Rosenstein Is No Longer Necessary

[mark46]

Trump is now free to fire Rosenstein for daring to discuss removing him through the use of the 25th Amendment.

In any case, going forward the new AG will make the decisions withe regard to Mueller. This is as it should be.

Personally, I don't want Rosenstein fired, and I hope that the new AG will simply move him off the case, and give him other responsibilities.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Trump is now free to fire Rosenstein for daring to discuss removing him through the use of the 25th Amendment.

Unless, of course, Rosenstein is correct.

 

[mark46]

Unless, of course, Rosenstein is correct.

correct in wanting to remove the president?

 

[DaisyDay]

Trump is now free to fire Rosenstein for daring to discuss removing him through the use of the 25th Amendment.

In any case, going forward the new AG will make the decisions withe regard to Mueller. This is as it should be.

Personally, I don't want Rosenstein fired, and I hope that the new AG will simply move him off the case, and give him other responsibilities.

Being as Rosenstein has already planned to quit, it seems a little gratuitous to fire him, but very Donald-like.

Rosenstein expected to depart DOJ in coming weeks

 

[TLK Valentine]

correct in wanting to remove the president?

Correct in that the president should be removed.

 

[Speedwell]

correct in wanting to remove the president?

A person in his position, when he observes the president to be acting in an erratic manner, has a duty to consider the 25th Amendment.

 

[mark46]

A person in his position, when he observes the president to be acting in an erratic manner, has a duty to consider the 25th Amendment.

I strongly disagree.

 

[Speedwell]

I strongly disagree.

Who is supposed to consider it, then?

 

[mark46]

Who is supposed to consider it, then?

I'm sure lots of folks thought that several of the presidents since Kennedy "acted in an erratic manner" at times. How many thought that of Nixon? of Reagan?

Perhaps, Rosenstein might have discussed the behavior with members of the cabinet or with his boss. Perhaps folks might have even gotten together. He might even have discussed the questionable behavior with members of Congress. There were lots and lots of choices LONG, LONG before counting potential cabinet votes for the 25th Amendment. The 25th Amendment is primarily for medical conditions. Did Rosenstein consult any physicians? Or was the issue simply that Rosenstein strongly disagreed with decisions of the president and the potential decision that he might make?

If the cabinet was to be convinced, that should not have been the place of the Asst AG to enable. As I said, at very least this should have come form members of the Congress.

Surely, if there were no folks in Congress that could be convinced/concerned, why should Trump's loyalist cabinet be expected to remove him, absent any impeachable offense.

 

[mark46]

Who is supposed to consider it, then?

Perhaps the most direct answer in the Vice President and the cabinet, since the VP and the majority of the cabinet must agree. Surely, Rosenstein didn't think that he had some secret view of the behavior.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Perhaps the most direct answer in the Vice President and the cabinet, since the VP and the majority of the cabinet must agree. Surely, Rosenstein didn't think that he had some secret view of the behavior.

Rosenstein isn't allowed to consider the 25th Amendment?

He is to be punished for what... unauthorized thinking?

 

[mark46]

He can think about anything he wants. If 2 very highly ranked of my employees were discussing how to get rid of me, I would consider having them fired.

Rosenstein isn't allowed to consider the 25th Amendment?

He is to be punished for what... unauthorized thinking?

 

[TLK Valentine]

He can think about anything he wants. If 2 very highly ranked of my employees were discussing how to get rid of me, I would consider having them fired.

Suppose one of them was the Vice President?

 

[mark46]

Suppose one of them was the Vice President?

In the case of the 25th Amendment, the Vice President is the central figure. So, yes it would be appropriate for the VP to discuss this issue with a Senator, a Congressperson or a cabinet member.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In the case of the 25th Amendment, the Vice President is the central figure. So, yes it would be appropriate for the VP to discuss this issue with a Senator, a Congressperson or a cabinet member.

Would it be appropriate for the President to fire him if he did?

 

[mark46]

The president cannot fire the vice president.

The House and Senate could consider it to be a high crime and misdemeanor to plot against the president, in which case he could be impeached.

Would it be appropriate for the President to fire him if he did?

 

[Speedwell]

Considering a Constitutional remedy for a possibly unfit President is hardly "plotting."

 

[TLK Valentine]

The president cannot fire the vice president.

Point taken.

The House and Senate could consider it to be a high crime and misdemeanor to plot against the president, in which case he could be impeached.

A high crime and misdemeanor to enforce the 25th Amendment? Keep in mind that the VP swears an oath to be loyal to the Constitution, not to the President.

 

[mark46]

Point taken.



A high crime and misdemeanor to enforce the 25th Amendment? Keep in mind that the VP swears an oath to be loyal to the Constitution, not to the President.

I'll try again. If Congress believed the VP was plotting to remove the president (and make himself president), then they might consider impeachment. OBVIOUSLY, if they believed that VP had cause to question the health and capacity of the president, an impeachment effort wouldn't go far.
========

Consider that if in early 2018 Pence were to have met with Sessions and a couple other establishment type cabinet members and discussed strategies. So far so good? Let us say they strongly objected to lots of Trump's behavior and perhaps even some of his policies. Still OK? Now, let us consider that they used the many public attacks on Trump's mental health to assess options, and that invoking the 25th Amendment was possible.

What would then happen if the Republican Congress got wind of this? Personally, I think someone in the Republican House might want to initiate impeachment proceedings against Pence (once Trump was told). If that doesn't work for you, because Pence is Pence, consider the same scenario if Christie had accepted the VP bid and was VP instead of Pence. And, yes, Christie might very well have had such a discussion.

 

[mark46]

BTW, if Pence (or Christie if he were VP), were found to be discussing the 25th amendment, I would think that Trump would want to have the VP impeached, and would ask Meadows or Nunes to try to initiate such proceedings. After all, this would be the VP seeking to take his job, and perhaps risking some of Trump's after the presidency perks.