Many of the allegations against @POTUS are serious and should be taken seriously, especially by members of Congress.
We should allow Robert Mueller to complete his investigation and issue his report before taking any action potentially affecting the president’s tenure.
Based on the deliberations of the Framers of the Constitution and Federalist No. 69, I believe that a sitting president should not be criminally prosecuted. Before facing ordinary criminal liability, he first would have to be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office.
We don’t impeach simply because we dislike a person or disagree with his policies. If you’re unhappy about @POTUS, then don’t vote for him in 2020. The electoral process should determine who holds the executive power.
Impeachment proceedings are a quasi-legal, quasi-political process reserved for situations that present substantial evidence of egregious wrongdoing by the officeholder.
Impeachment is equivalent to a grand jury indictment. If the House votes to impeach someone, that is not the same as a finding of guilt; it is merely a finding of probable cause that the accused has committed an impeachable offense.
Upon impeachment by the House, the Senate conducts a trial. Only here does the vote represent a finding of guilt. While there is reasonable disagreement about the proper burden of proof, I believe that a very high standard must be met to overturn the results of an election.
I hope that we don’t get to this point, but I think it’s important, given recent news, that members of Congress share their thoughts on this matter with the people they represent.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’m not a current member of Congress, but I do know what’s at stake. I’d gladly serve as speaker of the House for one term to show people the kind of legislative body we can have if someone at the top actually cares about involving every representative in the work of legislating.
Though he’s had trouble securing universal Republican support, the leading contender for speaker of the House remains Kevin McCarthy, which is sad. Even the people pledging to vote for him know that he’s totally unqualified and unfit to be speaker.
While McCarthy’s awful voting record tells you a lot about his philosophy, critical to the role of speaker is a particular aspect of a person’s philosophy that isn’t always apparent from votes: the person’s commitment to a deliberative legislative process.
Several states demanded amendments to the Constitution to protect individual rights, so the Bill of Rights was proposed as a compromise to keep the Union intact. Ratifying the Second Amendment strengthened the arguments made by James Madison in Federalist No. 46:
“The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition.…
“…The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger.…
Here’s why I don’t get the angst over @elonmusk and @Twitter: Almost everyone recognizes that Twitter is increasingly dysfunctional. Much of the dysfunction stems from the company’s choice to prioritize engagement over open discourse. This also drives factionalism and extremism.
Musk can do what a public company can’t: risk profits to restore the original spirit of Twitter. The current algorithm invites audience capture, which causes most of the strain here. The problem is systemic. You can’t ban enough accounts to fix it. The system creates antagonism.
In many ways, it reminds me of the dysfunction of recent Congresses. Congressional leaders have adopted a system that prohibits broad legislative participation, prioritizing election wins over representation. This design produces performance artists instead of legislators.
You can’t simply decouple the decision to withdraw from the expected outcome of a withdrawal. The primary argument for staying in Afghanistan has always been that any departure would be dangerous for Americans and Afghans alike, which is why this f***ing war has lasted 20 years.
Every exit was going to look ugly. Waiting for ideal conditions—ease of transit and probable safety for all, including Afghans—means waiting forever, never leaving. A president committed to leaving must be willing to move forward despite the likely calamitous short-run outcomes.
Biden deserves criticism. He made plenty of errors and was way too confident. But it’s not at all clear the exit would have been better with a different approach or timing. And I say that as someone who thinks he waited far too long to evacuate Americans and our Afghan partners.
As Libertarians, we champion due process. There’s only one legitimate executive committee of @LPNH, and that’s the one elected in March.
With that said, we need more professionalism and accountability from state affiliates. Official social media accounts are for advancing the party’s mission of organizing libertarians, not for personal experiments in edgelording.
But horrible messaging can’t amount to a “constructive resignation” of officers. If the party has serious issues with an affiliate, then changes need to be made through proper channels, not by unilateral decree.
There’s a general misunderstanding of how House committee assignments work. The entire House votes to put each and every member on the particular committees. Though this typically happens via a voice vote (not roll call), it’s done through a normal resolution passed on the floor.
In other words, a committee assignment is not literally decided just by your own party. The whole House must approve it.
To put this in context, Rep. Greene was assigned to her committees via this resolution, which was approved by all Republicans and Democrats. congress.gov/bill/117th-con…