- Joined
- Oct 15, 2020
- Messages
- 37,056
- Reaction score
- 18,261
- 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.
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.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.
No, he's objective.@NatMorton is progressing.
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"?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.
I think bypassing that step during the Impeachment process is a mistake and sets a horrible precedent.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 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.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.
Read my post #11 on this thread, and learn exactly what the House was trying to accomplish with this impeachment vote.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.
I think bypassing that step during the Impeachment process is a mistake and sets a horrible precedent.
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.
That doesn't make the House's proceeding any less flawed.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?
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.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.
That doesn't make the House's proceeding any less flawed.
What actions, specifically, do you believe rise to the level of a high crime?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 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.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.
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.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.
A censure vote will prevent Trump from ever running for office again.
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.
Inciting a mob.What actions, specifically, do you believe rise to the level of a high crime?
Not nearly as stupid as your reply sounds. Read the OP again (slowly this time), and you might find what you're missing.You think Trump committed impeachment worthy crimes but think he shouldn't be impeached. Do you understand how stupid that sounds?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?