Impeachment Round Two (10 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.

 

[not2rich]

I understand why they are doing it, but I wish Democrats would stop fighting against a commission on the election. I know the results won't change a single mind, but I think it would be good for the history books to have a commission validate there was no widespread fraud in the election. Yes, it's a crazy step, but we are in crazy and unprecedented times.

I'm ranting because right now they are voting down another attempt by Republicans to start an election commission.

Well, if the idea is to change the minds of people currently convinced the election was stolen, that will never happen. Romney was right about that. The only commission those voters will accept as "legitimate" (i.e., not just another part of the Deep State conspiracy) is one that will conclude the election was stolen. So what's the point?

ETA: I should have read your post more carefully. I don't know if having an official result for the history books is all that important. If the GOP politicians would promise to (1) retract and apologize for past enabling of voter fraud claims, (2) oppose all future fraud claims lacking evidence to even get past a motion to dismiss, and (3) stop their voter suppression efforts.... then I might agree to a commission.

 

[MT15]

I’m probably not going to engage with someone who insists on using words incorrectly, and in an inflammatory way, as in the word disenfranchisement. If I want to vote for my cousin for president, but he is barred from running for president by a rule or law, then I am not disenfranchised. I still have my “franchise“ - my vote - and to claim that I am disenfranchised is hyperbole, and meant to be inflammatory, imo.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

I understand why they are doing it, but I wish Democrats would stop fighting against a commission on the election. I know the results won't change a single mind, but I think it would be good for the history books to have a commission validate there was no widespread fraud in the election. Yes, it's a crazy step, but we are in crazy and unprecedented times.

I'm ranting because right now they are voting down another attempt by Republicans to start an election commission.

Trump appointed a "Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity" after his first election because his feelings were hurt by losing the popular vote by over 3 million votes so he had to pretend that there were at least 3 million "illegal" votes. That commission found nothing. How much time is the U.S. government supposed to spend catering to the delicate emotions of a loser? If the new commission didn't find that Trump lost because of fraud, the people fighting for the commission would just choose not to believe it and call it a Deep State conspiracy. Should we have had a commission for Vikings fans after the Favre NFC championship loss??

You can't create "unity" with people who don't want it. That was the lesson the Democrats should have learned in 2009-2010.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Well, if the idea is to change the minds of people currently convinced the election was stolen, that will never happen. Romney was right about that. The only commission those voters will accept as "legitimate" (i.e., not just another part of the Deep State conspiracy) is one that will conclude the election was stolen. So what's the point?

I agree with that.

To me, the point is for the future. I want the history books to say "On July 20th, 2022, the bi-partisan Senate Commission on Election Integrity found that the claims of President Trump were false and that there was no widespread election fraud." I don't want it to end with "The President claimed widespread election fraud."

At this point, I'm trusting history to put all of the last 4 years in the proper context. To me proving Trump is a liar is critical not only to validate the election for history but in proving how egregious the events of last Wednesday were because it was done based on a lie.

 

[MT15]

I understand why they are doing it, but I wish Democrats would stop fighting against a commission on the election. I know the results won't change a single mind, but I think it would be good for the history books to have a commission validate there was no widespread fraud in the election. Yes, it's a crazy step, but we are in crazy and unprecedented times.

I'm ranting because right now they are voting down another attempt by Republicans to start an election commission.

No, I cant agree. If there were any evidence of voter fraud, I could see it. But there isn’t. The acting US attorney in GA said yesterday that he found no evidence of fraud, much to his surprise. He said he had assumed by watching the news (figured out which news he watches, lol) that there would be all sorts of cases. But there was nothing. This was the guy that was brought in after Trump asked the one there to resign because he wouldn’t open voter fraud investigations.

The GOP is being ridiculous and shouldn’t be indulged in this, imo.

 

[wardorican]

I understand why they are doing it, but I wish Democrats would stop fighting against a commission on the election. I know the results won't change a single mind, but I think it would be good for the history books to have a commission validate there was no widespread fraud in the election. Yes, it's a crazy step, but we are in crazy and unprecedented times.

I'm ranting because right now they are voting down another attempt by Republicans to start an election commission.

Because a commission can be subject to the same political pressure.they may not discover just the truth.

 

[not2rich]

I agree with that.

To me, the point is for the future. I want the history books to say "On July 20th, 2022, the bi-partisan Senate Commission on Election Integrity found that the claims of President Trump were false and that there was no widespread election fraud." I don't want it to end with "The President claimed widespread election fraud."

At this point, I'm trusting history to put all of the last 4 years in the proper context. To me proving Trump is a liar is critical not only to validate the election for history but in proving how egregious the events of last Wednesday were because it was done based on a lie.

I edited my response because I didn't read your post carefully the first time.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Because a commission can be subject to the same political pressure.they may not discover just the truth.

Historically the Senate has done a decent job with their Commissions. Individuals can be partisan, but the final reports are usually pretty well down the line.

 

[Roofgardener]

Here's the thing, Congress isn't maliciously impeaching trump. I'm curious as to know why you would phrase it that way.

Umm.. that came up arising from another discussion on this board ? I asked what was the point of impeachment when he only had 7 days left as president, and somebody said 'to punish him', and to specifically prevent him from holding office again ?

The fact that trump lied to this country about the seriousness of Covid-19 is reason enough for impeachment. Trump spearheaded an insurrection on this nation's capital. His impeachment is fully warranted.

Well, it's true he has a motor-mouth, and would be better off if someone had editorial control of his twitter account. But bear in mind, for most of the time (and certainly in the early days; Feb-March, he was merely parroting the 'official' advice from the WHO ?

Trump supporters are fully able to vote for trump in future elections by using the write-in provision available to all voters. Trump supporters will NOT be disenfranchised in any way from voting to trump. If they choose to vote for someone who is ineligible to hold the office, well that's their problem. And because their ability to vote for trump will not be hindered in any way, it is indeed not true to say that they are being disenfranchised.

That's a bit disengenios, isn't it ? You are free to vote for somebody, but your vote will be discounted ? Sounds like disenfranchisement to me ?

Are you not aware that in the US, if you commit a felony, you lose the right to vote? It's not made up and it's not illegal. Hell, the trump administration has deported US VETERANS. They lost their right to vote and their citizenship. So again, it's not unprecedented....at least it was until trump did it.

Oh, I have no problem with that. But here's the thing; it is possible for him to be disbarred from running for office in the future, NOT because of a felony conviction, but because of a political 'show trial' .. eg. partisan impeachment. That sort of thing smacks of Stalin or Mao, not America ?

Oh.. I was interested to read that impeachment does NOT automatically disbar him from office; that is down to a separate vote.

 

[Saintamaniac]

The purpose of the Democrats - and the mainstream media - seems to be to utterly crush Trump.

I was surprised to see someone from the UK using the term "mainstream media". I had not seen anyone outside of the right in the US use that term.

Well, it's true he has a motor-mouth, and would be better off if someone had editorial control of his twitter account. But bear in mind, for most of the time (and certainly in the early days; Feb-March, he was merely parroting the 'official' advice from the WHO ?

Trump can be heard on a recording stating that he downplayed the seriousness of Covid to the American people and that he continued to downplay it. Your attempted point is not valid.

That's a bit disengenios, isn't it ? You are free to vote for somebody, but your vote will be discounted ? Sounds like disenfranchisement to me ?

Their vote counts. Their candidate of choice is ineligible to hold the office for which they voted him into. That's not taking away anyone's right to vote or making it harder for them to vote or not counting their vote. Again, your point is invalid.

Oh, I have no problem with that. But here's the thing; it is possible for him to be disbarred from running for office in the future, NOT because of a felony conviction, but because of a political 'show trial' .. eg. partisan impeachment. That sort of thing smacks of Stalin or Mao, not America ?

I was making you aware of our laws that strip convicted felons of their right to vote and the fact that trump and his administration deported US VETERANS who served on the battlefield in defense of this nation thereby stripping them of both their right to vote and their citizenship. Why you chose to talk about trump being disbarred from running for office or impeachment is a mystery to me. Perhaps you meant to respond to something else. I welcome your comment in reference to what I actually posted.

 

[DaveXA]

I understand why they are doing it, but I wish Democrats would stop fighting against a commission on the election. I know the results won't change a single mind, but I think it would be good for the history books to have a commission validate there was no widespread fraud in the election. Yes, it's a crazy step, but we are in crazy and unprecedented times.

I'm ranting because right now they are voting down another attempt by Republicans to start an election commission.

Yep, I agree. I think there should be an election commission as well. It should be bipartisan and comprehensive. There are some things that while not having an effect on the outcome, still raise some problematic issues. I think it can be an informative process after this current mess dies down.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Saintamaniac]

I understand why they are doing it, but I wish Democrats would stop fighting against a commission on the election. I know the results won't change a single mind, but I think it would be good for the history books to have a commission validate there was no widespread fraud in the election. Yes, it's a crazy step, but we are in crazy and unprecedented times.

I'm ranting because right now they are voting down another attempt by Republicans to start an election commission.

I disagree with the commission idea. IMO, Democrats are fighting a commission idea on face value. Why is a commission on election needed? No state reported any kind of election irregularities. Do we now waste time on made up ideas? How about we get a commission together to look at the number of elected officials that kill babies and eat them? How about a commission on pizzagate? What about a commission on lizard people? Do we just create a commission to discuss lies because a lot of people not only repeated the lie but believe the lie? I'd much rather see a commission on systematic racism in the judicial system (a real thing) as opposed to a commission on election fraud (a lie made up by trump and his supporters).

 

[RobF]

Yep, I agree. I think there should be an election commission as well. It should be bipartisan and comprehensive. There are some things that while not having an effect on the outcome, still raise some problematic issues. I think it can be an informative process after this current mess dies down.

I understand the argument, but I'm in the not a good idea crowd here.

The fundamental problem is, as others mentioned, having a commission to investigate something fundamentally implies there's something to investigate.

E.g you don't hold a commission into whether flying pigs are causing problems in US airspace without some pretty solid evidence that pigs are zooming around up there in the first place.

So you'd potentially have the situation where the existence of a commission is seen as proof of there being something to investigate, while it's also sadly plausible that if a commission was set up, when it concluded that the election was fine, that would be dismissed out of hand (in much the same way everything showing that it was a normal election had already been dismissed). So I think it could actually be inherently counterproductive under the circumstances.

 

[coldseat]

I understand why they are doing it, but I wish Democrats would stop fighting against a commission on the election. I know the results won't change a single mind, but I think it would be good for the history books to have a commission validate there was no widespread fraud in the election. Yes, it's a crazy step, but we are in crazy and unprecedented times.

I'm ranting because right now they are voting down another attempt by Republicans to start an election commission.

IDK, I think the over 60 failed court challenges by Tump on the election state that pretty clearly. I don't think we need a commission to state the obvious. Future historian are going to have no problem separating fact from fiction and stating clearly that there was not basis for the election challenge and that it was likely the most secure election in American history due to all of the scrutiny and court challenges leading up to the election.

All a Senate election commission would do at this point is placate Republicans and give the deplorable ones among them a venue to continue to air false and damaging conspiracy theories. Democrats don't need to do either of those things. Best course of action is to push forward with Impeachment and ignore this request. Republicans are out of power, elections have consequences and so does insurrection.

Now a commission to look into the failed security at the Capitol and to look into the insurrection itself is definitely need to move this country forward. Everybody involved needs to be held accountable and changes need to be made so this doesn't happen in the future.

 

[DaveXA]

I understand the argument, but I'm in the not a good idea crowd here.

The fundamental problem is, as others mentioned, having a commission to investigate something fundamentally implies there's something to investigate.

E.g you don't hold a commission into whether flying pigs are causing problems in US airspace without some pretty solid evidence that pigs are zooming around up there in the first place.

So you'd potentially have the situation where the existence of a commission is seen as proof of there being something to investigate, while it's also sadly plausible that if a commission was set up, when it concluded that the election was fine, that would be dismissed out of hand (in much the same way everything showing that it was a normal election had already been dismissed). So I think it could actually be inherently counterproductive under the circumstances.

No, but we're living in a different world where a lot of changes were made across a number of states to accommodate voting via alternative options and encouraging early voting to avoid large crowds that could potentially impact spread of the virus. Then then there was the PA SC unilaterally extending the deadline for mailed in votes. I realize SCOTUS declined to hear that case, but it's still something that could cause problems in future elections. I'm not convinced that this will be a one time incident.

In the future, the shoe could be on the other foot. Will that be acceptable then as was in this case? I just think it's worth giving consideration. I'm not thinking in terms of finding anything nefarious, but rather refining and clarifying/tweaking processes to bolster confidence in the integrity of our elections.

 

[wardorican]

LIVE COVERAGE: House votes to impeach Trump after Capitol insurrection

The House will vote Wednesday to impeach Trump for his role in the mob attack at the Capitol one week ago, which interrupted the Electoral College count in a joint session of Congress and forced th…

thehill.com

So, in reading this, I didn't realize that Censure and using the 14th Amendment could also be an option to punish Trump for his role, and prevent him from holding future office. Now is it that much better than Impeachment? Some Republicans are looking at this for the optics and precedent.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

LIVE COVERAGE: House votes to impeach Trump after Capitol insurrection

The House will vote Wednesday to impeach Trump for his role in the mob attack at the Capitol one week ago, which interrupted the Electoral College count in a joint session of Congress and forced th…

thehill.com

So, in reading this, I didn't realize that Censure and using the 14th Amendment could also be an option to punish Trump for his role, and prevent him from holding future office. Now is it that much better than Impeachment? Some Republicans are looking at this for the optics and precedent.

Not only that, it seems to be a reasonable compromise provided the specific wording of the censure. At the very least, it should be made clear that the sole reason for not impeaching the President is because he has already been voted out of office.