• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

ChrisBFRPKY said:
Trump didn't concede, he never will and there's nothing you can do about it. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

In which case he is unfit for political office of any kind, a pathological liar and a serious danger to Democracy.

And given the above he should be shunned like a pariah.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
So the defense argument to the claim that he committed high crimes and misdemeanors is basically "Nuh uh!! And you can't bar him from office cause he ain't the Pres no more."

One thing that I did not see that I was expecting was an argument that the actions he is alleged to have committed are not high crimes or misdemeanors because they were not dependent on his holding office.

In this context a "high crime" does not mean something like a felony and a "misdemeanor" does not mean what we usually mean when we talk about a crime lower than a felony. A "high crime" means something like a crime committed by virtue of holding a high office. It's something like corruption or abuse of power. It has to be related to the office. For example, they tried to impeach Nixon over unpaid taxes but decided that is a personal matter not a "high crime".

A misdemeanor means something like the original meaning: "mis" meaning bad or wrong and "demeanor" meaning outward behavior. But that doesn't mean bad personal behavior or conduct unbecoming a President. It means something more like "maladministration" which was a term that had previously been considered to be used but was rejected because that term could be construed to mean that Congress simply doesn't like the way a President is administer the office. Misdemeanors here means wrong or improper actions in carrying out the duty of the office. People have been impeached for things like drunkenness, but only because that affects their abilities to carry out their duties.

Of course the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't really exactly mean what it's constituent parts mean. The phrase at the time was a term of art that had come to have its own particular meaning that isn't precisely articulated.

It could be argued that the alleged actions by Trump are not high crimes or misdemeanors because they are not dependent on his holding office. For example, imagine if he had lost the election in 2016 and did the same thing he did this year resulting in a mob storming the Capitol. He could not have been impeached and barred from running in 2020 because he wasn't President or Vice President or holding any other federal office. Why would the action of a person not subject to being barred from holding office be able to be barred for exactly the same actions simply because they happened to be in office at the time?

For a "jury" of Senators who are mostly lawyers, that argument may have some resonance. But it might be risky because the House "prosecution" would jump on the fact that this was a betrayal to the country and Constitution, which would be a violation of the oath of office, which would certainly seem fall within "high crimes and misdemeanors".

But it does seem like an argument that should be considered, especially considering that removal from office is not an option and this is only about barring from holding future office, which means that Congress would be potentially overriding the free will of the people to reelect him, if they should choose, knowing his past actions.
Click to expand...

I often wonder when the GOP is going to pull out the semantics card. "It says 'high crimes and misdemeanors', not 'high crimes or misdemeanors'. He only committed high crimes, so it doesn't qualify!"
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
So the defense argument to the claim that he committed high crimes and misdemeanors is basically "Nuh uh!! And you can't bar him from office cause he ain't the Pres no more."

One thing that I did not see that I was expecting was an argument that the actions he is alleged to have committed are not high crimes or misdemeanors because they were not dependent on his holding office.

In this context a "high crime" does not mean something like a felony and a "misdemeanor" does not mean what we usually mean when we talk about a crime lower than a felony. A "high crime" means something like a crime committed by virtue of holding a high office. It's something like corruption or abuse of power. It has to be related to the office. For example, they tried to impeach Nixon over unpaid taxes but decided that is a personal matter not a "high crime".

A misdemeanor means something like the original meaning: "mis" meaning bad or wrong and "demeanor" meaning outward behavior. But that doesn't mean bad personal behavior or conduct unbecoming a President. It means something more like "maladministration" which was a term that had previously been considered to be used but was rejected because that term could be construed to mean that Congress simply doesn't like the way a President is administer the office. Misdemeanors here means wrong or improper actions in carrying out the duty of the office. People have been impeached for things like drunkenness, but only because that affects their abilities to carry out their duties.

Of course the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't really exactly mean what it's constituent parts mean. The phrase at the time was a term of art that had come to have its own particular meaning that isn't precisely articulated.

It could be argued that the alleged actions by Trump are not high crimes or misdemeanors because they are not dependent on his holding office. For example, imagine if he had lost the election in 2016 and did the same thing he did this year resulting in a mob storming the Capitol. He could not have been impeached and barred from running in 2020 because he wasn't President or Vice President or holding any other federal office. Why would the action of a person not subject to being barred from holding office be able to be barred for exactly the same actions simply because they happened to be in office at the time?

For a "jury" of Senators who are mostly lawyers, that argument may have some resonance. But it might be risky because the House "prosecution" would jump on the fact that this was a betrayal to the country and Constitution, which would be a violation of the oath of office, which would certainly seem fall within "high crimes and misdemeanors".

But it does seem like an argument that should be considered, especially considering that removal from office is not an option and this is only about barring from holding future office, which means that Congress would be potentially overriding the free will of the people to reelect him, if they should choose, knowing his past actions.
Click to expand...

If the 'high crime' depended on his office then I would say yes, he did use his official position to (a) authorise a rally nearby on the day of the certification. Presumably anyone else would have been denied permission or subjected to a large police presence and crowd control, (b) had he not been in High Office, his speech rant at the rally would not have been beamed and live-streamed worldwide, with social media links on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Parler all psyching each other up and (c) as POTUS he failed to contact the National Guard - Mike Pence had to do it - for over two hours, despite watching events unfold live on TV with his family and aides, who were there to advise him, which he ignored.

So, no, I don't think Trump could get away with pleading his offences were not linked to his high office.
 
The Don said:
OTOH the Republican Party see it as a perfectly reasonable tactic to try and rectify the result of the election which was stolen from them.

The mainstream narrative within the party is still that there was industrial-scale voter fraud and that President Trump really won the election.
Click to expand...

Hard to fathom that is mainstream.

Nevermind that they are just repeating the horse **** that Trump and his minions are shoveling their way. They will not take actual accountability for anything.

Nevermind that the Governor of Georgia is Republican, the State AG is Republican, the Secretary of State is Republican.

Nevermind that they performed 3 counts including a manual count and 2 audits.

Nevermind that Georgia certified the election a month earlier.

Nevermind the Georgia cast their Electoral votes 20 days before.

Nevermind that 5 times Georgia courts dismissed or ruled against election lawsuits which presented nothing more than anecdotal or absurd claims.

I have no patienceor sympathy for anyone who thinks that Trump's attempts to change the results of such
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Question:

Could the Senate subpoena one of its Senators to testify in the Trial?

anyone know?
Click to expand...

They could. They could subpoena anyone. But that doesn't mean the Senator would be required to testify. They could invoke the 5th, appeal to SCOTUS. Little legal precedence so who knows?
 
alfaniner said:
I often wonder when the GOP is going to pull out the semantics card. "It says 'high crimes and misdemeanors', not 'high crimes or misdemeanors'. He only committed high crimes, so it doesn't qualify!"
Click to expand...

I’ve heard that spurious argument used against the prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment”. IOW, cruel punishment is permitted as is unusual punishment - it just can’t be both.

It might have been Justice Scalia toying with that idea, but I can’t recall exactly.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Trump didn't concede, he never will and there's nothing you can do about it. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Nobody here expects him to.
He is too commited to the "BIg Lie to back down now.
What is astounding you think this behavior is oomehow admirable.
Your faith in Dear Leader is touching.
 
MRC_Hans said:
I challenge any T**** supporters here to:

1) Read that paper.

2) Point out any facts not in evidence, therein.

3) Declare if and why you still support the former president.

Personally, I shall that failure to do so as an admittance that you no longer support former president T****

Hans
Click to expand...
No one?
 
Crossbow said:
Oh bloody hell!

This is just the type of response that one should expect from Trump, but never the less, one is still amazed to actually see such a response.
Click to expand...

I know I make a lot of typos here, but you would expect that Attorneys would be more careful.
It's they who wrote that, not Donnie.
 
acbytesla said:
They could. They could subpoena anyone. But that doesn't mean the Senator would be required to testify. They could invoke the 5th, appeal to SCOTUS. Little legal precedence so who knows?
Click to expand...

Only person they could not supoena is Trump because in the US Justice system you cannot force the accused to testify against himself.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Indeed. And regardless of the outcome of the impeachment trial, there are a bunch of criminal trials all jostling to be the first to have another go at him immediately afterwards.
Click to expand...

Not to mention all the civil suits coming from people he owes money tor from hsi failed business ventures.
 
bruto said:
I was under the impression that a spouse also can refuse to testify against her spouse.
Click to expand...

That was my point. In theory, when two people are married they become one. And noone can be compelled to testify against themself. So neither Donald or Melanie can be compelled to testify.
 
dudalb said:
Only person they could not supoena is Trump because in the US Justice system you cannot force the accused to testify against himself.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s correct.

It’s an investigation, they can subpoena Trump to ask him questions or produce documents. In fact, they have on multiple occasions already. He can defy the subpoena or plead the 5th. But congress can seek information pertinent to the investigation.

He defied subpoenas before and barred others from answering subpoenas based on executive privilege in the past, but he’s no longer the executive.
 
acbytesla said:
That was my point. In theory, when two people are married they become one. And noone can be compelled to testify against themself. So neither Donald or Melanie can be compelled to testify.
Click to expand...

there’s limits to that

also worth noting that this isn’t a criminal trial
 
dirtywick said:
I don’t think that’s correct.

It’s an investigation, they can subpoena Trump to ask him questions or produce documents. In fact, they have on multiple occasions already. He can defy the subpoena or plead the 5th. But congress can seek information pertinent to the investigation.

He defied subpoenas before and barred others from answering subpoenas based on executive privilege in the past, but he’s no longer the executive.
Click to expand...

I think you're right on here. He can be compelled to produce documents, but I'd say there are a lot of unanswered questions about whether he can be compelled to testify. Unfortunately, this depends on what the government is prepared to do to compel the testimony. Do they appeal to SCOTUS? And given this is a right wing partisan court I don't think we can count on them to respond quickly or forcing Trump to do anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom