Truly hope none of this comes to pass, but here's the legal and Constitutional machinery that could activate if necessary.
Thread:
1) Under the 25th Amendment, the President can voluntary and temporarily transfer power to the VP if the president is or will be "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." This has happened several times, recently when GW Bush underwent routine medical procedures.
2) The 25th Amendment also enables the VP, joined by a majority of Cabinet officers (some uncertainty about exactly who qualifies), to certify in writing to Congress that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." If so, VP takes over, but:
3) The President, once recovered, can certify to Congress that he is no longer incapacitated. He then re-takes power. (VP and Cabinet can challenge this, and Congress can decide, but that shouldn't be applicable here).
4) The election date is set by federal law for the Tuesday after first Monday in November (Nov. 3, this year). That date can be moved by federal statute -- meaning you'd need House majority, Senate majority, and Presidential signature.
5) Federal law also sets important Electoral College dates -- this year, Dec. 14 for votes to be cast in states, and Jan. 6 for Congress to formally take those votes. Those dates also can be moved by statute.
6) BUT: the Presidential term ends at noon on January 20, under the Constitution (20th Amendment). That can *not* be changed by statute; a change would require a Constitutional amendment, which is almost impossible in time (need 2/3 of House, 2/3 of Senate and 3/4 of states).
7) If there's no Constitutional amendment and January 20 arrives with no newly-elected President and VP, then succession kicks in and the new Speaker of the House takes over temporarily.
Again: let's all hope none of this becomes necessary. But there are rules if it does.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just discussed the Fulton County grand juror’s publicity tour with @andersoncooper.
1) It is entirely clear the grand jury has recommended a Trump indictment; and
2) The grand juror is doing no favors to prosecutors with this giddy PR romp.
It’s a bad idea generally for a grand juror to speak publicly. The specific legal line in GA is whether the grand juror discloses “deliberations.” That’s debatable. She doesn’t discuss vote counts. But she does discuss specific witnesses and the grand jury’s findings as to them.
If and when there is an indictment, this will become a motion to dismiss, mark my words. It may not succeed - it’s a high bar legally - but she is causing a needless headache for prosecutors, at a minimum.
Some folks have asked if I read my own audiobook for #Untouchable.
I do. While I’m not a professional voiceover guy, I think it’s more authentic. (As does @MarkHamill, who sent a wonderful tweet last time encouraging me to read my own book; I’ll take that advice any day.)
Also I tell lots of first-person stories from my time as a prosecutor. They wouldn’t sound right coming from somebody else.
I write with a certain voice (stylistically, that is), so might as well accompany it with my actual voice. As my audiobook producer said when we were done recording: “Well, YOU definitely wrote this book.”
I’ve got stories from my time as a prosecutor, analysis of major recent cases, historical dives and revelations, and first-time scoops from inside the Justice Department and the SDNY, including this one:
It took genuine courage for Cassidy Hutchinson to break free of her original lawyer, who was selected and paid for by Trump-affiliated entities and who, she testified, tried to prevent her from cooperating fully against Trump. (Thread)
2. The original lawyer told her, “We just want you to focus on protecting the president” and to say she “did not recall” events that she actually did recall. As I’ve said on air, this crosses the line from a murky gray area into obstruction, if established by the evidence.
3. It eventually became clear to Hutchinson that the lawyer did not represent her personal interests first and foremost, as any lawyer is bound to do. The lawyer also became an obstacle against Hutchinson coming fully clean and cooperating fully and truthfully.
Of course, Trump’s announcement has no legal bearing and doesn’t formally insulate him from anything.
But DOJ and the Fulton County DA have now been beaten to the punch by Trump’s announcement, and those prosecutors have made their own jobs more difficult by their delay. (1/8)
Prosecutors - DOJ and locals alike - have dragged their feet and played paddy-cake for nearly two years now, on both January 6 and Mar-A-Lago (the search was just in August, but DOJ has known about the missing docs for far longer). (2/8)
Now, if Trump gets indicted - and that could well happen - it becomes substantially more difficult to actually convict him. (And an indictment without a conviction would be a prosecutorial disaster). (3/8)