I can't get over how idiotic this talking point is: "The 25th Amendment is in the Constitution, so any scheme hatched by a bureaucratic cabal to depose the president must be legal if the schemers invoke it." Never underestimate how much bad punditry is driven by sheer stupidity
-
-
It also seems extremely reasonable to suspect that the president may as a matter of fact be psychiatrically incapacitated.
-
Literally every discussion of invoking the 25th has openly acknowledged this as a prerequisite and it seems pretty dang disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Well, as far as I can tell, you can't permanently remove a President under the 25th A. It's a series of time-limited and revocable measures, including by the President in some cases. It's meant for physical/mental incapacity, which might require impeachment if it continues 1/
-
And the President refuses to resign. I think it's generally misunderstood because it's never been applied. What's disingenuous is Dersh first implying Rosenstein wanted to invalidate an election, then bypass impeachment. He was scared by Trump's actions at the time.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yup. This whole schtick rested on the “Trump is crazy” leg of Trump Derangement Syndrome. With that hysteria dissipating, the “25th Amendment” house of cards completely collapsed. When did we first/last hear this story? I’m losing track of the cycle. What did Ted Lieu say today?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It seems obviously correct to you that the plain text of the 25th Amendment does not say what it says?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.