Impeachment Round Two (7 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.

 

[not2rich]

The 'Y U NO UNITY?!?!' shtick is just the latest GOP talking point. It's laughably obvious given how many GOP Congressman and conservative media types are parroting it now.

I thought Democrats were communists and literally wanted to destroy the country. That Republican Rule was the only thing standing between "Real America" and socialist dystopia.

And now that they've lost Congress, the WH, and their "leader" is revealed to be a self-absorbed fascist who actually doesn't care about the GOP at all - they suddenly desire "unity" among us all?

 

[Optimus Prime]

For what it’s worth
================

NEW YORK (AP) — Pulitzer-Prize winners Garry Wills, Ron Chernow, Jon Meacham and Stacy Schiff are among hundreds of historians who have signed an open letter calling for President Donald Trump to be removed from office after last week’s siege of the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

“By fomenting violence against the Congress and seeking to subvert constitutional democracy, which resulted in the killing of a Capitol police officer and the deaths of several rioters, Trump has violated his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” the letter, released online Monday, reads in part. “He is a clear and present danger to American democracy and the national security of the United States.” ...........

Hundreds of historians call for Trump's removal from office

NEW YORK (AP) — Pulitzer-Prize winners Garry Wills, Ron Chernow, Jon Meacham and Stacy Schiff are among hundreds of historians who have signed an open letter calling for President Donald Trump to be removed from office after last week's siege of the U.S.

apnews.com

 

[Saintamaniac]

That's why the consequences for the attack on the Capitol have to be severe. We are on the brink of falling to mob rule. There are emerging reports of Republicans not wanting to go against Trump supporters out of fear, not just political, but for their safety and that of their families. And honestly, after the 6th, who can blame them.

Who can blame them? Everyone can blame them, that's who. They created this. They had the power to stop this from becoming what it is. Instead, they went along with it the whole time knowing it was a big lie. So as far as I am concerned, "F" them and their families because that's exactly how they felt toward anyone not Republican. You reap what you sow.

Even after they see what they have wrought upon us and themselves, they still can't see the easy and most simplest answer to take themselves out of harms way; resign. If they resign, they don't have to say anything against trump and his sycophants. Just release a statement saying they are resigning for personal reasons. Done. But no, even as their own safety is imperiled, they still try to look for ways to stay in power. I hope each and every one of them get what they have coming to them.

 

[Incumbent]

Who can blame them? Everyone can blame them, that's who. They created this. They had the power to stop this from becoming what it is. Instead, they went along with it the whole time knowing it was a big lie. So as far as I am concerned, "F" them and their families because that's exactly how they felt toward anyone not Republican. You reap what you sow.

Even after they see what they have wrought upon us and themselves, they still can't see the easy and most simplest answer to take themselves out of harms way; resign. If they resign, they don't have to say anything against trump and his sycophants. Just release a statement saying they are resigning for personal reasons. Done. But no, even as their own safety is imperiled, they still try to look for ways to stay in power. I hope each and every one of them get what they have coming to them.

In the sense of understanding that they are now afraid, but I agree with you.

Like I said, I'm as angry and fearful as anybody about what is happening in our country. I know what they've done and I know the people who I think have to be held accountable.

 

[Roofgardener]

Sitting in the UK, it is a trifle difficult to understand the degree of anger against Donald Trump, and these howls for his impeachment to prevent him running for office again.

As I understand it, he never incited ANYONE to invade the Capitol building; he just called for a protest outside it.

But be that as it may, you should really consider that he got ALMOST as many votes as Joe Biden. (74 million vs 81 million, or about 47% of the electorate.

Are you ENTIRELY happy about disenfranchising that many Americans by artificially preventing them from voting for him again in the future ?

If you are, then fine. But consider what you are doing. You are - potentially - alienating a VERY large proportion of the electorate.

Wouldn't it be safer to let him run, and be defeated ?

 

[Booker]

Sitting in the UK, it is a trifle difficult to understand the degree of anger against Donald Trump, and these howls for his impeachment to prevent him running for office again.

As I understand it, he never incited ANYONE to invade the Capitol building; he just called for a protest outside it.

But be that as it may, you should really consider that he got ALMOST as many votes as Joe Biden. (74 million vs 81 million, or about 47% of the electorate.

Are you ENTIRELY happy about disenfranchising that many Americans by artificially preventing them from voting for him again in the future ?

If you are, then fine. But consider what you are doing. You are - potentially - alienating a VERY large proportion of the electorate.

Wouldn't it be safer to let him run, and be defeated ?

He just was defeated -- badly. And he tried to start an insurrection.

 

[MT15]

He told the insurrectionist rioters, his supporters, who had just broken into the Capitol and howled down the halls looking for our VP and our Speaker of the House in order to lynch them, that they are “special” and “we love you”.

He told these people for two solid months that the election had been “stolen“ from them. (It was a lie) That they had to “fight hard” and be “very strong” to take their country back.

You, with all due respect, don’t really know what you are talking about, IMO. And you don’t know what the word “disenfranchise” means, to boot.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Sitting in the UK, it is a trifle difficult to understand the degree of anger against Donald Trump, and these howls for his impeachment to prevent him running for office again.

I don't know, maybe it's because his supporters were the first people to invade the U.S. Capitol since people who had been sitting in the UK in the early 1800's, because they did it specifically to prevent democratic processes from going forward through intimidation and violence, and because the entire grievance is based on nothing more than Lies that he has parroted for over two months now?

Maybe there should be consequences to being a lying demagogue Peice of work who puts his hurt feelings over security and democracy?

7 million votes isn't exactly a nailbiter.

 

[Roofgardener]

He told the insurrectionist rioters, his supporters, who had just broken into the Capitol and howled down the halls looking for our VP and our Speaker of the House in order to lynch them, that they are “special” and “we love you”.

He told these people for two solid months that the election had been “stolen“ from them. (It was a lie) That they had to “fight hard” and be “very strong” to take their country back.

You, with all due respect, don’t really know what you are talking about, IMO.

And yet at no point did he actually incite them to attack the capitol building ? I mean, people here talk about prosecuting Trump for Insurrection, but... the evidence isn't really there... is it ?

 

[Roofgardener]

He just was defeated -- badly. And he tried to start an insurrection.

Did he really ? He encouraged people to protest outside the Capital, surely ?

 

[RobF]

Sitting in the UK, it is a trifle difficult to understand the degree of anger against Donald Trump, and these howls for his impeachment to prevent him running for office again.

Sitting in the UK, it's very easy to understand. Because the reason for impeachment is because he's repeatedly shown himself to be unfit for office, including in his repeated incitements to violent protest in order to overturn the results of a completely legitimate election. Not merely to prevent him from running for office again, as you oddly imply. That would be a consequence of his deserved and necessary impeachment for being wholly unfit for his office.

That is, the unfitness for office is the reason for impeachment. Being unable to run for office again would be an outcome.

What I do find a trifle difficult to understand is why anyone in the UK would be an apologist for the clearly unfit Trump.

 

[Booker]

Did he really ? He encouraged people to protest outside the Capital, surely ?

Yes, yes he really did. He lied for months that the election was stolen, rallied his fanatics to the Capitol and told them it would be "wild," told them they had to march to the Capitol and had to show strength to take back what was rightfully theirs. Then, after his followers broke into the Capitol, he refused to call in the national guard and took six hours to respond, at which point he told them they were "special" and he loved them.

 

[efil4]

And yet at no point did he actually incite them to attack the capitol building ? I mean, people here talk about prosecuting Trump for Insurrection, but... the evidence isn't really there... is it ?

Bloody ell.

Words and tone matter. Especially when addressing frothing supporters. I think you can appreciate "frothing supporters" ( especially on derby day )

 

[coldseat]

Sitting in the UK, it is a trifle difficult to understand the degree of anger against Donald Trump, and these howls for his impeachment to prevent him running for office again.

As I understand it, he never incited ANYONE to invade the Capitol building; he just called for a protest outside it.

But be that as it may, you should really consider that he got ALMOST as many votes as Joe Biden. (74 million vs 81 million, or about 47% of the electorate.

Are you ENTIRELY happy about disenfranchising that many Americans by artificially preventing them from voting for him again in the future ?

If you are, then fine. But consider what you are doing. You are - potentially - alienating a VERY large proportion of the electorate.

Wouldn't it be safer to let him run, and be defeated ?

No! First, he was already defeated.

Second, preventing him from running for office in the future ends his political future. Given that he's an egotist and only really cares about his own power, it makes it more likely he sulks off into the future. You couple that with his bans on Twitter and Facebook, it means we won't be hearing from him constantly, which pretty much guarantees his following will dissipate with time. He won't be able to recapture that in 4 years. The best thing we can do for America right now it to make sure Donald Trump doesn't have a political future.

 

[efil4]

Did he really ? He encouraged people to protest outside the Capital, surely ?

He told them he would lead them.

then, summarily took a left into the WH. Let that mob walk on its own to the steps of the Capitol.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I don't think there's a reasonable argument that Trump didn't incite this and I won't engage in any discussion with someone who says he didn't. They aren't being genuine. Even his biggest supporters say he did. Cabinet members that have been loyal to a fault have resigned over it.

I can't take any argument that he wasn't partly responsible as intellectually honest. It isn't. It's trolling and, frankly, repugnant considering people are actually dead because of that piece of shirt.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

And yet at no point did he actually incite them to attack the capitol building ? I mean, people here talk about prosecuting Trump for Insurrection, but... the evidence isn't really there... is it ?

So, there are a couple things to think about with this.

Did Trump directly tell people to riot? No. Is that the end of the story? Also no.

Trump told people that the election was stolen. There were evil people in the Capitol, and elsewhere committing fraud that overturned his victory. That the certification should be stopped. That Mike Pence should unilaterally throw out the state certifications, and if he doesn't it will be very bad for him and the country. He told his supporters they must be prepared to fight. This was all while his lawyer was speaking about trial by combat, and so on. He's done this for months and months. Not just saying he has concerns with the process. But as a fact that the election was stolen. He was not speaking in metaphors, but plain as day.

He was warned to not use such rhetoric because it might lead to violence, but he continued to do so.

So, is it reasonable to assume that a man who was told that his rhetoric would lead to violence, but continued to use such rhetoric, be held responsible for such rhetoric? Absolutely.

Now, the answer is to what degree. What happened was entirely predictable. In fact, I would argue the actions of the rioters were a rational action if you believe the president's words. In fact, if you believe the President - that the election was stolen, and that our democracy is fake - that is exactly what he is saying, then if you don't riot and rise up in violence you are either a coward or complicit in a coup against this country.

The President is alleging that a coup has taken place against him. If you believe him, then the logical course of action is to do what those rioters did. So, should the President be held responsible for lying to people who believe him causing them to commit acts of violence against a lawful proceeding?

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Literally in the middle of the riot, Trump's first statement was to again lie that the election was stolen, tell the rioters that they were special and he loved them, and that his political opponents were evil. After the riot was subdued, he again lied about his (just comically sad) "sacred landslide" victory. He can fork himself. The traitors like McCarthy and Scalise crying about "unity" might want to convince their most masculine President ever leader to try to try to promote unity (something he is completely incapable of as we already know from years of listening to him) and convince their own membership to promote unity before demanding that others stop seeking accountability for "unity."