Impeachment Round Two (8 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]

Hell, yes!! Schumer doesn't know how to play hardball, which is probably why the Republicans will control the House and Senate after the 2022 election. The Republicans in state legislatures throughout the country are going to pass so many new voter suppression laws during the next two years and the Democrats will just meekly let them do it. Schumer has to end the Senate filibuster NOW and pass strong election reform laws if they want to save this country from what's coming.

Here is a discussion of the political reasons both democrats and republicans have for wanting to move the impeachment trial quickly. It’s from Lawfare Blog and it was a good read, whether you agree or not.

“On this point, the sticking point may be a weird a marriage of convenience between senators resistant to witnesses for very different reasons. For Republican senators, the whole trial is embarassing; it forces them to take one bad vote after another, to wallow in Trump’s misconduct, and to live the divisions within their own party. The sooner it is done, the better. For Democratic senators, by contrast, the trial is of only limited utility if there is no chance of flipping 17 Republican colleagues. Democrats, after all, have competing priorities right now. They want to confirm cabinet and subcabinet nominees, and they have legislation they want to move too. Using up a lot of Senate energy to vindicate the principle that an impeachment trial is supposed to be, well, an actual trial is not especially high on the priority list for some of them. Each side thus has its own reasons for wanting to “move on.” “

Impeachment Trial Diary: Daily Thoughts on the Senate’s Proceedings

A summary of each day’s trial proceedings with analysis and reflections.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[wardorican]

I was actually embarrassed for those imbeciles. An absolutely horrid performance. You can't help but despise every Republican Senator who is just ignoring Trump's guilt, when Trump's own lawyers don't even give a shirt.

What bothers me is that the constitutionality of this is pretty straight forward. The House Impeachment managers make a very straightforward case and give plenty of historical examples and quotes from the Founders. I'd think the average 4th grader would come to the conclusion that the trial is constitutional.

That being said, a no vote could be as much a protest to the whole process than answering the question.

But to me, is this constitutional is pretty simple and outside of partisan politics, should have been a 100-0 vote in favor, or close to it.

Now, is he guilty? That's a whole different thing, and they'll get to that later.

But yeah, Castor was so bad, I eventually skipped forward a bit, then skipped the second guy completely. Castor took about 10 minutes just sort of talking. Almost like he was trying to let them know he knows people and is kinda cool. I did appreciate him trying to put in some humor, but really, get to the point.

 

[wardorican]

They have no problem ignoring it because they don’t care. Republicans, by and large, have gone from party over country to Trump over party over country.

And he’s on his like F team of lawyers since they keep quitting on him. They’re just getting paid to go through the motions at this point. The outcome is determined, what do they care?

The reality of any impeachment is that you're playing to the public as well. The Dems are building a very thorough and strong case in there for the public.

Outside of The end where Raskin used a story about his family to elicit emotion (which is far, and as a reminder that many of these Senators also had family there who were in danger), they built a very simple, methodical case outlining the constitutionality. Personally, I thought Neguse was the best at simply laying out the case.

 

[wardorican]

I've just blundered across something.
It is a Supreme Court judgement called "Brandenburg vs Ohio". In it, the Supremes stated that that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

Could this be relevant to Trump's show trial ?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

" Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". "

That restricts the government from just going have hate speech in a vacuum against normal citizens. i.e DOJ, States, etc.

This has no such restriction on Congress from Impeaching Civil Officers during or after their terms of office.

Also, you could probably quibble over "directed to inciting or producting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

i..e saying "we need to take back our country" isn't criminal. Saying "we need to take back our country to an angry mob and then encourage them to head to the capitol" could be or is (not a lawyer).

Either way, Congress isn't bound to that.

 

[Roofgardener]

" Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". "

That restricts the government from just going have hate speech in a vacuum against normal citizens. i.e DOJ, States, etc.

This has no such restriction on Congress from Impeaching Civil Officers during or after their terms of office.

Also, you could probably quibble over "directed to inciting or producting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

i..e saying "we need to take back our country" isn't criminal. Saying "we need to take back our country to an angry mob and then encourage them to head to the capitol" could be or is (not a lawyer).

Either way, Congress isn't bound to that.

Good point Wardorican. As I said previously in this thread; it is a political trial, not a judicial one.

 

[gummbo]

They’re just getting paid to go through the motions at this point. The outcome is determined, what do they care?

I doubt that Castro will be getting any money for the type of service he performed yesterday, all these lawyers should get paid upfront knowing how the grifter works

 

[nolaspe]

Sums up the trump defense total landscaping team's performance to a tee...

 

[Yggdrasill]

Well GEE WIZZ.. thanks for that Yggdrasill. So I am "stupid, naive or disingenous" am I ?
And yet, despite that nasty comment, you chose not to repudiate ANY of the points I made ?

I'm not sure that I'm going to continue on this forum if THAT is the kind of nasty responses I am going to get.

I thought this was a DEBATE forum ? If you are going to insult me WITHOUT repudiating any of my debate comments.. the.. well.. is that REALY the standard that this forum works on ?

I mean.. really ?

FWIW, I don't think you are stupid or naive. But I think you ARE trolling, hence my response. You have asked the same question/made the same point

" Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". "

That restricts the government from just going have hate speech in a vacuum against normal citizens. i.e DOJ, States, etc.

This has no such restriction on Congress from Impeaching Civil Officers during or after their terms of office.

Also, you could probably quibble over "directed to inciting or producting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

i..e saying "we need to take back our country" isn't criminal. Saying "we need to take back our country to an angry mob and then encourage them to head to the capitol" could be or is (not a lawyer).

Either way, Congress isn't bound to that.

That's a great find. Having watched Trump's speech several times, I think it meets these criteria of, "directed to inciting or producting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

 

[wardorican]

Good point Wardorican. As I said previously in this thread; it is a political trial, not a judicial one.

I'm not sure you've had a lot of push back on that assertion. It tries to have some semblance of Judicial-ness, but it's inherently a political process. However, that doesn't mean it has to be a 'partisan' process.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I'm not sure you've had a lot of push back on that assertion. It tries to have some semblance of Judicial-ness, but it's inherently a political process. However, that doesn't mean it has to be a 'partisan' process.

The Founders specifically called it a political exercise which was their reasoning for the 2/3rds vote threshold. There really is no pushback to be had on the point IMO.

 

[JRad]

Sums up the trump defense total landscaping team's performance to a tee...

This is my favorite internet of the day.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting point and probably has some validity to it



Damn near every Republican senator has to know two things. First, that this trial of Donald Trump that’s starting Tuesday is constitutional. And second, that he is obviously, relentlessly, unconditionally, morally, theologically, epistemologically, psychologically, and plain old logically guilty.

They know these things, and yet, as the rest of us know all too well, they’re going to acquit him. And we know why. Or we think we know why.

The commonly stated reason for their behavior is that they’re cowards. They’re afraid of Trump. They’re afraid of their own extreme base. All that’s true. But I say it’s worse than that. I say most of them don’t even want to buck Trump and the base. They want an extremist, authoritarian party because extremism and authoritarianism are the only ways they can get, and hold power..........

Here’s The Real Reason That Republican Senators Will Acquit Trump Again at His Second Impeachment Trial

They don’t want to punish him for what he did because they know that a Republican president may do something like it again.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[wardorican]

Interesting point and probably has some validity to it



Damn near every Republican senator has to know two things. First, that this trial of Donald Trump that’s starting Tuesday is constitutional. And second, that he is obviously, relentlessly, unconditionally, morally, theologically, epistemologically, psychologically, and plain old logically guilty.

They know these things, and yet, as the rest of us know all too well, they’re going to acquit him. And we know why. Or we think we know why.

The commonly stated reason for their behavior is that they’re cowards. They’re afraid of Trump. They’re afraid of their own extreme base. All that’s true. But I say it’s worse than that. I say most of them don’t even want to buck Trump and the base. They want an extremist, authoritarian party because extremism and authoritarianism are the only ways they can get, and hold power..........

Here’s The Real Reason That Republican Senators Will Acquit Trump Again at His Second Impeachment Trial

They don’t want to punish him for what he did because they know that a Republican president may do something like it again.

www.thedailybeast.com

This is an interesting op-ed by Cruz. I am still reading it, but the opening paragraph is pretty straight forward. I do think it's getting a little cute about what the vote was about last night, however...

Sen. Ted Cruz: Should the Senate exercise jurisdiction over Trump's impeachment trial? Why the answer matters

The constitutional question of whether a former president can be impeached or tried after he has left office is a close legal question.

www.foxnews.com

The constitutional question of whether a former president can be impeached or tried after he has left office is a close legal question. On balance, I believe that the better constitutional argument is that a former president can be impeached and tried—that is, that the Senate has jurisdiction to hold a trial.

However, nothing in the text of the Constitution requires the Senate to choose to exercise jurisdiction. In these particular circumstances, I believe the Senate should decline to exercise jurisdiction—and so I voted to dismiss this impeachment on jurisdictional grounds.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I feel like someone should recreate the closing argument scene from A Time to Kill

"I want to tell you a story about the President of the United States"

Talk about what the President said, what the president tweeted, what the president did, what the president's supporters did

Then end with, "Now imagine that President was Barack Obama"

 

[Saint by the Bay]

How is it going today? I haven't been watching. I just can't get myself invested in something I already know the outcome of. This feels like the last two minutes of a blow-out football game in terms of the final result being in question.

 

[DaveXA]

How is it going today? I haven't been watching. I just can't get myself invested in something I already know the outcome of. This feels like the last two minutes of a blow-out football game in terms of the final result being in question.

The most recent speaker, Madeline Dean, Democrat from PA made a pretty compelling argument. I just hope the Republicans in the Senate were paying attention (yeah right). She was appropriately angry and emotional towards the end.

I haven't watched much of the earlier stuff though.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

How is it going today? I haven't been watching. I just can't get myself invested in something I already know the outcome of. This feels like the last two minutes of a blow-out football game in terms of the final result being in question.

I thought Dean was good. Whatever legs the defense had to stand on, she and Raskin cut them out from under Trump's lawyers with a clean stroke.

 

[DaveXA]

I thought Dean was good. Whatever legs the defense had to stand on, she and Raskin cut them out from under Trump's lawyers with a clean stroke.

Yeah, well, the defense gets their turn tomorrow, I think. As compelling as that all was today, and I have no doubt in my mind how I'd vote, I think there are some things the defense could point to that will make guilt and conviction more difficult to be proven. I'm going to be paying a lot more attention to what the Senators are actually going to say before the vote takes place, after all, they're the ones actually deciding the case.