Split Thread: A second impeachment

[Meadmaker]

A thought occurred to me about something better than impeachment.

Democrats should introduce a constitutional amendment shortening the lame duck period. Move inauguration day to December 15, or thereabouts, and the newly elected Congress up until the day before. It would have no practical effect on Trump, because it couldn't be passed in time, but it would be a serious, public, rebuke, and it's a good idea anyway.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

It's a time to forgive and forget,

This needs both sides that are sane and want same thing. This is not case.

Cool to see so many idiots here thinking that not using deterrent/punishment for behavior that threatens democracy (well... what passes for democracy in murica) is great idea.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Why is it only the Dems who need to forgive and forget?
Where are the Republicans apologizing for claiming that Democrats just engaged in massive voter fraud?

Whether it is only democrats or not, apologizing for those claims is neither forgiving nor forgetting.

By not apologizing and ignoring them, they are indeed forgetting.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Don't jump down into the gutter to wrestle with that pig.

How on earth is trying to make sure Trump is rightfully impeached for his actions, jumping into the gutter?

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

This needs both sides that are sane and want same thing. This is not case.

Cool to see so many idiots here thinking that not using deterrent/punishment for behavior that threatens democracy (well... what passes for democracy in murica) is great idea.

Do you have evidence that it would function as a deterrent?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Because the ultimate insult is to decline to lower yourself to their level.



See above.

It comes down to whether the Democrats would like to get some Republican voters to switch sides.

Impeaching Trump will do the exact opposite and harden those voters' opposition to what they perceive as a bunch of over-entitled elites.

The high ground is wide open and empty - why the hell wouldn't you occupy it? Impeachment right now is pathetic and acting as dumb as Trump.

It's the American Way.

Why would ensuring Trump’s crimes are illuminated stop someone moving from Republican to Democrat? I would have thought it would (to the non-die-hard lot) indicate that the Democrats are a party of law and order and don’t pay lip service to that phrase but take action. Something which is meant to have appeal to the traditional Republicans.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

For the same reason it was up to Abraham Lincoln, instead of Jefferson Davis.



I wouldn't exactly say that it was time to forgive, and I sure as heck don't want to forget, but what I absolutely do not want is an opportunity for Trump to claim victory as his last act in office.

If the Democrats drop the impeachment crusade, Trump leaves office humiliated, blubbering, hiding away without even a Twitter account to turn to. If the Democrats pursue impeachment and lose, Trump leaves office a victim, who fought the deep state and an implacable foe right to the very end.

In an earlier post, I note that if you force people to go on record, they often go on record against you, because they are mad at being forced. The Democrats should understand that they aren't just forcing the Republican elected officials to go on record. They are forcing all citizens to "go on record" in every political discussion. The average person saw what happened on Wednesday and was disgusted, and the Democrats' hands were completely clean of it. Don't jump down into the gutter to wrestle with that pig.

If they drop it, that's a win for Trump and his faithful base- "you didn't even have enough of the courage of your conviction that he deserved impeachment to pursue it!" To them, he's a victim either way, just that not pursuing it makes him a victim of people who couldn't follow through. You have to take into account the mindless tenacity of that base- I remember thinking at the time that the "Access Hollywood" tape would surely be enough to finish him as a candidate, and we know how that turned out- if anything, it made him a stronger one with the proud deplorables. These people aren't going away because you let Trump off.

I have kind of gone back and forth on this in my mind, thinking that it might not be such a good idea from the "practical politics" standpoint, pretty much for the reasons you point out. But in the end- well, Kaylee used the word "duty" above; practical politics is fine up until the point that you need to make a decision on something that it doesn't cover, the actual principles that politics is supposed to cover somewhere, or it really is just all a game.

And then, of course, there's still even a practical reason for pursuing it- if you clear that 2/3 Senate majority bar for conviction (a big "if," I admit), then you have only a lesser simple majority bar to get over to prevent Trump from running again, and us having to do this all over again, in four years. Admitted that that won't stop a Trump wannabe from taking his place in the hearts and votes of the deplorables- but that's no reason to make it easier for them by never even requiring them to find one. It's too dangerous a game to play to assume that, with them behind him, Trump can't reach the prize again unless you act to put it out of his reach.

Short version- you can have principled politics in action through practical politics, and the only reason not to try for both is fearful politics.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by Darat

Why would ensuring Trump’s crimes are illuminated stop someone moving from Republican to Democrat? I would have thought it would (to the non-die-hard lot) indicate that the Democrats are a party of law and order and don’t pay lip service to that phrase but take action. Something which is meant to have appeal to the traditional Republicans.

Your assumption that "law and order" slogan can be taken at face value is risky.

In fact, ruling party in my country, incidentally wannabe authoritarian rightwing one (sounds familiar?), has same slogan. And guess what, they are anything but.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

How on earth is trying to make sure Trump is rightfully impeached for his actions, jumping into the gutter?

You are absolutely, 100%, correct, with one caveat. It isn't about being impeached. It's about being convicted.

Now, can you make sure that he is rightfully convicted?

[Dave Rogers]

Trump is a knife in the chest of democracy. Before the healing process that the Republicans have suddenly started hand-wringing about can even begin, the knife has to be removed without making the wound even worse.

Dave

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Darat

Plus I suspect that he will lose his protection detail quite quickly when he will not take any of their advice or instructions. When he was President he could do what he wanted and the SS simply had to deal with it. Once he stops being president he will have to abide by the SS advice and instructions if he wants their protection, which we know he simply won’t be able to do.

You've got it backwards. The secret service remains at the will of the protectee, not the other way around. At best, they offer suggestions, not instructions. They still have to provide protection no matter what he wants to do. Otherwise, they would just keep in in a basic house arrest scenario. If he wants to go out, he goes out and they have to deal with it.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Leftus

You've got it backwards. The secret service remains at the will of the protectee, not the other way around. At best, they offer suggestions, not instructions. They still have to provide protection no matter what he wants to do. Otherwise, they would just keep in in a basic house arrest scenario. If he wants to go out, he goes out and they have to deal with it.

When he was President they have to cope with whatever he decides to do, when he is not President if he won’t cooperate they can withdraw the protection on grounds of safety. (This came up a few weeks ago I went down the internet rabbit hole about this.)

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I ask you, if his recent actions weren’t sufficient to justify impeachment, what the hell would?

If there were more than days left, you'd have a point.

As this stage of the presidency, it looks spiteful.

Let's face it - the 70 million people who voted Trump aren't all insane lunatics, and I think an olive branch to them would play a lot better than punishing a bloke who's already been cut off from his communication systems, repudiated by his party and VP, and is now a very small step from being Alex Jones II.

Take a look at Trump's approval rating. It will be under 30% once all the polls catch up with the attack on the Capitol. Some of the 10-15% support he's losing are there to be taken, and I don't believe impeachment will attract any of them.

What point is another impeachment other than a smug "Gotcha!"?

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I’m just curious...

What motivated you to post that?

Nancy Pelosi is hated by Republicans more than any Democrat, and probably more than all the others added together.

Her net worth is $120M.

If you can't see how she is the perfect embodiment of privileged elite, I don't know who would be. We used to call people like her "champagne Socialists" (now prosecco, I believe) and they serve no purpose other than to be a target for Conservatives to point out the hypocrisy of the left.

I bet she spends a hell of a lot on shoes.

Originally Posted by Darat

Why would ensuring Trump’s crimes are illuminated stop someone moving from Republican to Democrat?

History & human nature.

A huge swath of Trump votes were anti-establishment, anti-elite votes. Lots of the 70M who voted for Trump are actually decent people and would love to see a way out of the hole they've dug for themselves.

Honey v vinegar.

Originally Posted by Darat

I would have thought it would (to the non-die-hard lot) indicate that the Democrats are a party of law and order and don’t pay lip service to that phrase but take action. Something which is meant to have appeal to the traditional Republicans.

The traditional republicans will never change and need not be targeted.

It's that 10-15% of all voters who voted Trump but aren't die-hard Republicans. The moderate christians, the educated people, hard-working Latino families - people who despise the left. If you manage to convince even 1% of the voters that the Democratic Party is worth voting for, you've probably guaranteed the next election.

It may not work, but what's been lost if it doesn't?

More importantly, what's been gained from impeachment?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Leftus

They still have to provide protection no matter what he wants to do. Otherwise, they would just keep in in a basic house arrest scenario. If he wants to go out, he goes out and they have to deal with it.

Every cop I've ever known has told me that their organization has "punishment" details, those jobs that suck so much, they assign them to members who've screwed up, but not quite badly enough to be fired.

I suspect Trump, if not in jail, will become such an assignment for the Secret Service.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If there were more than days left, you'd have a point.

As this stage of the presidency, it looks spiteful.

Let's face it - the 70 million people who voted Trump aren't all insane lunatics, and I think an olive branch to them would play a lot better than punishing a bloke who's already been cut off from his communication systems, repudiated by his party and VP, and is now a very small step from being Alex Jones II.

Take a look at Trump's approval rating. It will be under 30% once all the polls catch up with the attack on the Capitol. Some of the 10-15% support he's losing are there to be taken, and I don't believe impeachment will attract any of them.

What point is another impeachment other than a smug "Gotcha!"?



Nancy Pelosi is hated by Republicans more than any Democrat, and probably more than all the others added together.

Her net worth is $120M.

If you can't see how she is the perfect embodiment of privileged elite, I don't know who would be. We used to call people like her "champagne Socialists" (now prosecco, I believe) and they serve no purpose other than to be a target for Conservatives to point out the hypocrisy of the left.

I bet she spends a hell of a lot on shoes.



History & human nature.

A huge swath of Trump votes were anti-establishment, anti-elite votes. Lots of the 70M who voted for Trump are actually decent people and would love to see a way out of the hole they've dug for themselves.

Honey v vinegar.



The traditional republicans will never change and need not be targeted.

It's that 10-15% of all voters who voted Trump but aren't die-hard Republicans. The moderate christians, the educated people, hard-working Latino families - people who despise the left. If you manage to convince even 1% of the voters that the Democratic Party is worth voting for, you've probably guaranteed the next election.

It may not work, but what's been lost if it doesn't?

More importantly, what's been gained from impeachment?

Dude, we can't let a sitting President incite to riot. A strong message that we will not let a President incite unAmerican rioting at any time absolutely needs to be sent.

It didn't matter if there is only a week left to turn the dogs loose. The dogs can tear mother ******* up during that week.

Try to imagine if this mob actually had some balls. We could have our Representatives lying dead on the floor. This was not a protest. This was very serious crime.

Why do you think it's okay to commit a rape on the way out the door? It's still a ******* rape.

[JoeMorgue]

The problem with the previous impeachment was that it was too "political."

Much of America, and a very, very much of whatever remains of Trump's base, holds the idea that all politics is dirty and Trump is paradoxically cleaner because he is so open and honest about his dirt.

So the previous impeachment with its tales of back-channel political skullduggery and political hit jobs probably struck much of the public as nothing more than the Left whining about bog standardrr RealPolitik that happens every day in Washington and they were just whining because they lost. Remember how much "Trump's not uniquely bad" we heard from the Trumpers back in the heyday of that? Remember it being dismissed as "Mere process crime."

But standing there on National TV and ordering a violent mob to storm the Capitol, telling them that you have their back, and then THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENING? That's real. That's visceral. That's the kind of thing that if we said was going to happen a month ago we would have had "Dramatic hyperbole strawman!" yelled at us until the heat death of the universe.

That's most certainly not something "LOL that's just politics all sides are dirty he's just playing the game LOL"

[Dave Rogers]

Another thing: the people talking about allowing the healing process to start are assuming that the harming process has finished. We've had no concession from Trump, no backing down, nothing but a tweet saying that he's now committed to an orderly transition. What, in our experience of the man, leads anyone to believe a damned word of that? Every time he seems to have reached a low point, he somehow finds a way to get worse. What's he going to be doing during the inauguration, and what will he be encouraging his supporters to do? He is dangerous. He needs to be stopped. When a serial killer goes a couple of days without killing, law enforcement doesn't say "We must let the healing process take place now" in the expectation that he must be a reformed character. Trump has no conscience and no shame. Every time he gets away with something, he does something worse. For a brief moment he thought he'd finally get into trouble, but he's seeing now that maybe still nobody will stand up to him. If he isn't impeached, what will he try in the next few days?

Dave

[Aber]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If there were more than days left, you'd have a point.

As this stage of the presidency, it looks spiteful.

Let's face it - the 70 million people who voted Trump aren't all insane lunatics, and I think an olive branch to them would play a lot better than punishing a bloke who's already been cut off from his communication systems, repudiated by his party and VP, and is now a very small step from being Alex Jones II.

It's not spiteful.

Trump could resign; Pence could get the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment.

Either of those acts would be drawing a line, and making it clear that inciting an insurrection would be unacceptable.

If those don't happen; then impeachment has to happen.

Remember what Clinton was impeached for? Do you think this is less worthy?

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Another thing: the people talking about allowing the healing process to start are assuming that the harming process has finished. We've had no concession from Trump, no backing down, nothing but a tweet saying that he's now committed to an orderly transition. What, in our experience of the man, leads anyone to believe a damned word of that? Every time he seems to have reached a low point, he somehow finds a way to get worse. What's he going to be doing during the inauguration, and what will he be encouraging his supporters to do? He is dangerous. He needs to be stopped. When a serial killer goes a couple of days without killing, law enforcement doesn't say "We must let the healing process take place now" in the expectation that he must be a reformed character. Trump has no conscience and no shame. Every time he gets away with something, he does something worse. For a brief moment he thought he'd finally get into trouble, but he's seeing now that maybe still nobody will stand up to him. If he isn't impeached, what will he try in the next few days?

Dave

Exactly.

Impeach him - the senate won't even take it up until right around the inauguration. In the meantime, the crazies are planning crap for the week of the inauguration. Let the senate put him on trial after he's out of office. Whether they convict or not (2/3 of senate would have to vote to convict), it only takes a majority to prevent him from holding federal office.

[acbytesla]

Take this with a big grain of salt considering the source is George Conway.

He says that we now have the 67 votes necessary to convict Trump on the article of impeachment.

[BobTheCoward]

I guess we are going to skip the evidence gathering step?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I guess we are going to skip the evidence gathering step?

Good point. There are a few single-celled organisms at the bottom of the Mariana Trench that may not know all they need to about the facts of the case. Until they've completed their investigation it would be premature to act.

Dave

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Good point. There are a few single-celled organisms at the bottom of the Mariana Trench that may not know all they need to about the facts of the case. Until they've completed their investigation it would be premature to act.

Dave

How do you know what all the necessary facts would even be?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I guess we are going to skip the evidence gathering step?

What's there to gather? There are recordings of Trump's speeches. There are his tweets. If one is somewhat informed there is plenty of evidence available. I'm sure we can trust the House to present it in a coherent and convincing fashion.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

What's there to gather? There are recordings of Trump's speeches. There are his tweets. If one is somewhat informed there is plenty of evidence available. I'm sure we can trust the House to present it in a coherent and convincing fashion.

The implication is his words contributed to the attack. Where is the evidence that actually supports that conclusion? How does one demonstrate that?

I have no doubt that your gut and common knowledge tells you that is true. But how would we know are guts are correct?


I don't know what separates your conclusion at this stage from any other unsubstantiated conclusion of causation in the paranormal sub forum.

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I guess we are going to skip the evidence gathering step?

The republican senate proved that that is ok during the first impeachment.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The implication is his words contributed to the attack. Where is the evidence that actually supports that conclusion? How does one demonstrate that?

I have no doubt that your gut and common knowledge tells you that is true. But how would we know are guts are correct?


I don't know what separates your conclusion at this stage from any other unsubstantiated conclusion of causation in the paranormal sub forum.

I'm not going to address your post. I find it absurd. There is overwhelming evidence that Trump invited the protesters to come to Washington DC on January 6th and that he incited that mob.

If you don't know this by now, you are ignorant. Or you're just being the Mad Hatter trying to get others to follow you down another one of your ridiculous rabbit holes.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The implication is his words contributed to the attack. Where is the evidence that actually supports that conclusion? How does one demonstrate that?

I have no doubt that your gut and common knowledge tells you that is true. But how would we know are guts are correct?


I don't know what separates your conclusion at this stage from any other unsubstantiated conclusion of causation in the paranormal sub forum.

Good one.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

He needs to be stopped.

Would impeachment stop him?

Conviction would stop him, but would impeachment?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by turingtest

If they drop it, that's a win for Trump and his faithful base- "you didn't even have enough of the courage of your conviction that he deserved impeachment to pursue it!" To them, he's a victim either way, just that not pursuing it makes him a victim of people who couldn't follow through. You have to take into account the mindless tenacity of that base- I remember thinking at the time that the "Access Hollywood" tape would surely be enough to finish him as a candidate, and we know how that turned out- if anything, it made him a stronger one with the proud deplorables. These people aren't going away because you let Trump off.

I have kind of gone back and forth on this in my mind, thinking that it might not be such a good idea from the "practical politics" standpoint, pretty much for the reasons you point out. But in the end- well, Kaylee used the word "duty" above; practical politics is fine up until the point that you need to make a decision on something that it doesn't cover, the actual principles that politics is supposed to cover somewhere, or it really is just all a game.

And then, of course, there's still even a practical reason for pursuing it- if you clear that 2/3 Senate majority bar for conviction (a big "if," I admit), then you have only a lesser simple majority bar to get over to prevent Trump from running again, and us having to do this all over again, in four years. Admitted that that won't stop a Trump wannabe from taking his place in the hearts and votes of the deplorables- but that's no reason to make it easier for them by never even requiring them to find one. It's too dangerous a game to play to assume that, with them behind him, Trump can't reach the prize again unless you act to put it out of his reach.

Short version- you can have principled politics in action through practical politics, and the only reason not to try for both is fearful politics.

And this is why you are one of the most intelligent posters on ISF.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

A thought occurred to me about something better than impeachment.

Democrats should introduce a constitutional amendment shortening the lame duck period. Move inauguration day to December 15, or thereabouts, and the newly elected Congress up until the day before. It would have no practical effect on Trump, because it couldn't be passed in time, but it would be a serious, public, rebuke, and it's a good idea anyway.

I respectfully disagree. A president committing seditious acts and who has other goverment leaders concerned that he might start a war at anytime just because he is peeved that he lost the election needs to be removed from office, ASAP. He should also be charged with criminal acts to make it less likely that another president will try to do the same in the future and perhaps have better luck because right now the only thing Americans have going for us is that Trump is incompetent.

I have no firsthand experience of course, but I have to assume that the learning curve and settling in process for an incoming president, even one with years of experience in Congress and as a vice president is steep. ~8 weeks seems like a decent amount of time to give the new administration time to settle in and get briefed by the various federal govt agencies. Trump has done more than enough damage - to decide to make the transition process more difficult for future administrations because of him .... I'm not in favor of that.

[dirtywick]

you know a lot of people are going to be pissed if they do nothing also. may as well side with who’s right.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Exactly.

Impeach him - the senate won't even take it up until right around the inauguration. In the meantime, the crazies are planning crap for the week of the inauguration. Let the senate put him on trial after he's out of office. Whether they convict or not (2/3 of senate would have to vote to convict), it only takes a majority to prevent him from holding federal office.

I don't think the highlighted is correct. According to Wikipedia:

Quote:

Conviction immediately removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him or her from holding future federal office, elected or appointed.

Their source for that is this Sept 2109 Politico article by Edward Foley, who "directs the Election Law program at the Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, where he also holds the Ebersold Chair in constitutional law." He says:

Quote:

Both the Constitution and the Senate’s procedures treat removal and disqualification from holding future office as separate punishments upon a conviction of impeachment. Article I, section 3, clause 7 of the Constitution states: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

So it seems that disqualification must follow conviction, it can't be independent of it. (And I'll just re-iterate my point that that disqualification would be, to me, the best reason for pursuing it)

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

And this is why you are one of the most intelligent posters on ISF.

Aw, shuuuuuucks! (Thank you, ma'am)

[Bob001]

Interesting thought: Some observers say the House could impeach Trump, but not refer it to the Senate immediately. That would allow the Democratic-controlled Senate to deal with Biden's highest priority legislation and appointments, and would also allow time for Repubs to get some distance from Dear Leader. Then down the road the Senate could convict him to cancel his pension and allowances and to prohibit him from running again.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The implication is his words contributed to the attack. Where is the evidence that actually supports that conclusion? How does one demonstrate that?
...

He and others told his mob on the Ellipse, essentially, "Go to the Capitol and fight!" Gee, what do you think he meant?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The implication is his words contributed to the attack. Where is the evidence that actually supports that conclusion? How does one demonstrate that?

Even if someone is foolish enough to think that his actions didn't contribute to the terrorist action (or that they would have happened otherwise)...

The fact that he acted at all (and that he supported others who were calling for violence) should be enough for impeachment, because it indicates he had the intent to overturn a legal election.

Its the same with the phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State... the SoS rejected Trump's request to overturn the election results, but the fact that Trump wanted him to (even threatening him) would be enough to warrant impeachment.

[Minoosh]

There's also his surrogate, Rudy, talking about a "trial by combat."

What did Trump say? Do it strong? Do it strongly? We won't win by weakness? I'll be marching with you?

Don't know if that's enough, but hell, Charles Manson didn't kill anyone at Sharon Tate's house, but he was still convicted.

[dudalb]

Trump just announced if he is impeached a second time, Rudy Giuliane will be his attonrey.
Now I really hope it happens just for the entertainment value.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Interesting thought: Some observers say the House could impeach Trump, but not refer it to the Senate immediately. That would allow the Democratic-controlled Senate to deal with Biden's highest priority legislation and appointments, and would also allow time for Repubs to get some distance from Dear Leader. Then down the road the Senate could convict him to cancel his pension and allowances and to prohibit him from running again.

No. Absolutely not.

That was the problem last time, the Democrats tried to sell the Impeachment both as some sort of moral imperative, "We are bound by our office to do this, he's left us no choice" action AND some sly political Moneyball poker hand at the same time.

Hammer it through. Do not play games with it. Treat it like the response to the crisis that it is.