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.

 

[Roofgardener]

There is another thing to consider. There is the realistic possibility that the SCOTUS may be asked to rule on whether or not this trial is constitutional. Roberts being the presider of the trial could have impacted that issue.

Truly ? What possible grounds are there for saying that it is unconstitutional ?

 

[Taurus]

Ah well, if Robert's said "No" then that's that. Gotta move forward with it as best we can.

 

[DaveXA]

Ah well, if Robert's said "No" then that's that. Gotta move forward with it as best we can.

Yeah, pretty much. Disappointing, but understandable.

 

[Nebaghead]

Truly ? What possible grounds are there for saying that it is unconstitutional ?

Because he is no longer in office. Like having HR say we are going to fire an employee after they already retired.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Because he is no longer in office. Like having HR say we are going to fire an employee after they already retired.

True, but isn't this trial also to make sure that employee can never come back to work here ever again

 

[zztop]

I'm almost positive that someone else posted about this before

Meet the other American who was impeached and tried after leaving office

First Read is your briefing from "Meet the Press" and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.

www.nbcnews.com

In 1876, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on articles of impeachment against Secretary of War William Belknap over corruption charges, Belknap walked over to the White House, submitted his resignation letter to President Ulysses S. Grant and burst into tears.

The House still went ahead and impeached Belknap, and the Senate tried him, with the impeachment managers arguing that departing office doesn’t excuse the alleged offense — otherwise, officeholders would simply resign to escape conviction or impeachment.

And the Senate voted in 1876, by a 37-29 margin, that Belknap was eligible to be impeached and tried even though he resigned from office.

 

[DaveXA]

I'm almost positive that someone else posted about this before

Meet the other American who was impeached and tried after leaving office

First Read is your briefing from "Meet the Press" and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.

www.nbcnews.com

In 1876, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on articles of impeachment against Secretary of War William Belknap over corruption charges, Belknap walked over to the White House, submitted his resignation letter to President Ulysses S. Grant and burst into tears.

The House still went ahead and impeached Belknap, and the Senate tried him, with the impeachment managers arguing that departing office doesn’t excuse the alleged offense — otherwise, officeholders would simply resign to escape conviction or impeachment.

And the Senate voted in 1876, by a 37-29 margin, that Belknap was eligible to be impeached and tried even though he resigned from office.

I wonder if the Court could "look back" and view this single case as an outlier and not necessarily precedent. I'm not sure this would be enough on it's own to be a guide for this particular circumstance. Maybe the Court would have a different view. Idk.

 

[FullMonte]

I'm almost positive that someone else posted about this before

Meet the other American who was impeached and tried after leaving office

First Read is your briefing from "Meet the Press" and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.

www.nbcnews.com

In 1876, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on articles of impeachment against Secretary of War William Belknap over corruption charges, Belknap walked over to the White House, submitted his resignation letter to President Ulysses S. Grant and burst into tears.

The House still went ahead and impeached Belknap, and the Senate tried him, with the impeachment managers arguing that departing office doesn’t excuse the alleged offense — otherwise, officeholders would simply resign to escape conviction or impeachment.

And the Senate voted in 1876, by a 37-29 margin, that Belknap was eligible to be impeached and tried even though he resigned from office.

Yeah, there is precedent, but I suspect someone will try and press the issue that it's not constitutional...even in that case, sevewa senators voted against conviction because they didn't think the Senate had jurisdiction.

 

[wardorican]

I wonder if the Court could "look back" and view this single case as an outlier and not necessarily precedent. I'm not sure this would be enough on it's own to be a guide for this particular circumstance. Maybe the Court would have a different view. Idk.

At the end of the day, the question is about holding any elected official, including the President accountable when they cross a line (realizing the line can be subjective).

I really doubt our founding fathers would think that the President was above the law, or above political consequences beyond the people voting. We get stuck on this, "well the DOJ can't charged him, so Impeach him, but you have to impeach him and have the trial before he leaves office, or it's moot" So, we will just ignore the 'crime'.

Malfeasance, Misfeasance, and Nonfeasance shouldn't only apply to narrow days on a calendar. And, as I said before, he was impeached prior to leaving office.

I'd like to think that all impeachment's are outlier events, and need to work within a reasonable framework.

 

[Saintamaniac]

The impeachment has already happened prior to him leaving office. He's been charged with an offense that if found guilty, prevents him from holding any office. He is entitled to due process. If it was decided by secret service or DOJ or Biden that he's no longer entitled to protection and couldn't hold office because he was charged with a violation, he could and would argue he was never convicted and therefore is entitled.

I could see how charging an ex-president with an impeachable offense after he/she is out of office would be unconstitutional. That's not where we are. He was charged while he was in office. Now, his guilt or innocence of the charge is what is to be determined. Otherwise, the charge would just linger and could be argued as a reason for withholding benefits unless or until he is either convicted or acquitted.

I hope Schumer makes the vote a secret ballot.

 

[zztop]

I hope Schumer makes the vote a secret ballot.

That may be the only way some (R) show enough spine.
The more time that passes the less likely there will be enough (R) wanting to vote against trump (basically that is what it comes down to)

The House is poised to transmit its article of impeachment against Trump to the Senate. (Published 2021)

www.nytimes.com

(a few excerpts from the article)
A survey by The New York Times on the eve of the trial found that 27 Republican senators had expressed opposition to charging Trump or otherwise holding him accountable by impeachment. Sixteen Republicans indicated they were undecided, and seven had no response. Most of those opposed increasingly fell back on process-based objections, rather than defending Trump.

“Why are we doing this?” said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. “I can’t think of something more divisive and unhealing than doing an impeachment trial when the president is already gone. It’s just vindictive. It’s ridiculous.

...
“We will listen to it, but I still have concerns about the constitutionality of this, and the precedent it sets in trying to convict a private citizen,” said Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa.

She added: “He exhibited poor leadership, I think we all agree with that. But it was these people that came into the Capitol, they did it knowingly. So they bear the responsibility.”

...
“I guess it depends on what state you’re in and what phase in your career you are,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters with a chuckle when asked what would happen to Republicans who voted to convict.

 

[DaveXA]

At the end of the day, the question is about holding any elected official, including the President accountable when they cross a line (realizing the line can be subjective).

I really doubt our founding fathers would think that the President was above the law, or above political consequences beyond the people voting. We get stuck on this, "well the DOJ can't charged him, so Impeach him, but you have to impeach him and have the trial before he leaves office, or it's moot" So, we will just ignore the 'crime'.

Malfeasance, Misfeasance, and Nonfeasance shouldn't only apply to narrow days on a calendar. And, as I said before, he was impeached prior to leaving office.

I'd like to think that all impeachment's are outlier events, and need to work within a reasonable framework.

The thing is, impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. If he committed a crime, which I'd argue that he has, he can be arrested, charged and prosecuted under federal statutes. If he's found guilty, he'd essentially be barred from running again.

Trump should be convicted by the Senate, but that's not going to happen based on the comments I'm hearing.

 

[wardorican]

The thing is, impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. If he committed a crime, which I'd argue that he has, he can be arrested, charged and prosecuted under federal statutes. If he's found guilty, he'd essentially be barred from running again.

Trump should be convicted by the Senate, but that's not going to happen based on the comments I'm hearing.

You mean the DOJ under the current admin, who may we running for office in 2024 along with the guy you're charging?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[DaveXA]

You mean the DOJ under the current admin, who may we running for office in 2024 along with the guy you're charging?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yeah, true. No easy way to do it. I would think impeachment is the easiest route to barring Trump from running again.

I just hope there is less appetite for Trump if he manages to get through all of this unscathed.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Yeah, true. No easy way to do it. I would think impeachment is the easiest route to barring Trump from running again.

I just hope there is less appetite for Trump if he manages to get through all of this unscathed.

I hate to sound like those unpatriotic Qanon nutjobs but if trump is neither convicted by the senate nor charged and found guilty for anything that he has done in the last 4 months let alone years, then the constitution that we all cherish has been nothing but a big arse hoax that has perpetuated on the people of this country since its inception. It's spelled out right there in that document. If he escapes any kind of repercussions for anything he has done then our justice system is a complete farce and the Qanon nutjobs might just be right.

 

[DaveXA]

I hate to sound like those unpatriotic Qanon nutjobs but if trump is neither convicted by the senate nor charged and found guilty for anything that he has done in the last 4 months let alone years, then the constitution that we all cherish has been nothing but a big arse hoax that has perpetuated on the people of this country since its inception. It's spelled out right there in that document. If he escapes any kind of repercussions for anything he has done then our justice system is a complete farce and the Qanon nutjobs might just be right.

The sad thing is there's about a coin toss of it falling one way or the other. Pretty absurd, but our politicians have no balls. They're just too afraid to do the right thing. Screw em.

 

[Yggdrasill]

The only possibility of a conviction was while Trump was still office, and that ship has sailed. You could have any judge you want run the proceeding--John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, RBG, Judge Judy, whoever--and you're never, ever, ever going to get 16 Republican Senators to vote to impeach a Republican President.

Perhaps. But even without a conviction, they can do a lot of good by presenting damning evidence.

 

[SoggyBottomBoy]

The only possibility of a conviction was while Trump was still office, and that ship has sailed. You could have any judge you want run the proceeding--John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, RBG, Judge Judy, whoever--and you're never, ever, ever going to get 16 Republican Senators to vote to impeach a Republican President.

^ This. The numbers won't be there to convict. He deserves to be convicted, but it won't happen.

I have a friend that won't let go of the "this will only further divide us" notion. We went round and round about it. I get it, but the man has never been held accountable for his actions.

The bigger picture, IMO, is that is a chance for the Republican party to make a stand and divorce themselves from him. Take some lumps now, but start getting the party back to what it was. But, again, they won't because they're afraid from the backlash. A mistake, IMO.