faetal on 10/1/2021 at 10:45

---

We've asked nbohr for evidence before. He does the standard right wing conspiracy nut thing where the statement "X sent an email about Y proving conspiracy" and then posts links to a document showing that X sent an email about Z proving nothing of the sort. Then when called out, accuses everyone of brainwashing and doubles down a little extra.

He has clearly been reading a lot of aggregations and taking their conclusions wholesale without examining any evidence in detail which might support what he is saying.

It's the usual "grain of truth" bullshit.

nbohr1more on 10/1/2021 at 13:00

---

Review:

(https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.15.pdf)

demagogue on 10/1/2021 at 13:22

---

(Edit: the "n" must stand for "ninja" because I just got double ninja'd while I was writing that post.)

@raph, the short answer is it hasn't been tested yet, so there's no precedent for or against it. So in that case, one starts just with the (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv) text, and you think about it just like a logic problem. The key conditional (the only one that works) is "the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", and on that Section 4 is pretty explicit what it requires, (1) a written declaration from (2) the VP & majority of the cabinet to the #2 in the Senate & the Speaker of the House.

So that argument the way you seem to be framing it is that Pence's actions de facto did the job of (1) and (2). It's not a great argument because it explicitly used the term "written declaration", not some other more open ended term (like "a declaration") that would have allowed non-explicit signals. You use the word "written" when you insist on it being explicit. And the other thing is it requires a majority of the cabinet to be part of the declaration, and that doesn't seem to be covered either even if you allowed a declaration to be de facto.

But I think there argument is more like an estoppel kind of flavor, like (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence) estoppel by acquiescence. It's a general principle of common law, so it's something external. These kinds of principles generally shouldn't overturn clear text, so it's not a great argument. The idea is, the text says if the (1) & (2) conditions are met, "the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President." So I think they're arguing, since the VP assumed the powers because the President was in fact not able to discharge his powers (e.g., there's a story about the (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-district-of-columbia-inaugurations-larry-hogan-electoral-college-1a2caceca5b08a4e4360995183df4e6c) delay in calling in the national guard to protect the capitol because the president wouldn't authorize it), and the President did not stop him or demonstrate that he was able to discharge his powers contrary to the de facto assertion that he couldn't, then the president can't assert his right later because he had his chance to contest the VP claiming his powers (to assert his claim that he was still able to discharge his powers) & he acquiesced it at that time, as if de facto ratifying the VP's assertion, so (the argument would go) the president would be estopped from asserting his claim (or contesting the VP's claim) later, as the lingo goes.

Aside from the text again not being friendly to that, since if they were thinking about the VP just de facto taking charge they wouldn't have specifically thought to insist on a written declaration (the intention of which seems to preclude exactly that happening), the other problem is the president's actions like his silence & then stupid statement ("go home, we love you") and the delay of an hour with authorizing the national guard, aren't really smoking guns for the president being literally (as in physically or mentally unable) or intentionally reneging on being able to do presidential things. He's doing an incredibly half assed reprehensible job where there's even a good case it justifies impeachment, but not quite crossing the line of "unable to discharge the powers". The kinds of cases they were thinking about was the president literally losing his mental and physical capacity to think and act, not just being a monumental ass. (E.g., one time it was used was when Reagan went into surgery after he was shot, the VP took over during the time by doing the procedural things. That's more the kind of thing they mean by "unable".)

So anyway, yeah, that's the way we would talk about these things in a constitutional law class. There's not a definitive answer until the principle is tested in a court and it actually makes a decision, but it's a hard sell for all the reasons I mentioned. It would have been a better case if it had been a more literal mental/physical incapacitation where the VP just took over and the president could have but didn't stop him (or just couldn't stop him), but not really under these facts.

faetal on 10/1/2021 at 20:34

---

I don't have friends in the CIA. I also don't live in the US, so don't give a fuck about the CIA.
This document you linked is 17 pages long. Since you have a history of talking shit (and posting links which haven't backed up things you;ve said), please excuse me if I don't dedicate significant time doing reading on your recommendation.

Instead, you can quote the relevant sentences / paragraphs (assuming you have read it yourself) and tell me which of your various points they are supposed to be supporting, since you are firing out accusations about pretty much anything & everything.

Or preferably, you could just stop talking shit - either is fine.

nbohr1more on 10/1/2021 at 20:53

---

Now this is a pure shill reply. 17 pages are too long? I thought "sources" where supposed to have veracity and be thorough?

Here is a clue: