Impeachment Round Two (1 Viewer)

[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 Daniel Goldman on tv today say that the only way to bar Trump from holding future federal office would be after a Senate conviction. Precisely, he said the conviction is needed before you can have the other vote.

 

[Yggdrasill]

The deal wouldn't have been made with Trump. The right scenario would have been a behind closed doors meeting among leadership in both houses. The Democrats pitch that they will proceed with impeachment, but offer an out for Republicans. A voice vote censure without having to call the roll would have allowed Republican Senators some measure of deniability if they chose to take advantage of it. Even Senators with presidential aspirations could see some benefit in removing Trump as a contender in 2024. It could have been a win-win for everyone in that Democrats would get Trump's guilt on the record and he would largely be removed from a substantive role in national politics while Republicans would rid themselves of the burden of having to defend the indefensible and can plan for what the party would look like going forward. Republicans could focus on actual policy matters rather than the Trump whim of the day. IMO it would have benefitted the country greatly to put the Trump fiasco in the rear view mirror.

Except that censure wouldn't remove Trump as a 2024 contender, as I understand it. Impeachment, even if it fails, is important for two reasons: first, to send the pretty damn important signal that you can't foment insurrection without the most severe consequences (which censure is not - just a slap on the wrist), and second, to bring air the evidence against him. You know the Republicans don't want that, as is evidenced by Lindsey Graham's recent comments. It will be extremely interesting to see whom the Senate calls to testify. There are a lot of people in the inner circle who could damage Trump.

 

[Taurus]

The deal wouldn't have been made with Trump. The right scenario would have been a behind closed doors meeting among leadership in both houses. The Democrats pitch that they will proceed with impeachment, but offer an out for Republicans. A voice vote censure without having to call the roll would have allowed Republican Senators some measure of deniability if they chose to take advantage of it. Even Senators with presidential aspirations could see some benefit in removing Trump as a contender in 2024. It could have been a win-win for everyone in that Democrats would get Trump's guilt on the record and he would largely be removed from a substantive role in national politics while Republicans would rid themselves of the burden of having to defend the indefensible and can plan for what the party would look like going forward. Republicans could focus on actual policy matters rather than the Trump whim of the day. IMO it would have benefitted the country greatly to put the Trump fiasco in the rear view mirror.

This assumes that Republicans are remotely interested in the good of the nation when they're clearly not.

 

[Richard]

Except that censure wouldn't remove Trump as a 2024 contender, as I understand it. Impeachment, even if it fails, is important for two reasons: first, to send the pretty damn important signal that you can't foment insurrection without the most severe consequences (which censure is not - just a slap on the wrist), and second, to bring air the evidence against him. You know the Republicans don't want that, as is evidenced by Lindsey Graham's recent comments. It will be extremely interesting to see whom the Senate calls to testify. There are a lot of people in the inner circle who could damage Trump.

Senate acquittal says you can foment violence and insurrection with no actual consequences. Yeah, Trump will be embarrassed for about five minutes, he'll fume and rant at those Republicans who break ranks, then he'll shrug it off and go about his business. Trump can then claim that he had been found to have done nothing wrong and he won't even get a "slap on the wrist."

It's my opinion that Democrats failed in the first impeachment by not following the road map the Mueller report gave them to prove obstruction of justice and they failed this time by offering a single article of impeachment rather than the several I believe he was guilty of. Since censure is now off the table and impeachment is not at all likely to produce a conviction, I am left hoping that the several state level investigations will produce results that will result in Trump's removal from the national stage.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Senate acquittal says you can foment violence and insurrection with no actual consequences. Yeah, Trump will be embarrassed for about five minutes, he'll fume and rant at those Republicans who break ranks, then he'll shrug it off and go about his business. Trump can then claim that he had been found to have done nothing wrong and he won't even get a "slap on the wrist."

In this respect, the Dems are damed if they and damned if they don't. Censure conviction and failed impeachment are both non-consequences in terms of punishment. But impeachment at least sends the signal that the majority of the Congress felt that this was a terrible offense and sought to punish it. And when at least some prominent Republicans vote against the President it is embarrassing. Trump will always claim to have done nothing wrong; it makes no sense to premise a proceeding on how he'll react to it in the press. Again, it's the evidence and testimony that I am looking forward to, and which could potentially hurt him the most.

It's my opinion that Democrats failed in the first impeachment by not following the road map the Mueller report gave them to prove obstruction of justice and they failed this time by offering a single article of impeachment rather than the several I believe he was guilty of. Since censure is now off the table and impeachment is not at all likely to produce a conviction, I am left hoping that the several state level investigations will produce results that will result in Trump's removal from the national stage.

Mostly agree here. The Dems should absolutely have focused more on obstruction charges in Mueller's report, as well as the bribery and wire fraud in the articles of impeachment; these are much easier for voters to grasp than the more nebulous "abuse of power" charge. This time around, a single charge for something so dramatic and visible as the Capitol Riot is not necessarily a bad strategy. Why muddy the waters? If you can't get him on this one, then what chance do you have with the others?

Completely with you on pinning my hopes at the state level.

 

[nolaspe]

Nearly 400 Capitol Hill staffers wrote a letter to US senators begging them to convict Trump in his impeachment trial

The letter described how staffers trapped in the Capitol "fled for our lives" from Trump supporters and urged senators to hold him responsible.

www.businessinsider.com

More than 370 Capitol Hill staffers signed a letter Wednesday asking US senators to convict former President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial.

"On January 6, 2021, our workplace was attacked by a violent mob trying to stop the electoral college vote count," the letter, which was signed by predominantly Democratic staffers, said. "That mob was incited by former president Donald J. Trump and his political allies, some of whom we pass every day in the hallways at work."

 

[Richard]

In this respect, the Dems are damed if they and damned if they don't. Censure conviction and failed impeachment are both non-consequences in terms of punishment. But impeachment at least sends the signal that the majority of the Congress felt that this was a terrible offense and sought to punish it. And when at least some prominent Republicans vote against the President it is embarrassing. Trump will always claim to have done nothing wrong; it makes no sense to premise a proceeding on how he'll react to it in the press. Again, it's the evidence and testimony that I am looking forward to, and which could potentially hurt him the most.



Mostly agree here. The Dems should absolutely have focused more on obstruction charges in Mueller's report, as well as the bribery and wire fraud in the articles of impeachment; these are much easier for voters to grasp than the more nebulous "abuse of power" charge. This time around, a single charge for something so dramatic and visible as the Capitol Riot is not necessarily a bad strategy. Why muddy the waters? If you can't get him on this one, then what chance do you have with the others?

Completely with you on pinning my hopes at the state level.

I think we mostly agree. I would have liked to have seen multiple articles in the second impeachment, including his efforts to strong arm election officials. If he had been hit with several articles, I would hope that the overwhelming volume of evidence against him would have motivated more Senators to do the right thing. With one article, they only have to find a single justification for not going along, such as constitutionality.

 

[nolaspe]

I would def get the biggest bag of popcorn I could find to see gop flounder defend donny boy...

 

[JRad]

I would def get the biggest bag of popcorn I could find to see gop flounder defend donny boy...

Is there a hashtag yet? #OnlyGaetzCanSaveTrump or something

 

[nolaspe]

Is there a hashtag yet? #OnlyGaetzCanSaveTrump or something

Flounder is def trending now, not just for what I posted though lol...

 

[Richard]

If I was interested in running for Congress and lived in Gaetz' district, I would make this video the centerpiece of my campaign. End each ad with the tagline "Gaetz' top priority in his life is defending Trump; my top priority is you." I would run the ad daily so people would hear it out of his mouth every day.

 

[Yggdrasill]

I can't think of anyone I'd rather see defend Trump...

 

[Yggdrasill]

Flounder is def trending now, not just for what I posted though lol...

He looks like the Mormon missionaries I knew in Japan, only less Aryan looking, less well-dressed and less fresh faced. Also, not nearly as polite. Plus, I bet he drinks.

 

[nolaspe]

He looks like the Mormon missionaries I knew in Japan, only less Aryan looking, less well-dressed and less fresh faced. Also, not nearly as polite. Plus, I bet he drinks.

Oh, he drinks alright...

Matt Gaetz DUI Arrest: What Led to His Mugshot

Republican Florida congressman Matt Gaetz was arrested in 2008 on suspicion of DUI; Rep. Hank Johnson alluded to the arrest during an impeachment hearing.

heavy.com

 

[Richard]

I can't think of anyone I'd rather see defend Trump...

Well, maybe him, Rudy, Lin Wood and the Kraken Witch.

 

[Saintman2884]

The Democrats overplayed their hand. With the national outrage over the Capitol riots, they had public sentiment going for them. So the threat of impeachment was necessary and certainly warranted. However, the offer should have been made before Trump even left office to have him censured and prohibited from holding public office again. Their goals would have been achieved, the nation would have been spared the possibility of another Trump run and Biden would have started his term without the circus of the impeachment trial. Now, Republicans in fear of Trump and facing the loss of their jobs will vote to acquit Trump. The threat of another Trump run will hang over the country like a dark cloud and he will have a legitimate fundraising source to help him stave off bankruptcy. Amazing that none of the top Democrats could see it.

What about the likely NY state investigators and the state's AG, reviewing, and scrutinizing Trump's possible financial improprieties, fraud, embezzlement, ties to influential Kremlin Russian oil and natural gas oligarchs and probably other as-of-yet undiscovered crimes he may have committed?
That's the best post-presidential legal shot prosecutors have towards convicting Trump as far as I know.

 

[Saintman2884]

Why not both?

The Repubs are going to acquit, that's a foregone conclusion. However, this time around, the Dems can compel witnesses.
I really, really want Trump on the stand, under oath.

Perjury is a felony.

But realistically, do you or could you see him taking the stand in his impeachment trial if one of his lawyers tell him he likely perjures himself if he lies on the witness stand after so much factual evidence is produced, contradicting his statements.
We both know he's a malignant narcissist, a amoral sociopath with no moral/ethical compass thats discernable but he might listen to his lawyers if they suggest it could hurt him politically in any future presidential run?

 

[Taurus]

But realistically, do you or could you see him taking the stand in his impeachment trial if one of his lawyers tell him he likely perjures himself if he lies on the witness stand after so much factual evidence is produced, contradicting his statements.
We both know he's a malignant narcissist, a amoral sociopath with no moral/ethical compass thats discernable but he might listen to his lawyers if they suggest it could hurt him politically in any future presidential run?

Yes, I can see a case where he's goaded into taking the stand. That's why I'm hoping they subpoena him.