• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Paul2 said:
There's a big difference between an attorney for the defense and an attorney in an impeachment. It's fundamental to criminal trials that a defendant, when put against the power of the government, and with life and liberty in the balance, to be able to present whatever defense is deemed necessary, even for defendants eventually convicted of the most heinous crimes (BTW, OJ did it).

In an impeachment trial, all the defendant is going to lose is their job. Life an liberty are not at risk. The power of the government does not overwhelm the defense, they are on a much more equal footing. Lastly, even a political process has to get down to, at some point, principle and respect for how a democracy works (unless all has already been lost).

The prosecution in a criminal trial has to be devoted to justice, not just convicting the defendant, because the prosecution works for the people. In an impeachment, everyone is working for the people, and so should be devoted to justice, as silly as that sounds in the current environment.
Click to expand...

So the defense should do what? Offer a worse defense?
 
Paul2 said:
There's a big difference between an attorney for the defense and an attorney in an impeachment. It's fundamental to criminal trials that a defendant, when put against the power of the government, and with life and liberty in the balance, to be able to present whatever defense is deemed necessary, even for defendants eventually convicted of the most heinous crimes (BTW, OJ did it).

In an impeachment trial, all the defendant is going to lose is their job. Life an liberty are not at risk. The power of the government does not overwhelm the defense, they are on a much more equal footing. Lastly, even a political process has to get down to, at some point, principle and respect for how a democracy works (unless all has already been lost).

The prosecution in a criminal trial has to be devoted to justice, not just convicting the defendant, because the prosecution works for the people. In an impeachment, everyone is working for the people, and so should be devoted to justice, as silly as that sounds in the current environment.
Click to expand...
I'm with you up until the very last sentence.

Impeachment and removal is not a question of justice. It's a question of national interest. Justice would be sentencing someone to prison after their conviction in a criminal trial. Justice would be awarding monetary damages after finding liability in a civil trial.

There is, in principle, a criminal process that would result in justice for whatever crimes a president may have committed. But impeachment is not that process. Impeachment is a process for asking the question "criminality established, and questions of justice aside, does it make sense to remove the president from office?"
 
I could, again, bring up that Congress is elected exactly as much as the President is so they could pull the same "Anything we do is justified" card.
 
theprestige said:
One, I doubt that Trump actually cares that much about the presidency. He's not an ideologue. He's not a career politician.

Two, the president can't abolish term limits anyway. Hell, even Congress can't abolish term limits.


That's not the logic.
Click to expand...

Correct. Trump doesn't care about the Presidency. He cares about the opportunities it affords him for enrichment. Even more so right now, his attachment to the office derives from its shielding him against prosecution. Once out of office, any crimes for which the statute of limitations has not run out can find him charged. Such as that for which his confederate Michael Cohen is now serving time.
 
Last edited:
Lurch said:
Correct. Trump doesn't care about the Presidency. He cares about the opportunities it affords him for enrichment. Even more so right now, his attachment to the lattice derives from its shielding him against prosecution. Once out of office, any crimes for which the statute of limitations has not run out can find him charged. Such as that for which his confederate Michael Cohen is now serving time.
Click to expand...

... Two, the President can't abolish term limits.
 
theprestige said:
... Two, the President can't abolish term limits.
Click to expand...

Okay.

So when it happens anyway what do we do?

The President can't ask Boomer-Stalin to carry out political hits either but he did that and isn't going to face consequences for it.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Okay.

So when it happens anyway what do we do?
Click to expand...

Happens how, exactly?

How does President Trump abolish term limits? He can't do it through an executive order. He can't do it by signing a bill into law (because Congress can't actually pass such a bill).

The best he could possibly do, to get elected to a third term, would be to campaign for a third term in spite of his ineligibility to serve a third term. He might get as far as having his name on ballots in some states, even though he's not eligible. Between that and write-ins... What? Suddenly he's abolished term limits?

---

Or he'd just refuse to step down, but that wouldn't make him a third-term president. That would just make him a non-president trespassing in the White House until the Secret Service removes him an hour later.
 
One of the things that the founders didn't take into account, because it wasn't applicable, was how fast things can happen. In the time it takes to take a roll call vote in the Senate, a president about to be convicted could start world war III. That isn't going to happen this time , because Trump won't be convicted, but what about at his second impeachment trial?

In general, a guy who is still president, but who knows he won't be for long, could cause a lot of mis chief in a very short time. I wonder if there are mechanisms in place to deal with that?
 
Belz... said:
In a way it's unfortunate that impeachment don't set precedents for future impeachments, because the Republicans would never dare set a precedent that would benefit future Democratic presidents (I hope).
Click to expand...

People like McConnell just assume they will fight that battle when it comes. I truly don't think it worries him.
 
dmaker said:
In Trump's mind I am sure that he thinks abolishing Presidential term limits is in the public interest.

I cannot believe that any sane adult would open the door for that kind of logic with such high stakes.

This is very unsettling stuff.
Click to expand...

Schiff hasn't brought that example up yet. I hope he does.

What if Trump believes it's in the country's best interest if he defies the election and claims he is still in office.
 
My Senator just asked if Trump is the first defendant to not waive his rights.

They keep treating this like a criminal trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom