NY Times editorial bombshell

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You really don't see any other options besides these two?

1) Betray oath of office
2) Resign and go public

Invoke the 25th Amendment. And option 1 shouldn't be a legitimate option. Not for anybody who cares about upholding democracy.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes, it is distressingly convenient. Republicans have seized so much power that they really expect the U.S. to be grateful that it's getting off easy by only leaving us a packed Supreme Court, vs. a world war. I get why this is so galling to people. But I keep failing to imagine any way that resigning and going public is going to result in a less-packed Supreme Court. It's not going to restore tax cuts. It's not going to reverse the damage that has been done to the extremely flawed Affordable Care Act, which at least on paper created universal health care.

This is why the "dozens and dozens" of people who are undermining Trump should have either invoked the 25th Amendment or resigned and made public why they were resigning before we got to this point, rather than realising that the 25th Amendment should be invoked early on in his presidency but deciding to remain and undermine him because they thought that was the best way to facilitate their own personal/party agendas.

Country over party. Country over self. That's the idea, right?

 

[BobTheCoward]

So if trump orders his deputies to shoot themselves in the head, they are required to comply?

That isn't the executive power.

 

[LSSBB]

That won't fall under "duties of office".

Seriously, look up the various "duties of office" for a few admin positions.

Please post the relevant ones.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Please post the relevant ones.

Executive power.

 

[Darat]

That isn't the executive power.

About time you agreed there are orders Trump's officials don't have to obey.

 

[d4m10n]

You really don't see any other options besides these two?


1) Betray oath of office

2) Resign and go public

Invoke the 25th Amendment. *And option 1 shouldn't be a legitimate option.

Here is the relevant text of the 25th Amendment:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

I've highlighted the most relevant part for our purposes here and now. I'm highly skeptical that anyone could demonstrate constitutional levels of physical or mental incapacity, rather than consistent inclinations towards despotic and corrupt behaviour which were already obvious back in 2016.

The option phase was over, the directive was given.

When exactly did Trump give the directive to terminate USKFTA and to whom did he give that directive?


He denies doing so, if I'm reading this transcript correctly.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I read another phony thing in the book about a trade deal that certain people didn’t want me to look at. We’ve made a deal with South Korea. It may be signed during the United Nations conference in a couple of weeks.

The deal is done. It’s been done with South Korea for a long time. It’s been done for about two months. And we’ll do a ceremonial signing over the next very short period of time.

But that was another thing in the book that was just totally false. I mean, there was no — it was actually a very reasonable deal and a fairly easy deal to make. It was a horrible deal to start off with for the United States. It was made by somebody that I happened to be running against at the time. And she made a deal that took a lot of jobs out of the United States, and we’re making a deal that’s going to bring a lot of jobs to the United States.

But I’ve concluded the deal in South Korea, which is the deal that was referred to. And I think it’s going to be a great deal. Hopefully it’s a great deal for them, but it’s going to be a fair deal for us. Very, very big improvement over what we had, because what we had was unacceptable.

Hard to say Cohn violated his oath or neglected his duties by taking away a directive which the President evidently had no intention of signing.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Here is the relevant text of the 25th Amendment:




I've highlighted the most relevant part for our purposes here and now. I'm highly skeptical that anyone could demonstrate constitutional levels of physical or mental incapacity, rather than consistent inclinations towards despotic and corrupt behaviour which were already obvious back in 2016.





When exactly did Trump give the directive to terminate USKFTA and to whom did he give that directive?


He denies doing so, if I'm reading this transcript correctly.




Hard to say Cohn violated his oath or neglected his duties by taking away a directive which the President evidently had no intention of signing.

As I said, I have no position on what did or did not happen. I'm discussing what is effectively a hypothetical to me.

 

[BobTheCoward]

About time you agreed there are orders Trump's officials don't have to obey.

Certainly. They don't have to obey an order to get him a coffee.

They do have to obey the order to round people up, though.

 

[d4m10n]

The option phase was over, the directive was given in the hypothetical universe wherein Trump actually gave the directive to terminate the existing trade deal between the U.S. and South Korea.

ftfy [emoji6]

 

[BobTheCoward]

ftfy

It seems clear that was the situation being discussed and that you were the one operating outside this discussion.

 

[d4m10n]

It seems clear that was the situation being discussed and that you were the one operating outside this discussion.

Just for a fun change, let's consider discussing what actually happened. Specifically, what directives (if any) did Cohn disobey?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Just for a fun change, let's consider discussing what actually happened. Specifically, what directives (if any) did Cohn disobey?

No, that is a stupid exercise.

ETA unless you want to call it a hypothetical then I am all for it.

 

[kellyb]

Hard to say Cohn violated his oath or neglected his duties by taking away a directive which the President evidently had no intention of signing.

Did you read the swiped letter? It was intended to just be a threat to get SK to the negotiating table to get a better trade agreement. He might have signed an almost identical one at a later date.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've highlighted the most relevant part for our purposes here and now. I'm highly skeptical that anyone could demonstrate constitutional levels of physical or mental incapacity, rather than consistent inclinations towards despotic and corrupt behaviour which were already obvious back in 2016.

You highlighted the relevant part, and then changed it to "physical or mental incapacity".

 

[d4m10n]

Did you read the swiped letter? It was intended to just be a threat to get SK to the negotiating table to get a better trade agreement.

"...the United States hereby provides notice that it wishes to terminate the Agreement."

"...the Agreement shall terminate 180 days after the date of this notice."

[emoji848]

 

[d4m10n]

You highlighted the relevant part, and then changed it to "physical or mental incapacity".

What sort of incapacity do you believe the drafters of that amendment had in mind?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What sort of incapacity do you believe the drafters of that amendment had in mind?

The 25th Amendment doesn't use the word "incapacity" at all.

I'll quote Elizabeth Warren

"If senior administration officials think the President of the United States is not able to do his job, then they should invoke the 25th Amendment," Warren told CNN. "The Constitution provides for a procedure whenever the Vice President and senior officials think the President can't do his job. It does not provide that senior officials go around the President -- take documents off his desk, write anonymous op-eds ... Everyone of these officials have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It's time for them to do their job."

If they think he can't do his job, they should invoke the 25th Amendment, or resign while making it clear why they're resigning. If they think he can do his job, then they should help him to do his job.

In no situation is running a government based on stealing papers off the president's desk for fear he might sign them the right thing to do. Nobody should be okay with this.

 

[kellyb]

"...the United States hereby provides notice that it wishes to terminate the Agreement."

"...the Agreement shall terminate 180 days after the date of this notice."

[emoji848]

"During this time the United States is prepared to negotiate..."

So, it was giving them 6 months for a new trade agreement to be found. Trump's now saying a new agreement has been found and will be signed soon.

 

[Belz...]

The 25th Amendment doesn't use the word "incapacity" at all.

I'll quote Elizabeth Warren



If they think he can't do his job, they should invoke the 25th Amendment, or resign while making it clear why they're resigning. If they think he can do his job, then they should help him to do his job.

In no situation is running a government based on stealing papers off the president's desk for fear he might sign them the right thing to do. Nobody should be okay with this.

Yeah, "unable" to do his job could mean anything, so long as the cabinet agrees on what it means. It was left deliberately vague.