Replies

My point is: Why would anyone with half a legal brain even discuss this as a serious matter instead of just discussing this silly strategy to remove him under the 25th Amendment? It's HARDER to remove him under the 25th Amendment than through an impeachment.

It's not about the legality of the idea, and it's not about the seriousness of using the 25th amendment to undo the Trump presidency.

The idea behind the thought was to put out the "feelers" to see who or how many thought the same. No doubt that if there were other takers, that they would have pursued the idea, even if they were never going to get it done legally and through a republican-controlled congress. The idea was to get enough people who felt the same, and then put it out into the public and the media, which would have then provided a narrative of a president hated by his staff who wasn't trusted or wasn't equipped to do the job of the presidency. That's the narrative which the democrats have been presenting to the public for 2 1/2 years about Trump, and getting a bunch of people on the FBI and DOJ and in Trump's staff to back up the narrative, might have presented bigger problems for Trump than he's had to put up with otherwise. When McCabe and Rosenstein did not get enough others to present their "Trump is not trusted and Trump is not equipped to run the presidency" narrative, then, their defense for their original discussion became, "it was only a joke". It was not a joke initially. Never mind the legality; they were never going to get Trump out of the White House. It was all about getting most of the country to believe that Trump was ill-equipped and untrustworthy and too crooked to run the government.

Sorry -- I'm really just not getting through to you.

If this was all supposed to be part of a "coup" attempt, then why would they discuss the strategy that was MORE DIFFICULT to implement?

Option #1 (Impeachment): Simple majority vote in the House and a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate.

Option #2 (25th Amendment): Two-thirds majority vote in BOTH houses of Congress.

Why would you even be discussing Option #2 if it would have been EASIER to get the necessary votes under Option #1?

There's only one reason the 25th Amendment scenario ever came up in the first place: because there were a bunch of partisan dingbat talking heads discussing it all over the media, and not one of them knew his ass from his elbow when discussing it.

I could see Comey pursuing a strategy based on nothing more than half-assed media coverage that wouldn't stand up to any legal scrutiny -- because he's a moron. I don't think Rosenstein is dumb enough to even consider it.