Impeachment Round Two (2 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.

 

[Dragon]

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 ?

Try reading this

https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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 ?

He said literally incite. You can convict people of incitement even if they don't say the exact words "riot", just like you can convict a mob boss who asks his goons "to take care of someone", even though he didn't say the words murder. You just need to prove that their intent was to cause a riot.

Now, we can do some after the fact analysis. Trump literally asked his supporters to fight. He literally told them the election was a sham and their democracy was a sham. And they literally rioted. Based on that fact you can literally say that the president literally incited them since they literally rioted based on his words even though he never literally told them to riot. In fact I did not see anyone literally say riot, but they did in fact literally riot. Clearly they were literally incited to riot based on something. So what was the something that literally incited them to literally riot? I think it is reasonable to assume that the incitement was months of telling them that their election was literally stolen from them and they should fight (you can pretend this was figurative, but I think we can literally assume that some people literally took it literally).

 

[The moose]

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

Tired of playing with ya mate.

If he pardons himself for anything that is an admission of guilt really . So yes if he pardons himself for that shirt show he opens himself up to easy litigation. So yeah the people that went through it on either side.

 

[Optimus Prime]

He said literally incite. You can convict people of incitement even if they don't say the exact words "riot", just like you can convict a mob boss who asks his goons "to take care of someone", even though he didn't say the words murder. You just need to prove that their intent was to cause a riot.

Now, we can do some after the fact analysis. Trump literally asked his supporters to fight. He literally told them the election was a sham and their democracy was a sham. And they literally rioted. Based on that fact you can literally say that the president literally incited them since they literally rioted based on his words even though he never literally told them to riot. In fact I did not see anyone literally say riot, but they did in fact literally riot. Clearly they were literally incited to riot based on something. So what was the something that literally incited them to literally riot? I think it is reasonable to assume that the incitement was months of telling them that their election was literally stolen from them and they should fight (you can pretend this was figurative, but I think we can literally assume that some people literally took it literally).

fail for not using all caps for LITERALLY

but other than that A+

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Tired of playing with ya mate.

If he pardons himself for anything that is an admission of guilt really . So yes if he pardons himself for that shirt show he opens himself up to easy litigation. So yeah the people that went through it on either side.

I've heard this before, and i hope its true. I could imagine him trying to decide to pardon himself and basically admitting guilt, or taking the chance of actually of being found guilty.

 

[MT15]

But that was never on the cards ?


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

The right to vote is the franchise, not the right to vote for a particular candidate. The American citizenry are not guaranteed their candidate will be allowed to run, there are all sorts of restrictions on who can run for office. So you should really stop saying that barring someone who has been impeached from running for federal office in the future is “disenfranchisement”. It is clearly a misuse of the word.

There are plenty of American lawyers who believe Trump has criminal exposure for his words and actions after the election, including (reportedly) the WH counsel. So I do not think your assertions that he has no criminal exposure here are valid.

 

[Roofgardener]

The right to vote is the franchise, not the right to vote for a particular candidate. The American citizenry are not guaranteed their candidate will be allowed to run, there are all sorts of restrictions on who can run for office. So you should really stop saying that barring someone who has been impeached from running for federal office in the future is “disenfranchisement”. It is clearly a misuse of the word.

There are plenty of American lawyers who believe Trump has criminal exposure for his words and actions after the election, including (reportedly) the WH counsel. So I do not think your assertions that he has no criminal exposure here are valid.

Hmmm.... I don't think it IS a misuse of the word.. most especially if the primary purpose of the 'impeachment' was exactly to bar him from running in the future.

As for the criminal cases, well, that WILL be interesting. Lets wait for the 21st January to find out.
(it's my Birthday on the 22nd, so that will give it an extra zest )

 

[Roofgardener]

Tired of playing with ya mate.

If he pardons himself for anything that is an admission of guilt really . So yes if he pardons himself for that shirt show he opens himself up to easy litigation. So yeah the people that went through it on either side.

That seems a trifle evasive, The Moose. I really have NO idea exactly which 'federal crimes' he would be looking to pardon himself for, even if such an open-ended pardon was possible ? Bearing in mind that this is completely separate from the issue of Impeachment, which is a political action, not a Judicial one.

As I (dimly) understand it, the whole issue of Presidential Pardons has not been fully explored by the Supreme Court, so he can expect some... scrutiny.. if he DOES do something outrageous.

 

[JRad]

most especially if the primary purpose of the 'impeachment' was exactly to bar him from running in the future.

If that were the primary purpose, the House wouldn't have pushed for the 25th to be enacted first. There is no future restriction on running under those circumstances, to my knowledge. Accountability is the #1 reason. Letting Trump slide shows future potential Trumps there is no limit to what they can do in office.

 

[Roofgardener]

If that were the primary purpose, the House wouldn't have pushed for the 25th to be enacted first. There is no future restriction on running under those circumstances, to my knowledge. Accountability is the #1 reason. Letting Trump slide shows future potential Trumps there is no limit to what they can do in office.

Interesting. If a president is removed under the 25th Ammendment, can he still issue pardons ? Or are all of his presidential powers immediately terminated ?

If he is removed under the 25th, can he then be impeached ?

 

[Saintamaniac]

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 ?

I don't know how the laws work in the UK but in THIS country, if you break the law, you get punished. You keep mentioning the 74 million who voted for Trump. 81 million voted against trump. That's 55% of the electorate. Oh and there was nothing arbitrary or malicious about trump being voted out of office. The 45% that supported trump were not disenfranchised so please stop repeating that lie. 55% wanted a different president. The 45% votes counted just like the 55% counted. That's how our free and fair elections work in the US. Trump and his 45% decided that the 55% votes shouldn't count and so they attacked our capital. They broke our laws.

1 more thing. In ever presidential election since we decided that you guys were no longer fit to govern us, there has been one side that has lost that election. In the history of our country, this is the first time that the losing side has ever attempted a coup to steal power from the lawful winner of the race. That in and of itself should be met with strong and complete rebuke. If I had my way, each and every person identified as a participant would not only lose their right to vote, but also lose their US citizenship. They are all traitors to our country.....just like Benedict Arnold, just like Donald J Trump.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Interesting. If a president is removed under the 25th Ammendment, can he still issue pardons ? Or are all of his presidential powers immediately terminated ?

If he is removed under the 25th, can he then be impeached ?

While he is deemed incapable of performing his duties under the 25th all Presidential power belongs to the VP.

Yes, the 25th Amendment doesn't prevent impeachment.

 

[Roofgardener]

I don't know how the laws work in the UK but in THIS country, if you break the law, you get punished. You keep mentioning the 74 million who voted for Trump. 81 million voted against trump. That's 55% of the electorate. Oh and there was nothing arbitrary or malicious about trump being voted out of office. The 45% that supported trump were not disenfranchised so please stop repeating that lie. 55% wanted a different president. The 45% votes counted just like the 55% counted. That's how our free and fair elections work in the US. Trump and his 45% decided that the 55% votes shouldn't count and so they attacked our capital. They broke our laws.

1 more thing. In ever presidential election since we decided that you guys were no longer fit to govern us, there has been one side that has lost that election. In the history of our country, this is the first time that the losing side has ever attempted a coup to steal power from the lawful winner of the race. That in and of itself should be met with strong and complete rebuke. If I had my way, each and every person identified as a participant would not only lose their right to vote, but also lose their US citizenship. They are all traitors to our country.....just like Benedict Arnold, just like Donald J Trump.

Oh, I grant you that Biden won. My point was that if Congress sought to maliciously impeach Trump PURELY to prevent him running for President again, then those 74 million voters WILL be potentially disenfranchised in the future, purely in the sense that they could not - in future - vote for Trump, even if they wanted to. This is not a lie, Saintamaniac, it is just a logical outcome of such an act.

Your comment about de-citizenshipping people puts you, unfortunately, firmly in the camp of the zealots and authoritarians . If people have committed a crime, then let the courts decide. But inventing new and unprecedented (and illegal, by the way) punishments retroactively is extreme. Why not just burn them at the stake whilst you're at it ?

 

[wardorican]

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 ?

You should already know, because in your last question, I believe you asked why it would be a good idea to alienate an electorate and bar him from running for office again in 2024.

 

[wardorican]

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 ?

It's not arbitrary.

Do you arrest and jail a murderer as punishment or as protection of the law? Maybe both?

 

[Roofgardener]

It's not arbitrary.

Do you arrest and jail a murderer as punishment or as protection of the law? Maybe both?

Good point. Probably a little of both ?

But recall that impeachment is NOT a Judicial process, in which innocence or guilt are measured. It is purely a popularity contest, and usually a highly partisan one ?

 

[wardorican]

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 ?

Did you read my post where I went through his entire speech and highlighted various things from it.

Are you going to tell me that context isn't something we use when reading and listening?

 

[wardorican]

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).

DOJ won't charge a sitting president.