this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
784 points (99.2% liked)

News

35867 readers
2731 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
rjc@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
784
US fires Greenland military base chief for 'undermining' JD Vance (www.bbc.com)
submitted 10 months ago by Quilotoa@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
109 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The commander of the base wrote, "I do not presume to understand current politics, but what I do know is the concerns of the US administration discussed by Vice-President Vance on Friday are not reflective of Pituffik Space Base." in an email and was thus dismissed. In dismissing her, the Pentagon stated this reason. "Actions [that] undermine the chain of command or to subvert President [Donald] Trump's agenda will not be tolerated at the Department of Defense."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@lemmy.today 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I mean, if you're the Vice President, it's kind of hard to put much pressure on the President. The Vice President has virtually no power or formal responsibilities other than what the President chooses to delegate to him. I mean, if he annoys the President, the President can very readily leave him with nothing other than a bit of prestige and a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

Though the President can't actually remove the Vice President, no matter how unhappy with him he is.

[–] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

There's supportive & then there is mewling sycophant.

Vance is the latter.

[–] sporkler@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So what you're saying is that he's possibly the one person in the country that can tell the fascist fartknocker the truth and not be removed from office? Poor guy, I'm glad he's doing the right thing instead.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, he might not be removed from office, but how much is holding the office actually worth if it has no political power?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nance_Garner

John Nance Garner III (November 22, 1868 – November 7, 1967), known among his contemporaries as "Cactus Jack", was the 32nd vice president of the United States, serving from 1933 to 1941, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Like most vice presidents in this era, Garner had little to do and little influence on the president's policies. He famously described the vice presidency as being "not worth a bucket of warm piss" (for many years, this quote was bowdlerized as "warm spit").

[–] sporkler@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

This is America, there is a wage associated with the position, when paired with a lack of expectation that is pure opportunity, but I suspect you weren't being as literal as all that. The position could be extremely valuable when the topic is broached, but it could also not be worth shit, there's no way of knowing until the attempt is made. Vance is less of a person and a politician for not trying.

/IMHO

[–] Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Alternatively, the President can't actually remove the Vice President, no matter how unhappy with him he is.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

He can be impeached, especially with a house that is under the president's thumb.

It does create an odd situation in the senate about voting him out. I think dems would refuse a farce impeachment, even against the opposing party, but either way its a win for them.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It does create an odd situation in the senate about voting him out.

Sounds like there's a bunch of unresolved constitutional law questions there too. There's apparently a literalist reading of the Constitution that the Vice President should preside over his own impeachment trial. Normally, the Vice President presides over the Senate. The Constitution explicitly says says that the Chief Justice rather than the Vice President presides if the President is being tried; but has no special exception in the text for if the Vice President himself is being impeached.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States

In their capacity as president of the Senate, the vice president may preside over most impeachment trials of federal officers, although the Constitution does not specifically require it. However, whenever the president of the United States is on trial, the Constitution requires that the chief justice of the United States must preside. This stipulation was designed to avoid the possible conflict of interest in having the vice president preside over the trial for the removal of the one official standing between them and the presidency.[49] In contrast, the Constitution is silent about which federal official would preside were the vice president on trial by the Senate.[13][50] No vice president has ever been impeached, thus leaving it unclear whether an impeached vice president could, as president of the Senate, preside at their own impeachment trial.

Then the process involves a vote in the Senate. On two occasions in the past, the Senate has in fact tied:

https://theconversation.com/the-senate-has-actually-tied-in-an-impeachment-trial-twice-130939

The Senate has actually tied in an impeachment trial – twice

The Vice President...holds a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

https://www.legbranch.org/can-the-vice-president-vote-in-a-presidential-impeachment-trial/

In other words, the Constitution designates the Vice President the President of the Senate and gives the Vice President the power to cast tie-breaking votes. Yet the Constitution only designates the Chief Justice the presiding officer in presidential impeachment trials. The Constitution does not designate the Chief Justice the President of the Senate, nor does it give the Chief Justice the power to cast tie-breaking votes. This suggests that the Vice President retains the power to cast tie-breaking votes in presidential impeachment trials.

For bonus points, Vance is a lawyer, and I suppose could represent himself as well.

Anti-Vance Senator: "And, Mr. President, was that the point where the Vice President committed the treasonous crime requiring his impeachment and removal from office?"

Trump: "Yes, and..."

Vance (acting as Vance's attorney): "Objection!"

Vance (acting as presiding officer over Vance's trial): "Sustained. The court orders the statement to be stricken from the record and, further, observes that the witness is a whiny bitch."

Vance (acting as holder of tie-breaking Senate vote): "Given that there seems to be a lack of evidence, I'm just going to come out right now and say that I don't think that I can vote against the defendant."

Vance (acting as defendant): "Woohoo! Score!"

EDIT: I don't actually know whether the presiding officer when the Senate is acting as a court uses regular judicial procedure

could probably go dig up transcripts of past impeachments to find out

so the above phrasing may not be correct, but it's still a pretty zany hypothetical.

EDIT2:

Trump: "This trial is a farce!"

Vance (acting as presiding officer over Vance's trial): begins slamming Senate gavel "Order! Order! The witness will be silent!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_the_United_States_Senate

The gavel deteriorated during the 1940s, and in 1952 silver pieces were attached to try to limit further damage. However, in 1954, Then-Vice President Richard Nixon pounded it during a heated debate over atomic energy, and it completely came apart. Officials wanted to recreate the gavel exactly, but not enough ivory was available commercially; Senate officials therefore contacted the government of India for help in sourcing the correct amount of ivory. On November 17, 1954, the Vice-President of India, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, presented the assembled Senate with a replacement gavel, which is still in use today.

Senate gavel comes apart again

Vance (acting as presiding officer over Vance's trial): "Damn. Finding more elephants these days is going to be a pain."

Trump: "I'll say whatever I feel like!"

Vance (acting as presiding officer over Vance's trial): "The sergeant at arms will remove the unruly witness!"

Jennifer Hemmingway: "Let's go, Mr. President."