Impeachment Round Two (13 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.

 

[Yggdrasill]

8 republicans now, yet 181 have voted no. I mean... maybe if a few of them had been murdered during the insurrection some others would have changed their minds and vote yes. I really have no idea what it would actually take to make them vote against trump

I would have thought that the possibility of some of their colleagues being murdered to be sufficient. Apparently not.

 

[DaveXA]

Senate could always work out an agreement to censure him and limit the ability to run for office. Don't be shocked if they cut a deal.

I can live with a censure if that prevents him from running again. I just want him to go away more than anything else.

 

[DaveXA]

Got a procedural question. If the Senate decides to censure Trump, would this be during the course of the trial, or could they just censure him on the 19th and pass on doing a trial?

 

[superchuck500]

Got a procedural question. If the Senate decides to censure Trump, would this be during the course of the trial, or could they just censure him on the 19th and pass on doing a trial?

Censure is basically a passed resolution. It’s a separate measure.

Whether articles of impeachment passed by the House compels a trial in the Senate is an open discussion.

Can the Senate Decline to Try an Impeachment Case?

Does the Senate have an obligation to conduct a trial of the president if the House impeaches him? With the increased prospects for an impeachment inquiry now that the Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives, most discussions of impeachment have assumed that, should the...

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Yggdrasill]

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 ?


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 ?


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 ?


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.

I think you are hung up on the political part of this, calling it a "show trial"; the Oxford definition of that phrase is, "a judicial trial held in public with the intention of influencing or satisfying public opinion, rather than of ensuring justice."

A sitting President cannot be indicted for criminal charges according to current DOJ rule interpretation. That is why Mueller did not seek indictments for the many counts of obstruction by Trump in his report. The Constitution sets up a checks and balances framework where it is not just the prerogative but the responsibility of Congress to hold the President accountable. If this "smacks of America", it does so because that's exactly how the system was set up to work.

Impeachment is by definition a political act because it is by one branch of government against another, with the third presiding (Chief Justice of SCOTUS). To condemn it for that reason is to condemn a chicken for being a bird. One can argue all day long as whether a motivation for impeachment is "purely partisan" or has "judicial merit." That is what the impeachment proceeding and subsequent Senate trial are to resolve.

Yes, I think the impeachment should be seen as a form of punishment, but not in the sense of retribution for policies, party or personality. If Congress believes that the President instigated a coup, then they had better forking impeach him because that is exactly the kind of thing that the Founders had in mind when they created the impeachment clause. Without a commitment to the ideal of the rule of law, the Republic is toast. And if we don't "punish" this sort of behavior, doesn't it encourage future coup attempts?

I don't understand your fascination with being barred from public office as some sort of horrible punishment. In a lot of countries, someone who led a violent overthrow would be arrested, imprisoned, perhaps executed? Simply not letting them attain power to try again seems not just eminently reasonable and soft-handed, but also highly practical.

As I tried to point out to you in an earlier post, which I think you did not respond to, this coup was slow moving with January 6 being just the culmination. I strongly encourage you to read the fascinating articles below and share your opinion.

Opinion | Yes, It Was a Coup Attempt. Here’s Why.

What Trump tried is called a “self-coup,” and he did it in slow motion and in plain sight.

www.politico.com

The American Abyss (Published 2021)

A historian of fascism and political atrocity on Trump, the mob and what comes next.

www.nytimes.com

 

[superchuck500]

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 ?


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 ?


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 ?


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.

That’s why impeachment conviction requires a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. By design, this ensures that no impeachment conviction is based on a partisan “show trial.”

The comparison to the USSR and China is asinine.

 

[zztop]

so 10 republicans voted yes, thats like...5% (?) of the republican house.
If 5% of the republican senate votes yes, that won't be enough

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Nebaghead]

so 10 republicans voted yes, thats like...5% (?) of the republican house.
If 5% of the republican senate votes yes, that won't be enough

Senate is much more moderate. Sounds like there are more senators willing to vote to impeach. Also there will be more evidence and time to go through the presentation of evidence and the Dems will be able to make the rules of the impeachment.
I even wonder if they will call trump to testify.

 

[superchuck500]

Former federal 4th Circuit judge argues that the Senate cannot try impeachment articles after the president’s term has ended.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/12/once-trump-leaves-office-senate-cant-hold-an-impeachment-trial/

 

[wardorican]

so 10 republicans voted yes, thats like...5% (?) of the republican house.
If 5% of the republican senate votes yes, that won't be enough

Closer to 2%...

 

[DaveXA]

Closer to 2%...

10 out of around 200 is 5%...Republicans. 2% of the entire House, yes.

 

[wardorican]

10 out of around 200 is 5%...Republicans. 2% of the entire House, yes.

This is what happens when I swoop in and read too fast.

 

[DaveXA]

Senate is much more moderate. Sounds like there are more senators willing to vote to impeach. Also there will be more evidence and time to go through the presentation of evidence and the Dems will be able to make the rules of the impeachment.
I even wonder if they will call trump to testify.

Yeah, pending the legality of impeaching Trump after he's already out of office, yeah, I agree the Senate would probably be more inclined to impeach. I can think of 5 right off the bat who would, and if McConnell (long shot probably) comes on board, then I think it's possible.

That said, when the 19th comes around, I'd go ahead and push for censure.

Does is take both House and Senate to agree on a censure?

 

[Xeno]

Anyway, I digress. I did NOT find any incitement to physically attack the capitol building in that speech. I guess you COULD put up an argument about "readying between the lines... ", or ".. but consider what he was THINKING when he made that speech". But I can't see ANY of that standing up in court.

...

I've not seen anything like this in America before. In China, during Mao, yes. But not in America.

These are actually core elements for proving criminality in US criminal justice and have their roots in English law, like many of our laws.

Mens rea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[brandon]

Trump knows his goose is cooked. He’s giving literally the best speech of his presidency...after his second impeachment and with 1 week left. Wow.

Edit: dammit I knew I spoke too soon. Here he goes off on “media censorship.”

Edit 2: But on the whole, the best speech of his presidency, without question.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Trump knows his goose is cooked. He’s giving literally the best speech of his presidency...after his second impeachment and with 1 week left. Wow.

Edit: dammit I knew I spoke too soon. Here he goes off on “media censorship.”

Edit 2: But on the whole, the best speech of his presidency, without question.

I haven’t seen it yet but my girlfriend just said that it would be a great speech if she believed it

Which she doesn’t

Not a word of it