• 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

CapelDodger said:
When you put it like that it seems very persuasive, but where's the poetry? And while mere mention of the Constitution might jerk a tear in some quarters, they are very small and peculiar quarters.
Click to expand...

Well, I was reading a book about the murder in 1678 of English JP Edmund Berry Godfrey, and ran across this snippet of poetry by John Dryden, from Absalom and Achitophel (1681):

Some truth there was, but dash'd and brew'd with lies,
To please the fools and puzzle all the wise.
Click to expand...

Seems appropriate and descriptive of Trump's approach to the presidency and his lawyers' approach to saving him from the consequences of it.
 
Meadmaker said:
Or, possibly, he recognizes that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.
Click to expand...
Indeed. As it transpires, he's really crap at the political thing, but that's more the fault of his client for employing him in this role.


I didn't watch it. i don't know what they said, but from what I'm hearing about it, it's pretty clear that whatever he is talking about is performance art, done for the benefit of the public, not a legal case being presented to a jury.
Click to expand...
Think of him as presenting a case for plausible deniability to a well-bribed jury on behalf of a mob client.
 
I thought of something. Regarding the question of the constitutionality of impeaching and convicting an ex President, it seemed rather clear to me. There are two penalties provided for impeachment, if convicted.. One is removal from office, which clearly cannot be done if someone is already out of office. The other is against future holding of office. That one, just as clearly, can be applied to an ex-President. So, I thought, the question of constitutionality is obvious. Of course it is ok to try the ex-President, so that one can apply the penalty of prohibition of holding Presidential office in the future.

Then I thought of something.

Can you impeach someone who has never been President, and is not currently serving in office? Suppose the President-elect does something which is very bad, and clearly impeachable, and makes it obvious that he is unfit for office, but which is not actually criminal. Could he be impeached? Impeachment is the only way a person can be prevented from taking office in the future, so if the person is to be prevented from taking office, that's the only way to do it.

One possible answer is that impeachment can only be applied to conduct in office, but I don't think that's a reasonable answer. Suppose it was discovered that a candidate was behind the assassination of a political rival before he won the presidency. The President can't be indicted, but he clearly ought to be thrown out of office (and then indicted), so he has to be impeached for things he did before taking office. So, can he be impeached before taking office?

I think the answer is probably yes, but I'm not so certain, and I'm not certain it's really a good idea.

ETA: This thread might move pretty fast as people comment on the live action from the Senate, so I apologize in advance if I miss a reply.
 
turingtest said:
Well, I was reading a book about the murder in 1678 of English JP Edmund Berry Godfrey, and ran across this snippet of poetry by John Dryden, from Absalom and Achitophel (1681):



Seems appropriate and descriptive of Trump's approach to the presidency and his lawyers' approach to saving him from the consequences of it.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and thanks for that snippet. An interesting period, when the confluence of printing and cheap paper was doing what the internet is now.
 
I don't think you can impeach someone who has never held office in the federal government.
 
I expect we are going to see some horrific stuff tomorrow:

Newsweek: Capitol Police Union Reveals Cops Suffered 'Brain Injuries,' Loss of Eye After Pro-Trump Riot
"Between USCP and our colleagues at the Metropolitan Police Department, we have almost 140 officers injured," union chairman Gus Papathanasiou said in a statement released Wednesday. "I have officers who were not issued helmets prior to the attack who have sustained brain injuries. One officer has two cracked ribs and two smashed spinal discs. One officer is going to lose his eye, and another was stabbed with a metal fence stake."
Click to expand...

There are images of the one officer having his eye smashed deep into the orbit with a man's thumb. They haven't caught him yet but they will. There are very good images of him.
 
Meadmaker said:
Or, possibly, he recognizes that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

I didn't watch it. i don't know what they said, but from what I'm hearing about it, it's pretty clear that whatever he is talking about is performance art, done for the benefit of the public, not a legal case being presented to a jury.
Click to expand...

So you don't know what you are talking about.....

It was a horrible speech on any level.
 
Meadmaker said:
I thought of something. Regarding the question of the constitutionality of impeaching and convicting an ex President, it seemed rather clear to me. There are two penalties provided for impeachment, if convicted.. One is removal from office, which clearly cannot be done if someone is already out of office. The other is against future holding of office. That one, just as clearly, can be applied to an ex-President. So, I thought, the question of constitutionality is obvious. Of course it is ok to try the ex-President, so that one can apply the penalty of prohibition of holding Presidential office in the future.

Then I thought of something.

Can you impeach someone who has never been President, and is not currently serving in office? Suppose the President-elect does something which is very bad, and clearly impeachable, and makes it obvious that he is unfit for office, but which is not actually criminal. Could he be impeached? Impeachment is the only way a person can be prevented from taking office in the future, so if the person is to be prevented from taking office, that's the only way to do it.

One possible answer is that impeachment can only be applied to conduct in office, but I don't think that's a reasonable answer. Suppose it was discovered that a candidate was behind the assassination of a political rival before he won the presidency. The President can't be indicted, but he clearly ought to be thrown out of office (and then indicted), so he has to be impeached for things he did before taking office. So, can he be impeached before taking office?

I think the answer is probably yes, but I'm not so certain, and I'm not certain it's really a good idea.

ETA: This thread might move pretty fast as people comment on the live action from the Senate, so I apologize in advance if I miss a reply.
Click to expand...

The answer is very probably, no. But technically it could be possible. It's complicated because the Constitution isn't very clear on what impeachment is intended to do or how it works. It doesn't say specifically who can be impeached.

The Constitution give the House the power of impeachment. It gives the Senate the power to try impeachments. That's it. The House technically could impeach anyone. And the Senate could convict anyone.

The Constitution says that "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States" shall be removed from office on conviction of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." It also says that the judgments by the Senate are limited to "removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office".

Could the President be impeached and convicted of something other than treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors and be removed from office? The Constitution says the President would have to be removed if convicted for those things, but if convicted for other things the Senate could decide to remove the President from office. Or maybe not remove him from office but bar him from holding future office (although that would be rather strange).

Similarly, could someone other than the President, Vice President, or civil officers of the U.S. be convicted and barred from future office? The Constitution does actually say that can't happen.

The widely held opinion is that impeachment only applies to the President, Vice President, and civil officers of the U.S. But there is some interpretation there. Impeachment really relates to action by people in public positions against the United States. But it also includes an inability to carry out the duties of the office or a lack of confidence for the person to hold a position of trust.

In 2010, Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. was impeached and convicted for corruption actions he took before he took federal office. But he was also convicted of providing false information during his confirmation. And he was also convicted on action he took after getting into office.

If a Presidential candidate assassinated his opponent, I think Congress would have to wait until he is in office to impeach. That's a bit silly, but obviously other actions could be taken in the meantime. The administration would not work with the President-elect and instead work with the VP-elect. Or if the VP-elect was in on it, work with neither and work with the House Speaker to become acting President until a new election is held.

If in 2016 Trump had done exactly what he did in 2020, Congress could not have barred him from holding office in the future because he was not holding office at the time. Should the exact same fact patterns result in a bar from holding future office simply by virtue of whether the person so happened to be holding office at the time?

There are some complicated issues. There are many other questions that could be raised. I don't think Trump's defense really dug their heels into the tough questions of Constitutionality.
 
Craig4 said:
I will never understand why the police didn't use deadly force more during the riot.
Click to expand...

I don't understand many things about what law enforcement did that day. Not restricting flag poles and backpacks and body armor like other demonstrations. The acting Secretary of State, who came into that position after Trump fired the last acting Secretary after the election, sending a memo to the Secretary of the Army only allowing, without his permission, the use of the National Guard with no weapons or protection or even helmets and no intelligence gathering and not even being able to interact with the demonstrators. No FBI presence other than briefly escorting in the ambulance for the woman who was shot. No other Federal agencies like the Park Service of ATF. Taking 90 minutes just to get approval for the National Guard. The Pentagon holding up Virginia rapid response team waiting at the border for permission to come in. Lack of use of stronger force to protect the Capitol even as rioters stormed the building with member of Congress still scrambling inside for cover.

Those are a lot of things that have not been explained.
 
How cold does your heart have to be to watch the video presented and listen to Rep. Raskin's speech and still believe that there should be no consequences and that we should risk allowing all of this to happen again in four years, perhaps with more planning and perhaps with the success of ending democracy in the United States of America?
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
How cold does your heart have to be to watch the video presented and listen to Rep. Raskin's speech and still believe that there should be no consequences and that we should risk allowing all of this to happen again in four years, perhaps with more planning and perhaps with the success of ending democracy in the United States of America?
Click to expand...

Cold hearted? No need.

It's as simple as having different values. For example, significant portions of the GOP have long been putting out strong signals that they would be very happy to get rid of democracy under the assumption that they would be in power and be able to enforce their will on everyone else. Sure, that'll likely cause problems when it changes and after, but why would they care, so long as they ended up on top?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom