DC Unrest Megathread

[SteveRogers]

Absolutely surreal question to have to ask, but does Congress have to meet in the physical Capitol in order to achieve quorum and pass laws, or can they do it anywhere? Just wondering if we can confirm the election results and maybe remove Trump from power without first having to clear the Capitol.

As far as I know, there is no legal/ constitutional requirement that Congress do business on Capitol grounds. During the Cold War, bunkers were built where congress could meet in the event of a nuclear war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Greek_Island. Presumably some such undisclosed location still exists...

[SteveRogers]

Trump should not be impeached or removed from office. That would turn him into a martyr and further radicalized his supporters.

At this point, his supporters’ needs or wishes are irrelevant.

Trump is leaving office in 2 weeks. Removing him a few days early is not worth the cost.

Worth it to ban him from running in 2024.

[SteveRogers]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1347219326890336262
First leader to propose this other than McGovern right?

So if Schumer is putting this out there, does that mean he knows Pelosi is ready to kick the tires on it in the House? I assume they must be coordinating their messaging on this.

[SteveRogers]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1347221543361789952?s=20

Shouldn't that be a decision that acting president Pence should be making?

Cabinet can’t invoke the 25th Amendment if there’s no cabinet (insert meme).

[SteveRogers]

Pretty quiet morning as far as talk of resignations and Pence/25th Amendment talk. My optimism for removing trump goes down by the minute. I guess Pence and the Cabinet just want to wait out the next two weeks.

Yeah, if there’s no momentum on this today, then it’s sadly not happening.

[SteveRogers]

This is literally why the 25th Amendment needs to happen:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1347273071963435008?s=20

We're so ed lmao

This would obviously go to the Supreme Court and I can't imagine they would want to set the precedent that any future Democratic President could use.

Of course, someone would have to try prosecuting him to set up the court challenge first.

[SteveRogers]

The video:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1347334804052844550

WTF was that?

[SteveRogers]

Finally a real concession; I'm surprised. Or at least close as we'll ever get.

I refuse to watch his video.  What does he say, in the way of concession?

There’s a weird jump cut where obviously something was edited out in the middle, and then he says, “there will be a new administration,” and then at the very end he refers to his presidency in the past tense. Sooo yeah, as close to a concession as we’re gonna get.

[SteveRogers]

I want to know what Trump said in the parts of that video that were clearly cut out.

[SteveRogers]

https://twitter.com/pbump/status/1347979462898556929

Legal question: Is this entrapment or is entrapment defined more narrowly than that?

Re: the Milley-Pelosi call, I guess I'm glad to know for purposes of future precedent that the military is committed to remaining lawful neutral in this mess at all costs, but I'm also glad to know that the already-existing protocols for resisting illegal orders are more substantial than I had realized, and that Milley was willing to brief Pelosi on them.

How would politely asking someone to list all their past crimes be entrapment?

[SteveRogers]

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1348284578037960706

Thank God. And I don't believe that is a hyperbolic statement whatsoever. Mass prosecution's of these people who almost universally escaped arrest on that day is a crucial part of History establishing the wrongness of this traitorous violent insurrection.

Now if they'll just go after the ringleader....

They have a very good defense. They were instructed to do so by the President of the United States. They believed they were doing the right thing.

Not a good defense. Only thing that will do is further implicate trump and strengthen the case against him.

It is a good defense, because culpability depends on your perception of right and wrong.

Nope, that’s not how the law works at all.

[SteveRogers]

Members of Congress should be exempt from security checks.

Why?

[SteveRogers]

Lawmaker is an occupation, however long it is held, the same way dishwasher is an occupation. I don't care if that occupation is classified as employee, independent contractor, or whatever. It comes with an array of special privileges and perks, to be sure, but none of these include lawmakers existing in some legal gray area where they are exempt from security rules that every other member of society must follow.

lolwut?

The bolded is just patently untrue.  Members of Congress enjoy multiple, Constitutional privileges related to their free movement and immunity from civil/criminal action resulting from their role as legislators. 

Maybe you should try, I dunno, reading something sometime?  or taking a high school government class?

Constitutionally, members of Congress cannot be arrested on their way to and from session (except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace), and they cannot be held liable for anything they say during speech and debate on the floor. That doesn’t magically transform them into super-people who are immune from all rules and security procedures.

[SteveRogers]

https://twitter.com/JesseDamiani/status/1351197878987927552
https://twitter.com/JesseDamiani/status/1351217658662891535

Does anyone know if she ends up being expelled from congress would that mean she'd be barred running again?

It would not.