The "25th Amendment legislation" Pelosi references would need to be passed over President Trump's veto, meaning the threshold for success (2/3 of both houses) would actually be higher than for impeachment
I wrote about Raskin's 25th amendment bill last year. Though it might make sense as a reform idea, it makes no sense as a crisis response
The bill Pelosi is referring to would not invoke the 25th Amendment. It would set up a commission that — if Mike Pence agreed — would invoke the amendment.
So the bill itself still wouldn't get around the Pence problem, even if it somehow became law
Basically, the 25th Amendment says that Pence and *either* of the following: (A) a majority of principal officers of executive departments, or (B) some "other body created by Congress," could strip the president of his powers.
The bill would create B. But still needs Pence.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For impeachment to have any practical consequence, at least 18 Senate Republicans would have to agree to remove Trump from office (or ban him from future office)
The sole Republican who was willing to do so last time, Romney, indicated yesterday he'd prefer waiting it out.
Democrats may have moral or political reasons to pursue impeachment, but the "getting Trump out of office early" really does come down to Republicans and there's no way around it.
Ben Sasse says this morning he will "consider" Democratic impeachment articles. First public sign of any GOP senator's openness to removal.
I think any take on the nature of the "Republican Party" re: Trump's election-stealing effort really has to grapple with the fact that no R swing state governor, swing state legislature leader, judge helped him in any substantive way. And McConnell and Barr didn't either
What's unfolding now is that Trump is making corrupt requests (that don't seem to be working), and that many House Rs and some Senate Rs (though not Senate R leaders) are willing to back him in a congressional vote that's 100% certain to fail.
Judges overwhelmingly spurned him, as did GA/AZ statewide officials. McConnell says it's over. Barr said no fraud. GA/AZ/WI/MI/PA state legislature leaders responded to calls for their intervention by putting their fingers in the ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you."
There's some surprisingly good stuff in Congress's end-of-year bills that hasn't gotten much attention because it doesn't really fit anyone's narrative
One is the ban on anonymous shell companies @cjcmichel discusses in this great thread and calls "the most sweeping counter-kleptocracy reforms in decades—potentially ever"
The coronabus package also contained "the most substantial energy legislation passed in the US in over a decade" per @drvolts who discusses its provisions, including major restrictions on HFCs, here volts.wtf/p/congress-mig…
I do think this is relevant to the discussion @perrybaconjr and @whstancil recently had about the divide between older, cautious Democratic leaders and the (relatively) younger generation more open to partisan confrontation bluegrassbeat.substack.com/p/how-cities-m…
.@whstancil cites the brutal 1968-88 period for Dems (presidentially) as shaping this thinking. But for Congress you don't have to go back that far.
Dems lost the House in 1994, couldn't get it back for 12 years. They lost it again 4 years later, couldn't get it back for 8 years
To me the generous interpretation is that Pelosi believes she knows, from hard-won experience, that Democratic majorities are very fragile — and that, if you lose them, it could take a very long time to get them back.
The context here was amidst the push for Clinton's health reform plan. Pelosi wanted to push the bill to the left. Instead no agreement could be reached and nothing passed. Democrats lost both houses of Congress in historic wipeout later that year