Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[falafel]

There are some immediate ramifications. Trump would lose his federal pension, Secret Service detail, $1million travel budget, and other perks of a former president.

I think this has been debunked.

[chrisrenrut]

I think this has been debunked.

looks like you are right. Although part could have been true if McConnell acted more quickly:

The Constitution says, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."

Most of the benefits afforded presidents were passed as part of the Former Presidents Act. Two benefits mentioned in Costiloe’s tweet — an annual lifetime pension of about $200,000 and an annual travel allowance of up to $1 million — are enumerated in the law, which passed in 1958. The law says those benefits apply to presidents "whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America."

That section of the Constitution spells out the process by which a president may be removed from office "on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

"Impeaching him does nothing; only convicting him would," said Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University. "And under current law (the Former Presidents Act), convicting him only strips him of those benefits if he is convicted while still in office (which looks certain not to happen)."

[BlueK]

The trumpbots who attacked the capitol don't think they did anything wrong.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/...-trump-pardons

[Clark Addison]

The trumpbots who attacked the capitol don't think they did anything wrong.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/...-trump-pardons

She makes Trump and his followers look so bad that I almost think she has to be a plant just to make them look like idiots.

But then I think of some people I actually know...

[BlueK]

She makes Trump and his followers look so bad that I almost think she has to be a plant just to make them look like idiots.

But then I think of some people I actually know...

Historians are going to categorize Trumpism as a fascist movement, and fascism scrambles brains. It mesmerizes people to get them to suspend all critical thinking so they fall in line behind a cultist leader.

Fortunately Trumpists are in the minority, and the coup attempt and attack on our legislative branch completely disgusted independents and peeled off a decent portion of Republicans. Notice the plunge in Trump's approval number since it happened.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...oval-6179.html

[frank ryan]

Historians are going to categorize Trumpism as a fascist movement, and fascism scrambles brains. It mesmerizes people to get them to suspend all critical thinking so they fall in line behind a cultist leader.

Fortunately Trumpists are in the minority, and the coup attempt and attack on our legislative branch completely disgusted independents and peeled off a decent portion of Republicans. Notice the plunge in Trump's approval number since it happened.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...oval-6179.html

“When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”

[Commando]

Historians are going to categorize Trumpism as a fascist movement, and fascism scrambles brains. It mesmerizes people to get them to suspend all critical thinking so they fall in line behind a cultist leader.

Fortunately Trumpists are in the minority, and the coup attempt and attack on our legislative branch completely disgusted independents and peeled off a decent portion of Republicans. Notice the plunge in Trump's approval number since it happened.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...oval-6179.html

Why do I feel like the crazy one for seeing all of this as clear as day since he became the front runner in 2016?

[Northwestcoug]

Why do I feel like the crazy one for seeing all of this as clear as day since he became the front runner in 2016?

The full crazy of Trump has always been out there in the open. People who knew better just hoped they could contain the grass roots enthusiasm he generated.

I may have shared this video previously. It encapsulates Trump well; not only his immorality but his simplistic view of politics. He takes a complicated issue, like how the government should have dealt with Bowe Bergdahl, and makes it sound like he's the only adult who can see through all the political ineptitude and offer common sense solutions. But even worse (and in light of January 6th), just how easily he can whip up his supporters in a frenzy, and how quickly he exposes the worst in humanity:

[BlueK]

Why do I feel like the crazy one for seeing all of this as clear as day since he became the front runner in 2016?

All those lines Trump wasn't going to cross?

[UVACoug]

I support the impeachment and hope he is convicted and disqualified from office, but I wish it had been done in a more bipartisan manner. That's probably too much to wish for, but Pelosi's strategy here seemed to be to get as few Republican's on board as possible in order to paint them as extremists. Many (probably most) of the Republicans in the house probably deserve to be painted in that light, but I think if Pelosi made some effort to bring Republicans into the process, she could have gotten more than 10 of them to support it. The delay was partisan. The 25th amendment charade was partisan. The language of the impeachment articles are partisan. The impeachment language could have been far more persuasive and an unimpeachable (excuse the pun) if Pelosi wanted it to. She should have brought one of the Republicans that had already publicly supported impeachment (like Cheney) to work on the language with the Democrats. But her political calculation was that it was better to do it unilaterally without broad Republican support. Maybe she would never have gotten it, but she didn't even make an effort. That might turn out to be a smart political judgment, but it isn't what was best for the country, in my opinion. I think it also would have made conviction in the Senate more likely. The way the articles are written now, Republicans on the line can point to the "incitement" language and claim that Democrats didn't make their case for that. There are plenty of valid justifications for impeachment that could have been included that Senate Republicans would have a much harder time denying. The goal here doesn't actually seem to be to hold Trump responsibly ... it is to make Republicans look bad. For once, I wish they would have set that innate tendency aside.

This is the same reason I opposed the first Trump impeachment. I think Trump did many things that were worthy of impeachment throughout his term, but the basis that he was actually impeached on was farcical. It's almost like Democrats wanted it to fail.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I am going to invoke Godwin's law. I don't care if he is convicted by the senate, I want to see the trial. In the same way that the US Army forced the citizens of Dachau to walk through the concentration camp in their town, I want all the horrors, slime, etc to be presented in graphic detail for the whole country to see. To see the depravity, lack of moral code, that we allowed, and in some circles, protected, and even promoted, to happen in the highest office of our country. We need a moral reckoning in politics in this country.

[Commando]

I am going to invoke Godwin's law. I don't care if he is convicted by the senate, I want to see the trial. In the same way that the US Army forced the citizens of Dachau to walk through the concentration camp in their town, I want all the horrors, slime, etc to be presented in graphic detail for the whole country to see. To see the depravity, lack of moral code, that we allowed, and in some circles, protected, and even promoted, to happen in the highest office of our country. We need a moral reckoning in politics in this country.

Hear, hear!

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am going to invoke Godwin's law. I don't care if he is convicted by the senate, I want to see the trial. In the same way that the US Army forced the citizens of Dachau to walk through the concentration camp in their town, I want all the horrors, slime, etc to be presented in graphic detail for the whole country to see. To see the depravity, lack of moral code, that we allowed, and in some circles, protected, and even promoted, to happen in the highest office of our country. We need a moral reckoning in politics in this country.

Could not agree more.

[beefytee]

What JiC said!

[Now who’s the dean?]

I support the impeachment and hope he is convicted and disqualified from office, but I wish it had been done in a more bipartisan manner. That's probably too much to wish for, but Pelosi's strategy here seemed to be to get as few Republican's on board as possible in order to paint them as extremists. Many (probably most) of the Republicans in the house probably deserve to be painted in that light, but I think if Pelosi made some effort to bring Republicans into the process, she could have gotten more than 10 of them to support it. The delay was partisan. The 25th amendment charade was partisan. The language of the impeachment articles are partisan. The impeachment language could have been far more persuasive and an unimpeachable (excuse the pun) if Pelosi wanted it to. She should have brought one of the Republicans that had already publicly supported impeachment (like Cheney) to work on the language with the Democrats. But her political calculation was that it was better to do it unilaterally without broad Republican support. Maybe she would never have gotten it, but she didn't even make an effort. That might turn out to be a smart political judgment, but it isn't what was best for the country, in my opinion. I think it also would have made conviction in the Senate more likely. The way the articles are written now, Republicans on the line can point to the "incitement" language and claim that Democrats didn't make their case for that. There are plenty of valid justifications for impeachment that could have been included that Senate Republicans would have a much harder time denying. The goal here doesn't actually seem to be to hold Trump responsibly ... it is to make Republicans look bad. For once, I wish they would have set that innate tendency aside.

This is the same reason I opposed the first Trump impeachment. I think Trump did many things that were worthy of impeachment throughout his term, but the basis that he was actually impeached on was farcical. It's almost like Democrats wanted it to fail.

Any GOP senator who uses the language of the impeachment articles as an excuse for not convicting was never going to convict under any circumstances. And it’s probably most of them.


**And I don’t agree with that in the workplace**