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]

I saw on Twitter from a HuffPost journalist that all ex presidents use that seal and similar letterheads. I don’t think this is unusual. Now the content is something else.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I saw on Twitter from a HuffPost journalist that all ex presidents use that seal and similar letterheads. I don’t think this is unusual. Now the content is something else.

Fair enough, but do they insist that they are the # President and not the former President? In all of trump's correspondence and anytime his minions mention him, he is referred to as The 45th President. It's like they're living in a different reality where trump is still the current President.

 

[wardorican]

Fair enough, but do they insist that they are the # President and not the former President? In all of trump's correspondence and anytime his minions mention him, he is referred to as The 45th President. It's like they're living in a different reality where trump is still the current President.

I'm pretty sure they all use the honorific "President"

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I'm pretty sure they all use the honorific "President"

I know they do as a verbal title, I’m not sure about in print.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I spent more time than I care to admit (the last 10 minutes) looking at letters from former Presidents. I can’t find one where they called themselves President.

 

[Yggdrasill]

OK. I loved the first Zoolander. I have zero recollection of him ever making an appearance in that movie.

Same for me. I wish he were as innocuous and forgettable in public life...

 

[PurpleReign]

I spent more time than I care to admit (the last 10 minutes) looking at letters from former Presidents. I can’t find one where they called themselves President.

It’s like Mike Lindell, CEO of MyPillow
vs
Me, CEO of my pillow

 

[Roofgardener]

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.

Hmmm... it would only be 'conspiracy' if it involved other people, and it would only be an 'accessory' if the bank was actually robbed ?

I think I see where you are aiming at... there is a crime in the UK of "going prepared to ...", or something like that ? Dunno whether that exists in the USA ?

As for the "thre in one CYA statement", that is down to personal interpretation. In the cold light of law, I don't think the prosecution could get away with cherry-picking sections of speech, and attempting to contextualise it with an assumed agenda ?

Maybe they can goad him into it

“we thought Trump would be too much of a candy arse chicken shirt to defend himself”

“Stormy Daniels said he had small genitals, but she didn’t say he had no balls”

“Crooked Hillary Clinton testified under oath about Benghazi for eight hours. Trump won’t take a single question. I wonder why”

Well, seeing as how the Democrats have been screaming that the events themselves prove that he was guilty (hence the House passing the impeachment in the first place), what would the purpose of him testifying be ? What would they ask him ?

Hilary Clinton testified in a fact-finding commission. The impeachment trial, however, is purely political, and does not rely on 'facts' ?

 

[MT15]

Impeachment is political, but to say it doesn’t rely on facts is just completely ironic. Trump is the party here that doesn’t deal in facts, rather famously so. His pushing of a fact free conspiracy fairy tale about a stolen election is why we had the deadly riot in the first place.

As for cherry picking, pointing to a single statement that mentions the word “peaceful” in a speech that mentions the word “fight” and the phrase “fight like hell” around 20 times is the very definition of cherry picking. So yes, there is cherry picking going on after all, but it’s not by the democrats.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The impeachment trial, however, is purely political, and does not rely on 'facts' ?

What?

 

[MT15]

The author of one of the papers cited by Trump’s defense team is saying they have misrepresented his work. This is about the constitutionality question. His conclusion is that it is valid to have the trial. It’s a short thread.

 

[wardorican]

BTW, Trump's lawyers argument is attached in this article.

READ: Trump lawyers’ arguments for dismissal on impeachment

Attorneys for former President Trump on Monday argued in a new brief that the Senate should quickly dismiss the impeachment article filed against him by the House when his trial begins this week.Da…

thehill.com

I haven't read this yet, but just using the headings, I'd say C4 is likely the only somewhat reasonable argument. I think everything in A is moot, since the House impeached him while in office.

 

[Roofgardener]

Impeachment is political, but to say it doesn’t rely on facts is just completely ironic.

Look at your history. In every single impeachment trial against a President, the presidents party almost exclusively voted against the impeachment, and the opposition party almost exclusively voted for the impeachment. Such behavior is statisticly unlikely if it was a fact-based trial.

Trump is the party here that doesn’t deal in facts, rather famously so. His pushing of a fact free conspiracy fairy tale about a stolen election is why we had the deadly riot in the first place.

As for cherry picking, pointing to a single statement that mentions the word “peaceful” in a speech that mentions the word “fight” and the phrase “fight like hell” around 20 times is the very definition of cherry picking. So yes, there is cherry picking going on after all, but it’s not by the democrats.

Whataboutism.

 

[MT15]

You are suggesting that the democrats are “cherry picking” but the facts show that there was one mention of “peaceful” and at least 20 times Trump used the word “fight” or “fight like hell”. Pointing out that the cherry picking is your position rather than the democrats isn’t “whataboutism”. We are talking about the exact same speech. An example of whataboutism is when the Republicans attempt to equate previous words from Schumer to Trump’s words. Whataboutism brings up an unrelated event and attempts to draw parallels.

Political doesn’t mean there will be no regard for truth. Facts will be presented. Political party loyalty tends to dictate ignoring facts, at least in the past, but that doesn’t mean that facts are absent. That is simply a false conclusion.

I imagine we will see a record number of Republicans vote to convict, at least five. This is arguably the worst conduct we have ever witnessed from a sitting President. Certainly it is the most egregious case of attempting to overturn a free and fair election. Trump has a long, long history of accusing others of what he is doing himself. This is his latest example. He was the one trying to “steal” an election victory. He should be convicted and barred from holding future federal office. He is simply unfit for any office.

 

[Nebaghead]

You are suggesting that the democrats are “cherry picking” but the facts show that there was one mention of “peaceful” and at least 20 times Trump used the word “fight” or “fight like hell”. Pointing out that the cherry picking is your position rather than the democrats isn’t “whataboutism”. We are talking about the exact same speech. An example of whataboutism is when the Republicans attempt to equate previous words from Schumer to Trump’s words. Whataboutism brings up an unrelated event and attempts to draw parallels.

Political doesn’t mean there will be no regard for truth. Facts will be presented. Political party loyalty tends to dictate ignoring facts, at least in the past, but that doesn’t mean that facts are absent. That is simply a false conclusion.

I imagine we will see a record number of Republicans vote to convict, at least five. This is arguably the worst conduct we have ever witnessed from a sitting President. Certainly it is the most egregious case of attempting to overturn a free and fair election. Trump has a long, long history of accusing others of what he is doing himself. This is his latest example. He was the one trying to “steal” an election victory. He should be convicted and barred from holding future federal office. He is simply unfit for any office.

To this extent the evidence being heard by voters will influence how the senators vote. If the evidence presented makes it hard to turn the other way and their constituents think he is guilty then they will vote the way that gets them re-elected.
Senators don’t have the benefit of Gerry meandered districts that will vote their party short of a mutating spree.

 

[Optimus Prime]

What I want to see is footage of Trump watching the events of Jan 6th on TV in real time

That would probably tell you everything you want to know

 

[FullMonte]

Look at your history. In every single impeachment trial against a President, the presidents party almost exclusively voted against the impeachment, and the opposition party almost exclusively voted for the impeachment. Such behavior is statisticly unlikely if it was a fact-based trial.

The implication you are making (or at least the way it appears to me) is that, historically, congress members in the party that opposed the president did not base their votes to convict on the facts of the trial. Isn't it just as possible that it was members of the president's party who refused to convict because of party affiliations (and not because of the facts)?

In Trump's first impeachment, we had multiple members of the republican party state that they thought that the democrats had proved their case, but that they didn't think it was enough of a violation to remove the president. We've now seen a member of the republican party officially sanctioned by the party in their home state because they voted to allow the trial to proceed.

 

[Roofgardener]

The implication you are making (or at least the way it appears to me) is that, historically, congress members in the party that opposed the president did not base their votes to convict on the facts of the trial. Isn't it just as possible that it was members of the president's party who refused to convict because of party affiliations (and not because of the facts)?

In Trump's first impeachment, we had multiple members of the republican party state that they thought that the democrats had proved their case, but that they didn't think it was enough of a violation to remove the president. We've now seen a member of the republican party officially sanctioned by the party in their home state because they voted to allow the trial to proceed.

Indeed. Hence the outcome was a political outcome, not a judicial one !