Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

New Dem Strategy: Trump Mentally Unfit to Remain in Office

New Dem Strategy: Trump Mentally Unfit to Remain in Office

Trying to use 25th Amendment powers.

The Russia narrative is pretty much dead in the water.

So now Democrats, who have never accepted Trump’s victory in the 2016 election, are trying a new strategy to remove him from office by questioning his mental health.

CNN reports:

Dem proposes panel to remove President if unfit to lead

Pointing to the outcry over President Donald Trump’s latest controversial tweets, freshman Rep. Jamie Raskin is urging his colleagues to get behind a bill that could potentially oust the President if he was mentally or physically unfit.

The Maryland Democrat wants to create an 11-member commission made up of mostly physicians and psychiatrists — more formally called the “Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity.” The panel would carry out a medical examination and determine whether the President was physically or mentally able to do the job.

Two of the commission’s members would also be former high ranking officials, such as presidents, vice presidents, attorneys general or secretaries of state.

It’s a provocative and long-shot effort, but Raskin is citing as his legal backup the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, which was adopted in 1967 after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to establish procedure in the case a president is incapacitated. About two dozen Democrats have signed on to the effort as of Thursday.

Isn’t it fascinating how the Democrats’ plan dovetails perfectly with the new liberal media narrative that Trump is mentally ill?

You may have seen this column by Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough in the Washington Post:

Donald Trump is not well

President Trump launched personal attacks against us Thursday, but our concerns about his unmoored behavior go far beyond the personal. America’s leaders and allies are asking themselves yet again whether this man is fit to be president. We have our doubts, but we are both certain that the man is not mentally equipped to continue watching our show, “Morning Joe.”

The president’s unhealthy obsession with our show has been in the public record for months, and we are seldom surprised by his posting nasty tweets about us. During the campaign, the Republican nominee called Mika “neurotic” and promised to attack us personally after the campaign ended. This year, top White House staff members warned that the National Enquirer was planning to publish a negative article about us unless we begged the president to have the story spiked. We ignored their desperate pleas.

Trump’s Twitter action also is being used as “proof” of mental unfitness, as Mark Finkelstein covered earlier, Carl Bernstein: Trump’s CNN Wrestling Tweet raises issues of “stability of the President of the United States”.

The plan to use the 25th amendment to remove Trump would require the approval of Vice President Mike Pence so this is merely more political theater designed to appeal to the resistance, i.e. the base of the Democratic Party.

If Democrats think this is going to help them win back the voters they lost last fall, it is they who need to have their mental health evaluated.

FOX and Friends covered the story this weekend. From the FOX News Insider:

Dems Draft Bill That Could Activate 25th Amendment Powers to Remove Trump

Several Democrats, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), have signed onto an initiative that could lead to President Trump’s removal using 25th Amendment powers.

According to the Washington Post, Raskin’s bill would activate a probe into whether President Trump has been too far “incapacitated” to continue as the leader of the free world.

The 25th Amendment deals mainly with presidential succession, denoting that the vice president would take over for a deceased or removed president, and so on.

Raskin said his legislation would focus on Section 4 of the 1967 amendment, which reads in part:

“Whenever the vice president and a majority of … bod[ies] such as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the president pro-tempore of the Senate and 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.”

Here’s the video:

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Common Sense | July 3, 2017 at 2:07 pm

Just an idea before there is any medical examination of the President we need to check the lunatics who are pushing this make believe nonsense. My bet is way more than half would be found mentally or physically unfit for congress.

What do you think?

They should draft a list of reasons Trump is ‘mentally unfit,’ tape it to a mirror, then one at a time stand before the mirror, and look into it as they read aloud from the list.

They’re ill, mentally unbalanced ones, thinking Congress would pass such a bill.

Knock yourselves out, as they say.

These folks are jackasses. Another “b*llsh*t impeachment tactic du jour”.

Of course this is a measure of the Dems’ lunacy, coming from their fevered little hurting brains. What they aren’t considering in this Rube Goldberg-esque hare-brained idea is the number of moving parts that’ll have to come together. Not the least of whom is Mike Pence.

Just read the first paragraph of Section 4, 26th Amendment.

If anybody would know “mentally unfit”, it would be this wacky crew!

Hate Loves Abortion

Pro-Choicers project.

This does nothing except give a Congressman you’ve never heard of some headline exposure for a few days.

As a historical note, and not including the ones actually dying slowly of disease or infection (like John Harrison, James Garfield, or William McKinley) I only recall one President who was incapacitated to the point that he couldn’t perform even the routine tasks of his elected office … and he was a Democrat.

Woodrow Wilson never really recovered from a serious stroke in 1919. The Dems, of course, covered it up. Some things never change.

I can’t wait for Trump’s next tweet. Heads are going to EXPLODE! (giggle). It just keeps getting better and better. I’m surprised that they haven’t yet made it illegal to have this much fun.

Well look at that! Even uber-liberal Atlantic is now recognizing the absurdity of the left.

Funny how these things happen once a president insists on putting everybody’s nose in it over and over again. This is how you house-train puppies. You stick their nose in the pile and throw them outside.

    Did hell just freeze over?

    tom swift in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 3, 2017 at 3:17 pm

    Only one person in America knows, as an absolute fact, that the Press accusations against Trump are dead false, and that’s Trump himself. Which is fine, but the accusations don’t damage the Press at all, or inhibit its ability to wallow in propaganda for the next four or eight years. So it’s in Trump’s interest to counterattack. Since it’s impractical to prove that they’re wrong—how can he prove that he’s not conspiring with Putin?—he can retaliate by making the Press look stupid, childish, futile, and just throughly ridiculous. And that’s Trump’s element—the same tactics he’s been using all along will still work just fine. Toss the seals some nice juicy bits of chopped fish, and let them run with the bait, right over the edge of the cliff.

      And keep in mind that voters are most upset with Congress, not Trump, over the failure to repeat ObamaCare and pass tax reform. Every House Republican is running for re-election next year. Many of them are also voicing disapproval over Trump’s tweets and urging him to be quiet. How must they be feeling watching Trump succeed in his campaign to discredit the MSM? Any possibility that they feel the heat from maybe having to face that music next year as Trump endorses an opponent in the GOP primaries?

      Trump could completely transform Congress next without losing the GOP majority. A lot of these GOP weasels are setting themselves up for next year’s road kill.

      Old0311 in reply to tom swift. | July 3, 2017 at 4:38 pm

      Making the press look childish is probably the easiest job the President has ever had.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to tom swift. | July 3, 2017 at 8:59 pm

      RE: “making the Press look stupid, childish, futile, and just thoroughly ridiculous”


      Easy Peasy to do since that is exactly what the MSM is – stupid, childish, futile, and just thoroughly ridiculous…..

Isn’t it fascinating that this latest narrative originated with the two targets of the most recent group of Project Veritas videos?

These links have been posted here, before, and are only re-posted to provide essential context to visitors.

American Pravda: CNN Producer Says Russia Narrative “bullsh*t” CNN Part 1
Nicholas Evangelista
June 27, 2017

Van Jones: Russia is “Nothing burger”– American Pravda: CNN Part 2
June 8, 2017

Washington Post’s Paul Farhi is “Very Fake News”
June 28, 2017

CNN Producer: Voters “Stupid as Sh*t”– American Pravda: CNN Part 3

Pelosi Schmelosi | July 3, 2017 at 2:49 pm

Have these dolts seen or heard that retard Pelosi recently?
You wanna talk about being mentally unfit…

Trump outs Democrats who want to bring back Stalinist Socialist tactics against opponents.

This will be great to watch. It’ll be like Catch 22 or Monty Python

    Yep. As I commented below, the Dems — in addition to ridiculing themselves better than we could ever hope to — have apparently forgotten what happens after they “successfully” exercise their “25th Amendment powers”.

    “President Michael Pence” wouldn’t be a terrible thing. 🙂

Attorney General Sessions should get these people to commit to their diagnosis, then drag them in for advocating overthrow of government: 18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government

    tom swift in reply to luagha. | July 3, 2017 at 3:23 pm

    They’re doing a fine job of destroying themselves with their own rampant silliness. It’s in Trump’s interest to let them continue to do so.

    Any attempt, or even threat, to damp their wild displays by unleashing the Federal government’s array of big hammers will give them a chance to plausibly claim censorship by the Terrible Tyrant Trump.

    There’s no need to hand them that lifeline.

    Milhouse in reply to luagha. | July 3, 2017 at 6:56 pm

    You’re insane.

    (1) 18 USC 2385 purports to ban advocating the overthrow of the government “by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government“. None of these people are doing that.

    (2) 18 USC 2385 is thoroughly, blatantly, manifestly unconstitutional, and any charge made under it would not survive first contact with a magistrate, let alone get as far as a trial. It is absolutely black letter law that not only is it lawful to advocate the president’s assassination, but a government entity may not even fire an employee for doing so.

    What a wonderful country our ancestors bequeathed us, where one may openly wish the president murdered and yet continue to draw a government salary, and the government may not retaliate in any way at all. This is precisely what makes the USA great, and the arrogant blackguards who passed that purported law betrayed their oaths and committed moral treason against the constitution. They were truly enemies of the United States, and so is anyone who advocates enforcement of that provision.

      Maybe sedition will do it:

      18 U.S. Code Chapter 115, § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy

      If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

        Once again the key phrase, repeated several times in there, is “by force”. Without that there is no sedition, and can’t be. And it takes a serious plan to actually do so, not merely advocating that someone else do it, or vaguely threatening to do it in some hypothetical circumstances. That is absolutely protected by the first amendment, and can’t be illegal no matter how many congressmen think it should be.

        Advocacy, of anything, cannot ever be illegal.

          tom swift in reply to Milhouse. | July 4, 2017 at 1:18 am

          The Sedition Act of 1798 didn’t require force. “False statements” were sufficient for a prison term. There were convictions, though I don’t think anyone was sentenced to more than 18 months.

          That was so much fun it was repeated in 1918, with some amendments to the Espionage Act of 1917. The Supremes upheld them in 1919.

          The Alien Registration Act of 1940 explicitly criminalized advocacy. There were several hundred prosecutions before the Supremes started to discourage them in the mid-’50s.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 4, 2017 at 2:01 am

          Yes, there is that sad and sordid history when legislators and so-called judges brazenly defied the constitution. The 1798 was brazenly unconstitutional, to the point where Jefferson and Madison called for nullification. The Palmer raids were criminal, and the disgraceful Schenck decision has been thoroughly repudiated; it is not law.

    Neo in reply to luagha. | July 4, 2017 at 9:45 am

    The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress

    …shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

      Milhouse in reply to Neo. | July 4, 2017 at 12:10 pm

      And advocating the president’s removal, even by illegal means let alone by legal ones, is none of those things. If it were then everyone who advocated Clinton’s impeachment would have been guilty.

As much as the congressional Republicans are acting like they want to lose in 2018, the democrats with their resistance nonsense don’t really want to win in 2018!

I think this is what Conan would refer to as “the lamentation of their women”.

In other words: this is what winning looks like.

What do you mean new tactic?

This isn’t new, this has been rumbling on since November.

Every time Democrats do dumb sh1t like this someone should replay video of HRC demanding Trump accepts the election outcome during the debates.

Talk about mentally unfit—-one look at that picture and that is my first thought for those people!

I guess this is what happens when drugs are too readily available. These Democrats are as Helene Reddy sung “living in a world of make believe”. Even if both Houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats Trump would never sign such a law and Congress could never muster 2/3 of its members to overcome a veto.

By the way Democrats, impeachment is your better shot. The President can always overrule the Commission and it takes a 2/3 vote of both Houses to remove the President. Impeachment only requires a majority vote of the House of Representatives. Conviction a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

These people are truly “living in a world of make believe”.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Apparently Democrats aren’t satisfied with having started- and lost – one civil war. They’re doing their best to start another.

Touché Mailman!

Basically, these traitors want to appoint a group of bureaucrats and grant them the power to override the will of the people of the United States Of America.
Oh boy!

    No surprise there. That’s basically the entire Federal government in a nutshell.

    Nobody, but nobody, in D.C. gives a rip about the “will of the People”.

It’s their “powers” under the 25th Amendment.

Apparently the Dems have not read the full thing; they forgot the part about what happens if a sitting President dies or is declared unfit.

I say, bring it on. If they (somehow) succeed, “President Michael Pence” wouldn’t be too terrible.

This is literally crazy, for one very simple reason: Removing a president for disability, over his own protests, is much harder than removing him for alleged misconduct.

To get rid of a president for “high crimes and misdemeanors” all you need is 218 representatives and 67 senators. He can be impeached in the morning, the Chief Justice summoned to hold a trial in the afternoon, and by evening the vice president can have his feet up in the Oval Office.

The 25th amendment process is simpler — if the president does not object, because he’s in a coma, or babbling in a wheelchair. But if he does object, here’s what it takes to remove him: the vice president, 8 cabinet secretaries, 290 representatives, and 67 senators.

Notice how that list includes everyone on the first list, plus a lot more? And notice how those extra people needed are all more likely than the first list to be the president’s men? If you have the numbers to impeach and convict him, nothing prevents you from doing it. If you don’t, then the 25th amendment is a non-starter.

The only reason the 25th exists in the first place is for two scenarios: (1) where the president doesn’t object to his removal, but is not able to resign; (2) where a much loved and admired president needs to be removed, but nobody wants to humiliate him by subjecting him to impeachment. It provides a way to move him aside while preserving his dignity and his place in history. It is neither designed nor suitable for use in a hostile takeover, because in that case the constitution already provides the much easier process of impeachment and trial in the senate.

Such a commission can only be established by a law passed by congress which means president Trump would have to sign the law or republicans join with democrats to override a veto. So all for show.

These democrats want to use the 25th amendment to remove Trump but they forget that the 2nd amendment gives the people the right to remove congress critters that try a soft coup against the president.

    Daiwa in reply to garybritt. | July 3, 2017 at 6:22 pm

    Ooh, careful there… You’re going to hurt someone’s feelings and incite them to violence. 😉

    Daiwa in reply to garybritt. | July 3, 2017 at 6:29 pm

    Then again, what you’ve written is no more an incitement to violence than our Declaration of Independence:

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    Note the bit about “light and transient causes” – that would seem to apply to our current circumstances, dear leftists.

    Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | July 4, 2017 at 6:57 am

    “…but they forget that the 2nd amendment gives the people the right to remove congress critters that try a soft coup against the president.”

    This is your typical bald-faced lie.

    The 2nd gives the people the right to self-defense.

    There is no constitutional “right” to “remove” anyone by means of aggressive force who attempt a “soft coup”. Nor is there any necessity. The courts and the law, along with the body politic would provide all the remedies needed.

    This is just Gary (the Liar) Britt trying to sound all “militant”, when actual militancy would make him loose his bowels.

    tom swift in reply to garybritt. | July 4, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    they forget that the 2nd amendment gives the people the right

    The Bill of Rights is not about giving anyone rights; it is about prohibiting the government from imposing or exercising arbitrary restrictions of rights, rights which by definition antedate both the government and the Bill of Rights itself.

actually this is NOT a new meme as it’s been Democrat talking points from Hillary’s campaign & every minute after

BrokeGopher | July 3, 2017 at 7:23 pm

This is a dangerous path they’re starting down. They already think that conservatism is a mental disorder. If they succeed in this they’ll guarantee single-party rule forever.

I notice that everyone here is talking “Democrat” this, and “Democrat” that, while carefully ignoring the “elephant in the room” (pun intended).

A YUUUGE part of this is the “bipartisan” cover provided by GOPe #NeverTrumpers, from Rags here, to the Merry Cuckateers over at NRO, to the various Congresscritters like Juan “Benedict Arnold” McStain. Until they are neutralized, the job is at best half done.

    Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | July 3, 2017 at 10:13 pm

    Of course you’re a lying POS.

    I’ve never said T-rump is mentally ill. He DOES have a pronounce personality disorder (at least one), but that doesn’t make him mentally ill.

    It also doesn’t make him “unfit” for office. He’s unfit for office because of his history, character, and his conduct, as well as his fundamental dishonesty.

    Just what do you propose by way of neutralizing me and the conservatives who oppose and tell the truth about your Great Goad Cheeto…???

    Because lying about me won’t work. It never has, and it simply won’t.

My understanding of the 25th Amendment is that it was intended to allow those closest to him, people who share his politics and agenda, aka his own cabinet members, a means to constitutionally remove an incapacitated president without destabilizing the government. The founding fathers were against the development of political parties so I am sure wouldn’t approve of using this amendment as a political weapon.

Can anyone explain to me whether there is even a possibility that a Congressional committee would have any standing at all on this issue? Congress can set up any committee it wants but that doesn’t mean they have power. Would this one?

    Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 4, 2017 at 12:17 am

    Read the 25th amendment. Removal of the president is to be initiated by the vice president, and by a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide. If the president objects, these same people must then renew their decision, and then 2/3 of each house must agree with them. Which, as I pointed out above, is more than it takes to remove a president by impeachment and conviction. If the numbers aren’t there for that then they certainly aren’t there for this.

    Of course to make such a law over the president’s inevitable veto would require 2/3 of each house, which again is more than it takes to remove him by impeachment and conviction, so this is yet another path leading to nowhere.

      Ro Gal in reply to Milhouse. | July 4, 2017 at 9:34 am

      What is so amazing here is that despite ALL the ploys and stunts carried out by the Dems, media and those groups opposed to Trump, is that they have all failed to achieve their purpose!
      At some point those moderate Dems and independents will and are turning from the the divisive tactics coming from the Dems. The sad and scary part of this anti-Trump movement is that it comes from not only members of congress but powerful outside influences who pill the puppet strings of ideology that are connected to those elected officials we send to Washington!

    tom swift in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 4, 2017 at 8:08 pm

    My understanding of the 25th Amendment is that it was intended to allow those closest to him … a means to constitutionally remove an incapacitated president

    The 25th isn’t quite so seismic as that. These things are reactive; they’re enacted after something turns out to have been a problem. Circa 1967 nobody was much interested in removing any Presidents due to incapacitation; the only time that had happened—Woodrow Wilson in 1919—it was just covered up, and that situation still hasn’t been addressed satisfactorily. No, the dire worry the 25th solved was terminology.

    The Constitution is a bit vague about exactly what happens when a VP succeeds his old boss. The first time it happened, when Wm. Harrison died, his VP, John Tyler, insisted that he was The President, and not some kind of lesser mortal like “acting President” as Congress preferred. The situation was confused as in those days it was fashionable to run a “balanced ticket” with the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates about as far apart politically as possible while still being in the same party. So when Tyler became President, the immediate changes to the administration were so uncomfortable that his whole cabinet resigned (with the exception of Daniel Webster as Sec. of State). But when the smoke cleared Tyler had won, and took his place in history as the tenth President, though only for the remainder of Harrison’s term. Neither the Dems nor the Whigs were much interested in running him as the Presidential candidate in the next election, so Tyler was never actually elected to the office.

    However, despite subsequent occasions when Veeps replaced deceased Presidents, the situation remained officially nebulous, and some ancillary questions such as provision for selection of a new Vice President had never been addressed at all. Most such minor oversights were addressed by ordinary laws during the terms of John Adams, Grover Cleveland, and Harry Truman. But because the question of “President” vs. “Acting President” was an ambiguity written into Constitution, an amendment was thought to be needed to patch it up.

    But it’s still much ado about nothing much.

Look, you have to be crazy to consider running for President/Senator/Representative in the first place.

The Dems pushing this are obviously overqualified.

This.from the party of Nancy Piglosi, Maxine Waters, Al Frankenstein and many many others. This could backfire and bye bye birdie.

What is so amazing here is that despite ALL the ploys and stunts carried out by the Dems, media and those groups opposed to Trump, is that they have all failed to achieve their purpose!
At some point those moderate Dems and independents will and are turning from the the divisive tactics coming from the Dems. The sad and scary part of this anti-Trump movement is that it comes from not only members of congress but powerful outside influences who pull the puppet strings of ideology that are connected to those elected officials we send to Washington!

I wasn’t the biggest Trump fan. I felt he wasn’t conservative enough. This dem nonsense, backed by a highly biased media, trying to take down a legitimately elected President because they don’t like him has driven me to all out support for the President. I know if I strongly feel a certain way, I’m not alone or have an unusual opinion. Millions of people feel the same way.