Split Thread A second impeachment

[dirtywick]

I remain distinctly pessimistic that anywhere close to 17 of the GOP senators will vote to convict, no matter how obviously Trump's guilt could be demonstrated and the need to impeach for the good of the country demonstrated, even with Trump no longer the President. 4-5 is more likely of an at best number, I think. That could possibly change based on the totality of criminal charges that could be brought against him, though.

i don't, there's several that have publicly stated their intent to impeach, several that are retiring, several he's insulted repeatedly and publicly, several that are his enemies, and several that had their win margins shrink.

and idk how many of them want trump playing kingmaker from the sidelines

 

[Delvo]

What aspects of the Republican behavior so far has ever suggested to you that the Republicans will act in good faith?

They don't need to act in good faith. They just need to act on the fact that most of them have wanted him out of their way all along.

 

[Aridas]

i don't, there's several that have publicly stated their intent to impeach, several that are retiring, several he's insulted repeatedly and publicly, several that are his enemies, and several that had their win margins shrink.

and idk how many of them want trump playing kingmaker from the sidelines

I'd be quite happy to have my pessimism shown to be misplaced, for the record.

 

[The Don]

I wonder if The PDJT will have to actually testify this time? I know he didn't the first time around. If he has to swear to tell the truth, he's done for.

He could also avoid perjury by "not recalling" things where telling the truth would be damning (despite having the GMOAT ).

 

[The Don]

I still stay waiting until the new Senate is seated makes more sense as it will take only 17 GOP senators instead of 19 to vote to convict.

This gets easier if some GOP Senators find themselves unable to attend the Senate trial. That way they don't have to vote either way but they do get to claim that they would have voted whichever way is more expedient for the audience they have.

IMO one or two may be prepared to vote to convict but the Collinses of this world can continue to be fence-sitters by failing to attend.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah...but I bet there will be a new narrative then.
"He is already out."
"You can't impeach someone who is no longer in office."
"Now you libtards are just being vindictive."

What aspects of the Republican behavior so far has ever suggested to you that the Republicans will act in good faith?

It doesn't matter when it takes place because their narrative won't be in good faith no matter what so taking place when we start out 2 votes ahead only makes good sense. Or do you disagree with that?

 

[Susheel]

It doesn't matter when it takes place because their narrative won't be in good faith no matter what so taking place when we start out 2 votes ahead only makes good sense. Or do you disagree with that?

Oh...it is good, for whatever value of "good" you choose to apply. However, I am not American nor am I very clear on its constitution, but doesn't something like impeachment (whether sitting or not) require a 2/3rds majority?

 

[Norman Alexander]

Oh...it is good, for whatever value of "good" you choose to apply. However, I am not American nor am I very clear on its constitution, but doesn't something like impeachment (whether sitting or not) require a 2/3rds majority?

2/3 majority of members present. There are plenty of calculations in online discussions to carry the conviction which are a balance of two variables: how many Republican senators have to be "not present", and how many who will make good on their vow to vote to convict. It can probably be expressed in a formula (but I could not be bothered).

ETA: Yes I could. It's an inequality: (50 + GOP-senators-voting-to-convict) / (100 - GOP-senators-absent) > 0.6667

 

[metacristi]

Of course his speech itself is not "insurrection". The question is: is it "incitement".

Proving intent IS the hard part. But impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political one. So forget about arguing legality.

So were Trump's actions as well. Political in nature (in spite of his unsupported conspirational theory). The solution here is definitely not to apply the 'progressive' tactics of restraining free speech, 'diluting' ad infinitum what means to be 'racist' and saying at most half the truth (for he definitely does not invite people to violence, this reminds me of the mad accusations that Breivik was the result of criticism of islam, be it unsupported). It does matter how they try to eliminate Trump (no matter if you do not agree overall with Trump's actions), as I said if they succeed to 'cancel' him using this 'progressive' tactics then basically anyone can be a victim in the future. Punishing Trump should not become the impeachment of free speech.

 

[Agatha]

Unlike last time, the Democrats can conduct a real trial with real evidence and testimony. Subpoena Giuliani and ask him what he meant by suggesting a “Trial by Combat”

Apparently, he was referring to a very famous documentary about fictional mediaeval England, and he thinks Bronn and Prince Oberyn Martell were machines. He thinks that the trials involved inspecting the machines.

No, I'm not inventing this.

https://twitter.com/Brett_Samuels27/status/1349169559354355712?s=20

 

[turingtest]

So were Trump's actions as well. Political in nature (in spite of his unsupported conspirational theory). The solution here is definitely not to apply the 'progressive' tactics of restraining free speech, 'diluting' ad infinitum what means to be 'racist' and saying at most half the truth (for he definitely does not invite people to violence, this reminds me of the mad accusations that Breivik was the result of criticism of islam, be it unsupported). It does matter how they try to eliminate Trump (no matter if you do not agree overall with Trump's actions), as I said if they succeed to 'cancel' him using this 'progressive' tactics then basically anyone can be a victim in the future. Punishing Trump should not become the impeachment of free speech.

It's no "impeachment of free speech" to say that free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any regard to consequences. In Trump's case, he gave no thought at all to what effect his speech, in context, might have beyond how he hoped it might benefit him politically. In a US president, that kind of unbalanced approach fits pretty well the political definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," since what might not need sanction for somebody in a lesser position is kind of what the provision is for in the case of a greater one. So, no- anyone in the future is not going to be a victim, only the ones in a position like Trump's who might need the example.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I have voiced my opinion that the impeachment trial should proceed to the Senate, if only for the presenting of evidence and testimony that it would reveal.

This just popped up on Twitter, and I like the sentiment:

 

[Dave Rogers]

It does matter how they try to eliminate Trump (no matter if you do not agree overall with Trump's actions), as I said if they succeed to 'cancel' him using this 'progressive' tactics then basically anyone can be a victim in the future.

I like the idea that something written into the US Constitution is too 'progressive' to be used in 2021. And I like the implied suggestion that 'basically anyone' could be impeached and removed from the presidency on the grounds that they incited an insurrection. This is good satirical comedy, keep it up.

Dave

 

[pgwenthold]

Make no mistake, “heal the nation” means “appease Republicans” and nothing else.

(I know this is late)

In fact, the republicans could go a long way to "healing the nation" by coming out with a strong (and honest) statement that

1) There is no evidence of significant voter fraud,
2) They acknowledge that the election was not stolen
3) Biden is the duly elected president,
4) Legitimately chosen by a majority of voters in the US and by the electoral college, and
5) Those who continue to fight the outcome of the election are trying to subvert democracy and harming the country

It's really not that hard.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have voiced my opinion that the impeachment trial should proceed to the Senate, if only for the presenting of evidence and testimony that it would reveal.

This just popped up on Twitter, and I like the sentiment:

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50837460258_81c9b719cc.jpg[/qimg]

I decided to read Federalist 65 to see what it actually had to say.


Those guys were smart. What the heck is wrong with us today that we can't elect people capable of writing like that? Joe Biden couldn't write like that. Barack Obama might be able to, but he probably wouldn't get elected if he did. And Donald Trump? Uhhh....yeah.

But having read Federalist 65, I think Alexander Hamilton would agree that the trial should proceed even if Trump has left office.

 

[Meadmaker]

(I know this is late)

In fact, the republicans could go a long way to "healing the nation" by coming out with a strong (and honest) statement that

1) There is no evidence of significant voter fraud,
2) They acknowledge that the election was not stolen
3) Biden is the duly elected president,
4) Legitimately chosen by a majority of voters in the US and by the electoral college, and
5) Those who continue to fight the outcome of the election are trying to subvert democracy and harming the country

It's really not that hard.

Amen.

To be fair, Mitch McConnell pretty much did that, before the Senate adjourned due to an angry mob attempting to break through the doors.

 

[Darat]

I have voiced my opinion that the impeachment trial should proceed to the Senate, if only for the presenting of evidence and testimony that it would reveal.

This just popped up on Twitter, and I like the sentiment:

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50837460258_81c9b719cc.jpg[/qimg]

Sadly that summarises the failings of the USA’s governance that has been brought into sharp relief over that last 4 years.

The USA system was conceived largely by a group of men who assumed that all right thinking folk would act with (to use a very old fashioned word) personal honour and wouldn’t undertake bad-faith actions because of a sense of personal shame and responsibility to others.

When folk without those personal restraints become powerful the “checks and balance” system fails.

 

[Darat]

I decided to read Federalist 65 to see what it actually had to say.


Those guys were smart. ..snip....

Yep us fellow Brits knew how to breed them back then.

Seriously yes there was a coalescence of public minded intellectuals around that time all feeding a political change, and it wasn’t confined to the British, it was happening in France and other European countries.

Since we haven’t got any dumber since then I would say it was the culture and societies that enabled them to flourish.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sadly that summarises the failings of the USA’s governance that has been brought into sharp relief over that last 4 years.

The USA system was conceived largely by a group of men who assumed that all right thinking folk would act with (to use a very old fashioned word) personal honour and wouldn’t undertake bad-faith actions because of a sense of personal shame.

When folk without those personal restraints become powerful the “checks and balance” system fails.

Actually, I was surprised when I read Federalist 65. In fact, Hamilton said they probably wouldn't act all that nobly.

"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt,"

So, he wasn't under any illusions, but he gave good reasons why the Senate as the place for an impeachment trial was the best they could do.

 

[Darat]

Actually, I was surprised when I read Federalist 65. In fact, Hamilton said they probably wouldn't act all that nobly.

"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt,"

So, he wasn't under any illusions, but he gave good reasons why the Senate as the place for an impeachment trial was the best they could do.

Yes but these were considered in today’s parlance “edge” cases and they are if you like the nuclear option. Not the regular checks and balances of a system.