By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci predicts Vice President JD Vance’s political future will mirror that of Mike Pence, ultimately falling out of favor with President Trump. Scaramucci attributes this prediction to Trump’s dislike of Vance’s perceived imitation, including mirroring Trump’s statements and attire. He believes Trump is not impressed by sycophancy and that Vance’s attempts at mirroring him are ultimately detrimental. The president’s avoidance of questions about Vance as a potential successor further supports this assessment. Scaramucci concludes that Vance hasn’t yet proven himself a worthy member of Trump’s inner circle.
Read the original article here
A former White House aide’s prediction that Trump will “give Vance the boot” is intriguing, but a closer look reveals several key complexities. The very notion of Trump firing Vice President Vance is legally problematic. The vice president isn’t an appointed position; Vance was elected, and removing him requires the far more cumbersome process of impeachment. So, the idea of a simple “boot” is fundamentally flawed.
This suggests that the aide’s prediction might be based on a misunderstanding of the process or, perhaps, on a belief that Trump will attempt to circumvent the proper channels. Trump’s history of defying norms and traditions certainly lends itself to such speculation. However, even if Trump tried to force Vance out, it’s unlikely he could succeed without a significant legal and political battle.
The practical implications are more nuanced. Trump could certainly attempt to sideline Vance, making him irrelevant in the day-to-day operations of the administration. This tactic has been employed before—perhaps most notably with Mike Pence during Trump’s first term—and could be used again with Vance. But it’s not the same as firing him, and the impact might be limited.
There’s also a broader political context to consider. Vance’s position might be more secure than initially perceived. His backers include powerful figures like Peter Thiel, and he was strategically placed on the ticket. His ties to tech billionaires suggest that he might be more than just a political pawn.
The assertion that Vance was “hand-picked” by tech billionaires to potentially succeed Trump adds another layer to the speculation. If this is true, his removal would disrupt their plans, and they’re unlikely to sit idly by while Trump acts unilaterally. This perspective adds a financial and strategic dimension to the discussion. Their investment in Vance would make his removal an extremely high-stakes gamble, potentially triggering a conflict of interest with Trump’s other backers.
Moreover, the suggestion that Trump’s health could factor into Vance’s future is a sobering consideration. If Trump were to become incapacitated, the succession would be automatic, with Vance assuming the presidency. In that scenario, any attempt to remove him would be not only legally challenging but also politically catastrophic. This element adds another level of complexity to the discussion. It’s not simply a question of Trump’s will; unforeseen circumstances could dramatically alter the situation.
Another intriguing aspect is the suggestion that Vance is a “useful idiot” and a pawn in a larger power play. The idea that a planned succession is underway, with Trump being a temporary figurehead, suggests a far more intricate narrative than a simple power struggle between Trump and Vance.
The commentary regarding Trump’s past behavior, such as the strained relationship with Mike Pence, doesn’t necessarily predict Vance’s fate. Each vice president is different; their relationship with the President and their own political ambitions can significantly influence how the dynamic plays out.
Finally, the discussion touches upon the absurdity of expecting norms and rules to apply consistently in Trump’s world. The repeated assertion that Trump “can’t” fire Vance is constantly countered by the understanding that, within the context of his administration, anything is possible. This underscores the unpredictable nature of the situation. The speculation might come down to a question of Trump’s willingness to challenge the established norms of political power, legal restrictions, and the potential repercussions of doing so.
In conclusion, while the former White House aide’s prediction is attention-grabbing, it overlooks the legal constraints and political realities surrounding the vice presidency. While Trump might attempt to undermine Vance, the claim of a simple “boot” is misleading and oversimplifies a complex situation infused with political maneuvering, power dynamics, and potentially unforeseen circumstances. The numerous counterarguments reveal a prediction that’s far from a certainty, highlighting the uncertainties at play.