Split Thread: A second impeachment

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

This absolutely NOT NOT NOT TRUE.
I can point you to Billionaires giving away all their money.

If you think bunch of giveaways/charities/whatever at end of their pathetic lives will make up for decades of abuse, they you are very, very mistaken.

Unfortunately, as shown above, this kind of tactic is very effective. Gullible crowd swallows it line, hook and sinker. Quite cheap way to fix their reputation.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

That has to be one of the most ignorant things I've heard today.

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

Originally Posted by acbytesla

There is also a political reason. To force Republicans to turn their back on Trumpism. It's likely to cause a fissure in the GOP, but it is necessary.

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

[Garrison]

Why does 'healing the country' seem to mean the Democratic Party reaching out and making concessions to the Replublicans? Isn't that more likely to simply convince the Republicans that they were right in the first place. For there to be healing the Republicans need to face up to the fact that they are the ones who've promoted divisive and incendiary policies, all while being the sycophants of the narcissistic buffoon in the White House? You don't get to complain about how broken the country is when you are the ones who broke.

The Republicans want to show they are serious about 'healing'? Vote to impeach Trump.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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

he’s been doing that for four years.

it’s possible throwing up their hands and saying “he’s been punished enough” fractures the Dem coalition that got Biden elected. To try and appease people who will never be appeased to hope trump will stop playing the victim. His whole brand is playing the victim.

the message needs to be that no one is above the law.

[LongFuzzy]

I'm sure McConnell is analyzing the possibilities. I think McConnell, Cruz, Graham and others hate Trump, but had to hitch their wagons to the Trump train to keep their jobs. (Like Harris hates Biden, but will pretend to like him, so that she can be V.P.) Now they have the opportunity to unhitch. They have to be thinking 'how will that affect my career and my party'. (I don't think they really care very much about the crime and punishment part of it) Having Trump barred from running for office again would be a big incentive for the Republicans, but are they willing to impeach to get there? They need 2/3 to impeach, so 16 or 17 Republicans would have to go along with it. Can McConnell find the necessary sacrificial pawns to accomplish that? After that, since the Senate will be Democrat majority after the new senators are seated, the Democrats can bar Trump from office without the Republicans approval, which might be attractive to the Republican leadership. I think it's more of a political chess game, then actually 'he did bad so punish him' although that's how it will be presented to the people.

[Lurch]

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?

Quite the hang-up on Pelosi ya got going there. Supposedly Trump's a billionaire, but spends more time and energy on TV, tweeting, and golf than on doing his goddamned job. Why aren't you whining about him being some rich, coastal elite who belongs back in his gold leaf-bedecked den of iniquity?

And as to leaving the traitorous bastard to consequence-free slink back to his den... Screw that. The GOP haled Hillary before their Kangaroo committees over Benghazzi and the death of four Americans thousands of miles away. Surely the Rump should face music over inciting a mob that lead to the deaths of five Americans a few blocks away.

And I'll echo the voices of others here who rightfully point out the effrontery of the *****' GOP would dare to now beg for *forgetting* in order to heal. After *participating* themselves in the effort to subvert democracy. Only when they're in the uncomfortable position to have to justify themselves, or show their true colors, do they mincingly fake meekness and reasonableness. Just like drumpf himself. Outta one side of their lyin' pieholes one minute the disingenuous platitudes to save themselves the embarrassment. Then in the next minute, back to their old ways of anti-democratic obstruction and cheating. Waiting for Trump 2.0, who'll be a slicker, more competent Fuhrer that obtains the desired dominance by the fearful white minority. This rotten, soulless cabal of power-hungry xenophobes who cling to the historical priveledge they've long enjoyed, catering to the monied class that can buy for them their positions, acknowledging the proles only so far as their support and votes are directed, putting personal ambition over Country.

Screw the lot. Even the worst that might befall the villainous scum would not come close to what they deserve. Working to even cynically pretend to dismantle democracy should engender a mighty harsh punishment indeed. More so than meted out to too many poor citizens for far lesser crimes.

I'm not American, but man, am I ******* pissed!

[Silly Green Monkey]

Perhaps the wealthy elites who are honest about not caring about the lessers are preferred to those who [must be] lying and saying that they care. Pelosi does happen to be closer to the majority of Americans than the more wealthy Trump, so why can't she be genuinely concerned about her neighbors in wealth, that she is better able to see?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Quite the hang-up on Pelosi ya got going there. Supposedly Trump's a billionaire, but spends more time and energy on TV, tweeting, and golf than on doing his goddamned job. Why aren't you whining about him being some rich, coastal elite who belongs back in his gold leaf-bedecked den of iniquity?

And as to leaving the traitorous bastard to consequence-free slink back to his den... Screw that. The GOP haled Hillary before their Kangaroo committees over Benghazzi and the death of four Americans thousands of miles away. Surely the Rump should face music over inciting a mob that lead to the deaths of five Americans a few blocks away.

And I'll echo the voices of others here who rightfully point out the effrontery of the *****' GOP would dare to now beg for *forgetting* in order to heal. After *participating* themselves in the effort to subvert democracy. Only when they're in the uncomfortable position to have to justify themselves, or show their true colors, do they mincingly fake meekness and reasonableness. Just like drumpf himself. Outta one side of their lyin' pieholes one minute the disingenuous platitudes to save themselves the embarrassment. Then in the next minute, back to their old ways of anti-democratic obstruction and cheating. Waiting for Trump 2.0, who'll be a slicker, more competent Fuhrer that obtains the desired dominance by the fearful white minority. This rotten, soulless cabal of power-hungry xenophobes who cling to the historical priveledge they've long enjoyed, catering to the monied class that can buy for them their positions, acknowledging the proles only so far as their support and votes are directed, putting personal ambition over Country.

Screw the lot. Even the worst that might befall the villainous scum would not come close to what they deserve. Working to even cynically pretend to dismantle democracy should engender a mighty harsh punishment indeed. More so than meted out to too many poor citizens for far lesser crimes.

I'm not American, but man, am I ******* pissed!

That nails it.

[dirtywick]

Another thing to note is the Dems have the senate majority. They can actually call witnesses and collect evidence. This is a different ball game.

edit

And he won’t be able to hide behind presidential protection either. Might even be able to force him to testify

[Minoosh]

If you think of articles of impeachment as analogous to crimes, think of this: reckless endangerment. Several people are dead as a direct result of Trump’s incitement.

Cops in the field make similar findings all the time. That’s not a formal charge but it’s trivial to formalize it, a few days or even hours later it’s formalized as an indictment. Four people are dead who wouldn’t be as a direct result of his flagrant disregard for life. I don’t know if he could be criminally liable in a court of law, but only because he’s president. If not for that technicality, I think prosecutors would have an easy case.

[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.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Another thing to note is the Dems have the senate majority. They can actually call witnesses and collect evidence. This is a different ball game.

edit

And he won’t be able to hide behind presidential protection either. Might even be able to force him to testify

Yep. Although you couldn't force him to testify at an impeachment trial. He still has his 5th Amendment rights.

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I don't think he can find afford anyone else at this point.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

FTFY

Irrelevant. He stiffs everyone anyway.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Do they claim to have socialist agendas?

Does Pelosi claim to have a socialist agenda?

I give you the benefit of the doubt in one respect: Where you live, things like sensible gun laws and UHC are called not "socialism" but "common sense." So from your point of view, maybe not taking a stand makes sense. But Trump tried to kick many people off their health care insurance just because he could, without a care in the world about what would replace it, because he's always been able to pay his medical bills (if he doesn't stiff his doctors the way he does everyone else).

So what, Pelosi is rich? If she gave all her money away perhaps she could alleviate some suffering. But in the US $120 million (assuming you are correct) might help a few hundred people. In the meantime, there's no structural change to the way we finance health care - no remedy for the reality that IRL, in the US, practically everybody is one health emergency away from going bankrupt. You are looking at this from a privileged point of view that is not an option in the US.

[a_unique_person]

First president ever impeached twice. Trump will go down in history.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

First president ever impeached twice. Trump will go down in history.

Indeed. He will also have another impeachment first, but which one? Will it be the first president convicted and removed, or first president to be acquitted twice?

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Yep. Although you couldn't force him to testify at an impeachment trial. He still has his 5th Amendment rights.

You may be right, I really have no idea. I remember from last time how they kept pointing out impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. So im not sure, but what he can’t do is stonewall congress anymore.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

You may be right, I really have no idea. I remember from last time how they kept pointing out impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. So im not sure, but what he can’t do is stonewall congress anymore.

When it comes to testimony before Congress, a person can refuse to testify on the grounds that it might incriminate him in a criminal matter. Congress can get around that by granting immunity from criminal prosecution. At that point, there is no reason to claim the possibility of self-incrimination. So, if they drop the possibility of criminal prosecution, they could compel testimony during an impeachment trial, except......

He's still the President. That means Executive Privilege still exists, both for him, and any other member of the executive branch. They don't have to testify unless they want to.

[Meadmaker]

If impeachment follows the normal course, there would be a significant gap in time between the time Articles of Impeachment are passed by the House, and the time the trial commences in the Senate. The Senate would have to change the rules in order to begin proceedings before the end of his term. They can do that, if they are inclined. They could have him impeached and convicted by tomorrow morning if enough legislators got on board with it. They would have to vote in new rules in both houses that would allow for an immediate vote, and then vote, and Mike Pence is President at the end of the vote.

And if they don't do that, you kind of have to ask why not, under the circumstances.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

You may be right, I really have no idea. I remember from last time how they kept pointing out impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. So im not sure, but what he can’t do is stonewall congress anymore.

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.

[dirtywick]

they could ask him questions and he can plead the 5th on live TV. If he doesn’t want to face his accusers and explain himself he can face the consequences.

Last time they couldn’t even get him to acknowledge the questions

Edit

And he can’t shield anyone else. Can’t plead the 5th to protect someone else

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

they could ask him questions and he can plead the 5th on live TV. If he doesn’t want to face his accusers and explain himself he can face the consequences.

Last time they couldn’t even get him to acknowledge the questions

Edit

And he can’t shield anyone else. Can’t plead the 5th to protect someone else

He doesn't have to. Executive Privilege is not something made up. Congress cannot compel testimony from the President.

They could force him to invoke executive privilege. That's it. They can't force him to show up.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

If impeachment follows the normal course, there would be a significant gap in time between the time Articles of Impeachment are passed by the House, and the time the trial commences in the Senate. The Senate would have to change the rules in order to begin proceedings before the end of his term. They can do that, if they are inclined. They could have him impeached and convicted by tomorrow morning if enough legislators got on board with it. They would have to vote in new rules in both houses that would allow for an immediate vote, and then vote, and Mike Pence is President at the end of the vote.

And if they don't do that, you kind of have to ask why not, under the circumstances.

It's been 13 months since Trump was impeached and all our memories are shot. The Senate is required to hold the trial almost immediately upon receiving the articles of impeachment. But this is a special situation since the Senate isn't in session and proforma activities will happen the first day back. January 19. If the House presents those articles between now and the 19th the impeachment trial will start at 1:00 PM January 20th.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

He doesn't have to. Executive Privilege is not something made up. Congress cannot compel testimony from the President.

They could force him to invoke executive privilege. That's it. They can't force him to show up.

He doesn't have Executive Privilege after 12 PM January 20th.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

He doesn't have to. Executive Privilege is not something made up. Congress cannot compel testimony from the President.

They could force him to invoke executive privilege. That's it. They can't force him to show up.

Jan 20th he won’t be the president. It’s the scheduled date for the trial

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

...
I set out precisely why I think the healing of America would be best served by not impeaching Trump.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

...
Then let the Justice Department prosecute him and try him in front of a judge he appointed.
...

A process that would take at least 16 or so Republican Senators- effectively a bi-partisan judgment- would not serve the healing of America; but a prosecution by a Justice Dept that's a part of the Biden Administration would? Biden has said he won't be politicizing that Department, that he'll be pretty hands-off as far as its operations go; but do you really think that people who need an "olive branch" extended to them in order to "heal the divisions" caused by the man they voted for, and the party that supported him, are going to believe that?

[dirtywick]

And honestly cutting a deal with the GOP that they won’t call him up if they fast track a bipartisan impeachment might be the most realistic option. They already have at least 53 votes

[Minoosh]

Justice for Ashli. Justice for the others who died. Is this a plausible message for the House to adopt? These people were caught up in a collective delusion that cost them their lives. The one person who might have mitigated the hysteria instead gave them marching orders. He said he'd be with them. He was lying, of course. It's easy, and tempting, to blame their deaths on stupidity, but it was more like a collective psychosis that we have yet to get to the bottom of.

[angrysoba]

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.

Why not both?

Impeachment is a bare minimum punishment for Trump. He absolutely needs it. Fortunately, he can easily be impeached and the impeachment followed-through on in the Senate even if it happens after it passes to Democrat control.

If only the Democrats approve it, it will pass 51-50, but I think Romney and Murkowski at the very least could be expected to approve it as well.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Justice for Ashli. Justice for the others who died. Is this a plausible message for the House to adopt? These people were caught up in a collective delusion that cost them their lives. The one person who might have mitigated the hysteria instead gave them marching orders. He said he'd be with them. He was lying, of course. It's easy, and tempting, to blame their deaths on stupidity, but it was more like a collective psychosis that we have yet to get to the bottom of.

Nah, once they crossed the line into insurrection and terrorism they no longer deserve to be thought of as victims of delusion. They committed what could be described as acts of treason to their country. They deserve nothing but scorn. Justice for America is a better message. Most Americans are appalled and angry with the terrorists who invaded the Capitol. Those who aren't deserve nothing.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

As this stage of the presidency, it looks spiteful.

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!?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

It's been 13 months since Trump was impeached and all our memories are shot. The Senate is required to hold the trial almost immediately upon receiving the articles of impeachment. But this is a special situation since the Senate isn't in session and proforma activities will happen the first day back. January 19. If the House presents those articles between now and the 19th the impeachment trial will start at 1:00 PM January 20th.

Some key dates from last time around:

December 18. House passes articles of impeachment.
January 15: House transmits articles of impeachment to the Senate
January 21: Senate votes on rules of the trial.
January 22: Opening arguments begin.
February 5: Final vote acquitting the President.

It doesn't have to take that long. It could go much quicker. As I said, it could be done in one day, if enough of the legislators, House and Senate, were so inclined. First, the House votes to change the rules. Second, the House votes to impeach. Third, the Senate votes to change the rules. Fourth, the Senate votes to convict. Done by suppertime.

But, if that doesn't happen at this stage of the game, why not?

Or they could go through the exercise of a post term impeachment trial. In your scenario, the trial starts shortly after Joe Biden takes the oath of office. I guarantee you that the majority of Americans would thing that was incredibly stupid.

So, if they can get the votes, then change the rules and make the process quick. Get him out as soon as possible.

If the Democrats can't change the rules, then they won't be able to obtain a conviction, and they will look stupid trying.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Why not both?

Impeachment is a bare minimum punishment for Trump. He absolutely needs it. Fortunately, he can easily be impeached and the impeachment followed-through on in the Senate even if it happens after it passes to Democrat control.

If only the Democrats approve it, it will pass 51-50, but I think Romney and Murkowski at the very least could be expected to approve it as well.

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.

[dirtywick]

what’s spiteful is not admitting you lost fair and trying to flip the table

[Meadmaker]

deleted -already answered.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

He doesn't have Executive Privilege after 12 PM January 20th.

I don't think that's true, but I'm not sure. I think Executive Privilege continues even after a person isn't actually an Executive anymore.

I'm not sure that has ever been tested.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Some key dates from last time around:

December 18. House passes articles of impeachment.
January 15: House transmits articles of impeachment to the Senate
January 21: Senate votes on rules of the trial.
January 22: Opening arguments begin.
February 5: Final vote acquitting the President.

It doesn't have to take that long. It could go much quicker. As I said, it could be done in one day, if enough of the legislators, House and Senate, were so inclined. First, the House votes to change the rules. Second, the House votes to impeach. Third, the Senate votes to change the rules. Fourth, the Senate votes to convict. Done by suppertime.

But, if that doesn't happen at this stage of the game, why not?

Or they could go through the exercise of a post term impeachment trial. In your scenario, the trial starts shortly after Joe Biden takes the oath of office. I guarantee you that the majority of Americans would thing that was incredibly stupid.

So, if they can get the votes, then change the rules and make the process quick. Get him out as soon as possible.

If the Democrats can't change the rules, then they won't be able to obtain a conviction, and they will look stupid trying.

By the way, that 1:PM January 20 I posted comes from McConnell.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Nah, once they crossed the line into insurrection and terrorism they no longer deserve to be thought of as victims of delusion. They committed what could be described as acts of treason to their country. They deserve nothing but scorn. Justice for America is a better message. Most Americans are appalled and angry with the terrorists who invaded the Capitol. Those who aren't deserve nothing.

That line of thought is already being rewritten, to the point where Trump supporters can brush it aside as being fake news and so forth. Do I think those people deserve clemency? Not necessarily, but I also see the possibility that they were already hanging on to reality by a thread. To find them solely responsible is to let Trump off the hook.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't think that's true, but I'm not sure. I think Executive Privilege continues even after a person isn't actually an Executive anymore.

I'm not sure that has ever been tested.

I don’t think executive privilege covers private citizens

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't think that's true, but I'm not sure. I think Executive Privilege continues even after a person isn't actually an Executive anymore.

I'm not sure that has ever been tested.

It has, but not in a similar situation and every situation is different. It wouldn't surprise me to see Trump attempting to claim it. You'd have a court to tell him it doesn't apply. I doubt it would hold up in this circumstance, but that could slow this process down.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege