Trump 2nd Impeachment News/Talk Megathread

[Badger]

Just evict him on January 20th and be done with it.

That's the easy way out if we want to establish the rule of law in this country is meaningless.

I absolutely support his impeachment, but more specifically I believe removal under the 25th Amendment works better both in terms of the timeframe required as well as the simplicity. Lord willing the rumors are correct and the cabinet is seriously considering it.

[Badger]

The 25th Amendment is the best remedy to neutralize Trump immediately.  Congress can then consider impeachment later for the purpose of disqualifying for future office.  Why?  Because a removal by the 25th runs out the clock until after Jan. 20.  Here's the text of the relevant section of the Amendment (section 4):

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
    
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Summary: Pence and the Cabinet notify Grassley and Pelosi that Trump is incapable.  Pence  immediately becomes Acting President.  Trump can appeal this to Congress, but (1) Pence and the Cabinet have four days to object; and assuming they do, (2) Congress then has 21 days to consider Trump's appeal before voting on it.  This runs out the clock.

I may be wrong, but I thought Trump would return to the presidency in between the 4th and 21st day, meaning the 25th would just give Congress a little cover time to complete the removal processes.

It may be ambiguous and up to the Courts?

It's obviously uncharted waters, but fortunately the amendment text of section 4 is actually somewhat clear.

After the Vice President, with consent of the majority of the cabinet, gives written notice to the Senate president pro tempore that the president is unable to continue their duties, the president becomes acting president. This ends when the president - - in this case Trump - - sends written declaration to the Senate that he is fit to resume his powers "unless" the vice president and majority of cabinet then within 4 days - hikind there's no minimum time, it could theoretically be done within 4 minutes after Trump's letter - - notify the Senate that, no, the president is in fact not competent to continue his role as president. Then Congress has to decide the issue within the aforementioned time frame.

To me, that unless is the keyword for this amendment. It clearly construes the a limitation upon the president to unilaterally declare himself fit and ready to resume the office of the presidency. A second letter from Trump and the majority of the cabinet anytime thereafter effectively maintain Pence as acting president until Congress decides the issue, IMHO.

The key question in my mind then is what is to stop Trump from literally dismissing his entire cabinet, or at least those that supported his removal, and immediately replacing them with lackeys as acting Secretary of such and such? I think he could theoretically prepare all the notices beforehand, deliver the notice that he was capable of taking his duties to the Senate at, say 12:01 pm, and issue the mass firings / replacement notices at 12:02 before pence in the old now fired cabinet could meet and vote again.

I suppose that is a Fail-Safe to avoid a bonafide power grab to by the Vice President and a majority of cabinet members, but it's also a bad loophole for exactly this type of situation we're a literal Nero - like Madman intend on dragging the country down with him needs removed immediately. Or heck, even if the president were to suffer a stroke and be mentally debilitating enough to be mentally unstable, but not so much that he was literally paralyzed or the like and couldn't physically accomplish such resistance to being removed.

EDIT: After reading George Conway's linked interpretation of the text below, I think I may have misread that 4 day probation. Perhaps instead for 4 days after Trump's letter insisting he's competent to remain president, Pence would remain as acting president and anytime during said period He and the majority of cabinet could object in writing to the Senate to Trump's attempt to retake power. If Pence remains acting president during that four day period, Trump would be apparently powerless to remove any cabinet officials.

all it takes now is for Pence and Trump's hand-picked cabinet to show some spine and patriotism and... naw, what am I saying?

[Badger]

The Senate is in recess until January 19th so it won't make a difference either way.

McConnell could call them back in emergency session if he had the stones. For that matter I think if Pence and the cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment, acting president Mikey could call them back into emergency session as well.

[Badger]

Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress, The Women's March, and countless other progressive PACs/groups have endorsed Rep. Bush's bill to expell Republican members of Congress who supported objection. (gopcoup.com)

Excellent!

I want to hear support from at least a couple conservadems before I get too excited.

[Badger]

Nice to hear, but I'll wait until she actually signs as a cosigner for the proposal.

If she does, that could open a Floodgate. But I don't think she will for that reason

[Badger]

Yes, and ban him from running for office again. After he's out, he should be prosecuted.

Prosecute him on what charge?

Ignoring the metric assload of bribery?

Incitment and Insurrection

What specific act has he done that would meet the standard for that in court and be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

That one time he bussed in a bunch of fashie conspiracy theorists, hoped them up on demogagic ramblings about how they are stealing his election, and pointed them at a capitol building where Congress was in the process of formalizing the election results that will see him out of power.

I mean, it's been almost 24 hours, so I could see how you could forget

But feel free to go around just asking questions as too whether coups are really illegal

Trump "pointed them at" the capitol?  What does that mean?

Did he tell them to charge in and attempt to stop the vote count by force?
I was away from the internet for a couple hours yesterday afternoon so maybe I missed it but I don't think he did.

Yes, he called for a show of strength and told them to mach on the capitol.
I know your building up to some bullsh**t about how weasel words can immunize him from anything, but in the context of that crowd, this mans actions, and the speaches given by his son and his attorney that day made it unundantly clear what he was expecting.

And just to cut this off, indictment goes by preponderance of evidence not reasonable doubt. Because I know are just waiting to say well maybe he didn't really mean it and convince yourself you owned the libs with your galaxy brain.

I've little time for traitors at the moment

You want an indictment even if it meant there isn't enough to actually convict ?  Weird flex but okay.   

I googled Trump and "show of strength"; nothing from the past month.     Maybe you could give me and actual quote instead of gesturing vaguley and lamely trying to throw shade at me.  If you aren't interested in answering my question, why respond to me in the first place?

Shua, you reflexive contrarian par excellence. How do you get internet reception in the cave you've been apparently living in during the last 24 hours?

Seriously, one does not need the level of proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt for criminal conviction for impeachment. That is extremely well-established fact. If you honestly, genuinely, really without just for sake of your Non-Stop Devil's Advocate fetish, believe Trump did nothing impeachment worthy because  he didn't have  at LEAST significant responsibility for inciting what occurred yesterday, a literal armed mob invasion of the capital and disruption of a session of Congress formalizing the presidential election, well, simply just go back to your Tinker Toys and let the grown-ups talk among themselves.

You are smarter than this, but so so devoid of Common Sense sometimes when you decide to argue for argument's sake, especially in defense of conservatives who don't deserve your advocacy.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/TaylorPopielarz/status/1347278002850295808?s=19
Steve Stivers said he isn't opposed to impeachment

No, that's not what he said. He ducked the question and as noted in the caption said that impeachment within the next two weeks simply isn't viable. He also men store around Trump's complicity saying he "perhaps maybe not directly, but at least indirectly" incited the rioters. Puh-lease! Once again Stivers does a fine job of playing a moderate on TV.

That said, his commitment to support a vote to remove Trump via the 25th Amendment if the cabinet submits it, is a bona fide commendable move.

[Badger]

The Senate is in recess until January 19th so it won't make a difference either way.

McConnell could call them back in emergency session if he had the stones. For that matter I think if Pence and the cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment, acting president Mikey could call them back into emergency session as well.

Yeah, neither will happen, so impeach away, but be quick about it.

After the presidents are we robotic and obviously unmeant video presentation tonight, I tend to agree. I suspect that was the price he had to pay when presented with a near ultimatum of do it or the cabinet would vote to bounce his ass.

[Badger]

Any word from Casey or Toomey? Toomey could be a real possibility for a GOP vote for impeachment.

I expect all Senate Republicans, except perhaps Romney, to wait for the House to impeach Truml before making their views public

Would you support state Republican parties cancelling primaries for republican senators who vote to impeach Trump and switch to a convention system to make their nomination a formality

I fully support the idea of Republican Senators brave enough to Buck there Trump is base being renominated rather than pay the price to that extremist Wing. However, my friend oh, I'm not sure a convention will necessarily help that. Surely the convention has to involve elected delegate somehow, and in some ways that augments the strength of the hyper mobilized fanatics. Don't forget, didn't Utah lose at a reasonable moderate Senator to a far right-wing loon Mike Lee I believe, through their primary convention system just several years ago?

[Badger]

Is there enough time for the process of conviction?

If McConnell's actually on board this time, then yes. He'll waive any & every rule necessary, if need be.

That's a huge If, though.

Yes, but granted, it's nowhere near as huge an if as it was a year ago.

Sadly, Bruce, McConnell's opposition has merely dampened from when hell freezes over to ain't going to happen. Simply put, he will do what he can to run out the clock, cite the president's imminent departure as a reason it's not necessary to hold a vote, rather than have his caucus either harm them in the general election or possibly spark a primary challenge.

[Badger]

To remove Trump, it would take 18 Republican senators to go along with it. Or, if we wait for Warnock and Ossoff to be sworn in, it would just take just 17, but Loeffler wouldn't be available to be one anymore.

Thoughts on who might do it? Here's my quick scorecard that I didn't put all that much time into:

Tier 1 - If you don't have these people on board, don't bother. It's not happening.
AK - Lisa Murkowski
KY - Mitch McConnell
ME - Susan Collins
SD - John Thune
UT - Mitt Romney

Tier 2 - People who might survive it politically, since they're in a purple state or not up for reelection for a long time.
AK - Dan Sullivan
FL - Marco Rubio (might want Trump to be unable to run in 2024)
GA - Kelly Loeffler (career already over)
IA - Chuck Grassley
IA - Joni Ernst
MT - Steve Daines
NC - Richard Burr
NC - Thom Tillis
TX - John Cornyn

Tier 3 - People who would really be going out on a limb to convict. It will take 2-3 from this tier to convict, even if everyone from Tier 2 convicts.
AL - Richard Shelby
AR - John Boozman
AR - Tom Cotton (might want Trump to be unable to run in 2024)
ID - Jim Risch
ID - Mike Crapo
IN - Mike Braun
IN - Todd Young
KS - Jerry Moran
KY - Rand Paul (could be in Tier 4)
LA - Bill Cassidy
MO - Roy Blunt
MS - Roger Wicker
ND - John Hoeven
ND - Kevin Cramer
NE - Ben Sasse (could be in Tier 1 actually)
NE - Deb Fischer
OH - Rob Portman
OK - James Lankford
OK - Jim Inhofe
PA - Pat Toomey
SC - Lindsey Graham (could be in Tier 2)
SC - Tim Scott
SD - Mike Rounds
TN - Bill Hagerty
TN - Marsha Blackburn (could be in Tier 4)
UT - Mike Lee (could be in Tier 4)
WI - Ron Johnson
WV - Shelley Moore Capito
WY - John Barrasso

Tier 4 - The true believers who voted to uphold the challenges. Should be safe to assume they won't be convicting.
AL - Tommy Tuberville
FL - Rick Scott
KS - Roger Marshall
LA - John Kennedy
MO - Josh Hawley
MS - Cindy Hyde-Smith
TX - Ted Cruz
WY - Cynthia Lummis

I would put to me in tier-2 if for no other reason he is retiring. I would also put Portman more of a tier-2 to vote as well

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/kaylatausche/status/1347351604115238912
https://twitter.com/kaylatausche/status/1347352305860026368
https://twitter.com/kaylatausche/status/1347352937073418244
https://twitter.com/kaylatausche/status/1347354365665943552

Cowards

Yes the legal process would take more than a week, that’s the point, he wouldn’t be able to get the reigns back before leaving.

No running out the clock isn’t executable and no none of these traitors get brownie points for brow furrowing or symbolic resignations.

Be his better Angels, please. Name one f****** time in The Last 5 Years that is worked on this certifiable Psychopathic maniac.

[Badger]

Trump has conceded the election.  This is what we wanted him to do.  We should acknowledge that and hold him to it and move on until Biden is inaugurated.  No need to add fuel to the fire and encourage more controversy and confrontation.  Give Trump's supporters room to accept their loss instead of an occasion to fight for him against attackers.

Surely we have a long long past the point of needing to worry about throwing fuel on the fire or allowing Trump has to come to cope with the fact that Trump lost?

I don't know if you've noticed, but we are already standing in the middle of a multi-state sized forest fire, and the large number Trump supporters who still don't accept his defeat at this point literally never will.

[Badger]

Are Omar’s and Lieu’s different timelines based on what I hear are two impeachment resolutions going around separately (one from Cicilline about the coup itself and one from Omar apparently about the Raffensperger phone call)? If so, why not just consolidate them and impeach him under two articles like last time?

The Raffensberger call? I mean, yes that’s impeachable, but we have bigger fish to fry on this one.

put 'em both in there.

No. Just impeach him for inciting riots. No need to prove a complicated theory or call any witnesses. Simple, clean and fast. You only need conviction on one article of impeachment.

Agreed. While I agree that is call Georgia Secretary of State is impeachable, as are about literally 20 different things Trump did throughout his administration, momentum for impeachment here is entirely based on what happened in the capital. Keep things neat.

Furthermore, Steve Stivers made an important Point while ducking the question about whether he's supporting peachment that remaining two weeks arguably might not give the president time to adequately prepare a defense. To give the devil their due, he's got a point. Ergo, it's all the more important to narrow down scope of what Congress tries him on.

[Badger]

Wait, this is actually happening? I think Dems should only proceed if the votes in the senate are there.

The problem is they likely will not know whether the votes in the Senate are there. So far, the GOP senators have not come out in lock step and declared their intention to blow this off like last time. The fact that they’re remaining tight-lipped is actually a positive sign. That doesn’t mean they’ll vote to convict. But it gives some glimmer of hope that they might actually wait and see how strong the House case is before they declare their intentions.

My take? They are only remaining tight-lipped because they are desperately trying to run out the clock before they have to potentially take a stand on either giving Trump yet another pass for one of the most if not the most egregious Act of any president in history, or going on record voting against someone who is still the most popular man in the party. A paragraph This is, incidentally, another reason Democrats need to go full-steam ahead in the house. Even if Mitch McConnell quite probably uses the pending end of trump presidency as an excuse not to let the impeachment make sure come to a vote, every Republican needs to be on record where they stand here.

Again, the problem isn't so much Donald Trump, as it is widespread trumpism throughout the Republican Party.

Wait a minute. Why have we all been talking about Mitch McConnell potentially blocking a vote here? He's only going to be Senate majority leader for a couple weeks. I don't recall if there is a specific time limit by which the Senate needs to take up proceedings after a house impeachment vote, but surely it can be arranged for that time limit. To occur until after Chuck Schumer takes over? When that happens, Republican senators are likewise across-the-board going to have to take a stand on this issue. Or is there something I'm missing here?

[Badger]

I am not sure it is worth going through all of this, assuming that there is some understanding that if Trump goes nutter again as to taking some illegal action, that Pence has the mechanisms in place to instantly invoke the 25th amendment, so I am a no vote on this at present. But I don't know enough to be an informed vote, so call it a tentative no from me.

Why do you have that understanding? Shouldn’t we have had this understanding for years? The 25th Amendment is clearly not going to be invoked. Impeachment is the only consequence Congress can enact at this point.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1347568992899264512?s=19
Lindsey, a great Senator and a true American hero John McCain wouldn't be proud of you today

Yes, Lindsey, you insufferable spineless worm. Letting Trump go unpunished for instigating a violent takeover of the capital that resulted in the loss of life is exactly what this country needs to "heal".

[Badger]

I'm not really 100% on the exact process, but doesn't being impeached very specifically block that person from being pardoned? In this case, there would no longer be any question of him being able to pardon himself so long as he is actively being impeached.

If that is the case, then it is absolutely worth it so long as it can be dragged out until he is out of office.

I assume you meant convicted, since impeachment is merely the charge. Then the Senate has their trial. If convicted, then he is no longer POTUS. I guess the issue is whether or not if Trump pardons himself now, will it be negated if he is then convicted. That would surprise me if that is the case, but maybe. I could see that a pardon would not be effective for what he is convicted of that removes him from office, but how about everything else he is being investigated about? I don't think Trump committed a crime as to his actions as to the riot. That isn't going to fly. That does not mean that that an impeachment is inappropriate however. Congress can do what it wants on that.

Well this is what I meant by not quite understanding the process:

and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Does it mean in cases of impeachment, he can't pardon whoever is being impeached? Or does this only mean that if you're removed from office via impeachment, that afterwards you can't be pardoned for anything?

So actually in retrospect it's not really that clear (to me, anyway).

Hardening is an exercise for criminal convictions, not impeachment from Office. Apples and oranges.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/bensiegel/status/1347611132727586816?s=19
We really need primary him. And if he does vote against impeachment, Pelosi must immediately kick him off all committees

Hey remember when AOC couldn’t have her committee assignment because she was mean to Henry ‘I’m going to fundraiser for the Texas GOP’ Cuellar?

But this prick is uncontroversial?

Iirc he was one of, if not the only, Democrat to vote against the $2,000 stimulus checks in the house.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1347641871158415361

what did the tweet say?

“ House Judiciary Dems to introduce impeachment articles as early as Monday, with one count of “incitement of insurrection.” Also with a ban on trump ever running again. Trump could be impeached on Tuesday or Wednesday. This is via CNN sources.”

A ban on Trump running again is a smart move at least.

Disagree. It makes the fight sound political. Like Democrats are afraid of him returning. Let him be impeached for what he did as is right and correct.

The theoretical concept from ever holding elected office again, which would only be the presidency of course, is frightening as hell. However, I can't picture even him attempting to do so at age 78. And even greater off school is the chances of Trump not being incarcerated or a convicted felon, or at minimum still fighting legal charges 4 years from now are slim.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/bensiegel/status/1347611132727586816?s=19
We really need primary him. And if he does vote against impeachment, Pelosi must immediately kick him off all committees

Hey remember when AOC couldn’t have her committee assignment because she was mean to Henry ‘I’m going to fundraiser for the Texas GOP’ Cuellar?

But this prick is uncontroversial?

Iirc he was one of, if not the only, Democrat to vote against the $2,000 stimulus checks in the house.

Schrader always kinda sucked, but he seems to have fully gone over to the dark side since November.  He only beat a random some dude-tier whacktivist running as an open QAnon supporter by ~6%, so that could be part of it.  I’m sticking to my theory that he’s gonna be a future party switcher though.  

Even Steven pvi in his district. Do I understand it may be shifting Republican. Hopefully redistricting will get rid of him and Shore up the district simultaneously.

[Badger]

Leave it to Shua to spinelessly weasel his way into defending this guy, even after all that's just happened, even after several lifelong Republicans on this very forum and a few in Congress have come to the conclusion he must go. But he's such an independent voice.

Trump is going.  If he backtracks and refuses to, then impeach him.

You conveniently ignore the point of my post which is the prudential argument .  You want to punish him right after he finally does the right thing, and don't care about what message that sends.  All of you are just out for blood.   

Enforcement of the rule of law is so inconvenient and vexing to knee-jerk contrarians like yourself who defended him when he was indefensible. So sorry that hurt your feelings and ego.

[Badger]

Leave it to Shua to spinelessly weasel his way into defending this guy, even after all that's just happened, even after several lifelong Republicans on this very forum and a few in Congress have come to the conclusion he must go. But he's such an independent voice.

Trump is going.  If he backtracks and refuses to, then impeach him.

You conveniently ignore the point of my post which is the prudential argument .  You want to punish him right after he finally does the right thing, and don't care about what message that sends.  All of you are just out for blood.   

No, it was Trump who was out for blood. Literally, sadly. We want to put a stop to it before he stokes another murder.

How would impeachment prevent violence?   This is magical thinking.

How does any punishment prevent someone else from committing another crime? You're being typically obtuse here.

Trump committed an outrageous crime and must face the consequences, no matter how hard that hurts the feelings of his cult.

Lots of times it doesn't.  Depends on the circumstance, the nature of the punishment, and the individual.

What about Trump or his most radical supporters are you relying on for your claim that an impeachment would prevent murder?

... you have to be doing this on purpose. Yes, that was my point.

Anyway, I never said it would "prevent murder," just prevent Trump from using the presidency as a pulpit to incite murder. If Twitter or Parler lets him, he may very well keep stoking more riots. But our justice system is not intimidated by threats from cultists of the defendant, and should not be in this case either.

Ok well I would actually like to instead just prevent more violence full stop.  I know full well our justice system, like our foreign policy establishment, doesn't pay enough attention to blowback.

Do you want Trump have the power to Pardon any or all of those recently indicted criminals who stormed the capital? Are you truly so dense to doubt that that's not a probability if he's allowed to remain in office?

We don't even need to meet that threshold for extremely good reasons to impeach him, so hush. You're not interested in peace or Unity. If you were, you would have never ever once support of trump in the first place.

[Badger]

I'm sure Guiliani would be all in but not so sure about Dershowitz. I think he really believed the Ukraine stuff was not impeachable, but this is a whole different matter.

Dershowitz says he'd defend Trump again in impeachment trial

Because of course he would.

My trumpist aunt bought me a copy of dershowitz has fast Buck grab book laying out the case against impeaching Trump last time. I think many people here know the gist of his argument, but it was truly appalling. It was unitary executive Theory writ large. Large as in on steroids, crossbred with Andre the Giant, then given a Dungeons & Dragons growth potion. It was the worst legal argument I think I may have ever read, write down to first draft grease written by law school interns. I would have given it a you failing grade if I were an adjunct undergraduate community college professor of American legal systems.

[Badger]

House Republicans Ask Biden: Get Pelosi to Back Off Impeachment

A group of House Republicans who voted to accept President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory asked him to persuade Speaker Nancy Pelosi to back off impeaching Donald Trump for instigating Wednesday’s riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The lawmakers, led by Representative Ken Buck of Colorado, warned in a letter to Biden on Saturday that Trump’s impeachment would inflame his supporters anew, and damage Biden’s efforts to unify the country.

“In the spirit of healing and fidelity to our Constitution, we ask that you formally request that Speaker Nancy Pelosi discontinue her efforts to impeach President Donald J. Trump a second time,” they wrot

Cowards.