GolemIII said:

---

it takes both intelligence and a penchant for creative hyperbole laced ridicule to get multiple versions of your handle.

---

riflebear said:

---

Good to see Megyn Kelly go off on this person. I'm sure the NBC Execs weren't happy about this though.

Video inside link.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2018/09/06/megyn-kelly-blasts-nyt-oped-dripping-sanctimony

---

xiledinok said:

---

Coup? Who needs a coup when we have an election? Everyday, Trump looks more insecure and knows his own people cannot stand him.

---

bubbadog said:

---

jklburns said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

jklburns said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.

---

This is an even more bizarre tactic than calling for impeachment. At least with impeachment you only need a majority of the house and then the Senate holds the trial (so the sticking point is convincing the majority of Americans of a "high crime or misdemeaner")

But removal per 25th is even harder! Does the "resistance" really think they are going to get 1) Pence + 2) majority of Cabinet, and/or 3) majority of Congress to ALL sign a declaration which will then absolutely be answered by a declaration from the president (and probably a lot of video like with the DACA meeting last year that ended this same discussion), and THEN 4) get 2/3 of BOTH houses to remove? That's more insane than claiming the president is insane.

If the author actually is a real person in the Administration, it's probably somebody who knows they are about to get the boot and they are preparing a soft landing for themselves at CNN or MSNBC or something. What's funny is how easy it would be for such a person to play the media in this way.

---

He's not going to be removed by this means unless he becomes completely unhinged in a lawless way, such as ordering the military to shut down the NY Times unless they reveal the identity of the author, or tries to ban all protests. He made hints today about the latter, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that he might lose his **** enough as this goes on to order the former. And even then, who knows? A majority of Republicans in Congress would let him do just about anything illegal as long as he keeps appointing judges they like.

If the author is a real person? Let's think about that for a minute. The NYT is a professional news organization. Not only that, they know they're under a microscope. They're smart enough to know that publishing this piece was going to trigger a full-bore manhunt for the author by Trump. It's very plausible that the author's identity will become public knowledge. For this not to be a real person, you'd have to be suggesting that the NYT was willing to make up a completely fake story, knowing that if their fraud was revealed, that it would probably destroy a 150-year-old institution. That's just Trumpet fantasyland.

---

Good job leaving of the "in the Administration" part of what I said. I'm assuming a "real person" and not a robot wrote the article.

The NYT has been quoting anonymous people since Trump was elected and somehow we never find out who these mysterious anonymous people are so I think there is a good chance the NYT could absolutely keep it quiet if they wanted; but my statement was not claiming that the NYT made this up on it's own, but rather it's very possible they were duped. So the options are 1) it was a planted article that the NYT failed to suss out (hence my "real person in the Administration" statement), or 2) it's a disgruntled person looking to find a soft landing spot (or a reason for a Go Fund Me) once he/she gets outed.

---

Newspapers with the resources of the NYT, Washington Post and WSJ go to great lengths to make sure they don't get duped, especially on a story with the potential repercussions of this one. Remember the right-wing hoaxer who got caught trying to dupe the Post into running a bogus story? They learned the woman's identity because they followed their procedures for verifying information and not just taking someone at face value without confirmation. That's not to say they never get fooled. But it would be astonishing if it happened in this case. They say they know the identity of this person. And yet the default response of Trump defenders is that it HAS to be fake, with no consideration of the enormous odds against that argument.

---

quash said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Coup? Who needs a coup when we have an election? Everyday, Trump looks more insecure and knows his own people cannot stand him.

---

Trump voters sent Trump to the White House. Nobody elected a team of stealth babysitters. They are self-appointed and inherently undemocratic.

If Trump ever catches anybody hiding docs, etc. he should fire them on the spot.

---

Booray said:

---

quash said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Coup? Who needs a coup when we have an election? Everyday, Trump looks more insecure and knows his own people cannot stand him.

---

Trump voters sent Trump to the White House. Nobody elected a team of stealth babysitters. They are self-appointed and inherently undemocratic.

If Trump ever catches anybody hiding docs, etc. he should fire them on the spot.

---

Depending on the veracity of the NYT op-ed and the 3 books, there are a couple of takeaways.

We have people who are ignoring the constitution.

POTUS cannot manage the situation by either convincing them not to usurp his authority or getting rid of them.

Both are concerning.

But I also smell drama queens being involved; my guess is that the situation is not as bad as reported. Not because the reporters are exaggerating, but because the sources are exaggerating.

---

Booray said:

---

quash said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Coup? Who needs a coup when we have an election? Everyday, Trump looks more insecure and knows his own people cannot stand him.

---

Trump voters sent Trump to the White House. Nobody elected a team of stealth babysitters. They are self-appointed and inherently undemocratic.

If Trump ever catches anybody hiding docs, etc. he should fire them on the spot.

---

Depending on the veracity of the NYT op-ed and the 3 books, there are a couple of takeaways.

We have people who are ignoring the constitution.

POTUS cannot manage the situation by either convincing them not to usurp his authority or getting rid of them.

Both are concerning.

But I also smell drama queens being involved; my guess is that the situation is not as bad as reported. Not because the reporters are exaggerating, but because the sources are exaggerating.

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Booray said:

---

quash said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Coup? Who needs a coup when we have an election? Everyday, Trump looks more insecure and knows his own people cannot stand him.

---

Trump voters sent Trump to the White House. Nobody elected a team of stealth babysitters. They are self-appointed and inherently undemocratic.

If Trump ever catches anybody hiding docs, etc. he should fire them on the spot.

---

Depending on the veracity of the NYT op-ed and the 3 books, there are a couple of takeaways.

We have people who are ignoring the constitution.

POTUS cannot manage the situation by either convincing them not to usurp his authority or getting rid of them.

Both are concerning.

But I also smell drama queens being involved; my guess is that the situation is not as bad as reported. Not because the reporters are exaggerating, but because the sources are exaggerating.

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

The man has a law degree, it is highly likely his vocabulary includes some big words. You shouldn't allow your contempt and hate for him to cause you to underestimate him.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

David Frum's column in the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/this-is-a-constitutional-crisis/569443/ - in which he says Trump's "cowardly coup" cabal has a duty to the American people to act if they believe he is morally and intellectually unfit:

If the president's closest advisers believe that he is morally and intellectually unfit for his high office, they have a duty to do their utmost to remove him from it, by the lawful means at hand. That duty may be risky to their careers in government or afterward. But on their first day at work, they swore an oath to defend the Constitutionand there were no "riskiness" exemptions in the text of that oath.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

quash said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

Bankruptcy lawyers use that term all the time. It is possibly the biggest clue.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

Bankruptcy lawyers use that term all the time. It is possibly the biggest clue.

---

I've seen it used in mass torts

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

Bankruptcy lawyers use that term all the time. It is possibly the biggest clue.

---

I've seen it used in mass torts

---

Yup. Just can't picture a mass torts guy working for Trump.

But I'm certain he knows plenty of bankruptcy lawyers.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

Bankruptcy lawyers use that term all the time. It is possibly the biggest clue.

---

I've seen it used in mass torts

---

Yup. Just can't picture a mass torts guy working for Trump.

But I'm certain he knows plenty of bankruptcy lawyers.

---

LOL
Point taken.

Maybe a defense lawyer?

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

Bankruptcy lawyers use that term all the time. It is possibly the biggest clue.

---

I've seen it used in mass torts

---

Yup. Just can't picture a mass torts guy working for Trump.

But I'm certain he knows plenty of bankruptcy lawyers.

---

LOL
Point taken.

Maybe a defense lawyer?

---

Insurance defense? Maybe.
Criminal defense? He tweets his recommendations, so...

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

Bankruptcy lawyers use that term all the time. It is possibly the biggest clue.

---

I've seen it used in mass torts

---

Yup. Just can't picture a mass torts guy working for Trump.

But I'm certain he knows plenty of bankruptcy lawyers.

---

LOL
Point taken.

Maybe a defense lawyer?

---

Insurance defense? Maybe.
Criminal defense? He tweets his recommendations, so...

---

Insurance defense

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

The man has a law degree, it is highly likely his vocabulary includes some big words. You shouldn't allow your contempt and hate for him to cause you to underestimate him.

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

The man has a law degree, it is highly likely his vocabulary includes some big words. You shouldn't allow your contempt and hate for him to cause you to underestimate him.

---

Who has a law degree?

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

The man has a law degree, it is highly likely his vocabulary includes some big words. You shouldn't allow your contempt and hate for him to cause you to underestimate him.

---

robby44 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

The man has a law degree, it is highly likely his vocabulary includes some big words. You shouldn't allow your contempt and hate for him to cause you to underestimate him.

---

I was told on another thread that the fact that Corey
Booker was a Rhodes scholar and graduated from Yale law didn't mean anything and he was incompetent

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

robby44 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

The man has a law degree, it is highly likely his vocabulary includes some big words. You shouldn't allow your contempt and hate for him to cause you to underestimate him.

---

I was told on another thread that the fact that Corey
Booker was a Rhodes scholar and graduated from Yale law didn't mean anything and he was incompetent

---

You weren't told that by me.

---

robby44 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

The man has a law degree, it is highly likely his vocabulary includes some big words. You shouldn't allow your contempt and hate for him to cause you to underestimate him.

---

I was told on another thread that the fact that Corey
Booker was a Rhodes scholar and graduated from Yale law didn't mean anything and he was incompetent

---

Florda_mike said:

---

robby44 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - never thought of this scenario. Makes sense though.

---

Trump doesn't know what half of the words used in that piece mean.

---

Especially "lodestar." I'm not sure Mike Pence knows what it means, either.

---

The man has a law degree, it is highly likely his vocabulary includes some big words. You shouldn't allow your contempt and hate for him to cause you to underestimate him.

---

I was told on another thread that the fact that Corey
Booker was a Rhodes scholar and graduated from Yale law didn't mean anything and he was incompetent

---

Some people are educated far beyond their intelligence and perhaps Booker is such a case

Or he could just be a case of intelligence having the ability to go that much further down the wrong path

Whatever it is, Booker is way off course

Trump would bury him in a debate

---