Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[Bo Diddley]

Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me. Are you saying she was trying to measure the reaction from both sides by forcefully throwing out two opposite opinions of the same event in the same week?

Yes, that's my take-away.

[Northwestcoug]

So we will have some witnesses after all. This is good, not only for my base desires to see the GOP senators squirm even more as they inevitably vote to acquit. But also to do impeachment right. If the offense was serious enough to impeach, then don’t do it half-assedly.

Can anyone understand Graham’s threat that if witnesses are called, the GOP is going to draw it out with a bunch of their own? How does he think the balance of witnesses would look worse for the house managers?

[BlueK]

So we will have some witnesses after all. This is good, not only for my base desires to see the GOP senators squirm even more as they inevitably vote to acquit. But also to do impeachment right. If the offense was serious enough to impeach, then don’t do it half-assedly.

Can anyone understand Graham’s threat that if witnesses are called, the GOP is going to draw it out with a bunch of their own? How does he think the balance of witnesses would look worse for the house managers?

So the idea of witnesses scares Graham.

[PaloAltoCougar]

What do you suppose Trump hoped the outcome would be as he wasriling up his supporters and imploring them to march to the Capitol? He wanted the vote stopped. How does merely having his supporters mingle outside the capitol waving flags and chanting accomplish that? If Trump didn't think there would be violence at the capitol, he would have kept his promise and joined the protestors at the capitol. Trump didn't follow his supporters to the capitol because he knew the capitol was not going to be a safe place to be.

I'm sure that when Trump said things like, "You don't concede when there's theft involved! Our country has had enough! We will not take it anymore! You will have an illegitimate president! That is what you will have, and we can't let that happen! If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore!, etc." all he intended, and the only consequence that could have been foreseen, was that the protestors would calmly walk to the Capitol and wave their flags vigorously.

[Northwestcoug]

So the idea of witnesses scares Graham.

Right. But the senate votes on the witnesses, correct? They are not going play into the hands of the GOP by allowing Hunter Biden-esque witnesses.

[USUC]

So I guess Ron Johnson and Mitt got into a verbal spat on the Senate floor after the vote for witnesses. Apparently some press members were there and probably recorded it.

Also, MTG and the Trump crazies are going to try and eviscerate any GOP witnesses. They are so confident in their political position. "75 million Trump loyalists are watching you" is such a beautiful miscalculation. The more light illuminating the last 3 months of the Trump presidency, the quicker the fear of Trump loyalists will recede.

[All-American]

I'm sure that when Trump said things like, "You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore. You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can't let that happen. If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore, etc." all he intended, and all the only consequence that could be foreseen, was that the protestors would calmly walk to the Capitol and wave their flags vigorously.

I find it terribly interesting that you used the phrase "could be foreseen." Because as you know, with an offense that has an element of actual offense, it is not enough to show that the consequences of an action were foreseeable-- they had to have been foreseen. Not enough to show that any idiot could have realized what would happen if he said what he said-- what matters is whether THAT idiot DID.

Note, too, the actual text of the article of impeachment, which also frames the offense in terms of an action with foreseeable results:

ARTICLE I: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] any office … under the United States”. In his conduct while President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that:

On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a Joint Session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, DC. There, he reiterated false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide”. He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.

President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Attest:

The question thus raised it this: is it enough, for purposes of impeaching and convicting a President, that the results of his conduct be foreseeable, even if not actually foreseen?

Because, frankly, the case that he actually intended the mob to storm the Capitol is weak. All the while he talked about "fighting" for his cause, he made clear his hopes that Pence and others would back it by refusing to certify the election-- something they could not have done while fleeing the angry mob.

So, to convict, you have to accept one of three theories of conviction:

One, oh who cares, confound it all with procedural protections and all that, the man deserves to be convicted and we all know it. You can imagine why I don't find that persuasive.

Two, he actually intended for the mob to storm the Capitol, and therefore committed the crime of inciting insurrection as commonly understood. That theory, too, has serious weaknesses; the weight of the evidence seems to be that he acted with recklessness, but not intent that the mob would breach the perimeter.

Three, for purposes of defining what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" in the context of impeaching and convicting a President-- a task ultimately committed to Congress alone-- recklessness is sufficient. I think that's the better argument, and cause enough to impeach and convict. But I'm not surprised to see disagreement there either. Nor do I think disagreement on that question can mean only that the other person is acting in bad faith, is hypocritical, or somehow approves of what happened.

[Jarid in Cedar]

If I inject my dog with methamphetamine and let it off the chain, and that dog maims a child, my intent is irrelevant.

[All-American]

If I inject my dog with methamphetamine and let it off the chain, and that dog maims a child, my intent is irrelevant.

That's absolutely true, depending on what crime you are accused of committing. You'd likely be convicted of offenses requiring a mental state of recklessness (like reckless endangerment). But they'd have a hard time sticking you with an actual intent crime like attempted murder.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I find it terribly interesting that you used the phrase "could be foreseen." Because as you know, with an offense that has an element of actual offense, it is not enough to show that the consequences of an action were foreseeable-- they had to have been foreseen. Not enough to show that any idiot could have realized what would happen if he said what he said-- what matters is whether THAT idiot DID.

Note, too, the actual text of the article of impeachment, which also frames the offense in terms of an action with foreseeable results:



The question thus raised it this: is it enough, for purposes of impeaching and convicting a President, that the results of his conduct be foreseeable, even if not actually foreseen?

Because, frankly, the case that he actually intended the mob to storm the Capitol is weak. All the while he talked about "fighting" for his cause, he made clear his hopes that Pence and others would back it by refusing to certify the election-- something they could not have done while fleeing the angry mob.

So, to convict, you have to accept one of three theories of conviction:

One, oh who cares, confound it all with procedural protections and all that, the man deserves to be convicted and we all know it. You can imagine why I don't find that persuasive.

Two, he actually intended for the mob to storm the Capitol, and therefore committed the crime of inciting insurrection as commonly understood. That theory, too, has serious weaknesses; the weight of the evidence seems to be that he acted with recklessness, but not intent that the mob would breach the perimeter.

Three, for purposes of defining what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" in the context of impeaching and convicting a President-- a task ultimately committed to Congress alone-- recklessness is sufficient. I think that's the better argument, and cause enough to impeach and convict. But I'm not surprised to see disagreement there either. Nor do I think disagreement on that question can mean only that the other person is acting in bad faith, is hypocritical, or somehow approves of what happened.

Honestly (if not proudly), I accept both One(!) and Three. I believe Trump's post-election conduct alone makes him unfit for office, now or in the future. And while I accept the possibility that one can take a principled stand in rejecting Three, I think most, and perhaps even all, of those who vote not to convict will be doing so not on principle but for political expediency. Could any GOP senator who votes to acquit argue with a straight face that he/she would vote the same way if the party roles were reversed?

Trump did considerable damage to our country and democratic ideals, and seriously undermined America's standing throughout the world. He should be barred from ever being given a position in government again.

BTW, the foreseeability discussion fascinates me as well, but not wanting to put the rest of the board into a coma, I'll leave it, other than to note I'm willing to use a different standard in an impeachment proceeding than I would be in a criminal trial.

[Northwestcoug]

What?!?

Beutler shows some courage with her statement yesterday, the senate votes to call her and other witnesses, and the house managers, say, no thanks? I mean, what?

incompetents vs. evils, I saw somewhere on Twitter. That sounds about right.

[USUC]

What a sham. Completely indefensible and shameful on behalf of the GOP. But the Dems sacrificing witnesses to supposedly protect Biden's agenda is dumb.

[tooblue]

I find it terribly interesting that you used the phrase "could be foreseen." Because as you know, with an offense that has an element of actual offense, it is not enough to show that the consequences of an action were foreseeable-- they had to have been foreseen. Not enough to show that any idiot could have realized what would happen if he said what he said-- what matters is whether THAT idiot DID.

Note, too, the actual text of the article of impeachment, which also frames the offense in terms of an action with foreseeable results:



The question thus raised it this: is it enough, for purposes of impeaching and convicting a President, that the results of his conduct be foreseeable, even if not actually foreseen?

Because, frankly, the case that he actually intended the mob to storm the Capitol is weak. All the while he talked about "fighting" for his cause, he made clear his hopes that Pence and others would back it by refusing to certify the election-- something they could not have done while fleeing the angry mob.

So, to convict, you have to accept one of three theories of conviction:

One, oh who cares, confound it all with procedural protections and all that, the man deserves to be convicted and we all know it. You can imagine why I don't find that persuasive.

Two, he actually intended for the mob to storm the Capitol, and therefore committed the crime of inciting insurrection as commonly understood. That theory, too, has serious weaknesses; the weight of the evidence seems to be that he acted with recklessness, but not intent that the mob would breach the perimeter.

Three, for purposes of defining what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" in the context of impeaching and convicting a President-- a task ultimately committed to Congress alone-- recklessness is sufficient. I think that's the better argument, and cause enough to impeach and convict. But I'm not surprised to see disagreement there either. Nor do I think disagreement on that question can mean only that the other person is acting in bad faith, is hypocritical, or somehow approves of what happened.

"Because, frankly, the case that he actually intended the mob to storm the Capitol is weak. All the while he talked about "fighting" for his cause, he made clear his hopes that Pence and others would back it by refusing to certify the election-- something they could not have done while fleeing the angry mob."

I'm not a lawyer, but Trump had been told directly by Pence (and others) that acting as Vice President Pence could not challenge the results—it was not within the scope of his powers. Trump went to podium with that knowledge. Thus, how premeditated were Trumps remarks? You could argue that he deliberately incited the mob precisely because he knew Pence could not do what he asked him and he therefore was intent on stopping the proceedings at any cost.

[All-American]

One other interesting thing about the house articles. Not a single mention of conduct after the attack starts.

[Bo Diddley]

When I observe the Supreme Court issue majority v minority opinions, I see that much in the application of the Constitution is subject to interpretation. I have no doubt the GOP, when they inevitably vote to acquit, will hide behind a narrow and more specific, almost academic interpretation of the Constitution.