Neither the Constitution's impeachment mechanism (except for federal judges) nor section 4 of the 25th Amendment (except perhaps for comas) really works.
I mean, we've now had two presidential impeachment "trials" in which a grand total of zero witnesses were called, and which will have resulted in acquittals, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt.
And for four years, we had a president who, by virtue of his psychological disorders, would have been removed from virtually any other job of significant responsibility.
So these mechanisms just don't work. Not because they don't make sense on paper, but because too many people charged with carrying them out lacked courage, principle, or both.
I've always had a slight preference for Westminster-style government, and now I have no doubt.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For the record: No one ever told me of these complaints being made to the Lincoln project, and the first I ever heard that Weaver may have done anything questionable were rumors I heard well after the election, and long after I ceased active involvement with the organization.
And I never received anything of value from the Lincoln Project, save for one very nice $169 Rode NT-USB condenser microphone, which Ron Steslow kindly provided to me for podcasting.
I don't begrudge those who did receive fair compensation for their work; they were political professionals who formed a tremendous team that did amazing work, from top to bottom, from start to finish. And I'm proud to have helped do whatever I could to defeat Donald Trump.
"President Trump’s conduct must be declared unacceptable in the clearest and most unequivocal terms. This is not a partisan matter. His actions directly threatened the very foundation on which all other political debates and disagreements unfold." judiciary.house.gov/news/documents…
"No enemy—foreign or domestic—had ever obstructed Congress’s counting of the votes. No President had ever refused to accept an election result or defied the lawful processes for resolving electoral disputes. Until President Trump." bit.ly/3j90Uby
"Surveying the tense crowd before him, President Trump whipped it into a frenzy, [and] aimed them straight at the Capitol, declaring: “'You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.'" bit.ly/3j90Uby
No. It's unquestionably moot. The cases did not seek retrospective relief, such as damages, but rather only prospective relief—declarations and and injunctions addressing future conduct. But he can't violate the emoluments clause any more, since he's no longer president.
So not only was the Court right on vacating and dismissing as moot, it actually had no other choice, since the federal courts under Article III only have jurisdiction to decide live cases and controversies.
Nixon got re-elected, too, and won the popular vote twice. The second time, he won by 23.2%, and won the electoral college 520-17—an actual landslide. In contrast, Trump lost re-election, and lost the popular vote twice, both times by substantial margins.
So really, comparing Trump to Nixon is horribly unfair to Nixon.