Trump GOES NUTS as His TERM CRASHES | It's Complicated

Former President Trump's tweets, such as threatening 'a whole civilization will die tonight' and targeting 'power plant day and bridge day' in Iran, are legally interpreted as potential war crimes. Specifically, the intent to destroy an entire people constitutes genocide, and targeting civilian infrastructure like bridges, power, water, and food supplies is a violation of the laws of war, which prohibit attacks on non-military targets and could lead to mass civilian casualties.

Host Asha Rangappa cites Trump's specific tweets and explains the legal definitions of genocide and targeting civilian infrastructure as war crimes. She notes that intent ('mens rea') is often the difficult part to prove in genocide cases, but Trump's explicit tweets directly address his state of mind.

The 25th Amendment, designed for removing a president due to incapacity, faces an extremely high bar for implementation. It requires the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet (or a body designated by Congress) to declare the president unable to discharge their duties, followed by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to confirm the removal. This threshold is significantly higher than impeachment and has proven unattainable even in severe crises.

Host Renata Mariotti reads directly from the 25th Amendment, detailing the process and highlighting the requirement for a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. He points out that even after the January 6th Capitol attack, only a few Republicans voted for Trump's removal, demonstrating the political difficulty of meeting this bar.

The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion declaring the Presidential Records Act of 1978 unconstitutional. This act, established after Nixon's departure, designates all presidential records as U.S. government property. The OLC opinion argues Congress lacks authority to legislate on executive branch records, potentially allowing a future president to disregard record-keeping laws, destroy documents, and avoid accountability for their actions, including those related to classified materials.

Asha Rangappa details the history of the Presidential Records Act, its purpose in making presidential records U.S. property, and the OLC's argument that it 'grandizes the legislative branch at the expense of the constitutional independence and autonomy of the executive.' Renata Mariotti explains how this guidance instructs NARA not to comply with the law and provides a 'tailor-made excuse' for a president to avoid accountability.

There is no real check on a president's decision to use nuclear weapons, making the world dependent on service members refusing orders. While military officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not solely follow presidential orders, the hosts express doubt about the realism of widespread disobedience to orders, even those constituting war crimes, especially given the current political climate and the appointment of officials who condone such actions.

Asha Rangappa states, 'there's no real check on the decision to use the nuclear weapons' and questions whether the military would say 'no' to orders to attack civilian targets. She contrasts the oaths of enlisted officers (to superiors) with those of military officers (to the Constitution) but expresses skepticism about refusal in practice, citing the confirmation of a Secretary of Defense who believed war crimes were acceptable.