Impeachment Round Two (13 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 14 (members: 0, guests: 14)

    Yggdrasill

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Aug 12, 2020
    Messages
    201
    Reaction score
    290
    Age
    63
    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.
     
    cuddlemonkey said:
    I give Lindsey Graham credit for one thing. His lack of a spine must make it incredibly difficult to walk into the Senate and continuously vote the way a fascist would-be dictator demands, yet he manages.
    Click to expand...

    He is a coward and a liar, those Trump idiots who shouted insults and threats at him in that airport is part of the reason I think....both him and the rest of the Repubs that still support Trump can take a long walk on a very short pier as far as I'm concerned....
     
    I suspect if the Senate goes ahead with the impeachment trial, whether it's Constitutional is going to be something that would have to get determined early in the trial, or even before it commences. I'm still not convinced the impeachment provisions applies in cases where a President is no longer in office. I imagine SCOTUS would be asked to weigh in on this before starting the trial. I'm not sure they'd be happy to get involved in that though.
     
    zztop said:
    he hopped on that plane with Trump like the day after. Who knows what was said on there, but when he got out he was pivoting away from his earlier words. Here's another guy
    www.politico.com

    Trump did not provoke Capitol riots, McCarthy says

    "I don't believe he provoked it if you listen to what he said at the rally," House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters on Thursday.
    www.politico.com www.politico.com
    Click to expand...

    How many times can you double down on a losing bet before the house says, "no more."
     
    zztop said:
    (with rhetoric like this I don't see enough republicans getting on board, even if what happened with the insurrection was abhorrent)


    Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) on Wednesday warned fellow Republicans that if they try to “erase Donald Trump from the party, you’re going to get erased.”

    “I hope people in our party understand the party itself,” he told Fox News hours after President Joe Biden was sworn-in.

    “Most Republicans like his policies. A lot of Republicans like his style,” Graham said. “A lot of people are disappointed with him personally at times but appreciate the outcomes he’s achieved for our country.”


    Asked if he thinks Trump will try to start another political party — according to the Wall Street Journal, the former president is toying with the idea of forming a “Patriot Party” — Graham said he hoped Trump does not, adding that he would like to see him “stay the leader of the Republican Party.”
    Click to expand...
    A lot of people really liked Ted Bundy too. Should we have excused the fact he turned out to be a serial killer?
     
    DaveXA said:
    I suspect if the Senate goes ahead with the impeachment trial, whether it's Constitutional is going to be something that would have to get determined early in the trial, or even before it commences. I'm still not convinced the impeachment provisions applies in cases where a President is no longer in office. I imagine SCOTUS would be asked to weigh in on this before starting the trial. I'm not sure they'd be happy to get involved in that though.
    Click to expand...
    There is precedent for this, whether or not SCOTUS will uphold it is a different story. Considering the precedence come from the era of our founding fathers, it sure to produce some cognitive dissonance for some on the court.


    President Ulysses S. Grant’s longtime secretary of war. Belknap had a reputation for hosting lavish parties, and both his first and second wives went about Washington extravagantly attired.

    “Many questioned how he managed such a grand lifestyle on his $8,000 government salary,” according to the Senate Historical Office.


    A House committee then solved the mystery: Belknap had been accepting bribes in exchange for profitable contracts, going back to 1870. As the House voted on whether to impeach him, Belknap raced to the White House and resigned, believing this would save him, then “burst into tears.”
    The House voted unanimously to impeach him anyway on five counts, including “basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”
    The Senate decided it did have the authority to try former officials and conducted a trial in April and May of 1876. A majority of the Senate voted to convict but failed to meet the two-thirds majority required. He was acquitted and faced no further legal action for his crimes.
    Click to expand...
     
    I am curious about Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

    If Trump is convicted, does that mean then that he is subject to criminal liability for actions in office? So, for example, could the DOJ indict him for perjury and obstruction stemming from the Mueller investigation?
     
    DJ1BigTymer said:
    Very consistent, they have never convicted an elected official, but they will convict judges.

    U.S. Senate: Impeachment

    www.senate.gov www.senate.gov
    Click to expand...

    Makes some sense. Since the Senate confirms judges they should be responsible for removing them. And both Chambers can expel their own members, which is kind of like impeachment. The VP and Prez are a special case, explicitly called for in the Constitution, as a form of checks and balances.
     
    Yggdrasill said:
    I am curious about Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

    If Trump is convicted, does that mean then that he is subject to criminal liability for actions in office? So, for example, could the DOJ indict him for perjury and obstruction stemming from the Mueller investigation?
    Click to expand...
    Seems pretty clear that he could, but history has shown that those in power are reluctant to hold others accountable for their actions while they were in office.
     
    DJ1BigTymer said:
    Seems pretty clear that he could, but history has shown that those in power are reluctant to hold others accountable for their actions while they were in office.
    Click to expand...

    Certainly true for things that someone does as part of their duties. Every President since Nixon could be indicted for war crimes. But I have a hunch that the DOJ would have no problem going after Trump for illegal actions he took, not in the pursuit of the country's interests, but to save his own skin.
     
    DJ1BigTymer said:
    There is precedent for this, whether or not SCOTUS will uphold it is a different story. Considering the precedence come from the era of our founding fathers, it sure to produce some cognitive dissonance for some on the court.

    Click to expand...
    Personally, I'd think it would have to be upheld, because if the principle is that impeachment is the means through which the President (and other officials as above) are held to account, then it logically has to apply throughout their term, which would mean it must be possible to impeach after the end of their term.

    Otherwise they would be effectively unaccountable for anything they do at the end of their term when there isn't enough time left to impeach, or at all if they resign.

    And while arguably if the only possible consequence were removal from office, that could be seen as moot, since they can also face 'disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States', it would seem necessary that impeachment after leaving office is necessary in order for that to be potentially applied. Otherwise the Senate could never use that power to bar anyone from public office in the future if they just resigned first. Hard to imagine that's the intent there.
     
    zztop said:
    he hopped on that plane with Trump like the day after. Who knows what was said on there, but when he got out he was pivoting away from his earlier words. Here's another guy
    www.politico.com

    Trump did not provoke Capitol riots, McCarthy says

    "I don't believe he provoked it if you listen to what he said at the rally," House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters on Thursday.
    www.politico.com www.politico.com
    Click to expand...

    As I said before, coward deserves to be throat punched.
     
    exactly, Rob, I haven’t heard anyone who isn’t a Trump toady call the constitutionality into question. There seems to be agreement that it would be fine.
     
    MT15 said:
    exactly, Rob, I haven’t heard anyone who isn’t a Trump toady call the constitutionality into question. There seems to be agreement that it would be fine.
    Click to expand...

    While I do agree with the sentiment, I do think it's still a bit murky as to whether it would pass Constitutional muster. I hope it does because I'd rather see Trump held accountable.

    It's ultimately going to be moot if the Senate doesn't vote to convict, which is probably likely.
     

    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!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom