Impeachment Round Two (14 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.

 

[MT15]

Not murky, not really

 

[DaveXA]

Not murky, not really

It's murky as it (impeachment of former President) isn't explicitly outlined in the language. I guess you could say it's implicit, but I wouldn't call it obvious. What would be better is if it states specifically that Presidents who's term has already ended can be impeached. I mean, I hope it works, but I guess we'll see.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

It's murky as it (impeachment of former President) isn't explicitly outlined in the language. I guess you could say it's implicit, but I wouldn't call it obvious. What would be better is if it states specifically that Presidents who's term has already ended can be impeached. I mean, I hope it works, but I guess we'll see.

well there's going to have to be some wiggle room, bc the founding fathers clearly did not anticipate a dtrump

 

[DaveXA]

well there's going to have to be some wiggle room, bc the founding fathers clearly did not anticipate a dtrump

True dat. Lol.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

well there's going to have to be some wiggle room, bc the founding fathers clearly did not anticipate a dtrump

The sad thing is they did. What they didn't anticipate was a Congress so corrupt and scared of their constituents that they wouldn't hold him accountable.

 

[wardorican]

It's murky as it (impeachment of former President) isn't explicitly outlined in the language. I guess you could say it's implicit, but I wouldn't call it obvious. What would be better is if it states specifically that Presidents who's term has already ended can be impeached. I mean, I hope it works, but I guess we'll see.

Technically, he was already impeached during his term. Jan 13th.

 

[DaveXA]

Technically, he was already impeached during his term. Jan 13th.

I get that, but he hasn't been convicted by the Senate yet. I think that him having been impeached already in the House is significant though. Hopefully that's enough to go ahead and see this through.

 

[zztop]

Schumer: Trump impeachment trial to begin week of Feb. 8

WASHINGTON (AP) — Opening arguments in the Senate impeachment trial for Donald Trump over the Capitol riot will begin the week of Feb. 8, the first time a former president will face such charges after leaving office.

apnews.com

I'm honestly pretty skeptical that enough (R) will vote against Trump, but we'll see

 

[DaveXA]

Schumer: Trump impeachment trial to begin week of Feb. 8

WASHINGTON (AP) — Opening arguments in the Senate impeachment trial for Donald Trump over the Capitol riot will begin the week of Feb. 8, the first time a former president will face such charges after leaving office.

apnews.com

I'm honestly pretty skeptical that enough (R) will vote against Trump, but we'll see

Yeah, unless some really damning evidence, like Trump actually directing DOD to stall sending NG troops or him directly encouraging violence, I'm not sure enough Rs would vote to convict at this point.

I'm not sure that's gonna come out in the trial. We'll see. I'll definitely be following it because I'd actually like to see him convicted.

 

[FullMonte]

Yeah, unless some really damning evidence, like Trump actually directing DOD to stall sending NG troops or him directly encouraging violence, I'm not sure enough Rs would vote to convict at this point.

I'm not sure that's gonna come out in the trial. We'll see. I'll definitely be following it because I'd actually like to see him convicted.

That's why I support delaying the trial a few weeks...that will let the managers build a stronger case. They should interview everyone who was in the White House while the siege was ongoing, and they should interview the leaders in the pentagon in an effort to determine what Trump did/said.

 

[DaveXA]

That's why I support delaying the trial a few weeks...that will let the managers build a stronger case. They should interview everyone who was in the White House while the siege was ongoing, and they should interview the leaders in the pentagon in an effort to determine what Trump did/said.

Yeah, that makes good sense. We'll see. Since Schumer now controls the agenda, they can decide the time-line.

 

[FullMonte]

Yeah, that makes good sense. We'll see. Since Schumer now controls the agenda, they can decide the time-line.

Even if there is no conviction, I would love for there to be a public record of what he did and said.

 

[DaveXA]

Even if there is no conviction, I would love for there to be a public record of what he did and said.

True. Wouldn't really change many minds, but having it in the record would be great for down the road.

 

[bdb13]

If there are witnesses and all to confirm it, I think your strongest case is somewhere in the realm of emphasizing Trump's alleged hesitation in deploying the National Guard as the insurrection / riot was occurring, in conjunction with his recklessness in delivering that dark as shirt speech directly preceding the insurrection, which only occurred under the umbrella (or as a direct result) of his recklessness in riling up his supporters for two months (well like five years, actually) with phony election fraud allegations and proclamations.. and forking dog whistles to do something exactly like they did.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I would put all the congress people who made calls to the pentagon on the stand to testify to the delays and what they were told. I'd subpoena Flynn and put him under oath to find out what his role was in denying/delaying aid.

 

[Lapaz]

Yeah, unless some really damning evidence, like Trump actually directing DOD to stall sending NG troops or him directly encouraging violence, I'm not sure enough Rs would vote to convict at this point.

I'm not sure that's gonna come out in the trial. We'll see. I'll definitely be following it because I'd actually like to see him convicted.

I've said this before, but Trump uses mafioso techniques, which rarely directly request someone to be killed. It is all implied. The standard should be would a reasonable person expect violence based on their rhetoric. Most Republican senators wouldn't convict a mafia boss, so I don't expect them to convict Trump.

 

[zztop]

I had a strong feeling this would happen. their best chance was the day after the insurrection. Now that some time has passed, more (R) are like naaa

Growing number of GOP senators oppose impeachment trial

A growing number of Republican senators say they oppose holding an impeachment trial. That's a sign of the dimming chances that former President Donald Trump will be convicted on the charge that he incited a siege of the U.S.

apnews.com

The only one seemingly with a spine is: “I believe that what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense,” Romney said. “If not, what is?”

Looks like everyone else quoted give various reasons or flat out whataboutism excuses

 

[BayouSAINTJoe]

I had a strong feeling this would happen. their best chance was the day after the insurrection. Now that some time has passed, more (R) are like naaa

Growing number of GOP senators oppose impeachment trial

A growing number of Republican senators say they oppose holding an impeachment trial. That's a sign of the dimming chances that former President Donald Trump will be convicted on the charge that he incited a siege of the U.S.

apnews.com

The only one seemingly with a spine is: “I believe that what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense,” Romney said. “If not, what is?”

Looks like everyone else quoted give various reasons or flat out whataboutism excuses

That's what they should've done...the temperature was just right for an impeachment conviction in the days immediately following the insurrection. What they should've done was immediately following their certification of the EC tally, like literally the same night, the House should've drafted up a simple impeachment article based on the actions of the day, voted on it then passed it to the Senate where all of the conveniently outraged GOP senators might have had a stomach for going through with it. Meaning that through the proper procedures, trump should've been out on his arse Jan 7.

Now that they've given it some time, it allowed the GOP to tuck in their morals and pretend that 1/6 didn't happen....or that it did and that it wasn't that bad because BLM rioted in Bermuda.

Bermuda?!?! You ask? Yeah, in my newly found pastime of trolling conservative social media outlets I've seen this meme being circulated: