should've spoken up when Obama abused the sweet bejesus out of Executive Orders, rather than saying "He has no choice! Congress is broken!"
And Republicans should've spoken up when Bush abused the EO too.
And that's how we got here!
DING, DING, DING!! Exactly right!!
What was President Obama's excuse for using Legislative power to "do" DACA?
Whatever that was, Trump should use the same reason, right?
Obama said several times that he couldn't do DACA (or something like it) unilaterally. He said Congress had to pass something to get it done. That was true.
Congress "failed" to get anything done. Obama then said "hey, since Congress can't get this done that gives me authority to do it myself." Now that's not true, in the "is this Constitutional" sense...but the courts have upheld that action (and have, in fact, prevented the subsequent President from undoing it!).
So, here we are. People talking about this "creating" a precedent are just wrong.
DACA exists and was accomplished via Executive action. It's idiotic to pretend otherwise.
Please don't read my line "You could take that word "unable" and use it for any President you want to characterize as incompetent" out of context.
I'm no saying I would interpret the amendment that way, just that I know that many legal experts would do that and could easily do that.
I heard Scott Adams on his podcast today laughing at someone who disagreed with Dershowitz's interpretation. Adams kept saying Dershowitz is the biggest constitutional law expert so if you disagree with him you're a fool. But there are many other conlaw experts, and they don't all line up with Dershowitz.
I like Adams, but sometime he makes radically specious arguments and he uses such extreme and mocking language when he does it.
And you would immediately have civil war 2.
That would require competent and recognized leadership, which isn't apparent. Presumably, Trump and Pence would be out of action. The next election, if there is one, would be interesting.
Both strike me as mostly political kerfuffles, but for different reasons. As for discussions at the FBI and DOJ about possibly using the 25th Amend to get rid of Trump, nothing came of them leaving nothing to complain about . That they were talking in those terms (they probably knew that the discussion was going nowhere even as they toyed with it) sheds light on their anti-Trump biases, and that's important to know for other reasons. And now that it's public, it can only help Trump with his drain-the-swamp pitch.
As for the emergency powers, I don't see how a refusal by Congress to appropriate money deemed important by the President can result in an emergency. The political branches have hit a stalemate, a result that's built into the 'checks and balances' design. But I also don't see anyone who is likely to having standing to challenge the President's declaration of an emergency in court, nor any standards a court could use to second-guess a president's declaration of an emergency. (Plaintiffs will probably find a district judge who will disagree on both points, but that strikes me as one abuse of power on top of another.) Once an emergency is declared the president can use whatever powers other statutes give him including any power to move already-appropriated money around for other purposes.
Both cases are just a continuation of the non-stop political battles that started the day Trump won the election. They won't be resolved by any court and will continue to rage at least until the voters make the ultimate decision in 2020 at the ballot box.
When were statements in a press conference proper to put in a pleading. Answer: Never.
FRCP says the Complaint should recite a short and plain statement of the facts.
The 25th amendment isn't really necessary because Congress already had the power to impeach and remove such an executive for any reason it chooses. Wilson's condition was known long before Harding took over in 1921, and yet Congress failed to act. The only thing the 25th did was codify the cabinet and the VP in initiating action, but they already had the power to do so by simply informing the House that impeachment for impairment was necessary. The only thing the 25th amendment seems to actually do is require 2/3s of the House to agree with removal under the 25th itself- a higher bar for removal than impeachment is which only requires a majority of the House, but then the 25th doesn't abrogate Congress' power to impeach for any reason it chooses.
I imagine it'll be in the courts for quite a while.
I was surprised he didn't offer Pelosi stuff that would be hard to turn down. I can think of a bunch of stuff off hand: raising the minimum wage, make election day into a national holiday, or, for something more drastic, allow people to buy into medicare 2-5 years early.
Any of these would have been hard to impossible for House Ds to turn down. Lots of pressure to accept. They would've been throwing $$ at him for a wall. Raising the minimum wage or adding another holiday would have been broadly popular for the 2020 election for Trump.
But it's not hard to find legal experts who will stretch the word "unable" and break free of the historical context (which was the immediate aftermath of the JFK assassination (what if a brain-damaged JFK were still alive).
@Althouse, hold you explain something for me? Is it that you namby-pamby ivory tower inhabitants foolishly think that the net result wouldn’t be violent? Or do you actually think that the deep state would win?
wwww,
Pelosi can't accept any deal- that was obvious in early January.
Amy Klobuchar put it enignmatically: "Let’s stop seeing those obstacles as obstacles on our path.... Let’s see those obstacles as our path."
That's so deep it's meaningless.
Yancey Ward said...
The 25th amendment isn't really necessary because Congress already had the power to impeach and remove such an executive for any reason it chooses.
Impeachment is only supposed to be used for high crimes and misdemeanors. Not for illness. I think it is quite appropriate to provide a way for a President to be removed for illness, and a Constitutional amendment is the only way to do that in our system. Of course, they could have written the amendment to say that impeachment can be used in the case of illnesses, but they decided on a different route. One that is quicker and easier in the case of a truly incapacitated President.
David Begley said...
FRCP says the Complaint should recite a short and plain statement of the facts.
Well, I say the Complaint should recite a short poem, preferably a limerick.
Ann Althouse said...
Please don't read my line "You could take that word "unable" and use it for any President you want to characterize as incompetent" out of context.
I'm no saying I would interpret the amendment that way, just that I know that many legal experts would do that and could easily do that.
I heard Scott Adams on his podcast today laughing at someone who disagreed with Dershowitz's interpretation. Adams kept saying Dershowitz is the biggest constitutional law expert so if you disagree with him you're a fool. But there are many other conlaw experts, and they don't all line up with Dershowitz.
I like Adams, but sometime he makes radically specious arguments and he uses such extreme and mocking language when he does it.
You've been most delicate, Althouse.
"I no longer care about the fucking law."
~Scott Adams
Article II:
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
This sounds like the 25th amendment wasn't necessary.
The problem here is that too many people mistake their traditional rituals with reality.
And that's what all law and constitutions amount to, rituals. Offices are labels.
Everything in this is not just mutable but infinitely redefinable.
Frankfurter was wrong - not because government isn't difficult, but because he mistook your rituals for substance.
There are only such "checks and balances" that matter if the balance of power permits them to matter. Ultimately all that matters is power, and power comes out of the barrel of a gun.
A handful of lawyers at the FBI talked about the application of the 25th Amendment.
Hey, quick question for the lawyers here: does the 25th amendment say that the President can be declared unfit or unable to continue as President by "lawyers at the FBI?" Here's the relevant text:
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
Interesting! It doesn't say a fucking thing about lawyers at the FBI! Weird, weird--it says a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments--plural. Are "lawyers at the FBI" in any way considered principal officers of multiple departments? They obviously are not. So what the hell authority do they have to plot--while on government time, in government buildings, using government resources--to have the sitting duly elected President removed using the 25th amendment? How is that anything other than working on a coup?
When I first read the references to McCabe asking about wiretapping the President or others discussing the 25th amend. I honestly assumed that too much was being made of it--I assumed it was some tossed off sarcastic or exasperated comment and not indicative of the actual thoughts and plans these people had. But now they're proudly confirming that they actual did mean it and they actually did talk about doing this stuff!
If you want to get rid of the guy then resign and run for office (or work for CNN, whatever). IF you think he's guilty of some crime then get the correct authority to go after him and prosecute according to the law. If you just don't like the guy and think he's a bad/dangerous President and decide to use your position, influence, and government power to get him removed from office....that's a goddamned coup. It's insane to pretend that's just business as usual or the kind of thing a real LifeLongRepublican would be just fine with!
McCabe and his ilk should be indicted.
Sorry that's just the order of succession.
Have I missed a memo, or does the poll gloss over the question whether Congress granted the President the emergency power he is now invoking. If so, he is not "bypass[ing]" Congress. The question is not (at least immediately) one of Constitutional separation-of-powers, it is one of statutory interpretation. If the statutory interpretation question is resolved against the President, then it is easy to say the expenditures violate separation of powers. If the statutory interpretation question is resolved in the President's favor, I suppose there would then be a question whether the purported delegation of spending authority to the Executive constituted a violation of separation of powers by Congress.
Its an interesting thing, all this argument about law.
Its like a virtual layer above a true physical game, a UI perhaps over an actual operating technical system. Some of you people seem to live in that abstracted UI. But that UI isn't your app, not your database, not your device drivers, not your hardware, not your wiring, not your instruments, and not the physical process that they are sending data back about.
I think McCabe has opened a can of worms that he will eventually regret opening. The DoJ and the FBI discussing among themselves initiating 25th Amendment procedures for removing a president is improperly seditious. According to McCabe's own words, they were probably already talking with cabinet officials, or at the very least counting on those whose "support" they might be able to get. One should strongly suspect that given it is an acting FBI Director holding these discussions, he had access to intelligence on these cabinet members- on what other basis could "noses" be counted in the first place?
Underneath all of this, though, you have to keep in mind a text Strzok wrote to Lisa Page around this same time of May 2017- Strzok outright admitted that there was "no there there" when it came to the Russian/Trump investigation, and he was in a better position to know this than anyone else in the FBI.
For me, the key question is what was Rosenstein's role? If Rosenstein was being sarcastic in that meeting about wearing a wire, then the Mueller appointment does tend to look like Rosenstein's choice as a last ditch effort to cut McCabe's/Comey's sedition off at the knees by removing all of the investigation from McCabe's and Comey's holdovers hands. This supposition, of course, is undercut by Rosenstein's allowing Mueller to pick some of the same people for the investigation itself- for example Strzok and Page.
If Rosenstein wasn't being sarcastic, then things are likely much darker and seditious because it will then be likely that Trump was deliberately gaslighted into firing Comey as a ruse to initiate an impeachment/25th Amendment ploy- all done with Comey's blessing or design. In other words, it would hard to square the fact of Rosenstein writing that memo that led to Comey's firing with Rosenstein being serious about wearing a wire and participating in a 25 Amendment scheme.
Right now, I lean towards Rosenstein simply being out of his depth and appointing Mueller in desperation at finding a brewing coup in the FBI Director's office. However, there were other people in that room, and they might have more insight into Rosenstein's involvement.
Genius GOP Establishment, TrueConservative, and Principled Remnant types laughed and mocked when people talked about Deep State machinations.
This asshole stands up and says "yeah we plotted, yeah we wanted to try and get rid of him, I'm proud of it and I'd do it again!" and those TrueConservatives are oddly silent.
He's saying "you're damn right I ordered the Code Red!" and LifeLongRepublicans are pretending not to hear...or pretending that there's nothing wrong with it after all (having denied that any such thing could have possibly been done at all).
You fuckers think we don't notice you've slipped straight from "this couldn't have happened and only crazy alt-right weirdo conspiracy theorists would think it could" to "yeah it happened, it's completely normal and no big deal--only crazy alt-right conspiracy theorists think this is unusual or any sort of problem" don't you? We notice, assholes.
How long has Trump been negotiating with Congress over this issue? He didn't ignore the Congress. They refused to solve the problem. Now Trump is willing to go through the court process. That can hardly be called doing it the easy way.
I note that Trump has avoided getting into the details of the actual costs of illegal immigration. He's made his case by focusing on the murders, illegal drugs, gangs, sex traffickers that are entering our unsecured border. Are those problems acute or chronic, is it an emergency or not? Does it matter whether we call that an emergency? No. Does the situation warrant action by the president when the Congress refuses to act? Yes.
A court case will definitely bring out all the information about the costs of an open border; not only about the major crimes, but also the costs of the good people entering illegally and using our social services and those committing minor crimes, etc. I don't know if that is relevant to the legal argument but I think it should. Better for the courts to handle this because judges don't face elections.
Richard Dolan said...
As for discussions at the FBI and DOJ about possibly using the 25th Amend to get rid of Trump, nothing came of them leaving nothing to complain about
There are numerous values for X such that Conspiracy to commit X is a crime, even if they never get around to committing X.
I'm not saying that is the case here. But I will say that any of the people involved would be happy to argue that is the case for an analogous set of facts if they could use it as a way to go after someone in the Trump administration.
Pelosi can't accept any deal- that was obvious in early January.
You publicize the offer.
"I want to raise the minimum wage. Or I want to add in a national holiday on Tuesday voting day." That gets people calling D House members. That's what splits the caucus & puts pressure on Pelosi. & if she didn't accept the deal, it hurts the approval ratings of Ds in congress. Win, Trump gets funding. Loose, there's a political cost for the other side.
Lots of pressure on Pelosi. Splits the House caucus. Spits the Ds in House & Senate.
Medicare buy-in 3 years early? Earthquake. The D Senate & D House would have revolted if Pelosi didn't accept the deal. Constituents would have been calling their phones off the hook. She'd be out as a leader if she didn't put it up for a vote. They would have been throwing $$ at Trump.
But I think they would have done it for a national holiday on Tuesday voting day or for a small minimum wage raise.
Richard Dolan said...As for the emergency powers, I don't see how a refusal by Congress to appropriate money deemed important by the President can result in an emergency. The political branches have hit a stalemate, a result that's built into the 'checks and balances' design.
That's accurate; 100% correct.
It has to contend, though, with the reality that past Presidents have used exactly that justification when taking improper Executive action and have "gotten away with it."
Either it's a rule or it isn't. If it's not a rule that constrains a President Obama then it's not a rule that should constrain a President Trump.
I think it should constrain both. Having it only constrain one, though, is not acceptable.
Ah in a real dictatorship--or say in the reign of Henry VIII, those plotters---McCabe and Rosenstein, Clapper and Brennan, would be tied to the end of a harrow and dragged through the streets of London to their execution. Their heads would adorn spikes on the tops of gates to the city. Ah for a return to the good old days (Sarc)
More modern types--such as Saddam Hussein dispensed with all that-- and simply fed their traitors to a wood chipper.
But all that bloody nonsense above aside, the actions of the Obama Weaponized Justice Department and FBI are beyond unseemly.
What other actions did McCabe take between May 2017 and his removal from his position? Those are questions we haven't seen addressed yet by anyone, but we are getting some hints in recent weeks because even the anti-Trump media are starting to prepare their consumers for Mueller coming up dry.
I no longer care about the fucking Chuck.
Article IV:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion
In deal-making, you gotta give the other side something they want.
The other side isn't the representatives as much as the constituents. The ones who call and threaten to not donate in future elections and can threaten a primary.
The everyday voter doesn't care about DACA because it doesn't affect their life or people they know. An extra paid federal holiday does affect the everyday person. Medicare buy in, minimum wage raise. Gotta offer them something they actually want.
And a court would have been involved, in any search warrant, wiretap, or 25th Amendment challenge.
Who's talking about a search warrant or a wiretap? They had a wiretap already approved by the FISA court for Carter Page back in October of 2016, which arguably got them a wiretap on presidential communications (and half of DC) already.
The claim in the media was that Rosenstein (R says he was joking) offered to wear a wire. You don't need a warrant for a wire. That's not a wiretap.
And what court would be involved in a 25th amendment invocation. (Side note: is it a "challenge"? Seems like the 25th amendment is just a declaration. The president doesn't get a say on the 25th amendment, because, you know, the point of the amendment is that he's supposed to be incapacitated! If he can challenge it, he's not incapacitated.)
Richard Dolan said...
As for the emergency powers, I don't see how a refusal by Congress to appropriate money deemed important by the President can result in an emergency.
That is not the argument. The argument is that there is an emergency, independent of Congress's action or inaction.
If there is such an emergency, then Trump has the authority to declare that emergency, and use the resulting statutory powers. He decided to try to work with Congress first. Attempting to work with Congress does not in any way waive his statutory powers to act on his own.
As I said before, I don't think there is an emergency. But Congress, in their short-sighted way, did not invest in me the authority to declare emergencies. They gave that power to the President.
I think they would have done it for a national holiday on Tuesday voting day
Early voting offers more opportunity for fraud.
Rosenstein's duty was to shut down the discussion emphatically, or resign when his failure became public. Femall.
"Lots of pressure on Pelosi. Splits the House caucus. Spits the Ds in House & Senate."
At one time this would have been true. But its no longer like that. Very few of those people have the sort of independence from their funders and from those who will provide for the remainder of their careers, or those of their friends and relatives, to make a deal.
These are not independent agents, they have owners. Negotiation is properly with their owners. However their owners are dead set against, come what may. They care very little about anything else that their politicians are offered. Indeed, some of the things you mention are absurd when dealing at this level. Medicare? They don't care, that's something for the proles.
This is a game of power. Power comes first, everything else comes after.
An "emergency" does not mean there is only one solution. It means something needs urgent action. Doing it the slow way is what would disprove that it's an emergency.
Of all the national emergencies called by Clinton, Bush, and Obama, none of them actually had to do it. They were all the easier way to do it.
As noted above, McCabe is a once skilled liar who has lost it. But he is the type of liar that the Moses's Ten Commandments ruled worthy of a death penalty himself. He lies in Court proceedings that will lead to the execution of an innocent person.
Hang Em High.
You don't have a dictatorship. You are in a transitional state between an oligarchy, operating as a cabal, and the remnants of a democratic republic.
There is nothing to negotiate between these two. The points of contention are simply too basic. There is nothing to trade.
Which of these things is (or was) the greatest national emergency for the United States:
Transactions with Burma,
Importation of rough diamonds from Sierra Leonne, or
Greater security on our southern border?
And, as noted above, hell YES Congress authorized this by passing the original act and not providing specific limits. Lazy bastards write generic laws and then squawk at the unintended consequences.
Just like when they provide a "Hey, this will sound good to my district" law that allows even the greatest details to be filled in later by the Secretary of XXXX.
It's curious that Congress passed the emergency act when Ford was President. That wouldn't happen now with either party holding Congress.
I think McCabe has opened a can of worms that he will eventually regret opening.
He must know that this is dangerous though. The other Deputy Director involved in Presidential coups, Mark Felt, just talked to Woodward. He didn't write a book! That tells me that the remain silent to your grave approach won't work. Sometimes you have to go for broke.
McCabe knows he's the designated fall guy. He needs to get his story out now.
It's interesting that neither Rush Limbaugh nor I have found a report that Trump signed the CR.
The Media seem too be assuming he signed it.
And that's what all law and constitutions amount to, rituals. Offices are labels.
Everything in this is not just mutable but infinitely redefinable.
I remember that whenever note that traffic stops at stop lights. And at four way stop signs, order still prevails. Much that we consider a matter of law is a matter of national character and habit. When that breaks down, and much work has been done to break it down, then the barrel of the gun is exposed.
Is there anything on this list that couldn't have been legislated?
April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.
February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).
May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.
March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.
April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.
May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.
March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.
April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.
Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.
It's curious that Congress passed the emergency act when Ford was President. That wouldn't happen now with either party holding Congress.
Nor will it be voided with either party holding the Presidency.
How many foreign nationals illegally entering the country along the southern border does it take for the situation to be considered a national emergency?
Summary of the LLR position on this obvious coup plot by the deep staters:
There is no way that the members of our honorable deep state engaged in plotting to setup and remove a duly elected President, however they were completely justified in doing just that, but on second thought not really cuz no they weren't.
"This is a game of power. Power comes first, everything else comes after."
It is a game of power. Have to figure out what the other side actually wants & what their constituents want. D Constituents don't care if the wall gets built or not. They would be fine with the wall if they get something they want. Most don't care about DACA. Take it or leave it. But the constituents are happy to troll Trump if they aren't offered anything they want. That's a base play that goes over well. Gotta give them something they want more then the trolling of Trump.
I do not think they would have been able to turn down a federal holiday on election Tuesday, medicare buy in by 3 years, or minimum wage increase. Anyways, that's my POV. But I'm not a player in these negotiations, so my POV doesn't matter.
Amazon & HQ2: I think it's pretty funny they pulled outta Queens. The NY negotiators didn't realize Amazon did not need NYC. They didn't want different terms. Gotta know what the other side wants if you're gonna get a deal done.
“What other actions did McCabe take between May 2017 and his removal from his position? Those are questions we haven't seen addressed yet by anyone, but we are getting some hints in recent weeks because even the anti-Trump media are starting to prepare their consumers for Mueller coming up dry”
Don’t know about then, but pretty sure that Strzok’s Insurance Policy was discussed around his $70,000 conference room table. Would love to have the attendance list for that.
Cuck: "Trump's emergency isn't an emergency at all."
There are 31 other active National Emergencies.
Explain why those 31 are legitimate but not this one...
"Amy Klobuchar put it enignmatically: "Let’s stop seeing those obstacles as obstacles on our path.... Let’s see those obstacles as our path."
The obstacles ARE the path!"
This just in: Amy Klobuchar does Parkour.
Cuck: " I don't understand all of this talk about a coup d'état or treason."
Odd that you originally put those words in scare quotes.
And that for all your supposed concern re precedent, you express none of if here.
"Have to figure out what the other side actually wants & what their constituents want."
You first have to understand who their "constituents" actually are. Its not the population of their districts, or even those whose votes were counted for them. In truth their only constituents are their paymasters. The rest are cattle.
And that answers all your questions. The money does not care about DACA or holidays or Medicare. They care a lot more about cheap labor and H1B, and even more about the demographic effects on the US. That is the argument over power.
" Much that we consider a matter of law is a matter of national character and habit. "
Yes. Constitutions and laws are an effect, not a cause.
In most places laws and constitutions are of academic interest only, as they don't suit the culture. So the culture operates as it will anyway, paying lip service at best to laws.
It helps to have been engaged in significant affairs somewhere exotic and desperate.
Declaring a national emergency, is a power congress granted to the President. This is a political battle.
A judge will issue an injunction. Proving that Judges are nothing but political hacks, with no interest in the law, or the constitution.
It will take time for this the make its way through the courts. What? 18 months? This is by its very definition, a political battle with political solutions.
The voter can make a ruling on what is, and is not, an emergency, or whether the President has over reached. The voters can right a wrong, if they see a wrong to right.
The Constitution is a "living" document. Trump is just feeding it's whimsical attributes.
One thing that stands out to me after hearing Strzok, Rosenstein and now McCabe speak is that the people at the top of our federal law enforcement function in 2017 were a bunch of prisses.
Being prissy is not a bad thing in itself but I just have a hard time seeing that type of affectation as conductive to advancement in law enforcement.
Apparently I am wrong.
After reading Dan Crenshaw's tweet, I recommend that he be the GOP candidate in 2024.
"I don't need to do this"
Meaning, if Congress addressed the crisis on the border...and have to wait another 2-4-6 years to get a Congress that will act to this emergency..
How hard is that to understand?
Tucker Carlson would have been a better choice to play Sherman McCoy than Tom Hanks.
Iowan 2 at 2:53 raises exactly the points I'm interested in. Any comments in reply to that?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा