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.
impeaching a president after he leaves office
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.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.
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.
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.
That's another remedy....The Constitutional remedy is voting.
The Constitutional remedy is voting.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.That applies to (at most) 3 of the 535 congress critters in any federal election cycle.
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.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.
Don’t really understand your question. Am not talking about a criminal proceeding.Really? What do you think the statute of limitations is for inciting a riot upon the US Capitol?
Never said the trial was in the House.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.
That's not the question.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.
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.That's not the question.
And that post started so well....The impeachment process now underway is not a credible process.
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.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.
Don’t really understand your question. Am not talking about a criminal proceeding.
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?
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.Bullshit. Clinton was subject to disqualification, Trump, the first time around, was subject to disqualification.
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.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.
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?