I don’t think that’s going to happen. Removal under the 25th Amendment is more difficult than removal under the Article I impeachment process. The 25th Amendment requires both a majority of the Vice President and cabinet/other-body-provided-by-law and a “two-thirds vote of both Houses” (U.S. Const. art. XXV, § 4). Impeachment only requires a majority in the House of Representatives and “the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present” in the Senate.
The House committees started the process long ago. There are numerous cases making their way through the appeals process. The appeals process just takes time, and that’s what the Trump crowd has been playing for. I compiled a list of articles in my Post #1276 that gives you an idea of where some of these cases are in the pipeline. One of them, the Mazars case, was ruled on yesterday and further appealed.
It was a glorious ruling yesterday that Trump can’t stop his accountants, Mazars, from turning over his tax returns in response to a grand jury subpoena. (Bloomberg) The judge’s ruling is scathing in its criticism of Trump’s efforts to defy the rule of law. Even though this ruling is briefly stayed, the appeals court will take up the matter on an expedited basis and is expected to rule within 3 weeks. It’s unlikely the SCOTUS will hear it, so that will be the end of the tax records obstruction efforts – at least so far as the courts are concerned.
I think it’s a slightly different ploy. There’s been so much criticism of the Republicans just following the party line, that they will agree with whatever outrageous behavior the president gets up to, no matter what. Republicans have come out vociferously calling the president out on his bad decision in regards to Syria. Now Trump can point to them and say, see, they disagree with me when I do something wrong. They didn’t disagree with my conduct in the Ukraine matter. Therefore it couldn’t have possibly been wrong.
And if they defy the Supreme Court, what then? Who is going to make Trump follow the Supreme Court orders? I expect Trump would just make up some insulting nicknames for the members of the court and tweet about how they should be impeached.
Is Ginsberg going to personally go to the Whitehouse and kick Trump in the nards?
I think that when trinp does this doubling down loudly and in public he is trying to normalize the thing he did that is being talked about, as if he has always done it, and so it can’t be part of the legal problems that he has. It’s a kind of manic reparations. I don’t think he is in control of it.
Senate Intelligence Committee releases report that concludes Russia intervened in 2016 to aid Trump. Which is not a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention.
As you say, it’s them demonstrating that, ‘yes, there are checks and balances, and yes, the system is working no matter what the socialists/leftists/baby-killers/Democrats claim’. But it’s also a tactic to preemptively dismiss anything that might be found or has been found that demonstrates Trump’s criminal and unAmerican behaviour.
Jim Jordan is one of the most corrupt, self-serving, brown-nosing lying assholes that I have ever seen elected to any political body. He’s sort of a one-man icon for everything wrong with the Republican party, particularly the complete disregard for truth or fairness and the tendency of its more militant members to live in a fictitious alternate reality that they themselves have fabricated. Their sole constituency, without which they couldn’t exist, is the ignorant voter, on whom they prey like vultures.
The New York tax return case isn’t expected to go to SCOTUS? I’m really surprised. I figured trump could keep the case going until he is out of office and then it would be dropped, or else it would make it to SCOTUS, where the ruling would likely be in his favor since he has it stuffed with toadies.
It just feels like these slow crawls through the courts will either never end or be decided in trump’s favor months down the line since the SCOTUS is not the only place he’s got packed full of toadies. Now this latest refusal to testify feels like simply one more case going on the heap. Argh.
Please fight my ignorance. In the aftermath of the 2000 election, Bush v Gore somehow got in front of the SCOTUS and was ruled on within days. (Apologies if I have this wrong – my memory is hazy.) How did that happen, and why can’t it happen now? How does Pelosi v Trump skip the preliminaries and get right to the main event?