Impeachment Round Two (3 Viewers)

[Yggdrasill]

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.

 

[Roofgardener]

What is the purpose of impeachment ? It's the 13th today. By the time any impeachment process is complete (assuming it succeeds), Trump's term of office would have expired ANYWAY ?

 

[The moose]

What is the purpose of impeachment ? It's the 13th today. By the time any impeachment process is complete (assuming it succeeds), Trump's term of office would have expired ANYWAY ?

To keep him from office ever again.

To loose all retirement benefit from being president

 

[RobF]

What is the purpose of impeachment ? It's the 13th today. By the time any impeachment process is complete (assuming it succeeds), Trump's term of office would have expired ANYWAY ?

Come on. If you didn't impeach for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors" when a President was nearly done, you'd be essentially giving free reign for any outgoing President to commit all the treason, accept all the bribery, and go to town with the high crimes and misdemeanors.

Impeachment is a fundamental part of the system of checks and balances. Clearly Presidents should be held accountable for the entirety of their presidency, not just most of it.

 

[Roofgardener]

To keep him from office ever again.

To loose all retirement benefit from being president

Ahhhh.. so its about PUNISHMENT, not protecting the American constitution ?

I think I've said this before, but... about 74 million people voted for Trump, or around 45% of the electorate. Whether they would vote for him in the future, after the Capital Building riot, is another matter. But if you arbitrarily and maliciously disenfranchise those 74 Million people then I can see troubled times ahead.

The electorate should surely be the judge of who holds office ?

 

[Roofgardener]

Come on. If you didn't impeach for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors" when a President was nearly done, you'd be essentially giving free reign for any outgoing President to commit all the treason, accept all the bribery, and go to town with the high crimes and misdemeanors.

Impeachment is a fundamental part of the system of checks and balances. Clearly Presidents should be held accountable for the entirety of their presidency, not just most of it.

Hmm.. that's a reasonable point. However, in practice, impeachments are political tools (unfortunately). A president can be impeached for jay-walking; the House and the Senate seem to vote on a purely partisan perspective, and the legality of the issues don't seem to be considered ?

Well, that IS the American system, I guess. Like you said; a part of the system of checks and balances.

 

[Dragon]

Ahhhh.. so its about PUNISHMENT, not protecting the American constitution ?

I think I've said this before, but... about 74 million people voted for Trump, or around 45% of the electorate. Whether they would vote for him in the future, after the Capital Building riot, is another matter. But if you arbitrarily and maliciously disenfranchise those 74 Million people then I can see troubled times ahead.

The electorate should surely be the judge of who holds office ?

Actually this is not a Trump rule. To be able to be on a ticket you need to be eligible and almost all nations require that any candidate should be of "good Character".... and being convicted of sedition will definitely disqualify him on that part.

Also many states have the same requirements to vote, and some states even requires you to have paid all court dues from past offenses even to be able to vote. To actually hold office Should definitely require a higher standard than that

 

[Dragon]

Hmm.. that's a reasonable point. However, in practice, impeachments are political tools (unfortunately). A president can be impeached for jay-walking; the House and the Senate seem to vote on a purely partisan perspective, and the legality of the issues don't seem to be considered ?

Well, that IS the American system, I guess. Like you said; a part of the system of checks and balances.

Do not compare Sedition and treason with jaywalking... and TBO if you want to talk political tools then look no further than the impeachment of President Clinton. He had an affair and lied about it. Trump tried to seize power by coup. People DIED defending the Capitol against those he told to go tell the congress and be wild...

 

[Roofgardener]

Do not compare Sedition and treason with jaywalking... and TBO if you want to talk political tools then look no further than the impeachment of President Clinton. He had an affair and lied about it. Trump tried to seize power by coup. People DIED defending the Capitol against those he told to go tell the congress and be wild...

Well, yes, but I have yet to see convincing evidence that Trump WAS guilty of Sedition, let alone treason. And he certainly didn't try and seize power by a "coup". He never incited people to attempt to attack the Capitol Building. And even if the rioters had somehow captured Congressmen/Senators, how would they translate that into a coup ? It just doesn't make sense ?

But then, if there is an impeachment trial, non of that will matter. It's all down to what Congress (and the Senate) believe. The Democrats will want to 'punish' Trump for winning in 2016, and the Republicans.. well.. I don't know WHAT they are thinking ? Presumably they want to distance themselves from Trumps absurd claims of a rigged election, and are afraid of being tainted by him, as CNN, NYTimes etc relentlessly push the bogus "coup" narrative ?

 

[RobF]

Well, yes, but I have yet to see convincing evidence that Trump WAS guilty of Sedition, let alone treason. And he certainly didn't try and seize power by a "coup". He never incited people to attempt to attack the Capitol Building. And even if the rioters had somehow captured Congressmen/Senators, how would they translate that into a coup ? It just doesn't make sense ?

But then, if there is an impeachment trial, non of that will matter. It's all down to what Congress (and the Senate) believe. The Democrats will want to 'punish' Trump for winning in 2016, and the Republicans.. well.. I don't know WHAT they are thinking ? Presumably they want to distance themselves from Trumps absurd claims of a rigged election, and are afraid of being tainted by him, as CNN, NYTimes etc relentlessly push the bogus "coup" narrative ?

"The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution."

- Liz Cheney, Representative for Wyoming, House Republican Chair.

Honestly, the evidence is very clear - weeks of denying a legitimate election, repeatedly calling for it to be overturned, pressuring state officials to 'find' more votes for him, pressuring the VP to simply overturn the election, assembling a mob and telling them to march on the Capitol, which they did, behaving in exactly the way you'd expect a mob marching on the Capitol to behave resulting in violence and deaths... and that's not even all of it.

But given that Liz Cheney can see that and you can't, I would suggest the problem here is perhaps not with the evidence, but an odd reluctance to accept it on your part. You accept the claims of it being rigged are absurd. So why don't you accept that Trump was trying to overturn a legitimate election through any means available, despite him clearly and repeatedly attempting to do so?

 

[MT15]

Bogus? That’s a pretty bold statement. Turning over the actual will of the people expressed by a free and fair election would be a coup by definition.

Also, disenfranchisement means, in this context, to remove someone’s right (to vote). Preventing Trump from holding federal office in the future can never, in any way, shape or form, be considered disenfranchisement.

 

[Roofgardener]

Actually this is not a Trump rule. To be able to be on a ticket you need to be eligible and almost all nations require that any candidate should be of "good Character".... and being convicted of sedition will definitely disqualify him on that part.

Also many states have the same requirements to vote, and some states even requires you to have paid all court dues from past offenses even to be able to vote. To actually hold office Should definitely require a higher standard than that

Hmm.. that's a fair point. I believe we have similar stipulations in the UK to run as a member of parliament ?

One thing though... nobody is talking about formally accusing Trump of sedition, so a conviction is out of the question ? (Impeachment doesn't count, as that is a political trial, not a judicial one).

 

[Roofgardener]

Bogus? That’s a pretty bold statement. Turning over the actual will of the people expressed by a free and fair election would be a coup by definition.

But that was never on the cards ?

Also, disenfranchisement means, in this context, to remove someone’s right (to vote). Preventing Trump from holding federal office in the future can never, in any way, shape or form, be considered disenfranchisement.

Obviously it IS.. as it removes their hypothetical option to vote for Trump in a future election.

 

[Roofgardener]

"The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution."

- Liz Cheney, Representative for Wyoming, House Republican Chair.

Honestly, the evidence is very clear - weeks of denying a legitimate election, repeatedly calling for it to be overturned, pressuring state officials to 'find' more votes for him, pressuring the VP to simply overturn the election, assembling a mob and telling them to march on the Capitol, which they did, behaving in exactly the way you'd expect a mob marching on the Capitol to behave resulting in violence and deaths... and that's not even all of it.

But given that Liz Cheney can see that and you can't, I would suggest the problem here is perhaps not with the evidence, but an odd reluctance to accept it on your part. You accept the claims of it being rigged are absurd. So why don't you accept that Trump was trying to overturn a legitimate election through any means available, despite him clearly and repeatedly attempting to do so?

Perhaps But the fact remains; he neither ordered, nor incited, the mob to attack the capital building.

 

[The moose]

Ahhhh.. so its about PUNISHMENT, not protecting the American constitution ?

I think I've said this before, but... about 74 million people voted for Trump, or around 45% of the electorate. Whether they would vote for him in the future, after the Capital Building riot, is another matter. But if you arbitrarily and maliciously disenfranchise those 74 Million people then I can see troubled times ahead.

The electorate should surely be the judge of who holds office ?

Hmm.. that's a fair point. I believe we have similar stipulations in the UK to run as a member of parliament ?

One thing though... nobody is talking about formally accusing Trump of sedition, so a conviction is out of the question ? (Impeachment doesn't count, as that is a political trial, not a judicial one).

Well unless that idiot tried to pardon himself. A pardon is a saying I did it screw you yet opens him up to being taken to the cleaners by any one civilly.

So just about everyone in any of the footage and their families could get a lawyer and go after him.

Thousands of people

 

[Roofgardener]

Well unless that idiot tried to pardon himself. A pardon is a saying I did it screw you yet opens him up to being taken to the cleaners by any one civilly.

So just about everyone in any of the footage and their families could get a lawyer and go after him.

Thousands of people

You've lost me.. what would they be going after him FOR ?

 

[J-DONK]

Perhaps But the fact remains; he neither ordered, nor incited, the mob to attack the capital building.

This is your opinion and not fact, stop representing it as such. Let me show you the difference between an opinion, and a fact. It's a fact the crowd listening to Trump's speech did infer it's meaning to be one of insurrection. We know this because of the events that followed that speech.

It's clear not everyone agrees with your opinion including some very ardent Trump supporters.

 

[RobF]

Perhaps But the fact remains; he neither ordered, nor incited, the mob to attack the capital building.

That's simply false. He literally incited them.

As can clearly be shown by simply considering whether, had Trump not spent months denying the outcome of a legitimate election, seeking to overturn it, assembling said mob, and telling them to march on the Capitol and "fight like hell" in order to "stop the steal", and had instead accepted the outcome of the election, conceded, and taken part in the longstanding tradition of peaceful transfer of power, a violent mob would have marched on the Capitol.

No, they would not have, obviously. A mob did attack the Capitol building, Trump demonstrably incited said mob, and Trump is culpable accordingly.

 

[Roofgardener]

That's simply false. He literally incited them.

As can clearly be shown by simply considering whether, had Trump not spent months denying the outcome of a legitimate election, seeking to overturn it, assembling said mob, and telling them to march on the Capitol and "fight like hell" in order to "stop the steal", and had instead accepted the outcome of the election, conceded, and taken part in the longstanding tradition of peaceful transfer of power, a violent mob would have marched on the Capitol.

No, they would not have, obviously. A mob did attack the Capitol building, Trump demonstrably incited said mob, and Trump is culpable accordingly.

Literally ? LITERALLY ?
Well, OK then.. if that is true, then I am wrong.

But if what you say is LITERALLY true, can you point me to the words Trump used that LITERALLY incited them to storm the capitol building. Not protest outside it, but actually attack the building and enter it ? Literally ?