• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My Thoughts on the Impeachment

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
2,866
Reaction score
844
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's taken me awhile to sort out what I think the right thing to do about Trump is. And my thoughts are these:
  • Based on what we know right now, my opinion is that Trump's offenses are impeachable, and unless new facts are found the Senate should vote to convict.

  • The impeachment process now underway is not a credible process. No matter how much one may be disgusted by Trump's actions, he is still the President of the United States. To run an impeachment through in a rush, without hearings, without witnesses, without Q&A, without giving the President a chance to make his case makes this process a sham. A parade of reps talking in soundbites for the prosecution and for the defense is a political show, and not anything like a credible grand jury, on which the impeachment process is modeled.

  • I have my doubts about whether a President can be impeached and convicted after he or she leaves office, and I suspect the House does as well; that's why they're rushing.

In short, Trump's recklessness has, IMO, risen to the standard of being a high crime, but it's too late in his term to do a credible job of removing him from office.
 

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
13,475
Reaction score
11,298
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It's taken me awhile to sort out what I think the right thing to do about Trump is. And my thoughts are these:
  • Based on what we know right now, my opinion is that Trump's offenses are impeachable, and unless new facts are found the Senate should vote to convict.

  • The impeachment process now underway is not a credible process. No matter how much one may be disgusted by Trump's actions, he is still the President of the United States. To run an impeachment through in a rush, without hearings, without witnesses, without Q&A, without giving the President a chance to make his case makes this process a sham. A parade of reps talking in soundbites for the prosecution and for the defense is a political show, and not anything like a credible grand jury, on which the impeachment process is modeled.

  • I have my doubts about whether a President can be impeached and convicted after he or she leaves office, and I suspect the House does as well; that's why they're rushing.

In short, Trump's recklessness has, IMO, risen to the standard of being a high crime, but it's too late in his term to do a credible job of removing him from office.
We're at the House part of the process, which is your first bullet. The House agrees with you!

Now that he's been impeached, the Senate will handle your second bullet.
 

Excast

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
1,751
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
This isn't Ukraine where much of the evidence was based on internal calls and actions that the public might not have had seen firsthand.

We all saw Trump and other Republicans speak at that rally. We've seen them lying about the results of the election for months to inflame the mob. We saw them point the mob at Congress with words about fighting to defend America and being willing to sacrifice blood or even life to defend it. We saw him sit in relative silence while the Capitol was overrun until he managed to release a statement in which he said he loved the terrorists who had just spent hours beating cops, defecating in the halls of Congress, and calling for the murder of our elected leaders.

What more evidence do you want to see? We all saw it. Delaying things for another few weeks so that Republicans can get through the crisis phase of the mess they helped create might be best for them, but it's not the best thing for this country that is desperately hoping it can get through the next week without Trump pulling something else.
 

less right

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
1,375
Location
Northern Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The president gets to make his case at the senate trial. Having heard that same strawman (the prez didn't get to give his side) so often during the first impeachment it's become (alternate) fact.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,472
Reaction score
37,348
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I guess my concern is that you can’t remove someone from an office which they no longer hold. Here is the (relevant) text of the US Constitution:

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
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; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
I added the bolding to the above quote which points out the possible penalties to be imposed upon impeachment conviction. Note that it says and not or, therefore if the POTUS was not removed from office by the impeachment conviction then they cannot also be disqualified from holding future office.
 

less right

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
1,375
Location
Northern Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I guess my concern is that you can’t remove someone from an office which they no longer hold. Here is the (relevant) text of the US Constituion:


I added the bolding to the above quote which points out the possible penalties to be imposed upon impeachment conviction. Note that it says and not or, therefore if the POTUS was not removed from office by the impeachment conviction then they cannot also be disqualified from holding future office.
Let me understand... you're saying if he's already out of office he can't be disqualified from future offices because he wasn't also "removed"?

If I've got that right, I would point out the text says, "...shall not extend further..." which to me sets a maximum with no reference to minimums. Seems to me that he wouldn't have to be removed and be disqualified at the same time in order to get disqualified.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
2,866
Reaction score
844
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The president gets to make his case at the senate trial. Having heard that same strawman (the prez didn't get to give his side) so often during the first impeachment it's become (alternate) fact.
I think bypassing that step during the Impeachment process is a mistake and sets a horrible precedent.
 

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
13,465
Reaction score
4,589
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's taken me awhile to sort out what I think the right thing to do about Trump is. And my thoughts are these:
  • Based on what we know right now, my opinion is that Trump's offenses are impeachable, and unless new facts are found the Senate should vote to convict.

  • The impeachment process now underway is not a credible process. No matter how much one may be disgusted by Trump's actions, he is still the President of the United States. To run an impeachment through in a rush, without hearings, without witnesses, without Q&A, without giving the President a chance to make his case makes this process a sham. A parade of reps talking in soundbites for the prosecution and for the defense is a political show, and not anything like a credible grand jury, on which the impeachment process is modeled.

  • I have my doubts about whether a President can be impeached and convicted after he or she leaves office, and I suspect the House does as well; that's why they're rushing.

In short, Trump's recklessness has, IMO, risen to the standard of being a high crime, but it's too late in his term to do a credible job of removing him from office.
I don't believe the House voted to impeach thinking that Trump would actually be impeached. The reason why they did it is because impeaching him again opens the door for a simple censure vote by a 1 vote majority (which they can get now but could not get in the previous impeachment) and a censure vote will prevent Trump from ever running for office again. That (preventing Trump from running for office again) was the real reason they decided to impeach.

This was already explained several times by some of the media people. You had not heard about it before?
 
Last edited:

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
13,465
Reaction score
4,589
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I guess my concern is that you can’t remove someone from an office which they no longer hold. Here is the (relevant) text of the US Constituion:


I added the bolding to the above quote which points out the possible penalties to be imposed upon impeachment conviction. Note that it says and not or, therefore if the POTUS was not removed from office by the impeachment conviction then they cannot also be disqualified from holding future office.
Read my post #11 on this thread, and learn exactly what the House was trying to accomplish with this impeachment vote.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,259
Reaction score
33,023
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think bypassing that step during the Impeachment process is a mistake and sets a horrible precedent.
There's not a whole lot of information to go on here. We all know what Trump said and we all know what happened. What lengthy investigation process do you envision? What would they seek to uncover?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,472
Reaction score
37,348
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Let me understand... you're saying if he's already out of office he can't be disqualified from future offices because he wasn't also "removed"?

If I've got that right, I would point out the text says, "...shall not extend further..." which to me sets a maximum with no reference to minimums. Seems to me that he wouldn't have to be removed and be disqualified at the same time in order to get disqualified.
I tried to make my point clearly. The word “and” has a separate and distinct meaning from the word “or”. The “shall not extend further” is simply because this a totally political process (not in any way connected with the criminal justice system) and the “jury” consists of known to be biased fellow politicians. What the impeachment power was meant to accomplish was to remove the sitting POTUS from office (allowing them to be tried for their alleged crimes just as anyone else) not to make former presidents ineligible for future election to (any) public office.

BTW, what happens in a criminal trial when the jury does not reach a unanimous determination of guilt? There is no 2/3 of the jury (8 out of 12 jurors) can find you guilty rule in a normal jury trial. You are either found guilty by 100% of the jurors or you retain your presumption of innocence - with a ‘hung jury‘ (resulting in a mistrial) being declared.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
2,866
Reaction score
844
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't believe the House voted to impeach thinking that Trump would actually be impeached. The reason why they did it is because impeaching him again opens the door for a simple censure vote by a 1 vote majority (which they can get now but could not get in the previous impeachment) and a censure vote will prevent Trump from ever running for office again. That (preventing Trump from running for office again) was the real reason they decided to impeach.

This was already explained several times by some of the media people. You had not heard about it before?
That doesn't make the House's proceeding any less flawed.
 

Showtime586

Active member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
298
Reaction score
177
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's taken me awhile to sort out what I think the right thing to do about Trump is. And my thoughts are these:
  • Based on what we know right now, my opinion is that Trump's offenses are impeachable, and unless new facts are found the Senate should vote to convict.

  • The impeachment process now underway is not a credible process. No matter how much one may be disgusted by Trump's actions, he is still the President of the United States. To run an impeachment through in a rush, without hearings, without witnesses, without Q&A, without giving the President a chance to make his case makes this process a sham. A parade of reps talking in soundbites for the prosecution and for the defense is a political show, and not anything like a credible grand jury, on which the impeachment process is modeled.

  • I have my doubts about whether a President can be impeached and convicted after he or she leaves office, and I suspect the House does as well; that's why they're rushing.

In short, Trump's recklessness has, IMO, risen to the standard of being a high crime, but it's too late in his term to do a credible job of removing him from office.
Pelosi knew that McConnell was not going to fast track impeachment. Therefore, I do not believe that was the rationale for a speedy impeachment article.
Also, while I agree that the political grandstanding presents somewhat of a shame optic, the first Trump impeachment was a shame as well. Trump would have never been convicted by a Republican controlled Senate regardless of the amount of evidence submitted.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,259
Reaction score
33,023
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That doesn't make the House's proceeding any less flawed.
You think Trump committed impeachment worthy crimes but think he shouldn't be impeached. Do you understand how stupid that sounds?
 

Rawley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
5,875
Reaction score
1,352
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's taken me awhile to sort out what I think the right thing to do about Trump is. And my thoughts are these:
  • Based on what we know right now, my opinion is that Trump's offenses are impeachable, and unless new facts are found the Senate should vote to convict.

  • The impeachment process now underway is not a credible process. No matter how much one may be disgusted by Trump's actions, he is still the President of the United States. To run an impeachment through in a rush, without hearings, without witnesses, without Q&A, without giving the President a chance to make his case makes this process a sham. A parade of reps talking in soundbites for the prosecution and for the defense is a political show, and not anything like a credible grand jury, on which the impeachment process is modeled.

  • I have my doubts about whether a President can be impeached and convicted after he or she leaves office, and I suspect the House does as well; that's why they're rushing.

In short, Trump's recklessness has, IMO, risen to the standard of being a high crime, but it's too late in his term to do a credible job of removing him from office.
What actions, specifically, do you believe rise to the level of a high crime?
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
2,866
Reaction score
844
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There's not a whole lot of information to go on here. We all know what Trump said and we all know what happened. What lengthy investigation process do you envision? What would they seek to uncover?
I don't know. That's why we have due process, to make a reasonable effort -- and thus achieve reasonable certainty -- that all relevant facts are known before passing judgement on a serious matter.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,259
Reaction score
33,023
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't know. That's why we have due process, to make a reasonable effort -- and thus achieve reasonable certainty -- that all relevant facts are known before passing judgement on a serious matter.
We know all the relevant facts.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,834
Reaction score
22,409
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
It's taken me awhile to sort out what I think the right thing to do about Trump is. And my thoughts are these:
  • Based on what we know right now, my opinion is that Trump's offenses are impeachable, and unless new facts are found the Senate should vote to convict.

  • The impeachment process now underway is not a credible process. No matter how much one may be disgusted by Trump's actions, he is still the President of the United States. To run an impeachment through in a rush, without hearings, without witnesses, without Q&A, without giving the President a chance to make his case makes this process a sham. A parade of reps talking in soundbites for the prosecution and for the defense is a political show, and not anything like a credible grand jury, on which the impeachment process is modeled.

  • I have my doubts about whether a President can be impeached and convicted after he or she leaves office, and I suspect the House does as well; that's why they're rushing.

In short, Trump's recklessness has, IMO, risen to the standard of being a high crime, but it's too late in his term to do a credible job of removing him from office.
I can answer your last point at least. There is precedence of officials being impeached after leaving office. In one case, it was the founders that did it.

 

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
15,024
Reaction score
6,204
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's taken me awhile to sort out what I think the right thing to do about Trump is. And my thoughts are these:
  • Based on what we know right now, my opinion is that Trump's offenses are impeachable, and unless new facts are found the Senate should vote to convict.

  • The impeachment process now underway is not a credible process. No matter how much one may be disgusted by Trump's actions, he is still the President of the United States. To run an impeachment through in a rush, without hearings, without witnesses, without Q&A, without giving the President a chance to make his case makes this process a sham. A parade of reps talking in soundbites for the prosecution and for the defense is a political show, and not anything like a credible grand jury, on which the impeachment process is modeled.

  • I have my doubts about whether a President can be impeached and convicted after he or she leaves office, and I suspect the House does as well; that's why they're rushing.

In short, Trump's recklessness has, IMO, risen to the standard of being a high crime, but it's too late in his term to do a credible job of removing him from office.

Well, we had an impeachment prior, without a trial, or one that was rushed by the republican senate, and now they are complaining about a rushed impeachment?

Every one got to speak their mind. The evidence was all over the place, in plain view.

This time there is going to be a real trial, and everything will be sorted out there. There is nothing in the constitution that says a president can't be impeached post presidency. In fact,

In 1798, Tennessee Sen. William Blount conspired to give Britain control over parts of Florida and Louisiana; Blount was immediately expelled by the Senate. He was then impeached and tried. During his trial, Blount trial argued it was too late to impeach him, but the argument failed.

Likewise, President Ulysses S. Grant’s secretary of war, William Belknap, tearfully resigned in 1876 to head off impeachment for corruption — or, to quote the actual articles of impeachment, “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.” Yet the House proceeded to impeach Belknap anyway, and the Senate went on to try him “after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials.”
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
2,866
Reaction score
844
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What actions, specifically, do you believe rise to the level of a high crime?
Inciting a mob.

And yes, I'm aware that what Trump did likely would not satisfy the legal criteria for criminal incitement in a court of law, but an impeachment is a political proceeding, not a legal one. It's a bit like the Clinton impeachment case. Legally, Clinton did not commit perjury in the Jones case because of a technicality, but for all intents and purposes, he did.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
2,866
Reaction score
844
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You think Trump committed impeachment worthy crimes but think he shouldn't be impeached. Do you understand how stupid that sounds?
Not nearly as stupid as your reply sounds. Read the OP again (slowly this time), and you might find what you're missing.
 
Top Bottom