I see that Trump wants the attorney general to investigate the anonymous op-ed printed the other day in the New York Times. Does he imagine that a crime has been committed?
Considering what we already knew about what people who work for Trump think of him, the anonymous op-ed doesn't add much. Ryan Lizza has compiled an abstract of preceding testimonials:
Rex Tillerson, Trump's first secretary of state, called him "a fucking moron."
H.R. McMaster, Trump's first national security adviser, called him an "idiot" and a "dope."
John Kelly, the current chief of staff, has called Trump "unhinged" and an "idiot."
Tom Barrack, a billionaire and longtime Trump friend and adviser, told Michael Wolff that the president "isn't just crazy but also stupid."
Gary Cohn, who was formerly Trump's chief economic adviser, has said the president is "dumb as shit" and "a professional liar."
James Mattis, who probably owes his position as secretary of defense to Trump's playground fondness for the nickname "Mad Dog Mattis," has compared the president's intellect to that of "a fifth- or sixth-grader."
John Dowd, formerly Trump's lead criminal lawyer in the special counsel investigation, has called him "a fucking liar."
These are not Democrats, vicious toilers in the "lamestream media," notoriously biased F.B.I. agents, never-Trump establishment Republicans, or any of the other usual objects of the president's whining. They are people Trump selected to work for him. If you take any account of their testimony, the "revelations" of the anonymous editorialist begin to look more like "just another brick in the wall."
I must say, however, that the bit about cabinet members having discussed the 25th Amendment seems like news. Here is the relevant paragraph from the editorial:
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the President. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until--one way or another--it's over.
It doesn't occur to the author that the "constitutional crisis" might arise, not from an effort to remove the president from office, but from the evident need to subvert the impulses and intentions of a president unfit for office. The "complex process" is described in Section 4 of the Amendment:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days of receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Yes, complex. Clarifying notes might include the information that
- "principal officers of the executive departments" means the members of the president's cabinet
- no "such other body as Congress may by law provide" has to date been established
- the President pro tempore of the Senate is by tradition the most senior member of the majority party, currently Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, though he is retiring
My main take-away is that the 25th Amendment seems less practicable than impeachment, which requires only a simple majority in the House and a two-thirds supermajority to convict and remove in the Senate. The 25th Amendment, by contrast, requires a two-thirds supermajority in both Houses, not to mention the initiative of both the vice president and members of the president's own cabinet. Perhaps, if the vice president and cabinet members act, the vote in the Congress would be influenced by their supposed regard for the president. (If Mike Pence thinks Trump is crazy, Lindsey Graham might believe him.) The point, however, remains that constitutional remedies for an erratic, unfit, corrupt, dangerous president compel us all to wait on members of that president's own party. We can vote, of course, but Trump isn't on the ballot for another two years, and if his party is repudiated at the polls this November it seems a likely consequence will be that he becomes even more erratic. It's enough to make me think fondly of Barry Goldwater, who, when asked by President Nixon in August of 1974 how many votes there might be in the Senate to stave off impeachment, is said to have replied, "Damn few and not mine." On the next day, Nixon announced his resignation.
Comments