Scarborough questions purpose of 25th Amendment if it can’t oust Trump over NYT allegations
Although he was slightly less unhinged than normal when discussing President Donald Trump, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough was once again showing that he still can’t shake his case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
On Monday, Scarborough interviewed Michael Schmidt of The New York Times about steps Trump has taken in recent weeks to challenge the election results, including the idea of naming Sidney Powell, the defense attorney for Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, as a special counsel to investigate potential election fraud.
In addition to that, Scarborough mentioned that Trump had “called for the arrest” of President-elect Joe Biden and his family – presumably, that includes Biden’s son Hunter, who has several shady overseas deals and is being investigated as a tax cheat – as well as Trump allegedly rejecting a peaceful transfer of power to Biden, promoting charges of corrupt election practices connected to Venezuela, and asking if he could declare martial law to redo the election or seize voting machines as part of investigating election fraud.
Scarborough’s comments were largely based on an NYT story that appeared over the weekend. The article described a “raucous” White House meeting that devolved into a shouting match among Trump’s advisers as the president reportedly entertained the idea of appointing Powell, whom the Times described as a “lawyer for his campaign team (who) unleashed conspiracy theories about a Venezuelan plot to rig voting machines in the United States.”
“It’s getting actually to the point where you just wonder if we shouldn’t just get rid of the 25th Amendment because at any other time, any other sane time, it would be used to temporarily remove a president from office if he were talking about these sort of things,” Scarborough said.
Under the 25th Amendment, the vice president can take over as president if he and a majority of the Cabinet can convince two-thirds of both houses of Congress that the president cannot discharge the duties of his office.
Schmidt, supposedly an objective reporter, stated “it is a fact at this point that if Donald Trump could, he would steal the election, and he would stay there, regardless of anything else.” Schmidt then went on to discuss the role of Flynn, who reportedly raised the idea of invoking martial law, in the discussion about Powell. Flynn, Schmidt noted, was Trump’s first choice for national security adviser and was “the original tie back to Russia.”
Schmidt conveniently forgot to mention that FBI agents on Flynn’s case initially believed he did not do anything wrong and wanted to close the case without arresting him, that anti-Trumpers in the Justice Department held the case open in an effort to “get Trump,” as one FBI agent who worked the case recently stated, that Joe Biden was intimately involved in the effort to go after Flynn based on the little-used Logan Act and that prosecutors withheld evidence that could have cleared Flynn.
Meanwhile, there is reason to doubt the Times’ story, beyond the paper’s shoddy record of reporting on Trump, especially on the Russia-collusion hoax, or the internal workings of the Trump White House.
For one thing, as has been seen so often during the Trump administration, the story was based on anonymous sources. But additionally, the Times noted its reporting was based on “two of the people briefed on the discussion.” In other words, the Times did not interview anyone who was actually in the room, and the people they did interview got their information second-hand.
But that’s good enough for Joe Scarborough, who has promoted every anti-Trump conspiracy theory to come along, to doubt Trump’s mindset – which only proves, yet again, that we more likely need at 25th Amendment for political talk-show hosts.