Could but have proven won’t. Need to but won’t.
I feel the hope for any moderate Republican to embrace adulthood went out with few who were willing to impeach Trump. Many of those had serious, honest conservative credentials, far more than the current caucus, but still realized that there are bridges that should not be crossed in any nation that’s going to continue to survive with a representative government.
And the rest, terrified of their base, kicked them out, or were primaried and removed by the rabid elements of said base. And anyone left has learned from that lesson - they keep their power only so long as the hate (and that’s all they have) of said base isn’t directed at -them-. So yeah, moderates cannot be part of a fix from their POV, at least, not if they intend to stay. I’ve exhausted my anger at this point (and this isn’t the Pit) so I’ll leave it at that.
But as for the Democrats not helping McCarthy, it’s quite literally gotten to this point:
As we all know, Trump is being promoted by some as in the running for speaker of the house.
This legitimately sets up a situation where the speaker of the house, third in line to the presidency, is actively calling for the assassination of the President and Vice President so he could become President again.
Yes, it can always get worse.
Also, Iirc, speech made in Congress is, by default, immune from prosecution. 
Cite?
I believe JohnT was saying that this is a situation that creates an incentive to do such a thing, not that it’s happening.
You don’t need a cite for speculation, unless you need a cite showing the order of succession for the POTUS.
Ok gotcha ya. McCarthy could have delivered on his promise first before asking the Dems to. It’s a good point.
THE QUESTION
Is it against House rules for someone under indictment to be Speaker?
THE SOURCES
- Rules of the House of the Representatives, 118th Congress
- House GOP conference rules of the 118th Congress
- Democratic caucus rules for the 118th Congress
- Nicholas Creel, assistant professor of business law and constitutional law expert at Georgia College and State University
THE ANSWER
![This is true.]
Yes, the GOP has Rule 26(a) and the Democrats have Rule 4, both of which say the speaker can’t hold the seat while under indictment. However, these rules aren’t legally binding and aren’t always followed.
I keep seeing that rationale, but we’re talking about the Republicans and their own Republican rules. They can just change them whenever they want and bingo bango bongo, everything is as kosher as a Saturday brisket.
They can, but do they have the votes? There are traditionalists who would never go for anyone who isnt a member, and many who secretly hate trump.
It seems like being Speaker with a tiny majority would actually be a really hard job, so I don’t think Trump would ever consider it.
Also, don’t House ethics rules mandate some degree of financial disclosure? Could be another deal-breaker.
And how many of those would be willing to break cover and go on record voting against him? They’re not exactly legendary for voting their conscience (or anything else than terrified acquiescence to the right wing terrorist caucus).
Trump would just ignore that. That’s how Republicans allow him to roll.
All they have to say is that they are traditionalists.
But would he be a member of the House? Hasn’t been elected as a member, as required by Article I, s2, cl1:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States
If he’s not a member, how would the House ethics rules apply?
Not sure if they would, but bobot’s answer is clearly correct.
It really is hard. Worse, he’d consider it a position subordinate to the President and would never stand for being in any situation where Joe Biden and the Senate could just tell him “no”
Pelosi made it look much easier than it is, which probably earned her a fair amount of respect from the naysayers in her own party over the last several years
Party of the problem is that the democrats have been making the house work for over 40 + years. The republicans just don’t have governing experience behind their speakers.
I agree, it gives them good cover. But…
And Trump has said he has no desire to do it. Now, I know if Trump says the sky is blue and that water is wet, you might want to check just in case. But when something is self-serving I tend to believe him.
He wants, desperately wants, even needs to be president again. I think he doesn’t have the ability to fight court cases, campaign for president, and try to get elected (and serve as) Speaker. He knows it too.
He’d probably also see it as a major demotion from POTUS and doesn’t want to feel like he got the consolation prize when he deserves to be POTUS.
Doing a good job of being Speaker is hard. If Trump were to take it, he’d do a halfassed job at best. It wouldn’t be hard at all. And he’d only take it if he sees it as a way to get out of his legal problems. But unlike the President, the Speaker doesn’t have the power to pardon, so it won’t do anything for his legal problems.