Fmr President TRUMP Says He Will Accept Being Speaker of the House on an Interim Basis.

Thursday, October 5, 2023

Due to not accomplishing enough, the U.S. House voted this week to remove Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) from that powerful leadership position.

The movement gaining steam at this moment, is to draft/elect former President, 2024 Presidential Candidate DONALD J. TRUMP into the Speaker role on an interim/temporary basis.

Trump floats serving as House speaker for ‘short period of time’ if needed until GOP settles on leader

Trump has been approached in recent days by GOP lawmakers who have floated the idea of him serving as speaker, even on a temporary basis, one source familiar with the conversations said, and has been “intrigued” by the idea.

“They have asked me if I would take it for a short period of time for the party, until they come to a conclusion – I’m not doing it because I want to – I will do it if necessary, should they not be able to make their decision,” Trump told Fox News Digital. Trump told Fox he was focused on his presidential campaign but that he would be open to serving for a “30-, 60-, or 90-day period.”

Source: www.cnn.com...


A poll of Republican Congressman shows President Trump leading, with 67.5%, Jim Jordan 29.1%, and Steve Scalise 3.3%.

Source A: truthsocial.com...
Source B: gettr.com...


As was pointed out just before Kevin McCarthy was (reluctantly) elected House Speaker on Jan 5, 2023, the Speaker does NOT have to be a Congressman. He or She can be a private citizen.

There was an attempt by Congressman Matt Gaetz to draft Donald Trump for the position, but Trump urged the GOP to make his friend and supporter Kevin McCarthy House Speaker, which is exactly what happened.

Former President Trump seems to be more "open" to the idea now, but he'd prefer JIM JORDAN (R-OH) be elected House Speaker, when the vote occurs next week.

-CareWeMust

I would love to see this become a reality.
They would have to re open a lot of mental health hospitals for all the mental breakdowns of all those who hate President Trump just to hate on.
It would benefit all of those with mental health issues in the long run too.
I see a win win situation here. a reply to: carewemust

a reply to: carewemust

I guess the GOP is going to ignore their self-imposed rule that says no one indicted for a felony punishable by more than two years in prison can serve in leadership?

a reply to: TacoLoco75

It looks like Chuck Schumer is dead-set against Trump holding the Speaker position for even a day.

Chuckee is over on the SENATE side, isn't he?

a reply to: carewemust

And even if Trump were to be elected, it’s unclear whether he could get around House Republican conference rules that state any member who is indicted on felony charges that carry a prison sentence of two or more years is required to step down from leadership. Those rules are self-enforced and could be changed – but only after a speaker is elected.

Sort of a catch 22 there. Maybe Gaetz should have moved to change the rule before moving to unseat McCarthy.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: carewemust

I guess the GOP is going to ignore their self-imposed rule that says no one indicted for a felony punishable by more than two years in prison can serve in leadership?

Those rules apply to legitimate indictments. Not the BS coming from Biden's goon minions.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: carewemust

And even if Trump were to be elected, it’s unclear whether he could get around House Republican conference rules that state any member who is indicted on felony charges that carry a prison sentence of two or more years is required to step down from leadership. Those rules are self-enforced and could be changed – but only after a speaker is elected.

Sort of a catch 22 there. Maybe Gaetz should have moved to change the rule before moving to unseat McCarthy.

Pelosi changed House rules with abandon.

Here's one example of many: apnews.com...

"Rules are made to be broken!"

Would Trump have enough approval from the House to get the position? I have my doubts.....

Would love to see this happen.

The Republicans would have to change the rule to allow people under indictment to serve in leadership, which would be very unpopular and possibly lose them the House in 2024, but if they want to change it I say go for it.

Second, it would trigger the 14th amendment question immediately and would force the courts to answer that before he could serve in government again. It would also delay the appointment of the Speaker.

Let's see this happen. Like one of the members on here says, let's just watch it all burn. And then we'll see what rises out of the ashes of the GOP. Maybe they will rebuild into a real party again.

a reply to: carewemust


Hold up there Care. These indictments are fraudulent in your eyes but in reality they are very real. I"m pretty sure the Republican rules in this case deal with real indictments or is there a caveat that says but go ahead if you think the indictments are fantasy?

a reply to: Mahogany

Second, it would trigger the 14th amendment question immediately and would force the courts to answer that before he could serve in government again. It would also delay the appointment of the Speaker.

Oooops....sorry.

Yet you keep trying to will it into reality....

a reply to: carewemust

Pelosi changed House rules with abandon.

The Speaker pushed these through with a narrow party-line vote.

There isn't even a Speaker now.

and on your previous post:

Those rules apply to legitimate indictments. Not the BS coming from Biden's goon minions.

May I propose a letter for you to send to your Representative, to modify as needed.

Dear Representative ----,

Separation of powers be damned!

Please move to adopt a new law:

Whereas Donald J. Trump is the real winner of the 2020 Presidential Election,

Let it be established that no indictment issued by any officer of the DOJ, any officer of a State Attorney General, or local District Attorney shall be considered valid unless issued by an officer who has pledged under oath that Donald J. Trump is the real winner of the 2020 Presidential Election.

And therefore, with or without a Speaker of the House, this law shall be passed, so that Donald J. Trump shall be President of the United States and Speaker of the House simultaneously.

Yours Truly ________.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Mahogany

Second, it would trigger the 14th amendment question immediately and would force the courts to answer that before he could serve in government again. It would also delay the appointment of the Speaker.

Oooops....sorry.

Yet you keep trying to will it into reality....

Sigh.

Read your links again and you'll maybe see where you misunderstood what that meant. When I said 'will be forced', you'll get what that means.

Appellate court has to take the case and then the SC can refuse, of course, but the appellate ruling then stands.

Make sense?

a reply to: carewemust

"Rules are made to be broken!

You don't believe that do you?

a reply to: Mahogany

The question remains regardless of jurisdiction and even without SCOTUS refusing to hear the case.


Has Trump been convicted in a court of law (due process) for insurrection which would keep him from the office?

No.


And for analogous effect, if I call you a felon, does that mean you loose your 2nd amendment rights?


Finally, Trump isn't even being charged with an insurrection charge.


Makes sense?

a reply to: JinMI

Again, you're trying to strawman and then argue against your strawman. It's getting tiresome, and I feel like I'm wasting time with you.

Do you understand that the 14th amendment is self-enforcing and no conviction is required? He does not have to be convicted of an insurrection, he didn't uphold his oath of office and went against it. The fact he aided and abetted, and instigated an attack on the capitol is just extra.

And according to scholars much smarter than you or I, he is immediately disqualified. I'd link to these papers, but for one you've already seen them and you know this, and two it wouldn't make any difference, you don't care about facts, you care about arguing.

I'm going to stop talking to you now, hope you have an amazing evening -- and let's see what comes out of this. It won't be long before we all find out. It's unavoidable.

a reply to: nugget1

What I don't understand is why so many Democrats voted to oust McCarthy. One would think that he at least was attempting to get a budget set up. He at least, though weak, stood between the far right of the party and the rinos.
Wouldn't the Ds want him there?

Maybe they just wanted to toss the Republican House into more chaos. I'm pretty sure that they were well aware of the Trump nomination idea floating around for the last year. Maybe they wanted to let them hang themselves.

Maybe they have something secret in the wings. How about a major rino face, one that still holds popularity with enough rinos that their vote as well as the Democrat vote would install a strong Republican but one that has shown resolve in dumping Trump. What about Cheney

a reply to: Mahogany

Do you understand that the 14th amendment is self-enforcing

No, it's not.

Due process prevents this argument from being "self enforcing."

How about you show precedent, case law or even an factual analog to prove your point...

ETA: To prove my point, I'll offer up proof as well.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Makes sense?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: nugget1

What I don't understand is why so many Democrats voted to oust McCarthy.

They didn't vote to oust him, they just didn't vote for him. It's not their job to, they voted to elect Hakeem Jeffries. When McCarthy was elected for speaker he had 216 Republican votes, and 212 Democrats voted for Jeffries.

Why would someone who voted for Jeffries now suddenly support McCarthy, especially since he is combative, doesn't keep promises, works against all agendas and he clearly stated he does not want to work with Democrats. He did not want to make any deals or even engage in talks.

The Republicans elected him, they wanted him, they have to keep him in power. It's no one else's job to.

I'm not a fan of AOC but she's right on what she said on this:

Contrary to how McCarthy’s defenders are behaving, men failing up is not a Constitutionally protected right.

The man made risky decisions and faced the natural consequences of them. I am not his mom, and my job is not to put pool noodles around hard corners for Republicans.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TacoLoco75

It looks like Chuck Schumer is dead-set against Trump holding the Speaker position for even a day.

Chuckee is over on the SENATE side, isn't he?

Oh my shocked face.
Pelosi pledged to support McCarthy, but being a snake she failed
to follow through on that, blaming D Finstein.

Departing from tradition, all of the members who participated
in the Russia hoax, and now want to point fingers. Well
actually it is their tradition being weasels they cant help
themselves. Someone call PETA please.