Split Thread A second impeachment

[Skeptic Ginger]

I hope we are going to see some of the details here we've gotten bits and pieces of.

Who ordered the DC Nat'l guard to not show up in any kind of effective way? Whose idea was it?

I would like to see some of the pieces connected. At this point let the GOP Senators balk. This time around they don't have McConnell to simply call for a vote without any evidence presented.

 

[Segnosaur]

Seems more and more likely that any impeachment hearing is gong to be a reverse show trial of sorts.

The jury (the Republican Senators) has already made it pretty clear they will not convict regardless of what evidence is shown.

Trump basically has a platform to spew whatever nonsense and lies he likes at this thing, there's nothing uncertain about the outcome.

I still think impeaching was the right thing for the Democrats to do here, but this is going to be really gross.

On the other hand... the Democrats will have significant control over the proceedings, and Trump's defense lawyers (even if he doesn't get particularly good ones) will want to avoid suborning perjury. So if Trump's defense team claim "look at the fraud", they can be challenged to point out the evidence.

I could imagine Trump on the stand:
Trump: "The election was stolen"
Democratic senator: "You hire the best people, right?"
Trump: "Yes, the greatest people in the world"
Democratic senator: "You hired William Barr, right?"
Trump: "Yes"
Democratic senator: "Barr said there was no election fraud. If you hire only the best and the best says no fraud, why are you going against the person you hired?"

 

[TurkeysGhost]

On the other hand... the Democrats will have significant control over the proceedings, and Trump's defense lawyers (even if he doesn't get particularly good ones) will want to avoid suborning perjury. So if Trump's defense team claim "look at the fraud", they can be challenged to point out the evidence.

I could imagine Trump on the stand:
Trump: "The election was stolen"
Democratic senator: "You hire the best people, right?"
Trump: "Yes, the greatest people in the world"
Democratic senator: "You hired William Barr, right?"
Trump: "Yes"
Democratic senator: "Barr said there was no election fraud. If you hire only the best and the best says no fraud, why are you going against the person you hired?"

Sure. Assuming the Democrats put together a competent team, they are likely going to complete crush Trump. And then the Republicans are going to vote to acquit.

That's why it's going to be gross. It will be plainly obvious that Trump is extremely guilty of what he is accused of doing, and he's going to walk away without consequences on a strictly party line vote.

Maybe there will be political consequences for this, say with the voters at the midterm elections, but I really doubt it. The only unpopular Republicans from this will be the few squishes, like Romney, that cross the partisan line.

 

[Segnosaur]

I hope we are going to see some of the details here we've gotten bits and pieces of.

Who ordered the DC Nat'l guard to not show up in any kind of effective way? Whose idea was it?

I think those are important questions to ask.

The problem is, is the impeachment the best place to start asking them? It seems to me the type of thing you would create an inquiry for (like Mueller's investigation, only more competent). Trying to dig up that information during an impeachment might cause the proceedings to become too distracted.

 

[Pixel42]

The problem is, the things a president/former president can reasonably be impeached for (and the proposed punishments) do not necessarily match up perfectly with what would be prosecutable in court (because there may not necessarily be an appropriate law).

Inciting a riot and an attempted insurrection is both an impeachable offence and a criminal one though, surely. Dominion are suing Gulliani and Powell for defamation, Trump repeated the same lies they did.

 

[Segnosaur]

The problem is, the things a president/former president can reasonably be impeached for (and the proposed punishments) do not necessarily match up perfectly with what would be prosecutable in court (because there may not necessarily be an appropriate law).

Inciting a riot and an attempted insurrection is both an impeachable offence and a criminal one though, surely.

But the question is, would the actions of Trump amount to what would be considered "incitement" in a court of law.

According to the Legal Eagle youtube channel (which generally takes an anti-Trump stance), the courts usually take a very broad approach to applying the first amendment. Trump did use certain loaded works like 'fight', but he didn't give specific instructions to storm the capitol building, so Trump's role might be seen as "free speech".

So Trump's actions might be morally wrong, he certainly played a role in the events that lead to the riot and the terrorist activity, and his praise of the rioters shows that he is unfit to ever be president. (In other words, impeachable). But if Trump as a private citizen did those things, all that might be seen as protected speech (in other words, not prosecutable.)

Dominion are suing Gulliani and Powell for defamation, Trump repeated the same lies they did.

Yes, but lying on its own is not necessarily a criminal offense. (It only becomes criminal under certain circumstances... such as lying under oath.)

And it should be pointed out that defamation is a civil matter, not criminal.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Seems more and more likely that any impeachment hearing is gong to be a reverse show trial of sorts.

The jury (the Republican Senators) has already made it pretty clear they will not convict regardless of what evidence is shown.

If so, it'll be the Republican Party that's on trial. Not every Republican voter is a Trump hard liner, and if it becomes too painfully clear to the sane ones that the party they're supporting is now the party of violent insurrection, subversion of democracy and deliberate undermining of the rule of law, then they may find it increasingly difficult to give it any more support.

Dave

 

[zooterkin]

If so, it'll be the Republican Party that's on trial. Not every Republican voter is a Trump hard liner, and if it becomes too painfully clear to the sane ones that the party they're supporting is now the party of violent insurrection, subversion of democracy and deliberate undermining of the rule of law, then they may find it increasingly difficult to give it any more support.

Dave

Yeah, but which choice will give them the most votes?

 

[Vixen]

The news moves fast.

This from CNN a short time ago:

“With a little more than a week before his impeachment trial is set to begin, President Trump's legal team is in tumult.
Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, who were expected to be two of the lead attorneys, are no longer on the team. A source familiar with the changes said it was a mutual decision for both to leave the legal team.”

What kind of lawyer calls himself 'Butch'?

JUDGE: And who do I have in front of me?

LAWYER: Ooh, Butch. <fx puckers lips and winks>

 

[dasmiller]

If so, it'll be the Republican Party that's on trial. Not every Republican voter is a Trump hard liner, and if it becomes too painfully clear to the sane ones that the party they're supporting is now the party of violent insurrection, subversion of democracy and deliberate undermining of the rule of law, then they may find it increasingly difficult to give it any more support.

Dave

Unfortunately, I think there's a loophole. I remember that back in the beginning of the Trump administration, if someone pointed out some particularly egregious act by Trump, my conservative friends would inevitably say, "yeah, but the Democrats are just as bad." If Trump shot someone on 5th Ave, they'd claim that the Democrats were shooting dozens of people every day on 4th and 6th but the media is covering it up.

Whatever bad thing Trump did was, in their view, an example of how bad politicians are, and since Trump is the anti-politician, we needed more Trump.

From what I've seen on my Facebook feed recently, my conservative friends are going further down that path. Now they really believe that the Democrats are trying to impose some communist dystopia (evidently unlimited immigration is now a central tenet of communism). They think that not only have liberal politics changed San Francisco into a hellhole populated only by homeless people and drug-using immigrant rapists, but that this was the goal of the liberal politicians.

So Trump encouraged an attack on the Capitol? That just shows how the Democrats are attacking the Constitution, and trying to take your house and give it to lazy people, and letting illegal immigrants rape your children.

 

[bruto]

Regarding the issue of charges outside the impeachment, I suspect that a good lawyer would make the case that, even if the impeachment is unconstitutional because T**** is no longer in office, the action in question was made when he was, and therefore, not subject to the rules for non-presidents when it happened.

It's this lame-duck limbo that the Democrats are trying to do away with, but if the Republicans insurrection-loving riot enablers do their job well, it will be a hard case to make.

 

[Dave Rogers]

From what I've seen on my Facebook feed recently, my conservative friends are going further down that path. Now they really believe that the Democrats are trying to impose some communist dystopia (evidently unlimited immigration is now a central tenet of communism). They think that not only have liberal politics changed San Francisco into a hellhole populated only by homeless people and drug-using immigrant rapists, but that this was the goal of the liberal politicians.

So Trump encouraged an attack on the Capitol? That just shows how the Democrats are attacking the Constitution, and trying to take your house and give it to lazy people, and letting illegal immigrants rape your children.

True, but those people won't be reached whatever the Democrats do or don't do. There are, I hope, sane, moderate Republicans who believe that there is a point beyond which the ends don't justify the means, and what the Democrats can do with the impeachment trial is make it clear to them that exonerating Trump places the party beyond that point.

And if it turns out that all 74 million who voted for Trump are diehards, then the USA may be doomed as a democracy, because before long it may well have a majority in favour of a right wing dictatorship; but again, that would have happened whether the Democrats impeached or not, so there's nothing to lose by trying.

Dave

 

[Segnosaur]

If so, it'll be the Republican Party that's on trial. Not every Republican voter is a Trump hard liner, and if it becomes too painfully clear to the sane ones that the party they're supporting is now the party of violent insurrection, subversion of democracy and deliberate undermining of the rule of law, then they may find it increasingly difficult to give it any more support.

Yeah, but which choice will give them the most votes?

The big question isn't "Which choice (pro or anti-Trump) gives them most votes". The big question is whether forcing republican congress-critters to make a choice at all costs them votes, compared to if they were just able to drop/ignore the issue.

If they vote to convict in impeachment, they risk alienating the MAGAchuds. If they vote against impeachment, they risk alienating moderate voters. On the other hand, if impeachment never came up, then Republican politicians could be intentionally vague... not expressing any explicit opinion on the Trump inspired terrorism, in an attempt to keep both the MAGAchuds and moderates on board (since each group would attempt to analyze the vagueness with their own ideas.)

 

[dasmiller]

And if it turns out that all 74 million who voted for Trump are diehards, then the USA may be doomed as a democracy, because before long it may well have a majority in favour of a right wing dictatorship; but again, that would have happened whether the Democrats impeached or not, so there's nothing to lose by trying.

I'm of the opinion that Congress is obliged to impeach & convict, regardless of whether it's politically expedient for either side. This was an egregious violation of the public trust*; it's not enough to say "well, we'll let it go since he's not President any more" or "yes, maybe somebody else should prosecute him for, uh, something."

*more accurately, this was yet another egregious violation of the public trust

 

[turingtest]

Regarding the issue of charges outside the impeachment, I suspect that a good lawyer would make the case that, even if the impeachment is unconstitutional because T**** is no longer in office, the action in question was made when he was, and therefore, not subject to the rules for non-presidents when it happened.

It's this lame-duck limbo that the Democrats are trying to do away with, but if the Republicans insurrection-loving riot enablers do their job well, it will be a hard case to make.

There's also the point that, with a week left in Trump's term, Democrats tried to get a vote in the Senate on the impeachment, when Schumer asked McConnell to call the Senate into emergency session to do so, and McConnell refused. The GOP certainly had no problem getting a SC justice confirmed quickly when it was in their interest to do so- there's no procedural justification for saying the Senate couldn't have removed a President as expeditiously as they did install a Justice.

So I think that it's just a little self-serving and specious for Republicans to argue that a President can only be tried for his misconduct in office in some timely manner they define as "while still in office," when they are the ones who made sure that that condition couldn't be met.

ETA- I do like the phrase "lame-duck limbo." In a different context, that would be a hilarious image...

 

[dudalb]

But the question is, would the actions of Trump amount to what would be considered "incitement" in a court of law.

According to the Legal Eagle youtube channel (which generally takes an anti-Trump stance), the courts usually take a very broad approach to applying the first amendment. Trump did use certain loaded works like 'fight', but he didn't give specific instructions to storm the capitol building, so Trump's role might be seen as "free speech".

So Trump's actions might be morally wrong, he certainly played a role in the events that lead to the riot and the terrorist activity, and his praise of the rioters shows that he is unfit to ever be president. (In other words, impeachable). But if Trump as a private citizen did those things, all that might be seen as protected speech (in other words, not prosecutable.)


Yes, but lying on its own is not necessarily a criminal offense. (It only becomes criminal under certain circumstances... such as lying under oath.)

And it should be pointed out that defamation is a civil matter, not criminal.

My Lawyer sister says that any good attorney would say that what Trump said did not amount to incitement is the most viable defense. Trump used just enough weasels words to make such a defense plausinble.Whatever his intentions,he never actually said "go out and commit violence" in so many words.

But of course Donnie will not go for that.

 

[dudalb]

The more I read about his new defense team, the less I am impressed. Clear Connie, for a variety of reasons, can't get any really good attorney to represent him.

 

[CORed]

If the Senate votes that impeachment is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer President then fine, try him in the normal courts alongside the rest of the rioters. That's the only reason he's being impeached rather than tried, right? That's what you do to a sitting President rather than try him in court? So if impeachment is no longer applicable, then normal trial is?

Well, given that McConnell blocked any effort to get him out of office before the 20th, IMO the impeachment is fairly pointless, though barring Trump from holding future office is probably worthwhile. He absolutely should be prosecuted criminally, for his role in the coup attempt, and anything else they can pin on him.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The Viking wants to speak at the impeachment trial, after Trump didn't pardon him

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think those are important questions to ask.

The problem is, is the impeachment the best place to start asking them? It seems to me the type of thing you would create an inquiry for (like Mueller's investigation, only more competent). Trying to dig up that information during an impeachment might cause the proceedings to become too distracted.

Why not? It's the general public that is the target market here, not Trump sycophants.

What kind of distraction? There is a trail to those orders even if Trump has a "wasn't me" roadblock. I don't think there's much to"dig up". I'm pretty sure it's more a matter of shocking inexplicable behavior. You want whistleblowers, I'l bet they come crawling out of the woodwork.