Impeachment. There have been multiple clearly impeachable offences by the current administration. The congress GOP should take responsibility for getting the US out of this.
Let’s be honest, that’s not a realistic solution. The GOP is completely onboard with what he’s doing, so suggesting they take care of it is just admitting defeat.
A key question that I'm not sure can be answered: among Republican reps and senators, what is the ratio of "on board with it all" to "terrified of what will happen to themselves if they don't appear to be on board"?
If the "terrified" camp is sufficiently large, their terror can be overridden with a sufficiently large swing in public opinion. They're potentially movable.
The true believers...not sure if anything can move them. If the "on board" camp is (nearly) all Republican legislators, then there is no path to impeachment.
It will be interesting to see how things evolve as the economic impacts of Trump's policies develop. That's probably the most direct path to the level of public opinion shift needed to make impeachment possible.
He tweeted yesterday that they want to impeach him again, that he wants to remove Democratic congressmen from Congress for "crimes" they committed, and that the GOP should handle it.
For those replying who think this isn't an option - what precisely is the end-game in your mind?
Edit: I'd be interested to hear why the downvotes. I'm genuinely curious about this, because a lot of people seem to think that a) Congress is useless, and b) half the population of America is stupid, and so I'm just curious how you see America moving forward, or even if you do at all?
it appears that MAGA has successfully dismantled the USA. I don't expect any further fair elections, TBH.
I'm rather aghast at how much of American corporate money is just either collaborating with an obviously criminal regime or just sort of blindly pretending business as usual can return with an election.
There is no current checks mor balances, a king runs America and Republicans smile because they are wearing the same color jersey and seem to think their longtime agenda is being implemented, when, no, a mafia is riding their agenda and party to absolute power.
The GOP is completely mask off and is fine with Trump turning the country into Mussolini Italy if it means they get a seat at the table. They are traitors and I hope every one of them has their day in The Hague.
The United States is not a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court so there is exactly zero percent chance of anyone from the GOP appearing at The Hague.
Assuming there will be a free and fair election in which the Democrats win, it would be a sensible move to repeal the Hague Invasion Act, ratify the Rome Statute and refer all of the 47th's admin's key figures there - that avoids any possible issues with the Supreme Court.
Additionally, it would restore a bit of global confidence in the ICC and America's credibility on the global stage as well... something sorely needed after not even a few months of this administration.
1.Hague Invasion act was 71-22 in the Senate and 280-138 in the House, with 84 Yes and 116 Nos(edited because I flipped the numbers) from Democrats. Its more or less a consensus US position, not partisan.
2.Even if it did pass, retroactively referring 47 there doesn't scream "law and order" to me, especially when there are actual laws being broken.
> Its more or less a consensus US position, not partisan.
That was the case in 2002, back when the Supreme Court still worked and was reasonably respected, and Congress at least did lip service to follow its duties.
Now, the circumstances have shifted - the Supreme Court is seen as compromised as a result of the Trump appointments plus the corruption scandals surrounding Roberts. Therefore I'm not so sure that the Hague Invasion Act would remain if it were pushed to a vote in a future Democrat-controlled Congress.
> Even if it did pass, retroactively referring 47 there doesn't scream "law and order" to me, especially when there are actual laws being broken.
I agree, the normal course of action should be to put 47th and his goon(er)s through the regular American court system - but I am afraid that the legal system has degraded way too much over the last years from all the political appointments. That's why in Croatia and Serbia we had the ICTY established, there was no trust of fair trials.
The constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution.
Assuming that we continue to elect presidents, you need one to appoint an effective Attorney General (ie not Garland) and use these new king like powers of the executive to smash. The president was convicted of dozens of crimes, but nobody had the balls to throw him in jail.
You have to think about 2025 solutions. The die is cast, it isn’t 1995 anymore. Nobody is clutching their pearls because POTUS made a mess on an intern anymore. It’s a different environment and you’re going to have to have fistfights on the Senate floor if the congress is functioning.
> The constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution.
A lot of what the 47th and people in his administration did are already punishable by law - alone the Signal affair or other violations of the Public Records Act.
It would not be a ex post facto prosecution, it would simply be a prosecution by a court of law that is reasonably free from corruption.
The United States has courts. I don’t think we have a law that allows you to create another jurisdiction above that of the US Courts. That’s a change in the law.
The ICC in The Hague does not deal with internal conflicts, it mostly handles war crimes. The summary deportation of citizens to Salvadorian work camps is the only thing that might show up on the ICC's radar, for the rest of the crimes of Trump c.s. the judicial chain stops at your own Supreme Court.