I'm confused at your refusal to state clearly what you advocate. Impeachment isn't just a legal process. It's also a political one. It makes a huge difference if what you're advocating is the installation in the Oval Office of the party that lost the election. Are you?
-
-
Replying to @ggreenwald
I haven’t made up my mind on the hypothetical succession question you’re so interested in, so I’m not advocating anything. I’m pointing out that it’s strange to be focused on that hypothetical and unlikely scenario in the middle of testimony of egregious presidential misconduct.
7 replies 10 retweets 347 likes -
Replying to @AdamSerwer
I was responding to a tweet that advocated the removal of Trump and Pence, or at least their impeachment. I think installing Nancy Pelosi as President even though Democrats lost the election would have extremely significant consequences so I think it's worth discussing honestly.
26 replies 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @ggreenwald @AdamSerwer
Had Obama and Biden been removed in 2014, John Boehner would have become president as Speaker, despite the GOP having lost the 2012 election. The line of succession is the line of succession.
6 replies 1 retweet 222 likes -
Replying to @janecoaston @cjane87 and
Y'all arw assuming the line of succession is constitutional. There are serious arguments its not
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
-
Replying to @jadler1969 @baseballcrank
The best source is Akhil Amar.pic.twitter.com/ywTgbqADtZ
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Greg651 @SCOTUSPlaces and
I have an irrational emotional bias against anyone who thinks the exclusionary rule is unconstitutional. Can't help it, that's just me.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
He's right, you know.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.