• 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

Aunt Antifa

Internationally Dangerous
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
13,128
Reaction score
5,548
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
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.
I wasn’t speaking to a criminal case, and neither are you. You have no special knowledge of that process and criteria that makes you an authority to determine the value of any evidence, so your stamp of approval is meaningless.

Trump’s crimes are clearly impeachable and demand removal. *I* would argue he’s also criminally culpable and I hope they make that case.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
48,675
Reaction score
19,968
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Uh, it's called the Constitution. Specifically Article II Section 4. Article I Section 3 also states that “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.” Further, a good argument is that since he won't be removed from office even if they have a trial that the Senate cannot disqualify him from further office becasue of the "and" between the two penalties.
That theory makes no sense to me, that because the impeachable act happens at the close of his presidency, that Congress can do nothing to stop him from running again, and keeping his taxpayer funded benefits post-presidency as a bonus. There's a good reason why the penalty includes the "disqualification" clause - because the founders feared removal wasn't always going to be enough. Now the theory is the founders didn't want disqualification to apply to someone who was booted from office, or who resigned perhaps moments before the conviction vote. Seems incredible, unbelievable to me, that they'd write into the Constitution such a easy way to avoid disqualification. It can only apply to someone stupid.
 

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
I wasn’t speaking to a criminal case, and neither are you. You have no special knowledge of that process and criteria that makes you an authority to determine the value of any evidence, so your stamp of approval is meaningless.

Trump’s crimes are clearly impeachable and demand removal. *I* would argue he’s also criminally culpable and I hope they make that case.
If the public’s ‘stamp of approval’ is meaningless to congress critters then we have a very serious problem. BTW, asserting that I have no authority to determine the value of evidence, but that you (somehow) do, is a more than a bit presumptuous.
 

Rawley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
1,296
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
That theory makes no sense to me, that because the impeachable act happens at the close of his presidency, that Congress can do nothing to stop him from running again, and keeping his taxpayer funded benefits post-presidency as a bonus. There's a good reason why the penalty includes the "disqualification" clause - because the founders feared removal wasn't always going to be enough. Now the theory is the founders didn't want disqualification to apply to someone who was booted from office, or who resigned perhaps moments before the conviction vote. Seems incredible, unbelievable to me, that they'd write into the Constitution such a easy way to avoid disqualification. It can only apply to someone stupid.
The Constitutional remedy is voting.
 

Aunt Antifa

Internationally Dangerous
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
13,128
Reaction score
5,548
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
If the public’s ‘stamp of approval’ is meaningless to congress critters then we have a very serious problem. BTW, asserting that I have no authority to determine the value of evidence, but that you (somehow) do, is a more than a bit presumptuous.
I qualified that neither of us can assess that. My ego is developed enough that I’m good with not pretending I have a law degree online.

It’s not meaningless: we just had elections.

The public gave their stamp of approval: they’re sending a new senate and WH after 4 years of disastrous legislation (ha!) and governance.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
2,833
Reaction score
836
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
Allowing Trump to escape accountability isn't going to "unite the country," either. Unfortunately, there just isn't time to do a credible job holding him to account.
 

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
Allowing Trump to escape accountability isn't going to "unite the country," either. Unfortunately, there just isn't time to do a credible job holding him to account.
Really? What do you think the statute of limitations is for inciting a riot upon the US Capitol?
 

Hari Seldon

Stable Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2014
Messages
8,702
Reaction score
5,622
Location
New York
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.
There is no trial in the House. Its like a grand jury bringing charges. The trial is in the Senate where he will be able to defend himself. I don't know the legalities of impeaching him after he leaves office but anything to prevent him from ever holding office again I applaud.
 

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
There is no trial in the House. Its like a grand jury bringing charges. The trial is in the Senate where he will be able to defend himself. I don't know the legalities of impeaching him after he leaves office but anything to prevent him from ever holding office again I applaud.


A long stint in federal prison should git-r-done.
 

Hari Seldon

Stable Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2014
Messages
8,702
Reaction score
5,622
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A long stint in federal prison should git-r-done.
That works as well. Per the latest it seems some congress critters were complicit with the rioters by helping them plan and do reconnaissance. If true they should be in federal prison along with the capitol police that cooperated with the mob.
 

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
That works as well. Per the latest it seems some congress critters were complicit with the rioters by helping them plan and do reconnaissance. If true they should be in federal prison along with the capitol police that cooperated with the mob.
As the number of active participants arrested grows, so does the potential for some turning states evidence in exchange for immunity or at least a sweet plea deal. This was definitely not just a spontaneous reaction to Trump’s 1/6/21 speech.
 

Rawley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
1,296
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
That applies to (at most) 3 of the 535 congress critters in any federal election cycle.
Yep. And to the President or other officials after they leave office. If what they have done is so heinous, not so sure why you need anything more then the voting process.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
48,675
Reaction score
19,968
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yep. And to the President or other officials after they leave office. If what they have done is so heinous, not so sure why you need anything more then the voting process.
Ask the founders why they explicitly included "more" in the Constitution. They didn't believe removal was a sufficient remedy, and so added a provision that allowed Congress to disqualify them from ANY future office.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
2,833
Reaction score
836
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no trial in the House. Its like a grand jury bringing charges. The trial is in the Senate where he will be able to defend himself. I don't know the legalities of impeaching him after he leaves office but anything to prevent him from ever holding office again I applaud.
Never said the trial was in the House.
 

Rawley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
1,296
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ask the founders why they explicitly included "more" in the Constitution. They didn't believe removal was a sufficient remedy, and so added a provision that allowed Congress to disqualify them from ANY future office.
That's not the question.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
48,675
Reaction score
19,968
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's not the question.
It was my point and you ignored it. The only person who will ever get caught with disqualification under your theory and that being advanced by right wing hacks is an idiot, a legit moron, who doesn't have the good sense to resign before the votes are counted on conviction.

It's worse in this case because the clear way to avoid any accountability for Trump is to resign then have the VP pardon him. So the founders, we are supposed to assume, set in stone a process that allows the corrupt wrongdoer has at least two ways to avoid the "more" of disqualification. If adopted by the Supreme Court it makes the "disqualification" provision all but worthless in reality, effectively strips that part from the Constitution. Why would the founders put that remedy in the Constitution, AND a very simple way for anyone impeached in the House and facing certain conviction in the Senate to avoid it?
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,592
Reaction score
11,160
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The impeachment process now underway is not a credible process.
And that post started so well.... 😒

Yes, it's credible. The House knows what he did. We all know what he did. The House of Representatives ITSELF was attacked. There was no need for months of research. What more evidence did they need? Do they have to wait for Trump to publish his new book, If I Incited A Coup?

Also... The decision to impeach is NOT THE TRIAL PHASE. The President is not entitled to any hearings, or any witnesses, or any Q&A, during that phase. He doesn't get jack, unless the House decides it's necessary.

I mean, really. What do you think he was going to do? Deny that the Capitol was attacked? Deny that he gave a speech right before the attack? Deny that he spent months telling his followers that if he isn't re-elected, then America will be destroyed? C'mon.


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.
Or, they're rushing because they want the autocratic malignant narcissist, who barely understands that he did anything wrong, out of office before he does anything worse.

They also want to make it loud and clear that they don't want him to be able to hold office again.

If he isn't convicted in the Senate, they will probably try to boot him using the 14th Amendment.
 

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
Don’t really understand your question. Am not talking about a criminal proceeding.
OK, but I am. I’m tired of the idea of using a “just us” system (aka some ‘internal investigation’ process) for ‘handling’ alleged crimes committed by government agents whether they be elected politicians or police officers. The idea that they are somehow above (immune from?) being treated (handled?) by the criminal justice system is ridiculous.
 

Rawley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
1,296
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
It was my point and you ignored it. The only person who will ever get caught with disqualification under your theory and that being advanced by right wing hacks is an idiot, a legit moron, who doesn't have the good sense to resign before the votes are counted on conviction.
Bullshit. Clinton was subject to disqualification, Trump, the first time around, was subject to disqualification.

It's worse in this case because the clear way to avoid any accountability for Trump is to resign then have the VP pardon him. So the founders, we are supposed to assume, set in stone a process that allows the corrupt wrongdoer has at least two ways to avoid the "more" of disqualification. If adopted by the Supreme Court it makes the "disqualification" provision all but worthless in reality, effectively strips that part from the Constitution. Why would the founders put that remedy in the Constitution, AND a very simple way for anyone impeached in the House and facing certain conviction in the Senate to avoid it?
Again, bullshit. If you believe the House impeachment bullshit, criminal conviction is the way hold Trump accountable. Hard to run for office from Federal prison.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
48,675
Reaction score
19,968
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bullshit. Clinton was subject to disqualification, Trump, the first time around, was subject to disqualification.
But both could have avoided disqualification by simply resigning 10 minutes before the Senate vote, after their conviction was a foregone conclusion. I have pointed this out twice now. Clinton and Trump both knew 100% that they votes to convict weren't there.

Again, bullshit. If you believe the House impeachment bullshit, criminal conviction is the way hold Trump accountable. Hard to run for office from Federal prison.
Right, but again a corrupt and complicit VP simply pardons the President and he will never be tried, much less convicted and sent to federal prison.

And the criminal justice system means a jury of ordinary people decides whether the President engaged in wrongdoing, when the impeachment process gives that duty to Congress. They are two different processes for two entirely different purposes. It is why impeachment doesn't foreclose future criminal prosecution. If the founders wanted the remedy to be ONLY criminal prosecution, no need to write impeachment into the Constitution. It's shifting responsibility from accountable elected officials to executive branch prosecutors and this jury of nameless men and women.
 

Irwin Corey

Proud AmeriCAN
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
8,164
Reaction score
3,227
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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.
johnathan stewart2.jpg
 
Top Bottom