DebateGate

Steve Holland and John Walcott | WASHINGTON

President Donald Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned late on Monday after revelations that he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with the Russian ambassador to the United States before Trump took office and misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.

Flynn's resignation came hours after it was reported that the Justice Department had warned the White House weeks ago that Flynn could be vulnerable to blackmail for contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak before Trump took power on Jan. 20.

Flynn's departure was a sobering development in Trump's young presidency, a 24-day period during which his White House has been repeatedly distracted by miscues and internal dramas.

The departure could slow Trump's bid to warm up relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Flynn submitted his resignation hours after Trump, through a spokesman, pointedly declined to publicly back Flynn, saying he was reviewing the situation and talking to Pence.

Flynn had promised Pence he had not discussed U.S. sanctions with the Russians, but transcripts of intercepted communications, described by U.S. officials, showed that the subject had come up in conversations between him and the Russian ambassador.

Such contacts could potentially be in violation of a law banning private citizens from engaging in foreign policy, known as the Logan Act.

Pence had defended Flynn in television interviews and was described by administration officials as upset about being misled.

"Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the vice president-elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the president and the vice president, and they have accepted my apology," Flynn said in his resignation letter.

Retired General Keith Kellogg, who has been chief of staff of the White House National Security Council, was named the acting national security adviser while Trump determines who should fill the position.

Kellogg, retired General David Petraeus, a former CIA director, and Robert Harward, a former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, are under consideration for the position, a White House official said. Harward was described by officials as the leading candidate.

A U.S. official confirmed a Washington Post report that Sally Yates, the then-acting U.S. attorney general, told the White House late last month that she believed Flynn had misled them about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador.

She said Flynn might have put himself in a compromising position, possibly leaving himself vulnerable to blackmail, the official said. Yates was later fired for opposing Trump's temporary entry ban for people from seven mostly Muslim nations.

CHANGE LESS LIKELY?

A U.S. official, describing the intercepted communications, said Flynn did not make any promises about lifting the sanctions.

But he did indicate that sanctions imposed by President Barack Obama on Russia for its Ukraine incursion "would not necessarily carry over to an administration seeking to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia," the official said.

Flynn, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general, was an early supporter of Trump and shares his interest in shaking up the establishment in Washington. He frequently raised eyebrows among Washington's foreign policy establishment for trying to persuade Trump to warm up U.S. relations with Russia.

A U.S. official said Flynn's departure, coupled with Russia's aggression in Ukraine and Syria and Republican congressional opposition to removing sanctions on Russia, removes Trump's most ardent advocate of taking a softer line toward Putin.

Flynn's leaving "may make a significant course change less likely, at least any time soon," the official said.

Another official said Flynn's departure may strengthen the hands of some cabinet secretaries, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

However, the second official said, Flynn's exit could also reinforce the power of presidential aides Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, whom he described as already having the president's ear.

Congressional Democrats expressed alarm at the developments surrounding Flynn and called for a classified briefing by administration officials to explain what had happened.

"We are communicating this request to the Department of Justice and FBI this evening," said Democratic representatives John Conyers of Michigan and Elijah Cummings of Maryland.

U.S. Representative Adam Schiff of California, ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said Flynn's departure does not end the questions over his contacts with the Russians.

"The Trump administration has yet to be forthcoming about who was aware of Flynn's conversations with the ambassador and whether he was acting on the instructions of the president or any other officials, or with their knowledge," Schiff said.

The committee's chairman, Republican Devin Nunes, thanked Flynn for his service.

"Washington D.C. can be a rough town for honorable people, and Flynn — who has always been a soldier, not a politician —deserves America's gratitude and respect," he said.

(Additional reporting by Emily Stephenson; Editing by Peter Cooney, Robert Birsel)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-flynn-idUSKBN15S0BR

So, let's see what we have here...

Of course, the big news, the TRO against his travel ban was upheld. Bet that stung.

There were his several tweets about 'so called judges' and the court's decision, showing his total ignorance of and disdain for the law.

Then Nordstrom dropped Ivanka's line, causing him to tweet about how bad they were - not only on his private account, but on the official POTUS twitter account, raising concerns of conflict of interest. By the way, Nordstrom's stock went up following his tweets.

Then his counsel goes on TV telling people to buy Ivanka's stuff, setting off another flurry of conflict of interest speculation.

In the meantime, several New England Patriots players announced they will not be going to the White House so he can congratulate them for winning the Super Bowl.

He caved in to China, who are now apparently our best buds. Well, after Putin of course.

It was revealed Flynn in fact had talked to the Russians, before Trump took office, about our easing sanctions on them, another definite no-no.

We are now also best buds with Japan, another country try Trump spent so much time slamming on his campaign.

Sears and Kmart dropped Trump's line of furnishings. I hear suddenly their stock is up as well.

After Conway plugged Ivanka's stuff on TV, the Office of Government Ethics servers were overwhelmed with inquiries and crashed.

The 25th Amendment, explained: how a president can be declared unfit to serve

If the VP and Cabinet conclude a president is unwell, they can legally do something about it.

The president of the United States has essentially unconstrained authority to use nuclear weapons however he sees fit.

So what would happen if the president, in the judgment of those closest to him, were to … not be in his right mind?

In such a scenario, there is, in fact, something that could quickly and legally be done to avert global catastrophe. The answer lies in Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.

The amendment states that if, for whatever reason, the vice president and a majority of sitting Cabinet secretaries decide that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” they can simply put that down in writing and send it to two people — the speaker of the House and the Senate’s president pro tem.


Then the vice president would immediately become “Acting President,” and take over all the president’s powers.

Let that sink in — one vice president and any eight Cabinet officers can, theoretically, decide to knock the president out of power at any time.

If the president wants to dispute this move, he can, but then it would be up to Congress to settle the matter with a vote. A two-thirds majority in both houses would be necessary to keep the vice president in charge. If that threshold isn’t reached, the president would regain his powers.


Section 4 of the 25th Amendment has never been invoked in reality, though it’s a staple of thriller fiction. But there’s been a sudden surge of interest in it in recent months, as reports of Donald Trump’s bizarre behavior behind closed doors have been piling up, and there is increasingly unsubtlespeculation in Washington about the health of the president’s mind.

Whatever the current circumstances, an enormous amount rests on any president of the United States’ physical and mental health. The 25th Amendment exists as a failsafe that can be used if any president truly does appear to be unwell — as long as the people involved have the courage to actually go through with it, and the competence to carry it out without causing an even greater disaster.

1) Why was the 25th Amendment adopted?

The framers of the Constitution were farsighted about many things, but presidential succession was not among them. The text was vague on several matters, including on whether the vice president fully becomes president if the sitting president dies or resigns (in practice, the answer was interpreted as “yes”), and on how to fill a vice presidential vacancy in the middle of a term (in practice, the answer was interpreted as “you can’t”).

Most interestingly for our purposes, the Constitution’s original text states that a president could be removed from office for “inability” but gives zero specifics about how this would actually be determined or carried out. So when President James Garfield was bedridden after being shot and President Woodrow Wilson was debilitated by a stroke, they simply lingered on in the presidency without doing very much for months, because no one knew what else could be done while they were still drawing breath.

These scenarios may not have been so bad in the United States of the 1790s, but by the mid-20th century the country had become a global superpower, and modern communication tools created omnipresent demands for presidential decisions and actions.

The chaos and instability that followed John F. Kennedy’s assassination finally spurred Congress to move toward solving these problems. For once, it moved quickly, passing what became the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in 1965 and winning its ratification in the states by 1967.

The new amendment cleared up that yes, if a president died or resigned or was convicted of impeachment crimes, the vice president would fully become president. It provided, finally, for a simple way to fill a vacant vice presidency — the president nominates someone, and both Houses of Congress take a vote. It allowed for a president laid low by surgery or injury to voluntarily transfer his powers to the vice president and then easily get them back with a written declaration that he was healthy again.

And then there’s Section 4 — which is about how the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can deprive the president of his powers without his consent.

2) Wait, the VP and Cabinet can depose the president?
Sort of. There are three major parts to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. The first part establishes how a president can be quickly stripped of his powers due to inability.

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.

A few notes here. First, the power to sideline the president for inability is given to the vice president and a “majority” of “the principal officers of the executive departments.” (President Reagan’s Justice Department interpreted this to mean the main Cabinet departments, which today number 15.) Theoretically, Congress can also create and empower some “other body” that could make this declaration, but so far it has not done so.

So all the VP and eight Cabinet secretaries have to do is put in writing that the president is “unable” and send that message to the Speaker of the House (currently Paul Ryan) and the Senate’s president pro tem (currently Orrin Hatch). Then the vice president “immediately” takes on the president’s “powers and duties.”

Importantly, though, the veep only becomes “Acting President.” So the elected president hasn’t lost his office yet, just his powers — and not necessarily permanently, as we’ll see in a moment.

Finally, there is zero elaboration on what it would mean for the president to be “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” There is no specification even that it refers solely to health. In theory, it could entail not just physical inability but a judgment call on mental health or even, conceivably, poor character or simple disagreement. It’s really up to the VP and Cabinet to interpret it.

3) But what if the president wants to stay in charge?

Section 4 continues:

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.

This is a mouthful, but the gist is that the president can tell the speaker of the House and Senate president pro tem that he is in fact not unable, and that he wants his powers back. You can imagine this happening if the president regains consciousness from some injury or ailment — or if he simply disagrees that he’s unfit for office.

If he does this, he’ll get his powers back in four days — unless the vice president and at least eight Cabinet officials say, in writing, that he is still unable. Then the vice president will remain in charge for the time being, and Congress will have to step in to settle this dispute. The rest of Section 4 is about this contingency:

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 after 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.

So Congress will vote on whether the president is in fact “unable.” If two-thirds of both the House and Senate vote that he is, then the vice president will remain in charge as acting president.

If they fall short of that margin in either House, or simply fail to act within 21 days, the president will regain his powers.

4) In what situations might this actually be used?

Section 4’s text is broad and could apply to a spectrum of different circumstances.

The least controversial scenario would be if a president should become indisputably physically debilitated either from an injury or ailment, so much so that he couldn’t communicate but remained alive. Then it’s a no-brainer to use Section 4 to put the vice president in charge unless and until the president recovers.

But one can also imagine situations in which the president’s physical or mental health is the subject of some dispute — including from the president himself. As a 1988 Miller Center report put it:

In retrospect, [Section 4] probably could have applied to the final periods of Woodrow Wilson's or Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidencies. This provision involves a sick president who either refuses or is unable to confront his disability. Put another way, this section basically applies to a president who is disabled but unwilling to step aside. He or she may be stubborn, or be in the hands of a powerful staff or of a strong-willed spouse, the latter being Wilson's case.

Indeed, the topic came up among top administration officials during President Reagan’s second term. In early 1987, White House aide Jim Cannon became intensely disturbed by reports from staffers about how the president had been acting. As he later told Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus:

“They told stories about how inattentive and inept the President was. He was lazy; he wasn't interested in the job. They said he wouldn't read the papers they gave him, even short papers and documents. They said he wouldn't come over to work. All he wanted to do was to watch movies and television at the residence.”

So Cannon wrote a memo in which he urged White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker to “consider the possibility that section four of the 25th Amendment might be applied.” But it didn’t end up happening — Baker soon decided that Reagan was still in possession of his faculties, and the president remained in office for his full final two years. (Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s in his later years, and some argue he demonstrated early symptoms while he was in office.)

Finally, the text of the amendment is so vaguely written that it could conceivably be invoked for any reason — even one unrelated to health — so long as enough Cabinet secretaries and the VP are in agreement and two-thirds of both the House and Senate later back them up. For this reason, Section 4 is a favorite of thriller writers concocting scenarios in which malefactors use some bogus pretext to depose the president.

Indeed, the senators who drafted the amendment openly acknowledgedthat if this power were to be utilized by “rogues,” it could result in “usurpation” of the presidency, as then-Sen. Birch Bayh wrote in a Judiciary Committee report on the proposal.

However, they hoped that since the Cabinet and vice president — “the persons closest to the president, both politically and physically” — are empowered to start this process, that would cut down on any incentives for coup-like mischief. Cabinet secretaries are appointed by the president, after all, so presumably they wouldn’t remove him from power without a really, really good reason. (The Gerald R. Ford Library has posted many fascinating primary source documents on the drafting and passage of the 25th Amendment online at this link.)

5) This sorta feels like a coup. Is it a coup?
I mean, it’s not technically a coup, because it’s indisputably legal and constitutional.

Still, there’s zero precedent for this actually happening in US history, and the vast majority of Americans are likely unaware that it’s even possible. Even savvy political actors or entrenched institutional ones likely aren’t all that familiar with how the amendment is meant to work.

So if a sitting president were to be removed from power by his VP and Cabinet despite his objections, it would sure feel like a coup to a whole lot of people, regardless of the technical legality. And key actors close to the president could well respond like they’re facing a coup. For instance, what would the Secret Service do in this situation? The military?

If the vice president and Cabinet secretaries truly concluded that the president could not remain in office, they would need to document everything that led them to that conclusion and assemble an airtight public case. They would also need to be prepared for the sitting president to resist — either in the court of public opinion or otherwise.

Basically, things could get out of hand really fast. But if the VP and Cabinet feel the situation is dire enough, it could be a risk worth taking.

6) So let’s talk about the elephant in the room.
President Donald Trump has reportedly been ranting to foreign leaders about the size of his inauguration crowds his Electoral College victory, and other topics. He’s repeatedly insisted, with no evidence whatsoever, that massive voter fraud prevented him from winning the popular vote.

Perhaps the president is a basically rational person who just has a very strange and idiosyncratic personal style. Perhaps he’s just perfectly comfortable repeatedly lying about easily verifiable facts, or profoundly uninterested in examining evidence that conflicts with his assumptions.

But many people are beginning to wonder whether that’s all that’s going on. “I think there is a subtext here that is unlike anything that I have seen in 50 years of being a reporter,” journalist Carl Bernstein said on CNN in late January. “And that is that I am hearing from Republicans, and other reporters are as well, that there is open discussion by members of the president of the United States’ own party about his emotional maturity, stability.” He added: “We are in uncharted territory here.”

Diagnosing the president’s mental health from afar is a bad idea, as political partisans can see what they want to see, and the American Psychiatric Association has long cautioned even professional psychiatrists against evaluating anyone they haven’t personally examined.

Yet that’s precisely why the 25th Amendment gives the power to the vice president and the Cabinet secretaries here. Their judgments won’t be skewed by political bias against the president’s party. They work with the president up close and see him in private. So if they see deeply troubling things, they are the ones who have the ability — and, arguably, the responsibility — to act. Much could hinge on whether they do so.

Via Vox.com

1. She was black.

2. She supported her husband.

Take your pick.

Look at yourself.

"Bleat bleat bleat media whine whine whine Hillary pout pout pout media Hillary media wahhhhhh....!"

If Trump hadn't fucked up, what would there be for the media to pile onto? Never mind what Hillary did, or Bill, or Obama, there has been plenty of coverage of missing emails, Benghazi, slut interns and Obamacare despite your protests to the contrary, and none of that erases the fact that the Almighty Donald himself screwed the pooch. Glass houses, stones, ring a bell? You may not be touting The Donald as the second coming of the Messiah, but you're right there crying "Media! Hillary!" in an attempt to deflect attention from his gaffes.

Whether you, personally, support him or not is of no consequence to me. The Republican party did, over, what, 16 other candidates that were better qualified in experience and temperament, not to mention morals. The party turned the nomination over to a candidate with no common sense or decency and an inflated ego. As far as I'm concerned, they've lost me. If that's what the party has come to, they're welcome to it.

Maybe XO will show up so you'll have someone to argue with.

No excuse.

Just watching the meltdown.

it isn't even close....the guy lives in fantasy land
he is basically an apologist for the world's most prolific murderers 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30

I traveled in and out of the Middle East for years, worked, ate, slept and socialized with Muslims, sat and discussed everything from politics to religion to just about any subject you'd care to name with them; I've slept in princes' palaces, working mans' apartments, and Bedouin tents in the desert, walked the streets of their cities and strolled through their bazaars. I never once felt threatened or felt like anyone was out to harm me because i wasn't Muslim. Ever. But here, in my own damned country, I've been called a traitor and worse for opposing rushing blindly into a war based on false information, opposing the invasion of a country we had no business invading, and opposing the needless death and destruction it brought about. I've seen people on forums like this all across the internet posting bogus misinformation and lies about Islam and Muslim people, and other gullible little frightened people taking this bullshit and passing it on as fact. CU4's latest post, taking an obviously criminal act and using the fact it just happened to be committed by a Muslim in order to try to smear an entire religion, just pushed the wrong damned button for me.

You can all take your bigoted anti-Muslim right wing bullshit and shove it up your ass.