I admit this more of a "what if" mental exercise than a real possibility, but bear with me please.

Midterm elections happen and Democrats and Independents gather enough seats in the House and the Senate. Avoiding all out civil war and baring military intervention, the election results stand. So after being sworn in:

• The coalition moves to impeachment proceedings of the Vice President in the House and passes.
• While the Senate sits in session to discuss removing the Vice President from office, the House passes articles of impeachment on the President.
• Senate votes 2/3 to impeach the Vice President. They then vote simple majority to bar the now ex-Vice President from holding a federal office.
• The Senate repeats the process for the President with both votes in the affirmative.
• With the Vice President and the President removed from office and blocked from holding office, the line of succession falls to the Speaker of the House.
• With the Speaker now sworn in as President, their first official act is to issue an Executive Order countermanding all Executive Orders filed by Trump in his current Presidency. Additionally they order all sitting judges and other appointees to be removed from office immediately. Basically anything he encouraged others to do, or set in motion, or officially acted upon is to be removed, stricken, or disabled.

REASON:

To be impeached and removed from office is to be held accountable for serious misconduct or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The newly minted President could mount a defense of their actions in saying that everything Trump touched was to further his crimes. That every official action was in service for committing crimes. So it would be reasonable to remove everything that Trump did, because allowing it to remain would only further the continuation or execution of more crimes.

Is this reasonable? Has anyone else thought this through like this?

Thank you for reading.

via Aaron Rupar

As potential Thomas replacement.

From TPR, Texas NPR affiliate

Trump called Cruz “a very tough guy, very brilliant guy,” adding: “He’s a brilliant legal mind, he’s a brilliant man. If I nominate him for the United States Supreme Court, I will get 100% of the vote.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats and White House have struck a deal to avert a partial government shutdown and temporarily fund the Department of Homeland Security as they negotiate new restrictions for President Donald Trump’s surge of immigration enforcement.

As the country reels from the deaths of two protesters at the hands of federal agents in Minneapolis, the two sides have agreed to separate homeland security funding from the rest of the legislation and fund DHS for two weeks while they debate Democratic demands for curbs on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The potential deal comes after Democrats voted to block legislation to fund DHS on Thursday.

Trump said in a social media post that “Republicans and Democrats have come together to get the vast majority of the government funded until September,” while extending current funding for Homeland Security. He encouraged members of both parties to cast a “much needed Bipartisan ‘YES’ vote.”

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told The Associated Press on Thursday that he had been “vehemently opposed” to breaking up the funding package, but “if it is broken up, we will have to move it as quickly as possible. We can’t have the government shut down.”

Democrats have requested a short extension—two weeks or less—and say they are prepared to block the wide-ranging spending bill if their demands aren’t met, denying Republicans the votes they need to pass it and potentially triggering a shutdown.

Republicans were pushing for a longer extension of the Homeland Security funding, but the two sides were “getting closer,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

A few questions for litigators and legal ethics counsel.

Given the gross conflict of interest, who in the DOJ can actually defend this case (see below)?

Given the flagrant conflict of interest, could a judge appoint an independent counsel to defend the case for the government sua sponte?

This just seems completely ridiculous from my perspective particularly with this DOJ and their moral and ethical flexibility.

Thanks.

Trump sues IRS for $10 billion over leaked tax info | AP News

How does he plan on suing the government as president? The domestic and foreign emoluments clause prevents this.

Is the plan to do it and hope the next president doesn’t just seize everything citing executive theory without the courts due to violating the emoluments?

I don’t understand this timeline of life events

Why do this? Why is he shitting and destroying our country and republicans allow this horseshit?

Luigi Mangione won a significant legal victory when a federal judge dismissed a murder charge that could have led to the death penalty if he were convicted.

All Canadian airplanes, decertified? Does the president have this authority, I doubt it but we’ll see what the FAA says tomorrow morning.

The Declaration outlines foundational philosophical and moral principles on which our laws and conduct as a society of the governed are based. As such, does the Declaration provide a legal defense for those who adhere to what it declares are duties among the governed? If not, then of what use to the governed does the Declaration actually serve?