Or more likely we don't them getting angry and primarying me next time I come up for re-election (although there is also a non-zero risk of assassination but appeasement is probably not the best course of action there).
Split Thread A second impeachment
- Thread starter JoeMorgue
- Start date
Or more likely we don't them getting angry and primarying me next time I come up for re-election (although there is also a non-zero risk of assassination but appeasement is probably not the best course of action there).
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
He should be impeached because he committed impeachable offenses. It is the right thing to do no matter whether it has any real effect or what the political consequences are. It is the right thing to do.
An impeachment and conviction and sentence that he can hold office would prevent him from campaigning for future election. He would not have the privileges of a candidate and not be able to collect fund under campaign finance laws. I think they should look into whether they can seize the existing campaign funds.
If he issues pardons to cronies and maybe even those who partook in this insurrection, the Senate should declare him as removed from office effective to the date of the impeachment articles and invalidate any pardon issued after that date. This isn't really a legal thing, but it also isn't not really a legal thing.
Impeachment would stand as evidence for criminal conviction. He should be charged, tried, and convicted. He should be in prison for his crimes and as a traitor to the country and as a danger to the nation.
An impeachment and conviction and sentence that he can hold office would prevent him from campaigning for future election. He would not have the privileges of a candidate and not be able to collect fund under campaign finance laws. I think they should look into whether they can seize the existing campaign funds.
If he issues pardons to cronies and maybe even those who partook in this insurrection, the Senate should declare him as removed from office effective to the date of the impeachment articles and invalidate any pardon issued after that date. This isn't really a legal thing, but it also isn't not really a legal thing.
Impeachment would stand as evidence for criminal conviction. He should be charged, tried, and convicted. He should be in prison for his crimes and as a traitor to the country and as a danger to the nation.
If the goal is to get Trump away from the levers of power, ASAP, which is what is needed, he needs to be impeached ASAP.
Let the GOP Senators decide whether they want to make the public statement that their king can do no wrong. If the impeachment went to the Senate, it would be hard for those who were threatened with hanging to say "hey, yes he incited a lynch mob against me and my fellow Senators, but on the other hand, I might get primaried"
I can imagine a lot of GOP Senators wanting to avoid the issue - give them the option of abstaining, but no other way of hiding. Let them state where they stand on lynch mobs.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Well, I know you like to play 'devil's advocate', but this is silly.
Of course he did not say "Go and storm the Capitol and hang the bastards!", he's not that insane, but if you cannot see the incitation to riot in what he has been saying from all the way back to where he told the "Proud Boys" to "Stand back and stand by", it is because you really don't want to.
Hans
Susheel
Illuminator
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
When the insurrectionists come to trial and say they stormed the Capitol because President Trump instructed them to, will that be enough to remove the ambiguity?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Not an expert, but I would think it would require a prior conviction for sedition or treason by a court of law. Allowing it to be imposed by a simple majority vote in Congress would defeat the need for a 2/3 majority for impeachment, so (for example) a Republican majority in Senate and House could remove a Democratic President simply by concocting a false charge and voting on it.
Dave
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
To rephrase: "The US should be run in fear of what terrorists might do if their wishes are not adhered to".
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I think those opposing impeachment should say whether they agree with this:
28th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution (proposed):
(1) In case of the attempt by a sitting President to incite a violent uprising against the Houses of Congress, said President shall normally be subject to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanours.
(2) Notwithstanding (1), said President shall not be subject to impeachment proceedings in the case of one or more of the following:
(a) Said President has attained the 1,400th day of his incumbency.
(b) Said President has followers who constitute a real and present danger to the person of any members of Congress who vote for articles of impeachment.
(d) Said President's words when inciting said violent uprising are capable of interpretation upon lack of consideration of context or intent as other than a direct order to mount a violent uprising.
(e) Said violent uprising did not succeed.
(b) Said President has followers who constitute a real and present danger to the person of any members of Congress who vote for articles of impeachment.
(i) In this context, "danger to the person" shall include risk of being voted out of office.
(c) Said President is of sufficient popularity that impeachment might negatively impact the number of votes available to his political party.(d) Said President's words when inciting said violent uprising are capable of interpretation upon lack of consideration of context or intent as other than a direct order to mount a violent uprising.
(e) Said violent uprising did not succeed.
Dave
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
And what is the purpose/function of an “Army”? And what did you mean when you asked them to “fight off” the “Liberal MOB”?
Things that might be asked at a trial. Sure, he could say he never meant those words literally. As others have said, it’s what mob bosses do. But literally or figuratively, would not a reasonable person conclude that these words would incite?
Of course they would.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
It's kind of a legal thing. The president has pardon power "except in cases of impeachment." There's a lot of room for debate in those 5 words, but an impeachment definitely limits his pardon powers. We're just not sure what those limits are yet.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,842
Okay but as I've been saying throughout Trump's rolling dumpster fire of a Presidency we shouldn't be accepting of descending into chaos because "Well there's nothing in the rule book that says a Golden Retriever can't play football..."
Tero
Philosopher
The senate will not get the 2/3 votes. But with Kamala tie breaking, it will go 51/50. So America will have "almost impeached" him.
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
He should get death for treason, but it's unlikely the sentence would ever be carried out. Look at how long it takes to get an execution date for a murderer. Some have been sitting on death row for 30 years or more.
With numerous appeals I'm sure Trump's lawyers could prevent him from being executed until he dies of natural causes. Unless his lawyer is Rudy. Rudy would probably get him hanged before the trial is over.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
If Trump uses his pardon power to hinder the impeachment process or to help anyone associated with his coup, I'm all for testing the limits of that "except in cases of impeachment" clause. Ignore the pardons, charge the rioters/conspirators/whatevers anyway, let the courts sort out exactly how far the pardon power goes (or, hopefully, doesn't go). I'd like to see a very broad interpretation: the president can't pardon anyone even remotely connected to the either the impeachable act or the associated investigations.
Of course, I'd like to see more general limits on the presidential pardon power, but as I said in another thread, that's really a subject for another thread.
They could always invoke the “Trump precedent setting EO”