Christian Forums

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/article/calls-to-invoke-25th-amendment-grow-as-trump-tries-to-acquire-greenland-how-does-it-work-and-has-it-been-used-before-213524306.html

A growing number of lawmakers are calling for the 25th Amendment to be invoked to remove President Trump from office after Trump told Norway's prime minister that his position on purchasing Greenland is tied to not winning the Nobel Peace Prize and he no longer feels obligated to "think purely of Peace."

The remarkable exchange happened on Jan. 18, when the Norwegian leader, Jonas Gahr Store, sent a text message to Trump on behalf of himself and the Finnish president, Alexander Stubb. The European leaders sent the message in an attempt to "deescalate" the increased conflict over Greenland and the latest tariff threat against the U.S.'s European allies.

In less than half an hour, Trump responded, writing, "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can think about what is good and proper for the United States of America."

The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by the Norwegian government, but rather the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The five members of the committee are appointed by the country's parliament.

Trump doubled down on his intentions to "purchase" Greenland, writing, "The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you!" and signing it "President DJT."

Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts is one of several members of Congress to call for Trump's removal from office using the 25th Amendment. "Invoke the 25th Amendment," Markey posted on X, along with a picture of a news headline of Trump's unusual text message with Store. Additional Democratic House members, such as Reps. Eric Swalwell, Sydney Kamlager-Dove and Yassamin Ansari, have also called for the removal of Trump by invoking the 25th Amendment.

How did the 25th Amendment originate?
It dates back to 1963, when Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson became president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. There was no plan in place to choose Johnson's replacement, and there was concern about the procedure if he were to become ill or incapacitated before a new vice president could be named. In 1965, Congress formally proposed the 25th Amendment, and it became part of the Constitution in February 1967.

The 25th Amendment has four sections. The first three clarify the presidential order of succession and who can temporarily assume the president's duties. Section 4 gets the most attention: It's a multi-step process for the vice president and the Cabinet to declare that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

How would it work?
Invoking Section 4 of the 25th Amendment would require Vice President JD Vance and the majority of Trump's Cabinet to submit a declaration to Congress that Trump isn't able to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Doing so would mean an immediate transfer of presidential power to Vance, who would serve as acting president. Trump would have the chance to refute the declaration, which could then be challenged by his Cabinet. Congress would have 21 days from the date of receiving the declaration to formally approve any decision to remove Trump from office.

A two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate would be needed in order for Trump to be removed from office. Otherwise, he would regain his presidential powers.

Has the 25th Amendment been used before?
The first section of the 25th Amendment was invoked when Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency in 1974 and was replaced by his vice president, Gerald Ford. Section 2 was used when Gerald Ford, as president, nominated Nelson Rockefeller for vice president, and he was confirmed in the House and the Senate.

Section 3 was used in 1985 when Ronald Reagan underwent brief cancer surgery and Vice President George H.W. Bush assumed his responsibilities. In 2002 and 2007, George W. Bush invoked Section 3 when he underwent medical procedures, and then-Vice President Dick Cheney became acting president.

Section 4 has never been used because the process is so challenging. It's more difficult to remove a president under the 25th Amendment using Section 4 than under the impeachment process.

What's the difference between impeachment and invoking the 25th Amendment?
The purpose of seeking impeachment to remove a president from office is to address potential "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The House would require a simple majority to vote on Articles of Impeachment, which are formal written charges against a president. After a trial, the Senate would vote on whether to convict and remove the president from office, which requires a two-thirds vote. The Senate can vote in a separate proceeding to ban the president from holding future office, which would require a simple majority vote.

Trump was impeached twice during his first term in office. The first time was on Dec. 18, 2019, for initiating foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election, and the second was on Jan. 13, 2021, following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In each case, he was acquitted on all counts by the Senate and remained in office.

Should the movement grow to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump due to incapacity or inability to perform presidential duties, invoking it would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. The president would not be barred from holding future office.

That's yahoo news, which is fake news. However, if midterms produce more Dems, it's over. They'll immediately impeach Trump again - plus do much, much more. They want us all dead.

Funny, apparently they did not have a problem with Biden demanding a country stop investigating a company his son had ties to regarding criminal activities, by refusing our countries promised aid to them if they did not comply. This while he was only a vice President. This is not to mention Biden's obvious inability to lead our nation, let alone complete a full sentence when speaking, throughout his Presidency. Now we must remove a President who dared to say something a little off as Trump so often has, which other countries didn't like. Perfect sense. No conspiracy to see here. Move along.

Surprise surprise, Democrats want Trump out, and will do whatever it takes and grasp at every straw to make it happen if they can.

Aside from the hushed talks that this could replace the UN    One could only hope.....

Look at this list I saw a bit ago.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/explainer-trumps-board-peace-joined-155054047.html

WHICH COUNTRIES HAVE ACCEPTED TRUMP'S INVITATION SO FAR?

A senior White House official said on Wednesday about 35 world leaders have so far committed to joining the Board of Peace out of the 50 or so invitations that were sent.

These include Middle East allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar and Egypt. NATO members Turkey and Hungary, whose ⁠nationalist leaders have cultivated good personal ties with Trump, have also agreed to ‌take part, as have Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kosovo, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Paraguay, and Vietnam.

Others which have accepted include Armenia and Azerbaijan, which reached a U.S.-brokered peace agreement last August after meeting Trump at the White House.

More controversially, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, long shunned by the West over his country's poor human rights record and backing for Russia's war in Ukraine, has accepted Trump's ‍invitation, which comes amid a broader rapprochement between Washington and Minsk.

Quote from: Rella on Wed Jan 21, 2026 - 08:35:33https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/article/calls-to-invoke-25th-amendment-grow-as-trump-tries-to-acquire-greenland-how-does-it-work-and-has-it-been-used-before-213524306.html

A growing number of lawmakers are calling for the 25th Amendment to be invoked to remove President Trump from office after Trump told Norway's prime minister that his position on purchasing Greenland is tied to not winning the Nobel Peace Prize and he no longer feels obligated to "think purely of Peace."

The remarkable exchange happened on Jan. 18, when the Norwegian leader, Jonas Gahr Store, sent a text message to Trump on behalf of himself and the Finnish president, Alexander Stubb. The European leaders sent the message in an attempt to "deescalate" the increased conflict over Greenland and the latest tariff threat against the U.S.'s European allies.

In less than half an hour, Trump responded, writing, "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can think about what is good and proper for the United States of America."

The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by the Norwegian government, but rather the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The five members of the committee are appointed by the country's parliament.

Trump doubled down on his intentions to "purchase" Greenland, writing, "The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you!" and signing it "President DJT."

Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts is one of several members of Congress to call for Trump's removal from office using the 25th Amendment. "Invoke the 25th Amendment," Markey posted on X, along with a picture of a news headline of Trump's unusual text message with Store. Additional Democratic House members, such as Reps. Eric Swalwell, Sydney Kamlager-Dove and Yassamin Ansari, have also called for the removal of Trump by invoking the 25th Amendment.

How did the 25th Amendment originate?
It dates back to 1963, when Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson became president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. There was no plan in place to choose Johnson's replacement, and there was concern about the procedure if he were to become ill or incapacitated before a new vice president could be named. In 1965, Congress formally proposed the 25th Amendment, and it became part of the Constitution in February 1967.

The 25th Amendment has four sections. The first three clarify the presidential order of succession and who can temporarily assume the president's duties. Section 4 gets the most attention: It's a multi-step process for the vice president and the Cabinet to declare that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

How would it work?
Invoking Section 4 of the 25th Amendment would require Vice President JD Vance and the majority of Trump's Cabinet to submit a declaration to Congress that Trump isn't able to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Doing so would mean an immediate transfer of presidential power to Vance, who would serve as acting president. Trump would have the chance to refute the declaration, which could then be challenged by his Cabinet. Congress would have 21 days from the date of receiving the declaration to formally approve any decision to remove Trump from office.

A two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate would be needed in order for Trump to be removed from office. Otherwise, he would regain his presidential powers.

Has the 25th Amendment been used before?
The first section of the 25th Amendment was invoked when Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency in 1974 and was replaced by his vice president, Gerald Ford. Section 2 was used when Gerald Ford, as president, nominated Nelson Rockefeller for vice president, and he was confirmed in the House and the Senate.

Section 3 was used in 1985 when Ronald Reagan underwent brief cancer surgery and Vice President George H.W. Bush assumed his responsibilities. In 2002 and 2007, George W. Bush invoked Section 3 when he underwent medical procedures, and then-Vice President Dick Cheney became acting president.

Section 4 has never been used because the process is so challenging. It's more difficult to remove a president under the 25th Amendment using Section 4 than under the impeachment process.

What's the difference between impeachment and invoking the 25th Amendment?
The purpose of seeking impeachment to remove a president from office is to address potential "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The House would require a simple majority to vote on Articles of Impeachment, which are formal written charges against a president. After a trial, the Senate would vote on whether to convict and remove the president from office, which requires a two-thirds vote. The Senate can vote in a separate proceeding to ban the president from holding future office, which would require a simple majority vote.

Trump was impeached twice during his first term in office. The first time was on Dec. 18, 2019, for initiating foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election, and the second was on Jan. 13, 2021, following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In each case, he was acquitted on all counts by the Senate and remained in office.

Should the movement grow to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump due to incapacity or inability to perform presidential duties, invoking it would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. The president would not be barred from holding future office.

Iran would like to remove him in a different way. But anyhose, if you take Trump out you get a red phone line direct to the Magistrate. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jun/19/jd-vance-catholicism

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

The problem with Roman Catholic leadership within this or any other nation, is the political subversion the Vatican and Popes always represent. Anyone can go right to the Vatican online, and read their Papal Encyclicals and Doctrinal Notes. And thereby understand that their political agenda is completely at odds with the Constitutions and thereby stated will of the peoples of many a nation. While it is the stated rule of the Vatican, that her adherents abroad, seek to establish these very same political agendas from within whatever nation they occupy. As our Lord conclusively stated, no one can truly serve two masters. Our predominantly Protestant forefathers understood the dangers involved with such a situation concerning an ever increasing Roman Catholic population and eventual government compromise effected by the same. They were called bigots for seeing and identifying this very common sense issue as it plainly is. Those who try to serve two masters, "for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other". 


(Quotes from the above are in black, my comments are in blue, emphasis is mine.)

I. A constant teaching

1. The commitment of Christians in the world has found a variety of expressions in the course of the past 2000 years. One such expression has been Christian involvement in political life: Christians, as one Early Church writer stated, play their full role as citizen. Among the saints, the Church venerates many men and women who served God through their generous commitment to politics and government. Among these, Saint Thomas More, who was proclaimed Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, gave witness by his martyrdom to the inalienable dignity of the human conscience.  Though subjected to various forms of psychological pressure, Saint Thomas More refused to compromise, never forsaking the constant fidelity to legitimate authority and institutions which distinguished him; he taught by his life and his death that «man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality.

Of course, as a Roman Catholic, the fidelity to legitimate authority and institutions spoken of above, would naturally be foremost the Roman Catholic Church itself.  "St" Thomas More died defending the supremacy of the Pope over the Church in England.  He fought against having the scriptures in English, beginning the process which caused William Tyndale to be burned at the stake for the same, and was responsible for others also being burned at the stake. Yet he is not only a saint of the Roman Catholic Church, but was made the Patron Saint of Politicians by the church, and is set forth at the beginning of this document as a fine, saintly example of Catholic participation in political life.  This in and of itself should send up many red flags and danger warnings.  It is certainly worthy of note that this man is chosen and set forth as an example of proper "Participation of Catholics in Political Life".

By fulfilling their civic duties, guided by a Christian conscience, in conformity with its values, the lay faithful exercise their proper task of infusing the temporal order with Christian values, all the while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of that order, and cooperating with other citizens according to their particular competence and responsibility. The consequence of this fundamental teaching of the Second Vatican Council is that the lay faithful are never to relinquish their participation in 'public life', that is, in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good. This would include the promotion and defence of goods such as public order and peace, freedom and equality, respect for human life and for the environment, justice and solidarity.

Of course the "Christian values" promoted above, would be Roman Catholic values.  As stated in a previous post concerning excerpts from DEUS CARITAS EST, the logical conclusion is that of the lay faithful implementing the political ideology, or social doctrine of the Church in government.  The concern for every thinking individual should be, how closely will that scenario align with the actual establishment of the same situation during the dark ages, and more recently the political alignments of the Church of Rome with Nazi Germany and Mussolini in Italy.

The term common good in the above needs to be addressed, since the term is used so very often by the Church of Rome.  All political aims and goals should work toward the common good.  This sounds great, but just exactly who is determining what the common good is?  Who will define what the common good is, that Rome intends the political structures of this world to dole out to the same?  She herself is continuously referring to, and defining the same.  Even claiming the role of the purifier of reason in relation to the common good.

II. Central points in the current cultural and political debate

The growth in the sense of responsibility towards countries still on the path of development is without doubt an important sign, illustrative of a greater sensitivity to the common good. At the same time, however, one cannot close one's eyes to the real dangers which certain tendencies in society are promoting through legislation, nor can one ignore the effects this will have on future generations. A kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law. Furthermore, it is not unusual to hear the opinion expressed in the public sphere that such ethical pluralism is the very condition for democracy. As a result, citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends, as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value. At the same time, the value of tolerance is disingenuously invoked when a large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good. The history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the common good and the state.

What is the above argument, but that the different outlooks upon life, and their political eventualities are not all equal.  While one can easily agree upon this point, the real point of the above is of course, that Roman Catholic reason and sense of the common good is superior to all others.  This to the point that we should be allowing them to be the main contributor or purifier of reason and the common good.  As I have already pointed out in a previous examination of DEUS CARITAS EST, the Catholic church believes "it is the place of the Church to determine more precisely "the just ordering of society", and to purify reason for the state in order for it to properly operate."

While there are many political ideologies with definite amoral leanings to be dealt with, it would be a serious mistake to politically align with, and submit to the church of Rome in combatting the same.  No political entity on earth has a longer, bloodier, and disreputable past from which to be warned against the dangers of allowing it once again to gain political power and control over nations and peoples.  There is a real danger in its present course of mobilizing and rekindling the political ambitions of the large numbers of  politicians and citizens within democratic societies, under her direct guidance and supervision.

3. Such relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good. Political freedom is not – and cannot be – based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person's good have the same value and truth, but rather, on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts. 

Of course, as already stated, the church of Rome itself reserves the right to rightly define the common good, and purify reason in regard to the same.  As the above clearly states, Catholic citizens are to choose and thus also support those political opinions which are compatible with their faith and natural law, both of which are defined for them by the church.  Once again we are informed that not all "conceptions of the human person's good have the same value and truth".  For the Catholic of course, the churches conception of the same, is superior.

The article then refers to politics concern with concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts.  Again, who is defining these concrete realizations?  The Catholic church is in complete denial of the true extent of its abusive history when kings and queens and governments of the past actually did submit to its economic and political thought. Nor do the vast majority of the countless Catholic citizens it is calling into action to re-establish its authority over the same once again, really know of this history.  Being raised with Roman Catholic revisionist history alone, as their teacher.  I have been repeatedly confronted by Roman Catholics on these boards and others, that completely deny all historical facts presented to them by sources outside of their own church as false and lies.  This is what can be expected by these, who intend to take over democratic societies by their large numbers and vast political influence with the kings and governments of this world.

All of the concrete realities mentioned in the above, would be effected by the same.  Nothing is more clearly revealed by history in relation to the Roman Catholic church, that when she has the numbers or sheer political strength to do so, she will completely dominate all areas of life.

It is not the Church's task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person. It is, however, the Church's right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law. If Christians must recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs, they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.

Where is this right, duty, or responsibility of the church defined or outlined for us in the Holy scriptures?  It is not.  Nor is it the right, duty, or moral obligation of Christ's church to purify reason and define the common good for the various political entities of this world, in this day or any other.  We have already seen in the pages of history, what this leads to.  The churches involvement in the politics of this world does not lead to the purification of the same, but rather to the complete corruption of the church.  This is the history that Roman Catholicism denies both in historical content, and present practice.  Which very thing itself completely disqualifies her as a purifying and competent reasoning entity upon the politics of this world.

On the level of concrete political action, there can generally be a plurality of political parties in which Catholics may exercise – especially through legislative assemblies – their right and duty to contribute to the public life of their country.

What is the purpose of legislative assemblies, but to create and pass laws?  Does the following sound familiar -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is it not obvious, that the above admonition from the Pope applies to all the Catholic members of the congress of the United States.  All of whom, have been summoned by the Pope to implement "the Church's right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters".  This is not to mention the majority of Catholic Supreme Court Justices, having a majority vote on any issue.  Or the Catholic Vice President, occupying the Executive branch of our government.  All have been called to help politically implement the purifying of reason, and establishment of the common good as defined by the church of Rome within this country.  Not to mention every other country in the world.

The legitimate plurality of temporal options is at the origin of the commitment of Catholics to politics and relates directly to Christian moral and social teaching. It is in the light of this teaching that lay Catholics must assess their participation in political life so as to be sure that it is marked by a coherent responsibility for temporal reality.

The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent.

Of course the correct understanding of the human person mentioned above, which dictates a Catholics "involvement in political life" is defined by the church of Rome. Which of course again, is nothing but to say that Rome is in charge of the political life of it's members, and it's members should seek to establish that political life in whatever government or nation they find themselves in.  Which of course simply means that Rome should be running that government, and all governments in which Catholics are a majority, or simply capable of making such take place.  Nothing new here, Rome intends to rule the world through vast numbers or political intrigue.

What is new in the above statement, is the assertion that without Catholic involvement in political life directed by the churches understanding of the human person, "the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent."  Wow! This is basically admitting, that without it's involvement in the politics of this world, the Roman Catholic church would not exist.  That is very significant, since there is no admonition in new covenant scripture to be involved in the politics of this world.  To the contrary, they testify to the exact opposite state of being for the truly faithful.

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matt 22:21 (KJV)

The two are to be kept separate always.  This for the most obvious of reasons.  I will simply state the word POLITICIAN, and ask you to think of the first thing that enters your mind, and we will leave it at that.

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church's social doctrine does not exhaust one's responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.


More of the same.  Catholics are to support the church fully, without deviating from her proscribed course, concerning political action in democratic societies.  They are most certainly to put their faith, that is the mandates of the church into political action.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.


One must ask, what exactly is an inalienable ethical demand?  While we all have no doubt heard of inalienable rights, what on earth is an inalienable demand.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"(The Declaration of Independence)

Inalienable : incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred  *inalienable rights*


Apparently, an inalienable ethical demand, must be a political demand which trumps the unalienable Rights of individuals. Ethical demands defined by the Church of Rome apparently, which must be legislatively enforced by the governments she has manipulated control over. This is where the Church of Rome's social justice teachings and agenda come into play big time. Which is another very deep subject in and of itself. The bottom line of the Vatican's true agenda was summed up by her in the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam -

QuoteTherefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Quote from: mommydi on Wed Jan 21, 2026 - 09:14:16That's yahoo news, which is fake news. However, if midterms produce more Dems, it's over. They'll immediately impeach Trump again - plus do much, much more. They want us all dead.

And it is not boding well for mid-terms I am afraid.