Impeachment Round Two (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

    Yggdrasill

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Aug 12, 2020
    Messages
    201
    Reaction score
    290
    Age
    62
    Location
    Seattle
    Offline
    I am in the camp that Trump must -not should- be impeached. If not this President, for this behavior, then what bar would have to be cleared to merit impeachment?

    Impeachment not only sends a signal to the country and the world that fomenting a coup is unacceptable and will be punished, but it also removes much of the threat Trump could pose going forward as, I understand it, he would lose his pension, his access to daily security briefings, free medical care and other amenities and benefits afforded to former Presidents. If impeached, he would not meet the definition of a Former President under the Former Presidents Act. I don't think it is clear whether he would continue to receive Secret Service protection.
     
    spineless cowards
    apnews.com

    GOP largely sides against holding Trump impeachment trial

    WASHINGTON (AP) — All but five Senate Republicans voted in favor of an effort to dismiss Donald Trump's historic second impeachment trial on Tuesday, making clear a conviction of the former president for “incitement of insurrection” after the deadly Capitol siege on Jan...
    apnews.com apnews.com
    Yet the support of 45 Republicans for declaring the trial invalid indicates that there are long odds for Trump’s conviction, which would require the support of all Democrats and 17 Republicans, or two-thirds of the Senate. While most Republicans criticized Trump shortly after the attack, many of them have rushed to defend him in the trial, showing the former president’s enduring sway over the GOP.
     
    zztop said:
    spineless cowards
    apnews.com

    GOP largely sides against holding Trump impeachment trial

    WASHINGTON (AP) — All but five Senate Republicans voted in favor of an effort to dismiss Donald Trump's historic second impeachment trial on Tuesday, making clear a conviction of the former president for “incitement of insurrection” after the deadly Capitol siege on Jan...
    apnews.com apnews.com
    Yet the support of 45 Republicans for declaring the trial invalid indicates that there are long odds for Trump’s conviction, which would require the support of all Democrats and 17 Republicans, or two-thirds of the Senate. While most Republicans criticized Trump shortly after the attack, many of them have rushed to defend him in the trial, showing the former president’s enduring sway over the GOP.
    Click to expand...

    Well, they're not principled. They're 100% not convicting Trump because the alternative is them losing their seats. Trumpers still make up a large percentage of their states and districts. There's really no way around that. The only way Trump can get held accountable is in criminal court. It's not gonna happen in Congress.
     
    So, the Constitution says that the president must be removed from office upon being impeached and convicted.

    It then says that the only two punishments that congress can give through an impeachment are removal from office and disqualification from ever holding office in the future.

    With the way it's worded, I can't tell for certain, but couldn't the Senate have a trial, and vote to acquit on the removal from office, but still vote to disqualify him from future service? I don't see anything in the constitution wording that says he must be convicted in order to disqualify him.
     
    Can Schumer make the vote by secret ballot? If so, IMO, Trump would be overwhelmingly convicted.
     
    FullMonte said:
    So, the Constitution says that the president must be removed from office upon being impeached and convicted.

    It then says that the only two punishments that congress can give through an impeachment are removal from office and disqualification from ever holding office in the future.

    With the way it's worded, I can't tell for certain, but couldn't the Senate have a trial, and vote to acquit on the removal from office, but still vote to disqualify him from future service? I don't see anything in the constitution wording that says he must be convicted in order to disqualify him.
    Click to expand...
    As I understand it, disqualification is mentioned in Article 1, section 3 ? It is the 'penalty' phase of the 'trial'.
    What is NOT clear is whether disqualification is separate from disbarment, and requires a separate vote (precedent says it does), and what TYPE of vote (e.g. simple majority, or 2/3rds majority).

    None of this has been tested in the Supreme Court ?

    www.theguardian.com

    We must impeach Trump and bar him from holding office again. Now | Corey Brettschneider

    Congress has the power and precedent to do so. Otherwise what happened on Wednesday may be a dress rehearsal for future attacks on rule of law
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
     
    Roofgardener said:
    As I understand it, disqualification is mentioned in Article 1, section 3 ? It is the 'penalty' phase of the 'trial'.
    What is NOT clear is whether disqualification is separate from disbarment, and requires a separate vote (precedent says it does), and what TYPE of vote (e.g. simple majority, or 2/3rds majority).

    None of this has been tested in the Supreme Court ?

    www.theguardian.com

    We must impeach Trump and bar him from holding office again. Now | Corey Brettschneider

    Congress has the power and precedent to do so. Otherwise what happened on Wednesday may be a dress rehearsal for future attacks on rule of law
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
    Click to expand...

    While none of it has been tested in the Supreme Court, the things you say are not clear do have precedent. In the impeachment of Robert Archibald, a federal judge, he was convicted on several articles by a 2/3 majority. The senate held a separate vote to remove him from office and disqualify him from future service, which was an affirmative vote of 39-35. So, a separate vote was required to remove him from office, and it only required a simple majority.

    As far as the Supreme Court getting involved, something I was thinking about. Didn't the Supreme Court refuse to hear some items in the first Trump impeachment because impeachment was a political process and not a legal one?
     
    FullMonte said:
    While none of it has been tested in the Supreme Court, the things you say are not clear do have precedent. In the impeachment of Robert Archibald, a federal judge, he was convicted on several articles by a 2/3 majority. The senate held a separate vote to remove him from office and disqualify him from future service, which was an affirmative vote of 39-35. So, a separate vote was required to remove him from office, and it only required a simple majority.

    As far as the Supreme Court getting involved, something I was thinking about. Didn't the Supreme Court refuse to hear some items in the first Trump impeachment because impeachment was a political process and not a legal one?
    Click to expand...
    Indeed FullMonte. But the decision to make the disqualification vote a simple majority vote was made by the Senate, based on their interpretation of the Constitution. This - as I understand it - has never been tested in the Supreme Court ? (which exists to resolve exactly this sort of Constitutional issue).
     
    So, there is a way for the conviction vote in the Senate to be anonymous. Redacted, more accurately.

    46BC15DF-AE53-4F1B-A526-4A2ED954DCF2.jpeg
     
    Personally, I'm not a fan of secret ballots for an impeachment vote. Elected officials are representatives of their states, and as such, should be held accountable for how they vote by their constituents. If it's secret, how would accountability happen?
     
    When cultists are physically threatening people, I think it can be an exception. It would be recorded, just not released to the public for a period of time.

    The danger to our democracy isn’t over, if not releasing the individual votes will allow senators to vote their conscience without worrying about whackos threatening them, I’m all for it.
     
    I wonder if we will ever get a full accounting of all the injuries, and if these accounts will be brought up in the Senate trial? They sound horrific (stabbed with a metal fence post? My God!), and I had no idea that many officers were injured.

     
    FullMonte said:
    While none of it has been tested in the Supreme Court, the things you say are not clear do have precedent. In the impeachment of Robert Archibald, a federal judge, he was convicted on several articles by a 2/3 majority. The senate held a separate vote to remove him from office and disqualify him from future service, which was an affirmative vote of 39-35. So, a separate vote was required to remove him from office, and it only required a simple majority.

    As far as the Supreme Court getting involved, something I was thinking about. Didn't the Supreme Court refuse to hear some items in the first Trump impeachment because impeachment was a political process and not a legal one?
    Click to expand...
    Doesn't the vote to convict and remove require 2/3 and the vote to disqualify is separate and only requires a majority? I believe this to be the case. Also, if 20 Republican senators decided not to vote or stay home the day of the voting, then the 2/3 number would require less Republicans to honor their oath and vote to convict.
     
    MT15 said:
    When cultists are physically threatening people, I think it can be an exception. It would be recorded, just not released to the public for a period of time.

    The danger to our democracy isn’t over, if not releasing the individual votes will allow senators to vote their conscience without worrying about whackos threatening them, I’m all for it.
    Click to expand...

    I also wouldn't put it past Hawley and Cruz to vote to block Trump from running since it's in their own self interest. That won't happen with a public vote.
     
    MT15 said:
    I wonder if we will ever get a full accounting of all the injuries, and if these accounts will be brought up in the Senate trial? They sound horrific (stabbed with a metal fence post? My God!), and I had no idea that many officers were injured.

    Click to expand...


    The numerous injuries were reported like the day after or a couple of days after. It was well over 100 and some were reported to be very serious. That just got lost in all of the other news, particularly the 5 deaths. I'm actually surprised it wasn't worse considering how many people managed to get into the Capitol.

    The USCP is gonna continue to be under a ton of scrutiny for not being prepared for this, as well as reports that they knew this was coming and didn't do enough.

    I still have a lot of questions as to why the NG wasn't on site before the event happened.
     
    DaveXA said:
    Well, they're not principled. They're 100% not convicting Trump because the alternative is them losing their seats. Trumpers still make up a large percentage of their states and districts. There's really no way around that. The only way Trump can get held accountable is in criminal court. It's not gonna happen in Congress.
    Click to expand...

    They're either fully compromised and brainwashed like the rest of the trump followers or they are terrified at losing their jobs and willing to put that ahead of doing what is right.
     
    DaveXA said:
    The numerous injuries were reported like the day after or a couple of days after. It was well over 100 and some were reported to be very serious. That just got lost in all of the other news, particularly the 5 deaths. I'm actually surprised it wasn't worse considering how many people managed to get into the Capitol.

    The USCP is gonna continue to be under a ton of scrutiny for not being prepared for this, as well as reports that they knew this was coming and didn't do enough.

    I still have a lot of questions as to why the NG wasn't on site before the event happened.
    Click to expand...
    Agree with all of this.

    Also, if the Democrats were smart (up for debate), they'd have pictures of each dead officer (from the attack, and aftermath), along with all of those injured, walk in and stand there. Look them all in the eye and still vote that he didn't rile up that crowd.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom