mine fields, the mine fiends are back in congress.
No, he should be publicly warning his fellow Congresscritters (and the rest of us, too) that, likely or not, the prospect of Trump starting a nuclear war is significant enough that they need to remove him from office, tout suite.
I don’t think a guy having a higher likelihood of starting nuclear war is enough to remove people from office.
I mean, granted, it’s a much bigger deal than - for example - lying about an affair with an intern. But it’s not a high crime or misdemeanor, and if you start making up rules as you go along on matters of this sort, then everyone else does too on matters which concern them, and next thing you know you’re in a civil war.
If I were in Congress, I would be looking very closely at the 25th Amendment. But absent that, the only other option is to wait to see what Mueller comes up with.
There is nothing under the 25th that Congress can initiate. They have to depend on Pence and Trump’s Cabinet to take action. So saying Congress is looking closely at the 25th is meaningless.
That’s a good point - I wasn’t thinking of that.
Though it’s not like congressional leaders have zero influence with the executive branch either. I imagine if the Republican leadership in congress went over to Pence and a few key and discreet cabinet members and said “hey, we seriously think Trump is unfit for this office and we would strongly urge you to invoke the Amendment”, I think they would be taken seriously. Especially by Pence 
That same unnamed Republican said something about Nancy Pelosi fucking up the cafeteria.
Does anyone know what that refers to? 
She refused to order Freedom Fries when she wanted french fries and would constantly back up the line.
Really?
Possibly, but I was just joking.
*What the fucking fuck?! *
Seriously, if the prospect of WWII-level carnage in an afternoon isn’t “enough” to remove someone from office, what makes the cut?
Yeah. Even a bigger deal than obstructing justice, which is what got Nixon canned.
It’s not? Who says? My understanding is that the Founders intentionally left the language vague so that it could apply to Big Shit that didn’t fit a narrow description. And nuclear war is Big Shit.
So better a nuclear war than a civil war? OK then.
Regardless of its importance, a higher likelihood of nuclear war is clearly a matter of policy and not a high crime and misdemeanor.
Depends (among many other things) on how likely each the two respective possibilities are. But I would think removing an elected president from office over policy disagreements would likely trigger some pretty violent reactions from his supporters, who would effectively have no other recourse.
The good thing about democracy is that if everyone thinks their voice can be heard they’re more likely to settle their differences peacefully. Not so much, if otherwise.
I am inclined to agree that you can’t impeach someone for being a hawk. OTOH, the choice between following these kinds of rules to preserve our system or not getting nuked is a lose-lose proposition. Personally, I would feel confident facing St. Peter for bearing a little false witness if I really thought it would prevent nuclear war.
We wouldn’t want to have that, would we?
Better just to take the increased likelihood of a hundred million people suddenly dead.
You’re right. If we think the President is about to start a nuclear war, best to just wait until the next election, then vote him out.
Seriously, what the fucking fuck?!
Some chickens can’t be un-fucked, you know?
The only time you can fix a nuclear war is beforehand, by keeping it from happening.
OK, so you’re sufficiently worried about the possibility of nuclear war that you impeach him for tax evasion, sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and bank fraud. It’s not like you have to look very far to find grounds.
Well he’s not getting removed anytime soon so you should probably go ahead and put the finishing touches on your basement fallout shelters.
The Daily Beast article glossed over Nehlan’s 2016 supporters - Trump, Palin, Hannity, and Ingraham, long before Breitbart gave him the heave-ho I suppose for his lack of subtlety.
The last nuclear weapon that was used in a war was more than 72 years ago. I don’t think you have much to worry about.
What you’re talking about there, whether you realize it or not, is
—Article II, Section 1.
Trump has a manifest Inability due to his being clearly unfit for the Presidency. That he is plainly unfit is evident by virtue of his obvious mental illness, combined with his status as a treasonous criminal. Once he’s removed, suitable proofs of the mental illness, the treason, and the felonious criminal conduct will be lawfully produced through the appropriate exercise of the justice system (including diagnosis by properly credentialed medical personnel).