 The question of whether incitement to riot is an impeachable offense is pretty easy, clearly yes. From the beginning of this not normal presidency, we've had a lot of talk about both impeachment and the 25th Amendment. In most ordinary circumstances, if you can use that phrase in this context, the 25th Amendment is really a poor tool for removing a president. It was really designed for presidents that were nearly completely incapacitated. Woodrow Wilson after the stroke, James Garfield dying of blood poisoning after the assassination attempt. It wasn't supposed to get rid of bad presidents. We will stop the steal. All along during the Trump presidency, when this solution has been proposed, I thought it was pretty unrealistic for a couple of reasons. The framers of the 25th Amendment deliberately made it harder to do than impeachment. Impeachment only requires a supermajority in the Senate for conviction, a majority in the House. In order for the switch under the 25th Amendment to stick, it has to be ratified by Congress and that requires a supermajority in both houses. If you do have a supermajority in both houses, then you could just impeach him. And that's really the remedy. I think we may be in a different situation here, though. One of the main advantages, perhaps the only advantage that the 25th Amendment offers over impeachment is speed. If Mike Pence was willing to do this and he had a majority of the cabinet behind him, it could do it in the next 20 minutes and it takes effect immediately. In the past, I've thought that one scenario where you might favor this is if the president were to give the order to launch an unprovoked nuclear strike. I certainly hope we're not in that sort of situation here, but you can understand why people would worry about it. The argument for a 25th Amendment solution here would be, well, how lucky do you feel? Are we sure that what happened at the Capitol after Trump's riot rally speech? Are we sure that that was Pete Trump? In the remaining few days of his presidency, that's the worst we're gonna see. Maybe it is. You wanna think about how much you're willing to stake on that proposition. The argument for a last-minute impeachment is a little different. What impeachment does is it puts an additional black mark on a presidency, an additional mark of disgrace and shame, and it's a signal to the presidents that are gonna follow that this black mark can be put on you even at the last moments of your presidency if your behavior has been egregious enough. Making Donald Trump the only president to have been impeached twice would really underscore that point. I've long thought that America should impeach presidents more often and perhaps this president more often. Impeachment is a broad remedy. High crimes and misdemeanors is a term of art that was designed to reach and historically has reached a wide variety of offenses that go to the person's fitness for high office. Hamilton talked about impeachment in terms of the misconduct of public men and said that it could not be limited in the way that criminal offenses were limited. Madison said the impeachment was the indispensable remedy for incapacity, negligence, or perfidy in the chief magistrate. It was not viewed as it too often is today as itself an agent of constitutional crisis. Impeachment was viewed as the solution to a constitutional crisis. If anything, I think they would be surprised that we've resorted to it so infrequently. One thing that has always troubled me is this argument that, well, impeachment, it's like a coup. It's terribly anti-democratic. It's disruptive. When you look at the events of the last week or so, I don't ever want to hear again that it's impeachment that's a constitutional crisis, that it's impeachment that's disruptive and anti-democratic. I think that argument deserves to be laughed at a court given what we've experienced over the last few days.