Split Thread A second impeachment

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 1M January 20 I posted comes from McConnell.

 

[Minoosh]

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]

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]

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