Assuming such a committee could even be formed, what would be their criteria? Anyone of a certain age that was born in the United States can run for president and, by extension, win! Such a LACK of criteria for candidates was probably necessary up until the late 19th and early 20th century when more of the country was agrarian and even lawyers like Lincoln were often self-educated because access to college/higher education was severely limited, but if anything, that's what should be re-evaluated first before any impeachment or coups if for no other reason than to take steps to hopefully avoid this happening AGAIN!
Maybe Trump is mentally and emotionally unstable. I don't like it any more than Blumenauer and many others, but depending upon your definition, we've had a number of "unstable" Presidents. Andrew Jackson was a murderer and most likely a racist - far more erratic than Trump - and Abraham Lincoln was a manic-depressive that contemplated suicide and frequently compared to baboons in newspaper cartoons as well as blamed in one way or another for Union losses and a Civil War that everyone thought would be over in a year, at most. And while not necessarily unstable, a number of the latter 19th century presidents seem to have been all but totally expendable, interchangeable, and probably corrupt, having gained power after arguably corrupted elections in which party bosses had way too much power. As far as Trump's tweeting and him not being presidential, well... for better or worse, this is just another in a growing list of examples of how and why the Democratic Party, in particular, and even according to some Democrats, themselves, fail to truly understand what drove the 2016 election and its outcome beyond and outside of the Russian hacks.
Had Trump been more presidential, it's likely he would have LOST the election if he were even nominated at all! The anti-incumbent sentiment among voters that I believe had almost as much to do with the rise of Berie Sanders as of Trump meant that pretty much any candidate whose personality and policy looked too familiar was deemed untrustworthy and, as they say, "part of the problem." I heard Trump supporters call in to radio shows and say, outright, that even they weren't sure that Trump would be able to do half of what he proposed, but were so frustrated not only with Democrats - who appeared to them (and to me, by the way) to care more about the environment and the interests of minority groups and the rest of the world than those of the American voter majority whose job it would ultimately be to elect them - but with moderate and incumbent Republicans that nothing made more sense than to go with someone and something totally different. At the time, the only candidate that met those admittedly dubious qualifications was and remains Donald J. Trump. Per his tweeting, I'm not a fan of that, either, but this goes to the voters' distrust of the majority of the mainstream media, particularly the news media on television and in print. Even in comparably apolitical surveys, overall approval ratings for "the media," in general, hovered at or below 50% for most or all of the election, and Blumenauer's jab about poor spelling and grammar are laughably hypocritical given how many, even in the professional world, send out thousands of poorly-written texts, tweets, and E-mails every day. Of most importance, though, is that past and present Trump supporters now see his Tweeting as an extension of his own personal disliking of the media (for whatever reasons, founded or unfounded) and, more importantly, as a fairly unprecedented but important way for the President to supposedly talk directly to those that voted for him as opposed to through the filter of any number of reporters and news agencies that actively and overtly hate him and even mounted efforts to topple his candidacy and discredit his win and present administration. Even if one can make the argument that Trump is just seeking perpetual adulation to feed his own perversely overblown self-image, the results and reactions are the same.
The bottom line for me is that too much of the reasoning behind sentiments and statements like Blumenauer's is still tied LESS to any direct or lasting impact of Trump and his policies on the nation, at large and to this point, and FAR MORE to lingering reactions people had to Trump's offensive campaign rhetoric and the combination of shock and disappointment on the part of those that never once believed he would win. Ousting President Trump in any way that does not come with formal, substantive legal charges and/or a clearly bi-partisan mandate from American voters would likely do more harm than good. Even if you're someone that genuinely believes that Russia was directly responsible for Trump's win (despite there having been more votes for Hillary, overall, anyway), Trump won by uncomfortably narrow margins, but still fairly based upon existing, tangible evidence and the way Presidential elections have been conducted for much of the nation's history. And again, up to now, all we've really had have been Trump's executive orders, and as we saw with a number President Obama's such as the one dealing with illegal immigration in, I think, 2013, such orders seem to rarely survive immediate legal or political scrutiny... intact if at all. We've already seen a potent example in the form of his first travel ban. Thus, to realize and implement substantial and lasting policy, Trump MUST work with the House and Senate on legislation that passes legal and Constitutional muster on a number of levels.
The bottom line for me is that too much of the reasoning behind sentiments and statements like Blumenauer's is still tied LESS to any direct or lasting impact of Trump and his policies on the nation, at large and to this point, and FAR MORE to lingering reactions people had to Trump's offensive campaign rhetoric and the combination of shock and disappointment on the part of those that never once believed he would win. Ousting President Trump in any way that does not come with formal, substantive legal charges and/or a clearly bi-partisan mandate from American voters would likely do more harm than good. Even if you're someone that genuinely believes that Russia was directly responsible for Trump's win (despite there having been more votes for Hillary, overall, anyway), Trump won by uncomfortably narrow margins, but still fairly based upon existing, tangible evidence and the way Presidential elections have been conducted for much of the nation's history. And again, up to now, all we've really had have been Trump's executive orders, and as we saw with a number President Obama's such as the one dealing with illegal immigration in, I think, 2013, such orders seem to rarely survive immediate legal or political scrutiny... intact if at all. We've already seen a potent example in the form of his first travel ban. Thus, to realize and implement substantial and lasting policy, Trump MUST work with the House and Senate on legislation that passes legal and Constitutional muster on a number of levels.
If Trump were successfully ousted and American law and tradition were honored, VP Mike Pence would probably succeed him, and while he's definitely more "presidential," I've seen a number of liberals online admit that because of Pence's religious fundamentalism, his potential presidency scares or scared them more than Trump's. To avoid this, you could not stop with ousting Trump, himself. In whatever form or condition, Trump's entire administration would have to be ousted, including those that have different opinions because ultimately, Trump hates to be contradicted or overruled and whatever their stated differences of opinion, pretty much everyone that Trump has chosen to be part of his administration has said that they would advise Trump honestly, but respect and bend to his will and decisions. If Trump were succeeded by Pence, we would be faced with someone who - because he seems to have startlingly little real ambition or sophisticated policies of his own - would likely feel and be honor-bound to carry out Trump's agenda in his own way. Because he would come across as a softer, more tolerable presence that is easier to work with, odds are that he would actually be more successful than Trump at doing the same or similar things... becoming, essentially, a wolf in sheep's clothing for the very people that ousted Trump to begin with.
The worst possible consequence of an ousting, however, is the way in which it would probably embolden the alt-right and the "movement" that elected Trump in the first place. If these people are as many Democrats have characterized them, then they are already fundamentalists and fundamentally anti-government at their core as well as extremely well-armed. It's an unfortunate fact that a lot of them are more than willing and potentially able to launch a paramilitary "movement" with consequences that go beyond a lot of hurt feelings and cancelled visas. The only way to defeat Trump is to let Trump defeat himself. Arguably, Mitt Romney lost to Obama in 2012, in part, because the Republicans had blocked so much of what Obama wanted to do that, with the ACA still not in effect, they couldn't really point to a lot of examples of actual failed policy. More importantly and more realistically, I believe, allowing Trump to defeat himself with the help of the existing and LEGAL opposition on the Supreme Court and in the House and Senate might also go further towards defeating the movement that elected him by destroying the most important pretense upon which many cast their votes for Trump: The notion that Trump, more than any other politician, could "get things done."
The worst possible consequence of an ousting, however, is the way in which it would probably embolden the alt-right and the "movement" that elected Trump in the first place. If these people are as many Democrats have characterized them, then they are already fundamentalists and fundamentally anti-government at their core as well as extremely well-armed. It's an unfortunate fact that a lot of them are more than willing and potentially able to launch a paramilitary "movement" with consequences that go beyond a lot of hurt feelings and cancelled visas. The only way to defeat Trump is to let Trump defeat himself. Arguably, Mitt Romney lost to Obama in 2012, in part, because the Republicans had blocked so much of what Obama wanted to do that, with the ACA still not in effect, they couldn't really point to a lot of examples of actual failed policy. More importantly and more realistically, I believe, allowing Trump to defeat himself with the help of the existing and LEGAL opposition on the Supreme Court and in the House and Senate might also go further towards defeating the movement that elected him by destroying the most important pretense upon which many cast their votes for Trump: The notion that Trump, more than any other politician, could "get things done."
