Impeachment Round Two (2 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.

 

[wardorican]

Umm... that would be contrary to the Constitution, surely ?

Nope.

I wasn't sure when I made my joke the other night, but I do remember enough about parliamentary procedure to think it was possible.


Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Present is a key word. I'm sure the Senate Parliamentarian and Senate rules have clear definitions, but it is often to the Parliamentarian to make those decisions.

 

[wardorican]

Per sources ? Well, if that is true, it does reflect badly on him. But I'd love to know what the sources where ?

Recall.. his speech ended at about 13:15 (if I've got the timeline correct), and the breach occured at 14:00. His call for the protesters to to leave peacefully was at 15:00, approximately an hour after the breach occured.

So factor in the time he would have taken to return to the White House, and the time for the information to be confirmed at the WH (which would have - at the least - taken phone calls to the head of the Capitol Police or the FBI). I dunno.. it doesn't seem to ME that he was dragging his feet, but we'd only be able to determine that if we had details of when he had credible evidence that the breach was actually occuring ?

Will you accept that the stories about him attempting to block action by the NG are false ?

Are you suggesting that the President of the US, who is surrounded by key assets at all times, and can order a nuclear strike within 5-10 minutes no matter where he is, couldn't have been advised while on route to the WH that the situation was getting out of control? A situation, where there is no confusion as to what is going on.

Let's look at 9/11. A situation where there was mass confusion at first.


8:42: United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757 with 37 passengers and 7 crew members, departs 42 minutes late from Newark International Airport, bound for San Francisco International Airport. Four hijackers are aboard.

8:42–8:46 (approx.): Flight 175 is hijacked above northwest New Jersey, about 60 miles northwest of New York City, continuing southwest briefly before turning back to the northeast.

8:46:40: Flight 11 crashes into the north face of the North Tower (1 WTC) of the World Trade Center, between floors 93 and 99. The aircraft enters the tower intact.

8:50–8:54 (approx.): Flight 77 is hijacked above southern Ohio, turning to the southeast.

9:02:57: Flight 175 crashes into the south face of the South Tower (2 WTC) of the World Trade Center, between floors 77 and 85. Parts of the plane, including the starboard engine, leave the building from its east and north sides, falling to the ground six blocks away.

9:28: Flight 93 is hijacked above northern Ohio, turning to the southeast.

9:37:46: Flight 77 crashes into the western side of The Pentagon and starts a violent fire.

9:45: United States airspace is shut down.

Within 45 minutes of the second tower being struck (when all doubt of it being an accident was gone), we shut down all of US airspace.

But, 2 hours isn't enough time to send in government forces to secure the Capitol? His "call to peacefully leave" wasn't even really that.

 

[superchuck500]

Well, I'll bow to your superior skill in Telepathy ! Has there ever been an example of Trump inciting a crowd to violence ?

As for the "Trump did nothing" theme; it is not down to the President to activate the National Guard in DC. That is down to either the head of the Capital Police, or the Secretary of Defence. (the President is the nominal Commander in Chief, but in practice the chain of command goes through the Pentagon, via the Secretary of Defence or the Secratary of the Army, though the President would probably have been involved, but he wouldn't have had DIRECT control). Trump HAD 'green-lighted' deployment of the Guard DAYS before, and the Guard had indeed deployed. But only for traffic duties. By the time they had been recalled to the armoury and re-deployed, it was pretty much all over.

To summarise: Trump HAD pre-emptively mobilised the DC National Guard, but it took them time to react to events. And as for messages; it takes time for a president to be briefed on what is actually going on, and for the information to be verified, before he can make any announcements.

The breach occured at around 14:00. The national guard where deployed at around !5:00, when Trump made his appeal for lawful behavior. It was all over before 18:00

Timeline of the January 6 United States Capitol attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's maddening to carry on a discussion with you because you refuse to respond to primary contentions in posts.

But one does not need telepathy to read Trump. His incessant tweeting and public speaking makes his personality, thought process, and motivations quite easy to decipher.

And yes Trump has a history of rhetoric that suggests violence and there's a history of people taking him up on it. He encouraged the beating of protesters at his campaign rallies. He suggested that gun-rights advocates could use their guns against politicians or judges who tried to enhance gun control. He alluded to Civil Rights era segregationist rhetoric when condemning the riots that came out of the George Floyd protests. He enthusiastically praised a Montana congressman who attacked a member of the press. His vitriolic rhetoric about immigrants was taken seriously by his audience and led to violence in multiple instances. He oddly proclaimed that his supporters would still support him if he murdered someone.

You can't pretend that Trump's history of regularly evoking violence isn't true. There have been articles and public comment about it dating back to 2015 - and it has regularly been condemned, even by Republicans. Nikki Haley explicitly said in 2016 that Trump should change his rhetoric because it's likely to encourage violence. The Republican secretary of state of Georgia weeks before the insurrection urged Trump to change his rhetoric because "somebody is going to get hurt." The day after the attack on the Capitol, even Ted Cruz said "The president’s language and rhetoric often goes too far. I think, yesterday in particular, the president’s language and rhetoric crossed the line and it was reckless."

You want to talk about context, this is context.

 

[DaveXA]

Cruz undermined that argument. He said it is constitutional, just that the Senate should exercise judicial restraint.

I'm sure he'll keep twisting it, or state that what the House did was unconstitutional, so he can have it both ways.

How was what the House did unconstitutional? Is that related to the articles of impeachment? Or something else?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Lost Nikki Haley

I know she has her own presidential ambitions and was one of his biggest supporters, it's a very interesting flip
============================================

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley issued stunning remarks breaking with former President Trump, telling Politico in an interview published Friday that she believes he “let us down.”

“We need to acknowledge he let us down,” Haley, who served in her ambassador role under Trump, said. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”

Haley’s remarks are her strongest yet against the former president in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and come as Trump's legal team is set to present its defense of Trump on Friday in his second Senate impeachment trial.

The House impeached the former president for a second time shortly after the insurrection, saying his unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud following his election loss to President Biden and his comments earlier that day incited the mob that stormed the Capitol.

The former South Carolina governor told Politico that she has not spoken with Trump since the mob attack, further expressing her disappointment with remarks he gave at a rally ahead of the assault condemning his own vice president, Mike Pence.

“When I tell you I’m angry, it’s an understatement,” Haley said. “I am so disappointed in the fact that [despite] the loyalty and friendship he had with Mike Pence, that he would do that to him. Like, I’m disgusted by it.”........................

Nikki Haley breaks with Trump: 'We shouldn't have followed him' | TheHill

 

[B4YOU]

Nope.

I wasn't sure when I made my joke the other night, but I do remember enough about parliamentary procedure to think it was possible.


Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Present is a key word. I'm sure the Senate Parliamentarian and Senate rules have clear definitions, but it is often to the Parliamentarian to make those decisions.

“Present” will be interpreted as present during the vote.

 

[wardorican]

“Present” will be interpreted as present during the vote.

Of course. But, if there any legitimacy to moving to remove anyone who left proceedings, i.e. excluding their vote for not being present, then they could consider that.

However, I don't think they will. But, I'd sure as hell consider threatening them, that if a group of them leave again, we're not finishing the trial, we're immediately moving to the conviction vote and the threshold will be lower. Assuming it really is an option.

It just looks bad for any Senators to duck out for anything that isn't a short emergency.

 

[Nebaghead]

@Roofgardener DC national guard reports to the president. They request National Guard before the breach and were denied. It was 3 hours from the steps being breached till National Guard were deployed.
The guard was offered before to the Capitol Police but they said it wasn’t necessary as they were concerned about optics. That is why the chief of the capitol police resigned.

 

[wardorican]

There is a whole timeline and explanation of events here, they update as they learn information.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/timeline-of-national-guard-deployment-to-capitol/

Update, Jan. 28: According to a Jan. 5 memo obtained by the Washington Post, the Pentagon restricted the authority of Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard, so that he could not deploy the quick reaction force without approval from higher-ups. In an interview published in the Washington Post on Jan. 26, Walker said those required authorizations contributed to delays in the National Guard response the following day. According to the Washington Post, Walker “needed to wait for approval from [former Army secretary Ryan] McCarthy and acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller before dispatching troops, even though some 40 soldiers were on standby as a quick reaction force. That standby force had been assembled in case the few hundred Guard members deployed that day on the District’s streets to assist police with traffic control and crowd management needed help, Walker said. … Had he not been restricted, Walker said he could have dispatched members of the D.C. Guard sooner.”

Why the sudden restriction? is that normal? Was this McCarthy, Miller, or higher up that decided this?

However, there are other issues that really do fall on the Sgt's of Arms and capitol police.

12:40 p.m.: The first protesters arrive at the Capitol, where Congress is meeting in joint session to certify Joe Biden’s election.

1.p.m.: Trump begins to wrap up his speech at the “Save America” rally at the Ellipse, a park near the White House. He tells rallygoers the presidential election was “stolen” by Democrats and the “fake news media,” and says that he’s going to walk with the crowd to the Capitol “to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones … the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” But Trump does not accompany the rally attendees to the Capitol.

Sund says he already realizes “things aren’t going well,” that the protesters came with riot helmets, gas masks, pepper spray, fireworks, metal pipes and baseball bats. Sund calls Metropolitan Police Chief Contee, who sends 100 officers to the Capitol, with the first ones arriving within 10 minutes, according to Sund’s interview with the Washington Post.

1:09 p.m.: Sund tells Irving and Stenger by phone that the National Guard is needed. Sund says both men told him they would “run it up the chain.”

Update, Jan. 28: According to Pittman’s prepared statements, the Capitol Police Board – which at the time included Irving and Stenger — contributed to a delayed response by the National Guard on the day of the riot. Pittman stated that on the afternoon of Jan. 6 Sund “lobbied the Board for authorization to bring in the National Guard, but he was not granted authorization for over an hour.”

................


About 2 p.m.: Rioters breach the Capitol. In an interview with the Washington Post published on Jan. 10, Sund says, “If we would have had the National Guard we could have held them at bay longer, until more officers from our partner agencies could arrive.”

2:10 p.m.: Sund says Irving calls him back with formal approval to send in the guard. But as the Washington Post noted, “Sund finally had approval to call the National Guard. But that would prove to be just the beginning of a bureaucratic nightmare to get soldiers on the scene.”

And, I'd assume, at any time after his speech, word of violence would have immediately been communicated to the President (or he'd have seen it on TV). Forget the bureaucratic nightmare that I just posted above. You're telling me him calling the DoD or FBI to send people in to get control, isn't an option? The president can't jump start the whole thing in an emergency?

Because, if that's the case... it's quicker to go to war than to defend our own government, then that needs to be fixed like today.

 

[DaveXA]

So...I was just gonna skip the Trump defense, but decided to go ahead and watch. I gotta say, if you're sitting on the fence, this is a pretty convincing presentation. The problem the Democrats have is their rhetoric about Trump has been nonstop since 2016, so there is a crap ton of material to use to basically highlight the hypocrisy of the accusations. And I thought showing where the House Impeahment Managers selectively cut off Trump's comments to give context to comments he's made was a shrewd move.

I'm not saying this absolves Trump, but it definitely pokes holes in some of the arguments for impeachment.

I'd still be inclined to convict, but it's not going to be obvious to people giving Trump the benefit of the doubt.

 

[DaveXA]

There is a whole timeline and explanation of events here, they update as they learn information.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/timeline-of-national-guard-deployment-to-capitol/



Why the sudden restriction? is that normal? Was this McCarthy, Miller, or higher up that decided this?

However, there are other issues that really do fall on the Sgt's of Arms and capitol police.



And, I'd assume, at any time after his speech, word of violence would have immediately been communicated to the President (or he'd have seen it on TV). Forget the bureaucratic nightmare that I just posted above. You're telling me him calling the DoD or FBI to send people in to get control, isn't an option? The president can't jump start the whole thing in an emergency?

Because, if that's the case... it's quicker to go to war than to defend our own government, then that needs to be fixed like today.

Well it was pointed out that the day before the Capitol attack, the DC mayor explicitly stated she didn't want NG troops in the city. This was probably complicated by her position during the unrest in DC last summer.

That said, I don't think she could have anticipated what happened at the Capitol, just that that may partially explain why they were not there when the attack happened. I mean, if I was mayor, the NG troops would have been there that morning.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So...I was just gonna skip the Trump defense, but decided to go ahead and watch. I gotta say, if you're sitting on the fence, this is a pretty convincing presentation. The problem the Democrats have is their rhetoric about Trump has been nonstop since 2016, so there is a crap ton of material to use to basically highlight the hypocrisy of the accusations. And I thought showing where the House Impeahment Managers selectively cut off Trump's comments to give context to comments he's made was a shrewd move.

I'm not saying this absolves Trump, but it definitely pokes holes in some of the arguments for impeachment.

I'd still be inclined to convict, but it's not going to be obvious to people giving Trump the benefit of the doubt.

I think they're doing what they can, but some of it is just too much to overcome.

 

[DaveXA]

Lol, gotta say, using Nadler's words from the Clinton impeachment debate was genius.

So far, they're not doing half bad. I thought it would be terrible, but it's a reasonably competent presentation.

 

[Saintman2884]

It's maddening to carry on a discussion with you because you refuse to respond to primary contentions in posts.

But one does not need telepathy to read Trump. His incessant tweeting and public speaking makes his personality, thought process, and motivations quite easy to decipher.

And yes Trump has a history of rhetoric that suggests violence and there's a history of people taking him up on it. He encouraged the beating of protesters at his campaign rallies. He suggested that gun-rights advocates could use their guns against politicians or judges who tried to enhance gun control. He alluded to Civil Rights era segregationist rhetoric when condemning the riots that came out of the George Floyd protests. He enthusiastically praised a Montana congressman who attacked a member of the press. His vitriolic rhetoric about immigrants was taken seriously by his audience and led to violence in multiple instances. He oddly proclaimed that his supporters would still support him if he murdered someone.

You can't pretend that Trump's history of regularly evoking violence isn't true. There have been articles and public comment about it dating back to 2015 - and it has regularly been condemned, even by Republicans. Nikki Haley explicitly said in 2016 that Trump should change his rhetoric because it's likely to encourage violence. The Republican secretary of state of Georgia weeks before the insurrection urged Trump to change his rhetoric because "somebody is going to get hurt." The day after the attack on the Capitol, even Ted Cruz said "The president’s language and rhetoric often goes too far. I think, yesterday in particular, the president’s language and rhetoric crossed the line and it was reckless."

You want to talk about context, this is context.

I agree with 99.9% of your above reply, but when it comes to his odd statement that he could shoot someone standing out in front of middle of Times Square and get away with it as well as his support ers would still vote and stand by him, that was a horrifically-sounding, impuslively rashly thought up ironic analogy to how he felt Hollywood and sports celebrities aren't held to same criminal standards as rest of us Americans. And pre-2017 #MeToo and Times Up movement in 2016, it contained a large sense of credibility/truth and unfortunately, probably still does even now. He lost the plot and created a controversy by using the worst, stupidest, idiotic type analogy and the larger, socio-political message was lost and made irrevalent.

Otherwise, why wasn't Bill Cosby, O.J. Simpson, Jim Brown(he has a very large, criminal rap.sheet and if someone wants to object to this, the facts of all those assaults, physical or verbal will astound those who are ignorant to them), or even Arnold Swartzenagger in all of the women he allegedly groped, made unwanted sexual advances towards or made vulgar, crude sexually explicit remarks, too convicted and made accountable, decades ago. Donald Trump is the complete antithesis of honest, professional businessmen or politician to make socio-political morality remarks, but that doesn't make the sliver of truth any less agravatingly true.

 

[SFIDC3]

Lost Nikki Haley

I know she has her own presidential ambitions and was one of his biggest supporters, it's a very interesting flip

It's not interesting, it is very much "calculated"....Nikki Haley can go....somewhere....

 

[nolaspe]

 

[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 ?

The last thing I want to do on these forums - quite literally - is to drive away people with different opinions from mine. Without them, what's the point of a discussion forum? That said, I will call out trolling when I see it, and you, my friend, have trolled relentlessly on this thread.

If you like/support Donald Trump - fine. If you don't think he should be impeached - terrific. If you can make a case against impeachment - super, bring it on. But what you have done consistently is to snipe, obliquely, from the sideline, trying to discredit the notion of an impeachment proceeding, without actually making a case against it. You have repeatedly derided the process for being political rather than judicial, and made the ludicrous and unsubstantiat assertion that because it is political it cannot be "factual" - see posts 184, 185, 188, 214, 220, 243, 541, 584 and 589. Your objections, weak as they are, have been repeatedly addressed by many, including me in post 312 (among others), yet you continue to assert them while largely ignoring the responses.

I did repudiate your "point"; you just ignored it. You tried to discredit the notion that the impeachment trial could be "factual" because historically impeachment votes have fallen largely along partisan lines and which would in your view be, "statistically unlikely if it was a fact-based trial." Forget about the fact no statistical analysis is possible with a sample size of three, all from different eras and very different circumstances. Your inferences that therefore facts cannot be presented, or if presented will inevitably be cherry picked, and will in any case be ignored, are non-sequiturs.

Even though the trial is a political process, it needs facts and evidence to be effective. Impeachment is a big forking deal in this country, though that is hard to remember in the era of Trump, who has trashed so many norms and crossed so many lines of civility, tradition and propriety. As Nebaghead pointed out, and as I noted in my OP, the value of the trial is to lay out the facts before the public and to let them decide, irrespective of the outcome. The more factual the case the House Managers present, the better for them and for the Republic, even if the Senate acquits.

 

[DaveXA]

I agree with her sentiment, but she didn't actually point out specifically what the lies were in the presentation of the defense today.