• 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

Irwin Corey

Proud AmeriCAN
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
8,164
Reaction score
3,227
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Which was my precisely my point: since you cannot remove someone from an office which they no longer hold (via impeachment ‘conviction’) then nothing can be additionally done (via impeachment ‘conviction’).
The problem you have there pallie is he's been impeached. The trial can happen as soon as practical.:cool:
 

Irwin Corey

Proud AmeriCAN
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
8,164
Reaction score
3,227
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You seem to be missing the point. The Capitol having been attacked does not prove Trump’s causing it any more than Russian election interference being found proves Trump’s collusion caused it.
No, Bennidict Donald provided all that proof.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The problem you have there pallie is he's been impeached. The trial can happen as soon as practical.:cool:
Of course that trail can happen, the constitution requires it. I’m simply stating that you can’t fire (remove) someone from a job which they no longer have. Trump will not remain in office as POTUS after next week regardless of whether or not he is convicted on impeachment charges (articles?).
 

Master Debator

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
5,443
Reaction score
1,875
At least you (finally) acknowledge that my interpretation is as valid as yours is. BTW, how could one carry a gun which they do not yet possess?
I made no such acknowledgment other than to laugh at your example of flags and point out that you were wrong even within a ridiculous example you yourself created. That you have to pretend I was talking about your interpretation of impeachment results is both hilarious and sad. Like throwing yourself your own retirement party sad. As for the other thing people can certainly bear arms without keeping arms, I see them renting guns at the gun range all the time. Just because you want to imply keep in the context of the 2nd means hold instead of own doesn't make it so. Unless of course you're telling me you think the 2nd amendment gives you the right to hold guns but not to own guns. Is that what you're arguing? How far do you want travel down this rickety bridge of an argument you're building? 😂
 

Irwin Corey

Proud AmeriCAN
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
8,164
Reaction score
3,227
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Of course that trail can happen, the constitution requires it. I’m simply stating that you can’t fire (remove) someone from a job which they no longer have. Trump will not remain in office as POTUS after next week regardless of whether or not he is convicted on impeachment charges (articles?).
Yep, that's good.
 

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
13,367
Reaction score
4,538
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You seem to be missing the point. The Capitol having been attacked does not prove Trump’s causing it any more than Russian election interference being found proves Trump’s collusion caused it.
Michael Cohen said it very clearly when he testified.

Trump does not say things up front but you always know what he wants. Cohen worked as the right hand man of Trump for over 10 years and he knows Trumps way of doing things.

Let be honest ttwtt, Trump did not outright say he wanted the Capitol attacked but he certainly gave his supporters a lot of reasons for trying to do "something" to upend the injustice he felt was done to HIM.

1) We need to make our thoughts known
2) We have to be strong
3) It was an injustice that we can let stand
4) I, and all of you, were robbed
5) etc. etc. etc.

It would take a really dumb person to not interpret that as support for doing anything and everything possible to do what he thought was right and that certainly was not through legal means as he tried that and failed legally repeatedly and it was also not to generate a peaceful protest as that too had been done before. Letting people know it was unjust? He had done that over and over and over again before the election and repeatedly thereafter, meaning there was nothing new to talk about. Action was what he wanted to get done.

What was left? a show of force, an insurgency of note, a statement that nothing was sacred if the election results were not overturned.

As such, this post of yours makes me believe that you believe we are all naive and can be convinced that Trump did not support and in many ways generate an insurrection and an attack on our sacred institution........the Capitol.

I have to turn around and ask you.............are you the one that is naive? or simply defending your idol no matter what, as you have done a thousand times before. Will you finally be honest, or try to con us like Trump cons us?
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
48,675
Reaction score
19,968
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You seem to be missing the point. The Capitol having been attacked does not prove Trump’s causing it any more than Russian election interference being found proves Trump’s collusion caused it.
All you're arguing is Trump built the bonfire and doused it with gasoline, but we cannot show him lighting the match, then waiting hours to call the fire department while Congress is burning, despite desperate pleas from all his staff and outsiders to make the call.

I mean if that's all he did, that's fine, don't you think? If he didn't throw the match, he met his duty as President!! :rolleyes:
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
48,675
Reaction score
19,968
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Michael Cohen said it very clearly when he testified.

Trump does not say things up front but you always know what he wants. Cohen worked as the right hand man of Trump for over 10 years and he knows Trumps way of doing things.

Let be honest ttwtt, Trump did not outright say he wanted the Capitol attacked but he certainly gave his supporters a lot of reasons for trying to do "something" to upend the injustice he felt was done to HIM.

1) We need to make our thoughts known
2) We have to be strong
3) It was an injustice that we can let stand
4) etc. etc. etc.

It would take a really dumb person to not interpret that as support for doing anything and everything possible to do what he thought was right and that certainly was not through legal means as he tried that and failed legally repeatedly and it was also not to generate a peaceful protest as that too had been done before. Letting people know it was unjust? He had done that over and over and over again before the election and repeatedly thereafter, meaning there was nothing new to talk about. Action was what he wanted to get done.

What was left? a show of force, an insurgency of note, a statement that nothing was sacred if the election results were not overturned.

As such, this post of yours makes me believe that you believe we are all naive and can be convinced that Trump did not support and in many ways generate an insurrection and an attack on our sacred institution........the Capitol.

I have to turn around and ask you.............are you the one that is naive? or simply defending your idol no matter what, as you have done a thousand times before. Will you finally be honest, or try to con us like Trump cons us?
Basically we know he wanted the mob to attack the Capitol because when it happened he told them he loved them and did......NOTHING for hours until someone finally got through to him. Just think about that - POTUS having to be convinced to issue a statement condemning the insurrection, an attack on the U.S. Capitol, while in session, and to summon the NG to quell the insurrection.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Michael Cohen said it very clearly when he testified.

Trump does not say things up front but you always know what he wants. Cohen worked as the right hand man of Trump for over 10 years and he knows Trumps way of doing things.

Let be honest ttwtt, Trump did not outright say he wanted the Capitol attacked but he certainly gave his supporters a lot of reasons for trying to do "something" to upend the injustice he felt was done to HIM.

1) We need to make our thoughts known
2) We have to be strong
3) It was an injustice that we can let stand
4) I, and all of you, were robbed
5) etc. etc. etc.

It would take a really dumb person to not interpret that as support for doing anything and everything possible to do what he thought was right and that certainly was not through legal means as he tried that and failed legally repeatedly and it was also not to generate a peaceful protest as that too had been done before. Letting people know it was unjust? He had done that over and over and over again before the election and repeatedly thereafter, meaning there was nothing new to talk about. Action was what he wanted to get done.

What was left? a show of force, an insurgency of note, a statement that nothing was sacred if the election results were not overturned.

As such, this post of yours makes me believe that you believe we are all naive and can be convinced that Trump did not support and in many ways generate an insurrection and an attack on our sacred institution........the Capitol.

I have to turn around and ask you.............are you the one that is naive? or simply defending your idol no matter what, as you have done a thousand times before. Will you finally be honest, or try to con us like Trump cons us?
It is my position that Trump should face criminal charges if evidence of his inciting a riot exists. I am tired of the “just us” system using non-judicial processes to deal with (alleged) criminal acts committed by government personnel.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Basically we know he wanted the mob to attack the Capitol because when it happened he told them he loved them and did......NOTHING for hours until someone finally got through to him. Just think about that - POTUS having to be convinced to issue a statement condemning the insurrection, an attack on the U.S. Capitol, while in session, and to summon the NG to quell the insurrection.
Yep, next we might have mayors issuing stand down orders to police during riots. ;)
 

Aunt Antifa

Internationally Dangerous
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
13,128
Reaction score
5,548
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
One concern, that seems not to be addressed much, is that there seems to be evidence of others pre-planning the US Capitol riots. That makes it quite a bit harder to prove that Trump’s speech on 1/6/21 was primarily responsible for them.

This is bad faith semantics. Trump has been insisting the election was stolen from him for two months. He has accused everyone from his own appointed judges in fed courts to the SC being in on it, along with such notable lefties like Brian Kemp. He retweeted the worst conspiracy theories, which in turn gave those arguments oxygen. That crowd showed up in fatigues, camo, with weapons, zip tie handcuffs, and the DESIRE to overturn an election they believed was stolen from them because the sitting potus *told them it was literally rigged*.

The act of Trump, after doing all of that, having them gather on Jan 6 to march on the capitol, is nothing but an attempt at insurrection. He knew legally there was no means that day to change the outcome, so he wanted brute force - either projection of power or literal use of power by that crowd.
 

Aunt Antifa

Internationally Dangerous
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
13,128
Reaction score
5,548
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The public is getting sick and tired of (alleged) crimes (committed by police officers) being dealt with using an HR process (the “just us” system?). Keep in mind that the POTUS is the top law enforcement officer in the nation.
The public told us what it was sick and tired of: Trump’s malfeasance and GOP complicity.
 

Rawley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
1,296
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
If not his speech before the riot at the capitol, the lack of engagement during the insurrection as many people were calling and begging for help. He ignored the calls.
That is clearly a violation of his oath. He was enjoying it. He's a traitor.
And what's your evidecene of that? There were no witnesses testifying to that.
 

Rawley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
1,296
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
If the senate does convict and then disqualifies him from further office, he can take it to court...
Or the Senate can dismiss the case because thy ahve no jurisdiction. Under your guy's theory, when the repubs take back the House, they can impeach Obama or FDR. That make senses sense to you?
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
48,675
Reaction score
19,968
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yep, next we might have mayors issuing stand down orders to police during riots. ;)
Oh, yes, BUT MOM THEY DID IT TOO!!! Good stuff.

I see the emoji, but this is still pretty weak. Trump's duty here was clear, before and after the insurrection, and he failed it. If we can't or shouldn't hold Presidents accountable for such things, we might as well just strip impeachment from the Constitution. If this doesn't qualify, I cannot imagine what will.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is bad faith semantics. Trump has been insisting the election was stolen from him for two months. He has accused everyone from his own appointed judges in fed courts to the SC being in on it, along with such notable lefties like Brian Kemp. He retweeted the worst conspiracy theories, which in turn gave those arguments oxygen. That crowd showed up in fatigues, camo, with weapons, zip tie handcuffs, and the DESIRE to overturn an election they believed was stolen from them because the sitting potus *told them it was literally rigged*.

The act of Trump, after doing all of that, having them gather on Jan 6 to march on the capitol, is nothing but an attempt at insurrection. He knew legally there was no means that day to change the outcome, so he wanted brute force - either projection of power or literal use of power by that crowd.
That’s more like it - providing evidence of a pattern of behavior is far better than trying to assert that Trump’s actions during a speech on 1/6/21 alone caused (incited?) the US Capitol riot. That’s what I want to see - a strong criminal case made to get Trump indicted on and convicted of an actual felony not some administrative wrist slap leaving him free to roam freely among us.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Oh, yes, BUT MOM THEY DID IT TOO!!! Good stuff.

I see the emoji, but this is still pretty weak. Trump's duty here was clear, before and after the insurrection, and he failed it. If we can't or shouldn't hold Presidents accountable for such things, we might as well just strip impeachment from the Constitution. If this doesn't qualify, I cannot imagine what will.
Please see post #116.
 

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
13,367
Reaction score
4,538
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It is my position that Trump should face criminal charges if evidence of his inciting a riot exists. I am tired of the “just us” system using non-judicial processes to deal with (alleged) criminal acts committed by government personnel.
Now you know how I (and every other Trump hater) feels after 4 years of this kind of BS being fed to us. When are you going to realize that this is no longer about the laws technically being broken but about all the hate, disunity, chaos, incompetence, egoism, uncaring and BS that he has handed out every day during 1450 days of office.

We are not only tired but exhausted.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Now you know how I (and every other Trump hater) feels after 4 years of this kind of BS being fed to us. When are you going to realize that this is no longer about the laws technically being broken but about all the hate, disunity, chaos, incompetence, egoism, uncaring and BS that he has handed out every day during 1450 days of office.

We are not only tired but exhausted.
Inciting a riot is not ‘technically breaking the law’ it is committing a felony and deserves to be treated as such. Just as homicide is not ‘technically a police shooting’ simply because the perp happened to have been a government agent (police officer) at the time.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
2,276
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
In your opinion “red and white flags” (which I take to mean as flags which contain both red and white) is no different than “red flags and white flags” (which you then equate to meaning “red flags or white flags”).

This also applies to the 2A which is a right of the people to keep and bear arms - which is different from a right of the people to keep or bear arms.
Christ, I've rarely seen such obsessive semantic nit-picking on a single word. As less right pointed out all the way back in post #9, when you read the full sentence it says that the maximum consequence of impeachment ("Judgement in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than") is removal from office and disqualification from future offices... and liability to further prosecution (impeachment being one of the very few limitations on the power of pardon). You're trying desperately to argue that this word "and" means impeachment convictions must have all of those consequences, that if removal from office is not included it cannot happen at all, but it's a patently absurd argument if you bother to read the whole sentence.

You're further (and perhaps even more absurdly) trying to claim that impeachment is just "some administrative wrist slap leaving him free to roam freely among us" rather than one of the few ways of preventing total immunity, one of the few ways of guaranteeing that he couldn't resign and be pardoned by Pence. Again, a fact clearly and obviously spelled out in that very sentence of the Constitution.

Oh, but the word "and" is used! Let's all focus on that some more!
 

Linuxcooldude

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
216
Reaction score
103
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The problem you have there pallie is he's been impeached. The trial can happen as soon as practical.:cool:
He has been impeached on a diffrent charge which the Senate didn't remove him from office. That's not what the Democrats are going for, because they know it won't work.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
50,963
Reaction score
10,050
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly 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? Trump is out of office in 6 days. How is that enough time to do anything credible? And, as you said, impeaching a president after he leaves office is dubious at best. Of course it is nothing but a show. And, it is hypocrisy. The left had said they wanted to heal the country, that Trump was a divider and they were not. Well, impeaching Trump isn't going to heal the country. It will lead to more division. And, Biden said from day one in office, Covid will be job #1. Now impeaching Trump is job #1. TDS is more important than COVID.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
36,462
Reaction score
16,538
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Just talking apples to apples. Your post was just as divisive. I always talk/get down to the level of my competition.
What was divisive about my post? Or do you need me to post a definition of the word before you answer. And 'talking down to the level of your competition' is not something you should be bragging about. lol
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
48,675
Reaction score
19,968
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Please see post #116.
I've been making a similar case in post after post. What happened on Wednesday is just a small part of a Trump's months long effort to take a wrecking ball to our system of government. And as important as inciting the mob was that he clearly loved what they did, and we know that because he did NOTHING until his staff finally convinced him to issue a pathetic statement that told the insurrectionists he loved them, and from what we know it was the VP and others that worked to get the NG involved to quell the insurrection, not Trump, who was MIA from his duties all day.

But the real point is there is no need to choose - 1) impeachment, OR 2) criminal charges. Impeachment is under the control of Congress, and Congress, the legislative branch of our government, has a duty to draw a line here and declare to Trump and all future Presidents, the country and the world that what he did was not acceptable, will not be tolerated by the U.S. government.

Sure, maybe he can be charged, and then the criminal justice system makes that statement, unnamed and unknown federal prosecutors in the executive branch decide to charge him, and a jury of ordinary people then has the burden of making that statement, or not, but Congress then does NOT. The legislative branch will have said, "Hey, we don't like this but it's really fine with us, and if someone tries it again, well, that might be a bit unfortunate but it's OK with the Congress!" I don't think that's the message Congress should send. It's gutless, cowardly.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
48,675
Reaction score
19,968
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What? Trump is out of office in 6 days. How is that enough time to do anything credible? And, as you said, impeaching a president after he leaves office is dubious at best. Of course it is nothing but a show. And, it is hypocrisy. The left had said they wanted to heal the country, that Trump was a divider and they were not. Well, impeaching Trump isn't going to heal the country. It will lead to more division. And, Biden said from day one in office, Covid will be job #1. Now impeaching Trump is job #1. TDS is more important than COVID.
You've just demonstrated the problem with the argument against a post-presidency impeachment. If we accept it, then so long as the President engages in impeachable acts close to the end, it's impossible to legitimately hold him accountable. For that matter, if he sees the writing on the wall, he can resign just before the trial in the Senate or just before the vote, and then keep his post-office taxpayer funded perks and try again in 4 years. Seems absurd to me.

FWIW, what won't heal the country is allowing Trump to spread lies about the election, incite a riot, do nothing while it's happening, and face no consequences. And your entire premise is holding Trump accountable will cause more division. If that's the case, then it's a price we have to pay IMO.
 
Top Bottom