Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[BlueK]

I don't believe Trump intended for people to breach the building.

Why not? Inconsistent with his character?

Besides that, letting hours pass before doing anything to stop it is a blatant violation of his oath of office impeachable on its face, no less so than if Al Qaida terrorists had attacked and run wild in the Capitol and he failed to send help for that long.

[BlueK]

I've long thought that the better case for impeachment and conviction was not intent to incite insurrection, but failure to act when the insurrection came about. I don't understand why Democrats decided to go with the weaker argument.

They made both arguments.

[All-American]

Why not? Inconsistent with his character?

Besides that, letting hours pass before doing anything to stop it is a blatant violation of his oath of office impeachable on its face, no less so than if Al Qaida terrorists had attacked and run wild in the Capitol and he failed to send help for that long.

A law professor of mine, and no friend to Trump, opines on that very question:

Maybe. But the better reading of events is that Trump was being Trump. By the standards of previous American presidents and virtually all American politicians, he was extraordinarily reckless in insisting for two months that the election was stolen and then in using inflammatory language with the crowd that had gathered to protest the election results.

But he did not directly ask the crowd to engage in violence, and there is no evidence that he anticipated that they would. Trump, like everyone else, must have expected that the police would keep the crowd under control, and would not have expected them to invade the Capitol (something that has not happened since the War of 1812, when British troops occupied Washington). . . .

But the claim that Trump incited an insurrection is a stretch, and Republican senators seeking to justify acquitting him will argue that whatever he did, it was not insurrection. The real reason to disqualify Trump is that he is a menace to American institutions whose reckless, power-mad antics almost undermined an election and will sow mischief for years to come. This should be plainly said. Then it’s up to the House managers to persuade Senate Republicans – and, more important, the citizens who may vote for them – that this man should not be allowed to run for office ever again.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...posner-2021-02

[All-American]

They made both arguments.

But only brought one charge: incitement. They're using lack of action after the fact as evidence of intention before. And maybe it is-- but the lack of action, in my view, is in its own right the more egregious offense.

[BlueK]

But only brought one charge: incitement. They're using lack of action after the fact as evidence of intention before. And maybe it is-- but the lack of action, in my view, is in its own right the more egregious offense.

This isn't the same as a criminal court. Getting the exact wording of the charges just so or the judge throws out the case on a technicality doesn't apply to an impeachment proceeding. If you are a senator and you're appropriately horrified thst Trump did nothing to stop the riot then you convict. You shouldn't ignore it because it was only presented as a supporting argument for a charge of incitement that you're not 100% certain of. The only reasonable assumption is that the Republicans weren't going to convict on anything because of a political calculation and no other reason, and that to me is immoral. It will hurt the party in the long term.

[Commando]

It actually IS about intentions, if you are considering the crime of inciting insurrection. Actual intent is an element of the crime of incitement. You could not convict somebody of incitement in a US courtroom without a finding that they actually intended the action.

Granted, this setting is very different-- we are not in a US Courtroom. And I happen to agree that recklessness should be sufficient for impeachment and conviction in this case. But it's a lot closer a call than many want to admit. I know a lot of very reasonable minds on both sides of this point.

I don't know what Trump could have done differently if we suppose he actually sat with a team of strategists devising a way to disrupt the electoral count and peaceful transfer of power. He might not have been familiar with the actual terms 'incitement," "insurrection," or even "treason," but it seems that it is exactly what he planned on doing, beginning with switching things up at the DOD and inviting his hordes of supporters to D.C. for the 6th in particular. Reminds me of the stories of Trump sitting in meetings proposing to his cabinet to do this or that-- things that were wildly illegal that his cabinet would have to rein him in on. In the end there was really nobody who was capable of pulling the reins.

[All-American]

This isn't the same as a criminal court. Getting the exact wording of the charges just so or the judge throws out the case on a technicality doesn't apply to an impeachment proceeding. If you are a senator and you're appropriately horrified thst Trump did nothing to stop the riot then you convict. You shouldn't ignore it because it was only presented as a supporting argument for a charge of incitement that you're not 100% certain of. The only reasonable assumption is that the Republicans weren't going to convict on anything because of a political calculation and no other reason, and that to me is immoral. It will hurt the party in the long term.

Can't agree with that either. Yes, this isn't the same as a criminal court-- and to me that's cause to be MORE careful, not less.

Look, I'm not going to go to war against folks arguing he should be convicted when I think, on the whole, that is probably the better position. But it's not as simple or easy as some of you are making it out to be.

[BlueK]

A law professor of mine, and no friend to Trump, opines on that very question:



https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...posner-2021-02

This is interesting to read, but on impeachment, some lawyers need to step back and see the forest. This isn't the same thing as when a judge hands out jury instructions and tells jurors to only decide the case based on how the charges are specifically worded, how the law is worded or only on what was presented in the courtroom during the case. There is a purpose for doing it that way in a criminal court which I agree with. But Impeachment is not that. This isn't a proceeding about taking someone's freedom. It's about protecting the republic from a serious danger. No one has the right to be the president or even to hold office. There was more than enough presented to show Trump is too dangerous to hold office again, and in this setting it's all that should really matter to the senators.

[BlueK]

Can't agree with that either. Yes, this isn't the same as a criminal court-- and to me that's cause to be MORE careful, not less.

This proceeding can't take his freedom like a criminal conviction,so that's why you have it backwards. Also, holding office is not a right. The protection of the very republic which protects our civil rights and makes criminal proceedings fair is why impeachment of a president who is a danger to that is handled differently . Give Trump every bit of those procedural rights when he's undoubtedly soon in court for other things.

[All-American]

This proceeding can't take his freedom like a criminal conviction,so that's why you have it backwards. Also, holding office is not a right. The protection of the very republic which protects our civil rights and makes criminal proceedings fair is why impeachment of a president who is a danger to that is handled differently . Give Trump every bit of those procedural rights when he's undoubtedly soon in court for other things.

And here, again, we're just not going to be on the same page. To me, you can't play fast and loose when you are talking about removing the executive from power. The process should be handled with solemnity and caution, recognizing that its use poses a danger in its own right and knowing that the next time it is invoked it may well be for less cause than the first.

[Copelius]

And here, again, we're just not going to be on the same page. To me, you can't play fast and loose when you are talking about removing the executive from power. The process should be handled with solemnity and caution, recognizing that its use poses a danger in its own right and knowing that the next time it is invoked it may well be for less cause than the first.

That is my main concern. If impeachment is based on high crimes or misdemeanors, the jury (senate) should be satisfied BARD that the elements of the charge(s) in the articles sent over by the house are in fact met. The argument I am seeing from the convict Trump crowd seems to say that when looking at everything he did as a whole we just need to forego that standard, which exists for every crime and even infraction in the US and its States, and convict just to get to the disqualification vote. Acknowledging that impeachment is a political function and not strictly legal, I still cannot see them connecting the dots and showing the intent required.

And if we are to relax the standards of proof so to convict Trump, what is to stop a Republican or Democrat majority of the house from impeaching a President or other official down the line for a less egregious action?

Standard disclaimer: I didn't vote for Trump either time and have voted for both sides in nearly every election since I started. I am still a registered republican because I am too lazy to change to independent.

[beefytee]

And here, again, we're just not going to be on the same page. To me, you can't play fast and loose when you are talking about removing the executive from power. The process should be handled with solemnity and caution, recognizing that its use poses a danger in its own right and knowing that the next time it is invoked it may well be for less cause than the first.

That is my main concern. If impeachment is based on high crimes or misdemeanors, the jury (senate) should be satisfied BARD that the elements of the charge(s) in the articles sent over by the house are in fact met. The argument I am seeing from the convict Trump crowd seems to say that when looking at everything he did as a whole we just need to forego that standard, which exists for every crime and even infraction in the US and its States, and convict just to get to the disqualification vote. Acknowledging that impeachment is a political function and not strictly legal, I still cannot see them connecting the dots and showing the intent required.

And if we are to relax the standards of proof so to convict Trump, what is to stop a Republican or Democrat majority of the house from impeaching a President or other official down the line for a less egregious action?

Standard disclaimer: I didn't vote for Trump either time and have voted for both sides in nearly every election since I started. I am still a registered republican because I am too lazy to change to independent.

This cuts both ways though. Not holding a president accountable because of legal technicalities and procedures has as much danger of emboldening future presidents to act as recklessly as Trump did.

The one thing we can all seem to agree on though is that the democrats are finding a way to screw this up.

[fusnik]

And here, again, we're just not going to be on the same page. To me, you can't play fast and loose when you are talking about removing the executive from power. The process should be handled with solemnity and caution, recognizing that its use poses a danger in its own right and knowing that the next time it is invoked it may well be for less cause than the first.

Good lord your takes are bad.

The next time the executive lies incessantly about the election, encourages violence against his political opponents, invites foreign interference for his benefit to win an election, threatens state legislatures, speaks to and invites multiple state legislatures to talk about decertifying their elections, has his campaign change permits to walk on the capitol, invites millions of people to Washington DC to take their country back through extraordinary means, whips a crowd into a frenzy, sends them to the capitol to disrupt a formality, finds out his VP’s life if in danger yet tweets to the mob that the VP has let them down, stays silent for hours and calls the mob patriots, we can handle the impeachment process with solemn caution.

[Bo Diddley]

Good lord your takes are bad.

The next time the executive lies incessantly about the election, encourages violence against his political opponents, invites foreign interference for his benefit to win an election, threatens state legislatures, speaks to and invites multiple state legislatures to talk about decertifying their elections, has his campaign change permits to walk on the capitol, invites millions of people to Washington DC to take their country back through extraordinary means, whips a crowd into a frenzy, sends them to the capitol to disrupt a formality, finds out his VP’s life if in danger yet tweets to the mob that the VP has let them down, stays silent for hours and calls the mob patriots, we can handle the impeachment process with solemn caution.

Well yeah, when you say it like that...

[All-American]

Good lord your takes are bad.

The next time the executive lies incessantly about the election, encourages violence against his political opponents, invites foreign interference for his benefit to win an election, threatens state legislatures, speaks to and invites multiple state legislatures to talk about decertifying their elections, has his campaign change permits to walk on the capitol, invites millions of people to Washington DC to take their country back through extraordinary means, whips a crowd into a frenzy, sends them to the capitol to disrupt a formality, finds out his VP’s life if in danger yet tweets to the mob that the VP has let them down, stays silent for hours and calls the mob patriots, we can handle the impeachment process with solemn caution.

I'm not convinced you actually read anything I say, other than two or three words.