Impeachment Round Two (3 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.

 

[Lapaz]

The defense keeps saying that they don't have evidence about a lot of the assertions. They keep blaming the House for not having evidence. This screams that witnesses are needed.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The defense keeps saying that they don't have evidence about a lot of the assertions. They keep blaming the House for not having evidence. This screams that witnesses are needed.

Raskin said it himself. We don't have it because the one guy that can put all of this to rest has refused to show up and testify. They need to call witnesses and put him first on the list.

 

[Xeno]

Raskin said it himself. We don't have it because the one guy that can put all of this to rest has refused to show up and testify. They need to call witnesses and put him first on the list.

Trump, Pence, Mike Lee, Tuberville, Cruz and Hawley at the very least need to be called as witnesses. Lindsey Graham can go ahead and demand FBI testimony so they can tell them how Trump either was briefed on the intelligence indicating imminent violence or simply refused the briefing.

 

[Yggdrasill]

I don't understand the free speech argument at all. Sedition is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[Xeno]

I don't understand the free speech argument at all. Sedition is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Even if it was there's no requirement for the Senate to take it into account in an impeachment hearing. This isn't a criminal trial.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't understand the free speech argument at all. Sedition is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Agreed, but what exactly are the Seditious comments we can point to? I think it's going to be very tough to nail that down. When you see a lot of the comments made in context, those comments are often qualified a sentence or two later in the clips I saw today. I hate playing Devil's advocate here, but there needs to be objective and presentable evidence in order to make this thing stick.

Part of the problem is I didn't think the article was broad or even correct enough. Regardless, I don't think we're getting a conviction here.

 

[Xeno]

Trump, Pence, Mike Lee, Tuberville, Cruz and Hawley at the very least need to be called as witnesses. Lindsey Graham can go ahead and demand FBI testimony so they can tell them how Trump either was briefed on the intelligence indicating imminent violence or simply refused the briefing.

CNN reporting on details of expletive laden call between Trump and McCarthy on January 6th. Add McCarthy to the list.

 

[DaveXA]

CNN reporting on details of expletive laden call between Trump and McCarthy on January 6th. Add McCarthy to the list.

What happened on that call? I've only heard that it took place, but short on details.

 

[Xeno]

What happened on that call? I've only heard that it took place, but short on details.

CNN reporting that Trump was refusing to send help, told McCarthy, "It looks like these people are more upset about the election than you are." McCarthy replied, "Who the fork do you think you're talking to?"

This is coming from Republicans who were in the room during the call.

edit: Trump actually said, "I guess these people care about the election more than you do," after claiming it was ANTIFA and McCarthy told him it absolutely wasn't.

edit 2: The Republican on record is Jaime Herrera Beutler, others have confirmed it off the record.

 

[DaveXA]

CNN reporting on details of expletive laden call between Trump and McCarthy on January 6th. Add McCarthy to the list.

Fwiw, I think what we need are witnesses who were present in the WH during the time between when Trump arrived and when he first responded via tweet. I've only heard that he was watching the thing unfold on TV before he acted. But what he said to who during that time could be relevant. The problem with that part is that it's not really relevant to proving that he incited. But I do think it matters if he did or didn't respond quickly to try and prevent the riot from getting worse.

 

[Xeno]

Fwiw, I think what we need are witnesses who were present in the WH during the time between when Trump arrived and when he first responded via tweet. I've only heard that he was watching the thing unfold on TV before he acted. But what he said to who during that time could be relevant. The problem with that part is that it's not really relevant to proving that he incited. But I do think it matters if he did or didn't respond quickly to try and prevent the riot from getting worse.

It proves state of mind. If Trump's defense team wants to play this like a criminal trial, mens rea is absolutely relevant.

 

[DaveXA]

It proves state of mind. If Trump's defense team wants to play this like a criminal trial, mens rea is absolutely relevant.

Good point. I guess we'll see how it plays out. My 2 questions at this point i guess are will they call witnesses and will they cast secret ballots?

 

[Xeno]

Good point. I guess we'll see how it plays out. My 2 questions at this point i guess are will they call witnesses and will they cast secret ballots?

I think secret ballots would have had to been agreed to from the start but I don't know for sure. Either way, I doubt it.

I sincerely hope the House managers decide to call witnesses but I get the feeling if they were going to they'd have brought it up today.

 

[Lapaz]

Agreed, but what exactly are the Seditious comments we can point to? I think it's going to be very tough to nail that down. When you see a lot of the comments made in context, those comments are often qualified a sentence or two later in the clips I saw today. I hate playing Devil's advocate here, but there needs to be objective and presentable evidence in order to make this thing stick.

Part of the problem is I didn't think the article was broad or even correct enough. Regardless, I don't think we're getting a conviction here.

Since this isn't a criminal trial, they don't have to point Seditious comments. However, did tell them that he wanted them to Stop the Steal. On that day, it can only be concluded that the only way to stop the steal is to take seditious actions.

We've always known that we weren't going to get a conviction, regardless of the merits. If they call witnesses, it is possible that more Republicans will vote to convict, but it is highly likely that they will acquit even if a mountain of evidence is presented, since their last resort will be jurisdiction. That doesn't change the need to call witnesses, because the court of public opinion is also important. There is still a small fraction of the public that can be convinced, but it is worth trying to pursuade that fraction.

 

[MT15]

One big lie I heard Trump’s attorney say, and I only listed very briefly, was that if they convict it will set a precedent whereby any previous federal official could be impeached years after they served and the Senate would have to try each one. They keep ignoring the fact that Trump was still in office when he was impeached. This sets no precedent to impeach anyone after their service has concluded.

As for it being too late for a trial, the only reason the trial didn’t happen while Trump was still in office is that McConnell refused to call the Senate back to hear the trial.

The idea that this is some sort of constitutional issue is just the stupidest contention. Trump was eligible for impeachment when the impeachment happened. The constitution says the senate will hear ALL impeachment trials. All means all. There is no valid constitutional question in play here. There is broad agreement among constitutional scholars about that. But just like Trump, modern day Republicans just keep stating a lie over and over.

 

[MT15]

Here may be another lie by Trump’s legal team

 

[Xeno]

Good point. I guess we'll see how it plays out. My 2 questions at this point i guess are will they call witnesses and will they cast secret ballots?

A partial answer on your question about witnesses.

 

[Xeno]

Here may be another lie by Trump’s legal team

There were so many that it's going to take days to unravel all of them.