Impeachment Round Two (6 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]

But realistically, do you or could you see him taking the stand in his impeachment trial if one of his lawyers tell him he likely perjures himself if he lies on the witness stand after so much factual evidence is produced, contradicting his statements.
We both know he's a malignant narcissist, a amoral sociopath with no moral/ethical compass thats discernable but he might listen to his lawyers if they suggest it could hurt him politically in any future presidential run?

Yeah.
Trouble is... he can point to his speech, and the passages where he urged peaceful protest, without perjuring himself. Because they where true. (in the sense that.. he said them).

Nowhere did he urge violence. That's the problem that the Democrats in the Senate are going to face with the articles of impeachment. Not that it matters... their decision will be based on politics, not facts, as is usually the case historically in Senate impeachment 'trials' ?

 

[efil4]

Yes, I can see a case where he's goaded into taking the stand. That's why I'm hoping they subpoena him.

I read this and immediately thought "Col. Jessup". lolol

 

[MT15]

IIRC there was one statement during Trump’s speech on Jan. 6 that mentioned the word “peaceful”. The trouble for him is that the rest of the speech invoked violent imagery and the speakers before him invoked violent imagery. Trump, we are told, was completely in control of the rally on Jan. 6, even to the point of picking the music and the order of the speakers before him. It’s not a stretch to believe he had a say in their words as well. Plus, we haven’t even mentioned his use of violent imagery for two solid months leading up to the Jan. 6 rally / insurrection.

You cannot just throw in one statement and use it as absolution for all the violent talk of the prior two months. That’s like a bank robber plotting the crime, and then just before entering the bank with a gun, saying I don’t intend to rob this bank. It’s just a silly idea that this would work.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Well, maybe him, Rudy, Lin Wood and the Kraken Witch.

I'll admit, those are mighty strong runners up. But unlike them Gaetz is no lawyer, so a complete lack of legal training fueled by crazy might make for a better spectacle. Though definitely, Rudy in particular has given some astonishing past performances.

 

[Roofgardener]

IIRC there was one statement during Trump’s speech on Jan. 6 that mentioned the word “peaceful”. The trouble for him is that the rest of the speech invoked violent imagery and the speakers before him invoked violent imagery. Trump, we are told, was completely in control of the rally on Jan. 6, even to the point of picking the music and the order of the speakers before him. It’s not a stretch to believe he had a say in their words as well. Plus, we haven’t even mentioned his use of violent imagery for two solid months leading up to the Jan. 6 rally / insurrection.

You cannot just throw in one statement and use it as absolution for all the violent talk of the prior two months. That’s like a bank robber plotting the crime, and then just before entering the bank with a gun, saying I don’t intend to rob this bank. It’s just a silly idea that this would work.

Interesting points MT15. There's just one quibble I'd have with your example; under UK law (and I believe its true in the US as well ? ), that person could NOT then be charged with bank robbery ? (I'm assuming your meant that the 'robber' didn't actually ENTER the bank ? ).

 

[Yggdrasill]

Yeah.
Trouble is... he can point to his speech, and the passages where he urged peaceful protest, without perjuring himself. Because they where true. (in the sense that.. he said them).

Nowhere did he urge violence. That's the problem that the Democrats in the Senate are going to face with the articles of impeachment. Not that it matters... their decision will be based on politics, not facts, as is usually the case historically in Senate impeachment 'trials' ?

Unfortunately, Trump has a long history of promoting violence, through veiled encouragement before the fact and tepid condemnation (if any at all) afterwards. https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech

Also, he worked for years to discredit the electoral process, really ramping up in 2020. He refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power in the debate. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54274115

Note the term "peaceful".

 

[DaveXA]

In spite of all of Trump's comments during and after the election, I tend to think the impeachment trial is gonna be a short, quick acquittal. I just don't see anything coming of it. Everyone already knows what he's said, and I don't think many, if any at all, will be persuaded to change their minds. The votes aren't there to convict. That much is a forgone conclusion. Maybe some stuff comes out if witnesses are part of the trial, but it's ultimately going to be a waste of time.

Realistically, the best chance to ding Trump is going to be the state charges he'll potentially be facing.

 

[FullMonte]

Yeah.
Trouble is... he can point to his speech, and the passages where he urged peaceful protest, without perjuring himself. Because they where true. (in the sense that.. he said them).

Nowhere did he urge violence. That's the problem that the Democrats in the Senate are going to face with the articles of impeachment. Not that it matters... their decision will be based on politics, not facts, as is usually the case historically in Senate impeachment 'trials' ?

I'd like to try a different tack. Rather than saying "Trump never told them to be violent," let's start at the bottom and work our way up.

The attack on the Capitol was, by all accounts, an effort to stop the certification of the Electoral College results because the vote count was stolen by a grand conspiracy to ensure Trump wasn't re-elected.

So, let's start with this simple question: Do you believe that the protestors' belief that the election was stolen by a grand conspiracy was, in any part, a result of comments that Trump had made between the election in November and the attack on the Capitol on Jan 6?

 

[B4YOU]

The secret ballot vote took place after some Republicans argued that Cheney should be removed from leadership following her support for impeaching then-President Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection at the Capitol. In the end, however, Cheney prevailed by a wide margin. The vote was 145 to keep her in her position as House Republican Conference chair, and 61 to remove her, plus one member who voted present, according to several people in the room.

This is the best evidence that the impeachment vote should be secret ballot. Cheney won 145-61 to keep her position. If the vote had been public, I think we see her removed.

House Republicans vote to keep Liz Cheney in leadership after she defends her impeachment vote | CNN Politics

House Republicans voted Wednesday night that Rep. Liz Cheney should keep her post in House GOP leadership after she defended her support for impeachment as a vote of conscience during a contentious closed-door GOP conference meeting.

www.cnn.com

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This is the best evidence that the impeachment vote should be secret ballot. Cheney won 145-61 to keep her position. If the vote had been public, I think we see her removed.

House Republicans vote to keep Liz Cheney in leadership after she defends her impeachment vote | CNN Politics

House Republicans voted Wednesday night that Rep. Liz Cheney should keep her post in House GOP leadership after she defended her support for impeachment as a vote of conscience during a contentious closed-door GOP conference meeting.

www.cnn.com

I made this exact same comment on another board today. The only thing preventing Trump from being convicted by a public vote is fear. Fear of being primaried and even fear for their own safety.

 

[MT15]

Interesting points MT15. There's just one quibble I'd have with your example; under UK law (and I believe its true in the US as well ? ), that person could NOT then be charged with bank robbery ? (I'm assuming your meant that the 'robber' didn't actually ENTER the bank ? ).

the purported bank robber would be guilty of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, though. And maybe even accessory to bank robbery. This would be roughly analogous to the incitement that many people think Trump is guilty of. Even though he threw in one CYA statement in a speech where he said his followers needed to “fight” or even “fight like hell” around 20 times.

 

[MT15]

Oh, my

 

[Saint by the Bay]

They know full well there is no way Liar McLiarson is going to say a word under oath.

 

[MT15]

It’d be a huge temptation to his ego, though, wouldn’t it? He could tell everybody again how the election was stolen and he could provide all the proof.

Come on, after what this man put the country through for four years, we deserve this.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

It’d be a huge temptation to his ego, though, wouldn’t it? He could tell everybody again how the election was stolen and he could provide all the proof.

Come on, after what this man put the country through for four years, we deserve this.

His legal team, part 2, might quit if he pushes to testify and tell "his side" of the story.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

His legal team, part 2, might quit if he pushes to testify and tell "his side" of the story.

This is where we need a real patriot that will fight for the man. Come on down, Matt Gaetz!

 

[Taurus]

Oh, my

What, he can't be subpoenaed? C'mon, please let us see him dragged in by US Marshals. Please, prettyplease?!?

 

[DaveXA]

What, he can't be subpoenaed? C'mon, please let us see him dragged in by US Marshals. Please, prettyplease?!?

I'd love to see it, but I'm not counting on it.