Split Thread: A second impeachment

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

I don’t think executive privilege covers private citizens

I think conversations he had while President would still be shielded by Executive Privilege.

Conversations once out of office? I think not.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I think conversations he had while President would still be shielded by Executive Privilege.

Conversations once out of office? I think not.

Maybe. I think what would be covered or not would be up to the executive

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

But don't undercharge. I'm seeing negligent homicide as the most obvious criminal charge. And if you look at it this way, it gets harder to argue against impeachment. If he can't be held criminally liable for shooting someone on Pennsylvania Avenue then what is the remedy? He might as well have personally killed those people. If he gets off scot-free because "healing" or whatever, who is to be held responsible for the deaths of 3 of his supporters and a police officer? Who BTW was reportedly also a supporter.

Correction. 1 police officer and 4 members of the violent mob.

Incidentally, I wonder if a number of Republican Senators could be convinced to convict as part of cutting a deal with them to protect them from prosecution for their actions in stirring up and supporting sedition, at least provided that they stop with that nonsense.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Correction. 1 police officer and 4 members of the violent mob.

Incidentally, I wonder if a number of Republican Senators could be convinced to convict as part of cutting a deal with them to protect them from prosecution for their actions in stirring up and supporting sedition, at least provided that they stop with that nonsense.

I’m sure. Also think they maybe don’t want to have Trump or any of his admin talking about that GA call or Pak’s resignation.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

It is a political process and not a criminal process. You're right

But you cannot force him to testify in a proceeding that might expose him to criminal prosecution.

You might be able to force him to testify if you guaranteed him immunity. I don't think anyone wants to do that. In which case Trump would want to admit to all of his illegalities. That way he would he could expand that shield of immunity.

Technically, courts can't force someone to testify either....just detain them indefinitely until they do. I can't imagine much stomach for having the master at arm's lock someone up.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

There's no way it's enough to get a conviction in a criminal trial, but an impeachment trial uses different standards than a criminal trial. The only standard in an impeachment trial is, "I think anyone who does that should be thrown out of office, now."

you are forgetting that the trial would be with a DC Jury.
I think a conviction is entirely possible, and there in nothing in the President's Duties that would shield him from this prosecution once he is out.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Yeah, giving him more publicity and allowing him to play the martyr is a much better idea.



They already have. McConnell & Pence are now seen as his enemies as much, or maybe even more, than Democrats.

Why? Not really seeing it.

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

I'm updating my prediction. Trump will stay til the 20th. They will have to taser him to get him out of there. Trump needs his followers to feel sorry for him so making a Yuge scene as he is torn away from the resolute desk is in the offing.

He's not going to the inaugural but he can still make an (to the rest of the world) unseemly display of being Tasered/taken away in handcuffs and all his sycophantic followers will be outraged. They will vow to "never forget." He wins again. Sort of.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by uke2se

A successful impeachment requires 2/3ds of the Senate though. However, I think it might be possible to get enough Republicans on board.

They have two options for any shot on power in the future: Remove Trump or join him. The latter requires them to betray their country and to openly work to end democracy. I don't think enough of them are ready to do that just yet.

Ah, that's true.

Well, then. As I was saying before, at the very least, this should give everyone a very clear idea of where everyone in Congress stands.

Everyone playing the "maybe we should just let him slink off" card, and the whole "turn the other cheek" routine are basically saying they are cool with being slapped in the face by a fascist mob and don't want to press charges thank you (because we fear retaliation).

If you are advocating doing nothing out of fear then you are essentially calling for appeasement of the fascist mob.

Don't try to appease the scum!

[The Great Zaganza]

it will be a permanent stain on the GOP if they fail to convict.

[Meadmaker]

Before I say anything new, I'm going to repeat again that if the Democrats are confident they can get a conviction, they should. Even though it's only a few days, getting Trump out is good. I think he's crazy, and that makes him dangerous. Get him out.

However, what to do if they cannot get him out?

Suppose that Monday morning, Nancy Pelosi were to hold a press conference and announce that after consultation with Republican and Democratic lawmakers, it is clear that the Republicans will not convict President Trump, and so we have decided not to press for impeachment at this time. Make sure to throw in reminders that these are the same people who tried to overturn election results. (It's not strictly true, but it's close enough for a two minute speech.)

it seems to me that's even better than actually impeaching the President, but failing to get a conviction. In terms of labelling them, it's perfect. It doesn't make them take a stand in favor of Trump, but it has exactly the same effect. It stains everyone, even the Republicans who might have voted to convict. What are they going to do? Stand up and insist that they would have convicted him? Demand that they cease this cowardly stand and pass articles of impeachment right now?

[dirtywick]

if the Dems can’t convince America that Trump was wrong then it is what it is. I’d hope they’d have more courage than ******* Twitter and do something

[Skeptic Ginger]

My apologies but all these threads are too long to keep up, so if this has been discussed just direct me to the post(s).

It has been mentioned on another forum that if Trump is impeached and 'convicted' or whatever the Senate does after McConnell is no longer about to control the outcome, while it will happen after Trump is out of office, will it still mean he gets denied that ridiculous golden parachute ex-POTUSes get?

I had no idea how much they got: it's millions. Millions in annual travel for both Trump and Melania, millions for other stuff, free secret service for life and so on.

Convict this guy of sedition and there's no way he should get all that retirement benefits.

I say, impeach him even if the Senate vote isn't until after the 20th. Let him try to pardon himself then charge him in a federal court and put him in jail until the trial because he's an obvious flight risk. He can appeal that self-pardon. I think he'll lose in court because if a POTUS can pardon themselves that means they can murder people and try to overthrow a legit election with impunity.


So, what have people found out about the consequences of convicting him in an impeachment hearing after his term is up? I think a lot of those GOP legislators recognize how dangerous it was to keep up this election fraud charade. Maybe not all of them, but some of them have to finally be opening their eyes.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

it will be a permanent stain on the GOP if they fail to convict.

The GOP is so stained now that they could soak themselves in bleach for a year and still be colored a ****** brown.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The GOP is so stained now that they could soak themselves in bleach for a year and still be colored a ****** brown.

true, but whenever there is a moment when they actual have to put their name next to an action/inaction, it cannot be credibly denied later.
We already see Cruz pretending that he was a never-Trump all along. Let him cast that vote or ask him in every interview from this moment forward why he didn't.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The GOP is so stained now that they could soak themselves in bleach for a year and still be colored a ****** brown.

No, no stain at all!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

My apologies but all these threads are too long to keep up, so if this has been discussed just direct me to the post(s).

It has been mentioned on another forum that if Trump is impeached and 'convicted' or whatever the Senate does after McConnell is no longer about to control the outcome, while it will happen after Trump is out of office, will it still mean he gets denied that ridiculous golden parachute ex-POTUSes get?

I had no idea how much they got: it's millions. Millions in annual travel for both Trump and Melania, millions for other stuff, free secret service for life and so on.

Convict this guy of sedition and there's no way he should get all that retirement benefits.

I say, impeach him even if the Senate vote isn't until after the 20th. Let him try to pardon himself then charge him in a federal court and put him in jail until the trial because he's an obvious flight risk. He can appeal that self-pardon. I think he'll lose in court because if a POTUS can pardon themselves that means they can murder people and try to overthrow a legit election with impunity.


So, what have people found out about the consequences of convicting him in an impeachment hearing after his term is up? I think a lot of those GOP legislators recognize how dangerous it was to keep up this election fraud charade. Maybe not all of them, but some of them have to finally be opening their eyes.

I believe it does.

Yes, he should be impeached.

Absolutely.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

true, but whenever there is a moment when they actual have to put their name next to an action/inaction, it cannot be credibly denied later.
We already see Cruz pretending that he was a never-Trump all along. Let him cast that vote or ask him in every interview from this moment forward why he didn't.

Because that really mattered with Lindsey "Use my words against me!" Graham.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Because that really mattered with Lindsey "Use my words against me!" Graham.

it might if there ever was a Republican challenger working on a "never Trump again" platform.

[turingtest]

It might be worth pointing out that nobody I have seen- here, in the media, or among GOP politicians- have suggested that the same "heal the divide" rationale for not impeaching Trump for inciting a mob to riot should also extend to not prosecuting the members of that mob for doing so. The guy who put his feet up on the desk in Pelosi's office, the idiot who carried off the lectern, the W. Va legislator, etc.- all these people face real consequences in the form of jail time, fines, loss of jobs, and so on. If you won't, in search of some mythical healing,* impeach the man who used the tool for how he used it, then surely you cannot, for the sake of the same "healing, consistently prosecute the tool for being used. And then where are you? If nobody suffers any consequences for what happened, it might as well not have. I know the right would like to pretend it didn't, that the whole thing was just some meaningless, high-spirited hijinks that never really endangered anyone, much less democracy, but that's ********- it did happen, people did die, and the example it sets for democracy is about as dangerous a one as I can imagine.

*And I do think the "healing" the GOP pretend they want is largely a myth. The party that wielded its own tool, a guy who stoked division as a matter of policy, is not after actually healing any divide in the country, they just want the slogan as cover for time to heal their party of its self-inflicted wound of trying to use a weapon they couldn't properly control. Birthers, "you lie!" "death panels!" blocking a SC nomination on a pious ground that they themselves showed to be the most blatant hypocrisy four years later, "Benghazi!" "her e-mails!" "lock her up!" "send them back!"- none of these things really needed Donald Trump. And Democrats do not, after all that, owe the GOP any "come home, all is forgiven" respect. If the Republicans want to heal the wound, the first thing they need to do is acknowledge their part in inflicting it.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

No, no stain at all!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Couldn’t watch it all.

I am amazed more people weren’t killed, the police showed admirable restraint.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by turingtest

If the Republicans want to heal the wound, the first thing they need to do is acknowledge their part in inflicting it.

Not to mention stop inflicting it by removing Trump's power and making sure he can never get it back.

A wound can't heal if the knife is still in it.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Not to mention stop inflicting it by removing Trump's power and making sure he can never get it back.

A wound can't heal if the knife is still in it.

And the assumption always seems to be that the Democrats are the ones that have to take active steps to “heal the division”. If the republicans want to “heal the divisions” then they should start taking active steps to do so.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Not to mention stop inflicting it by removing Trump's power and making sure he can never get it back.

A wound can't heal if the knife is still in it.

Absolutely. If I were a reporter covering a pol who was using the "let's heal the nation" meme as cover for not wanting to go to the trouble of impeaching Trump, I would ask them two questions-

1) "Do you think the individuals who took part in the riot and can be identified should suffer legal consequences for what they did?"

(Hard for me to imagine any representative of the "law and order" party could say anything other than "yes")

2) "Then don't you think the man who incited the riot should at least suffer the consequence of having his power removed and being barred from ever holding the power again? Wouldn't it go a good ways toward healing to show that nobody is above the law?"

(Ok, that's three questions, so sue me)

[johnny karate]

Make no mistake, “heal the nation” means “appease Republicans” and nothing else.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Make no mistake, “heal the nation” means “appease Republicans” and nothing else.

Absolutely.

Trump must be impeached.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Absolutely.

Trump must be impeached.

One consequence could be a Biden policy failing from lack of votes in the senate because they had to take a hard vote on impeachment. But that seems too unpredictable to factor.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

One consequence could be a Biden policy failing from lack of votes in the senate because they had to take a hard vote on impeachment. But that seems too unpredictable to factor.

Things can always go wrong. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do the right thing.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Why are Democrats so ******* stupid?

You won, Trump disintegrated, so has his party.

Whatever the party thinks it might gain from impeachment, I can tell you what it will reap: the opposite of what's intended.

The Republican party is in tatters, and the one thing that will enable them to re-build is an attack from their common enemy, the Democratic Party.

It's a time to forgive and forget, try to build alliances, try to heal the divisions, not dig them deeper. Moderate Republicans are pissed off at Trump, but they'll be a lot more pissed off at stupid old **** Nancy Pelosi showboating and making idiotic assertions that Trump might start nuclear war,

She's an idiot, and so are all the members of her party supporting her. Even if it worked, it would turn Trump into a martyr, which is just what you don't need to do.

Utter insanity that will backfire.

Well, so what do you suggest they do? Trump threatened Raffensberger and later turned a mob loose on the Capitol. Should they just shrug and let him have his pension? Are you mad? Nobody in the rest of the world would respect the US after that. Would you?

Hans

ETA: I realize it's a late answer, but I had to say it.

[Captain_Swoop]

If Trump isn't sanctioned somehow for this then it will become a legitimate tactic for anyone losing an election to call outa mob and try to overturn the results.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

If Trump isn't sanctioned somehow for this then it will become a legitimate tactic for anyone losing an election to call outa mob and try to overturn the results.

Yep.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Ah, that's true.

Well, then. As I was saying before, at the very least, this should give everyone a very clear idea of where everyone in Congress stands.

Everyone playing the "maybe we should just let him slink off" card, and the whole "turn the other cheek" routine are basically saying they are cool with being slapped in the face by a fascist mob and don't want to press charges thank you (because we fear retaliation).

If you are advocating doing nothing out of fear then you are essentially calling for appeasement of the fascist mob.

Don't try to appease the scum!

This is a kind of war, against democracy, and everyone knows where appeasement winds up. What side do you think those who push for appeasement are on in that war?

[The Great Zaganza]

Maybe it's time to start a thread about Demagogue 2.0:
all the advantages of Trump without the incompetence and own-goals.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Darat

And the assumption always seems to be that the Democrats are the ones that have to take active steps to “heal the division”. If the republicans want to “heal the divisions” then they should start taking active steps to do so.

This "heal the division" is absolute bullcrap, and we just crossed the line where we're gonna pretend differently. **** that. The ones who want to heal the division are the ones who fomented it. Give. Me. A. Break.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

You must compare the results of doing it with the results of not doing it. If it is not attempted, Trunp will go unpunished. If Trump goes unpunished, someone competent will attempt the same thing, and may succeed. If it is attempted, the above is the worst likely outcome for the survival of democracy; all other outcomes are more likely to result in a lesser threat to it. If the aim is to preserve democracy, it should be attempted.

ObBob: I offer no opinion here as to whether preserving democracy is a good thing.

Dave

I an getting the impression that the Dems may delay the impeachment for multiple reasons.

1. Is to hit the ground running passing as much legislation as possible and deal with COVID. Really make government an agent for change and betterment of the nation. Pass a trillion dollar infrastructure package.

2. To gather as much evidence as possible about Trump and his destructive actions and to identify and provide evidence of his co-conspirators

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Spiteful??!?!? What the **** are you smoking??!!?

He incited a mob to storm the Capitol and overturn a democratic election. It is not spiteful to punish that.

What do you want the Democrats to do? Sing Kum-ba-ya!?

So much this. He incited a coup attempt against his own state. His own vice president was threatened in the coup attempt, for crying out loud.

If he is not punished for this, it sets a terrible precedent. If some other demagogue, from the left or right-wing, loses in 2024, can he organise a mob and storm the capitol and force them to declare him president? After all, the precedent from 2021 would make this very legal and very cool.

People talk a lot about healing and reconciliation. It's precisely for the sake of healing and unity that the United States needs to prosecute Trump.

Heck, a large part of the reason why there have been protests all over the freaking country is that many citizens are sick of the inequality in how the police and justice system polices crime. I get that the Trumpkins would get pissed if their Führer and his cronies were put through a Nuremberg trial, but letting someone from the white elite get away with a freaking coup attempt would probably not be good for national stability either.

[dejudge]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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

Your claim has actually been proven to be false. Trump was already impeached by the Democrats even by partisan vote yet they have not only won the Presidency but also gained control of the Senate.

A second impeachment of Trump will completely destroy him.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Maybe it's time to start a thread about Demagogue 2.0:
all the advantages of Trump without the incompetence and own-goals.

Maybe even consider the possbility that he or she might come from the left as well as the right.

[dudalb]

I think Trump is pretty much damaged goods.
Oh , he will still have a rabid cult following but the Mickey Mouse Republicans who voted for him will float away.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Maybe even consider the possbility that he or she might come from the left as well as the right.

Quite possible.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by dejudge

Your claim has actually been proven to be false. Trump was already impeached by the Democrats and they have not only won the Presidency but also gained control of the Senate.

A second impeachment of Trump will completely destroy him.

It's impossible to replay time with just one variable changed, so we will never know the other "what if" scenarios. However, to say that impeaching Trump was what caused the election victory is to commit the "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" fallacy.

In my opinion, had the pandemic not come along, Trump would have sailed to an easy win.

That's not an assertion that can be proven, for exactly the reason that I gave in my first paragraph, but we can at least investigate the issue somewhat scientifically. When pollsters talked to voters what was important to them, not many said anything that could remotely have been interpreted as "being impeached" or "adjusting foreign policy to dig dirt on political opponents."

I've been reading some more of the in depth articles about events of last week, and they really have influenced me. What he did really deserves removal from office, even if it is only one day. i.e. even if they couldn't manage to remove him before January 19th, he really ought to be removed from office. What he did was very, very, bad. Really bad. Not Hitler level bad, but more on the scale of Mussolini level bad. Maybe it would be a good thing to impeach again even if there aren't the votes for removal. And maybe I don't care if the Democrats are hurt politically in the event that they fail.

What needs to happen is for people to vote based on reality, not on who is on their team. I'm not sure you can get there from here, but you can't do it by deciding not to do the right thing because it's politically expedient not to. If the Democrats lose ground as a result of doing the right thing, it's a sign that people don't trust them, either, and think that they are grandstanding. Maybe they are right.

I feel that there is a real dearth of principled leadership in America right now. A stand on principle might be what the country needs, and if people judge that stand to be insincere, so be it.