Impeachment Round Two (2 Viewers)

< Previous | Next >

Yggdrasill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
92
Reaction score
145
Age
59
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.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #307
OP

Yggdrasill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
92
Reaction score
145
Age
59
Location
Seattle
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
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

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
5,404
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
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.

 
OP

Yggdrasill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
92
Reaction score
145
Age
59
Location
Seattle
Offline
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.

 

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
5,404
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
938
Reaction score
1,200
Age
121
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
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
 

Nebaghead

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
713
Reaction score
930
Age
48
Location
Omaha, NE
Offline
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.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
221
Reaction score
562
Location
Lafayette
Online
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.

 

brandon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
948
Reaction score
1,726
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,068
Reaction score
1,726
Age
44
Location
Washington DC Metro
Offline
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
 

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!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom