Trump 2nd Impeachment News/Talk Megathread

[GeorgiaModerate]

Whether or not it's true, it's not relevant.  Trump wasn't the former President when he was impeached.

What possible reason would "impeachment" mean something different in Section 2 and Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution?   Why would it be allowed to convict someone who can't be  charged?

He has already been charged. He was charged weeks ago. Whatever you think about trying a former president, I don’t imagine you believe that a sitting president can’t be impeached. And I’d expect someone weird enough to post on this forum would know that this is not Brazil and what the Senate does is not actually impeachment.

The Senate tries the impeachment.  So I ask again: what is the theory wherein it is illegal to impeach someone but not illegal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

Turn it around.  Trump was impeached while he was the current President, so his impeachment WAS legal.  There is zero question of that. 

So following your logic above: what is the theory wherein it is legal to impeach someone but not legal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

The same reason if someone dies right after they've been charged there is no trial.  "Donald Trump, President of the United States" no longer exists as a legal entity.

LOL.  By your logic, the CEO of a corporation that engaged in criminal activity at his direction could escape being tried by resigning (even after indictment!) because the legal entity "John Smith, CEO of XYZ Corp." would no longer exist.

[SteveRogers]

Whether or not it's true, it's not relevant.  Trump wasn't the former President when he was impeached.

What possible reason would "impeachment" mean something different in Section 2 and Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution?   Why would it be allowed to convict someone who can't be  charged?

He has already been charged. He was charged weeks ago. Whatever you think about trying a former president, I don’t imagine you believe that a sitting president can’t be impeached. And I’d expect someone weird enough to post on this forum would know that this is not Brazil and what the Senate does is not actually impeachment.

The Senate tries the impeachment.  So I ask again: what is the theory wherein it is illegal to impeach someone but not illegal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

Turn it around.  Trump was impeached while he was the current President, so his impeachment WAS legal.  There is zero question of that. 

So following your logic above: what is the theory wherein it is legal to impeach someone but not legal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

The same reason if someone dies right after they've been charged there is no trial.  "Donald Trump, President of the United States" no longer exists as a legal entity.

So a President can deprive the Senate of its Constitutional authority to bar him from future office simply by resigning early or otherwise running out the clock after the impeachment process has already begun? Do you not see that as an absurd result? Where is the basis in the text of the Constitution for that?

[brucejoel99]

Whether or not it's true, it's not relevant.  Trump wasn't the former President when he was impeached.

What possible reason would "impeachment" mean something different in Section 2 and Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution?   Why would it be allowed to convict someone who can't be  charged?

He has already been charged. He was charged weeks ago. Whatever you think about trying a former president, I don’t imagine you believe that a sitting president can’t be impeached. And I’d expect someone weird enough to post on this forum would know that this is not Brazil and what the Senate does is not actually impeachment.

The Senate tries the impeachment.  So I ask again: what is the theory wherein it is illegal to impeach someone but not illegal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

Turn it around.  Trump was impeached while he was the current President, so his impeachment WAS legal.  There is zero question of that. 

So following your logic above: what is the theory wherein it is legal to impeach someone but not legal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

The same reason if someone dies right after they've been charged there is no trial.  "Donald Trump, President of the United States" no longer exists as a legal entity.

This isn't a matter of "legal entit[ies]." It's not a matter of legal anything, for that matter, because the courts have ruled impeachment to be a wholly political question (meaning, Congress can do whatever the f**k it wants on this matter), & considering that A.) there's both historical precedent & legal analysis in support of late impeachment; & B.) the fact that Donald Trump being subject to the disqualification from holding further federal office going forward provision very much still exists as a potential punishment, that's really the end of the matter. Probably why I, a majority of the U.S. Senate, & anybody with a brain has been inclined thus far to trust the word of the vast majority of legal scholars who've examined this question over the word of somebody like you.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Whether or not it's true, it's not relevant.  Trump wasn't the former President when he was impeached.

What possible reason would "impeachment" mean something different in Section 2 and Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution?   Why would it be allowed to convict someone who can't be  charged?

He has already been charged. He was charged weeks ago. Whatever you think about trying a former president, I don’t imagine you believe that a sitting president can’t be impeached. And I’d expect someone weird enough to post on this forum would know that this is not Brazil and what the Senate does is not actually impeachment.

The Senate tries the impeachment.  So I ask again: what is the theory wherein it is illegal to impeach someone but not illegal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

Turn it around.  Trump was impeached while he was the current President, so his impeachment WAS legal.  There is zero question of that. 

So following your logic above: what is the theory wherein it is legal to impeach someone but not legal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

The same reason if someone dies right after they've been charged there is no trial.  "Donald Trump, President of the United States" no longer exists as a legal entity.

What do you get out of this?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Whether or not it's true, it's not relevant.  Trump wasn't the former President when he was impeached.

What possible reason would "impeachment" mean something different in Section 2 and Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution?   Why would it be allowed to convict someone who can't be  charged?

He has already been charged. He was charged weeks ago. Whatever you think about trying a former president, I don’t imagine you believe that a sitting president can’t be impeached. And I’d expect someone weird enough to post on this forum would know that this is not Brazil and what the Senate does is not actually impeachment.

The Senate tries the impeachment.  So I ask again: what is the theory wherein it is illegal to impeach someone but not illegal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

Turn it around.  Trump was impeached while he was the current President, so his impeachment WAS legal.  There is zero question of that. 

So following your logic above: what is the theory wherein it is legal to impeach someone but not legal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

The same reason if someone dies right after they've been charged there is no trial.  "Donald Trump, President of the United States" no longer exists as a legal entity.

This isn't a matter of "legal entit[ies]." It's not a matter of legal anything, for that matter, because the courts have ruled impeachment to be a wholly political question (meaning, Congress can do whatever the f**k it wants on this matter), & considering that A.) there's both historical precedent & legal analysis in support of late impeachment; & B.) the fact that Donald Trump being subject to the disqualification from holding further federal office going forward provision very much still exists as a potential punishment, that's really the end of the matter. Probably why I, a majority of the U.S. Senate, & anybody with a brain has been inclined thus far to trust the word of the vast majority of legal scholars who've examined this question over the word of somebody like you.

The Court never ruled that Congress has a constitutional ability to just impeach any random person they want.  Anyway, you are talking here about "late impeachment" being legal, which is different from the argument that trying an impeachment is legal post-presidency even if impeaching post-presidency isn't.

[brucejoel99]

Whether or not it's true, it's not relevant.  Trump wasn't the former President when he was impeached.

What possible reason would "impeachment" mean something different in Section 2 and Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution?   Why would it be allowed to convict someone who can't be  charged?

He has already been charged. He was charged weeks ago. Whatever you think about trying a former president, I don’t imagine you believe that a sitting president can’t be impeached. And I’d expect someone weird enough to post on this forum would know that this is not Brazil and what the Senate does is not actually impeachment.

The Senate tries the impeachment.  So I ask again: what is the theory wherein it is illegal to impeach someone but not illegal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

Turn it around.  Trump was impeached while he was the current President, so his impeachment WAS legal.  There is zero question of that. 

So following your logic above: what is the theory wherein it is legal to impeach someone but not legal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

The same reason if someone dies right after they've been charged there is no trial.  "Donald Trump, President of the United States" no longer exists as a legal entity.

This isn't a matter of "legal entit[ies]." It's not a matter of legal anything, for that matter, because the courts have ruled impeachment to be a wholly political question (meaning, Congress can do whatever the f**k it wants on this matter), & considering that A.) there's both historical precedent & legal analysis in support of late impeachment; & B.) the fact that Donald Trump being subject to the disqualification from holding further federal office going forward provision very much still exists as a potential punishment, that's really the end of the matter. Probably why I, a majority of the U.S. Senate, & anybody with a brain has been inclined thus far to trust the word of the vast majority of legal scholars who've examined this question over the word of somebody like you.

The Court never ruled that Congress has a constitutional ability to just impeach any random person they want.  Anyway, you are talking here about "late impeachment" being legal, which is different from the argument that trying an impeachment is legal post-presidency even if impeaching post-presidency isn't.

In deciding that impeachment is a wholly political question that the Constitution reserves solely for a coordinate political branch (Congress) & is thus not resolvable in the courts, they might as well have.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Whether or not it's true, it's not relevant.  Trump wasn't the former President when he was impeached.

What possible reason would "impeachment" mean something different in Section 2 and Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution?   Why would it be allowed to convict someone who can't be  charged?

He has already been charged. He was charged weeks ago. Whatever you think about trying a former president, I don’t imagine you believe that a sitting president can’t be impeached. And I’d expect someone weird enough to post on this forum would know that this is not Brazil and what the Senate does is not actually impeachment.

The Senate tries the impeachment.  So I ask again: what is the theory wherein it is illegal to impeach someone but not illegal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

Turn it around.  Trump was impeached while he was the current President, so his impeachment WAS legal.  There is zero question of that. 

So following your logic above: what is the theory wherein it is legal to impeach someone but not legal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

The same reason if someone dies right after they've been charged there is no trial.  "Donald Trump, President of the United States" no longer exists as a legal entity.

LOL.  By your logic, the CEO of a corporation that engaged in criminal activity at his direction could escape being tried by resigning (even after indictment!) because the legal entity "John Smith, CEO of XYZ Corp." would no longer exist.

The key you mention is that it was "at his direction," the trial does not depend on him holding the office of CEO.  If he was somehow able to do this without having that title, it wouldn't matter.   Just as, if a President committed a crime or directed one, that person could then be tried in a criminal court regardless of whether they were still President.    But impeachment does have to do with holding office, it is central to the definition.

[SteveRogers]

Whether or not it's true, it's not relevant.  Trump wasn't the former President when he was impeached.

What possible reason would "impeachment" mean something different in Section 2 and Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution?   Why would it be allowed to convict someone who can't be  charged?

He has already been charged. He was charged weeks ago. Whatever you think about trying a former president, I don’t imagine you believe that a sitting president can’t be impeached. And I’d expect someone weird enough to post on this forum would know that this is not Brazil and what the Senate does is not actually impeachment.

The Senate tries the impeachment.  So I ask again: what is the theory wherein it is illegal to impeach someone but not illegal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

Turn it around.  Trump was impeached while he was the current President, so his impeachment WAS legal.  There is zero question of that. 

So following your logic above: what is the theory wherein it is legal to impeach someone but not legal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

The same reason if someone dies right after they've been charged there is no trial.  "Donald Trump, President of the United States" no longer exists as a legal entity.

LOL.  By your logic, the CEO of a corporation that engaged in criminal activity at his direction could escape being tried by resigning (even after indictment!) because the legal entity "John Smith, CEO of XYZ Corp." would no longer exist.

The key you mention is that it was "at his direction," the trial does not depend on him holding the office of CEO.  If he was somehow able to do this without having that title, it wouldn't matter.   Just as, if a President committed a crime or directed one, that person could then be tried in a criminal court regardless of whether they were still President.    But impeachment does have to do with holding office, it is central to the definition.

And Trump held office when he committed the relevant acts, and he held office when he was impeached for that conduct. It would be factually incorrect to state that the Senate trial has nothing to do with Trump’s holding of an office. There’s nothing in the text of the Constitution about a deadline for the Senate trial.

Look, I expect that if congress hypothetically tried to impeach a former president five years after the fact, SCOTUS would step in and say that’s a no-go. They might base the decision on due process  grounds or something else, but pretty much everyone would agree that would be a sensible result. But in the situation we find ourselves in presently, most legal experts agree that the Court would stay out of any particular legal challenge and say it’s a political question for the Senate to decide. So the relevant question is not what the text of the Constitution says on this exact issue (it doesn’t really), but rather what is the most sensible precedent consistent with the Constitution and separation of powers, and there’s just no good reason why a president should be able to skate by without conviction just because he waited until his last two weeks to do the really bad stuff.

[Senator Spark]

It looks like he won't be convicted. 45 GOP Senators opposing would prevent Dems from convicting him. Dems need 66 which is pretty hard to get. Rs like Paul are starting to believe this is another political stunt by them.

[Calthrina950]

It looks like he won't be convicted. 45 GOP Senators opposing would prevent Dems from convicting him. Dems need 66 which is pretty hard to get. Rs like Paul are starting to believe this is another political stunt by them.

Starting? Paul has always been opposed to impeachment.

[BudgieForce]

I was worried about impeachment putting moderates in a bad place, but Manchin, Sinema and Kelly are seem fully onboard with this. If they think its a good idea, I can't honestly disagree with them.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Whether or not it's true, it's not relevant.  Trump wasn't the former President when he was impeached.

What possible reason would "impeachment" mean something different in Section 2 and Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution?   Why would it be allowed to convict someone who can't be  charged?

He has already been charged. He was charged weeks ago. Whatever you think about trying a former president, I don’t imagine you believe that a sitting president can’t be impeached. And I’d expect someone weird enough to post on this forum would know that this is not Brazil and what the Senate does is not actually impeachment.

The Senate tries the impeachment.  So I ask again: what is the theory wherein it is illegal to impeach someone but not illegal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

Turn it around.  Trump was impeached while he was the current President, so his impeachment WAS legal.  There is zero question of that. 

So following your logic above: what is the theory wherein it is legal to impeach someone but not legal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

The same reason if someone dies right after they've been charged there is no trial.  "Donald Trump, President of the United States" no longer exists as a legal entity.

LOL.  By your logic, the CEO of a corporation that engaged in criminal activity at his direction could escape being tried by resigning (even after indictment!) because the legal entity "John Smith, CEO of XYZ Corp." would no longer exist.

The key you mention is that it was "at his direction," the trial does not depend on him holding the office of CEO.  If he was somehow able to do this without having that title, it wouldn't matter.   Just as, if a President committed a crime or directed one, that person could then be tried in a criminal court regardless of whether they were still President.    But impeachment does have to do with holding office, it is central to the definition.

And Trump held office when he committed the relevant acts, and he held office when he was impeached for that conduct. It would be factually incorrect to state that the Senate trial has nothing to do with Trump’s holding of an office. There’s nothing in the text of the Constitution about a deadline for the Senate trial.

Look, I expect that if congress hypothetically tried to impeach a former president five years after the fact, SCOTUS would step in and say that’s a no-go. They might base the decision on due process  grounds or something else, but pretty much everyone would agree that would be a sensible result. But in the situation we find ourselves in presently, most legal experts agree that the Court would stay out of any particular legal challenge and say it’s a political question for the Senate to decide. So the relevant question is not what the text of the Constitution says on this exact issue (it doesn’t really), but rather what is the most sensible precedent consistent with the Constitution and separation of powers, and there’s just no good reason why a president should be able to skate by without conviction just because he waited until his last two weeks to do the really bad stuff.

What if he waited until the last day?  Then there wouldn't even be time for the House to impeach while he's still President.  Or what if he did something and it wasn't exposed until much later?  It's the same issue.

If you want to argue that the Senate should be allowed to try an impeachment for a former President because it makes prudential sense, fine. I think you can make a good case either way.  But don't try and tell me "it's not technically an impeachment" so whether he's still President or not doesn't matter.  Neither the Constitution nor common sense present any distinction that would suggest those two things should be different as to whether they are allowed. 

[Badger]

Whether or not it's true, it's not relevant.  Trump wasn't the former President when he was impeached.

What possible reason would "impeachment" mean something different in Section 2 and Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution?   Why would it be allowed to convict someone who can't be  charged?

He has already been charged. He was charged weeks ago. Whatever you think about trying a former president, I don’t imagine you believe that a sitting president can’t be impeached. And I’d expect someone weird enough to post on this forum would know that this is not Brazil and what the Senate does is not actually impeachment.

The Senate tries the impeachment.  So I ask again: what is the theory wherein it is illegal to impeach someone but not illegal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

Turn it around.  Trump was impeached while he was the current President, so his impeachment WAS legal.  There is zero question of that. 

So following your logic above: what is the theory wherein it is legal to impeach someone but not legal to try their impeachment?  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would lend itself to this interpretation.

The same reason if someone dies right after they've been charged there is no trial.  "Donald Trump, President of the United States" no longer exists as a legal entity.

LOL.  By your logic, the CEO of a corporation that engaged in criminal activity at his direction could escape being tried by resigning (even after indictment!) because the legal entity "John Smith, CEO of XYZ Corp." would no longer exist.

The key you mention is that it was "at his direction," the trial does not depend on him holding the office of CEO.  If he was somehow able to do this without having that title, it wouldn't matter.   Just as, if a President committed a crime or directed one, that person could then be tried in a criminal court regardless of whether they were still President.    But impeachment does have to do with holding office, it is central to the definition.

And Trump held office when he committed the relevant acts, and he held office when he was impeached for that conduct. It would be factually incorrect to state that the Senate trial has nothing to do with Trump’s holding of an office. There’s nothing in the text of the Constitution about a deadline for the Senate trial.

Look, I expect that if congress hypothetically tried to impeach a former president five years after the fact, SCOTUS would step in and say that’s a no-go. They might base the decision on due process  grounds or something else, but pretty much everyone would agree that would be a sensible result. But in the situation we find ourselves in presently, most legal experts agree that the Court would stay out of any particular legal challenge and say it’s a political question for the Senate to decide. So the relevant question is not what the text of the Constitution says on this exact issue (it doesn’t really), but rather what is the most sensible precedent consistent with the Constitution and separation of powers, and there’s just no good reason why a president should be able to skate by without conviction just because he waited until his last two weeks to do the really bad stuff.

What if he waited until the last day?  Then there wouldn't even be time for the House to impeach while he's still President.  Or what if he did something and it wasn't exposed until much later?  It's the same issue.

If you want to argue that the Senate should be allowed to try an impeachment for a former President because it makes prudential sense, fine. I think you can make a good case either way.  But don't try and tell me "it's not technically an impeachment" so whether he's still President or not doesn't matter.  Neither the Constitution nor common sense present any difference on why those two things should be different as to whether they are allowed. 

Leaving aside the highly debatable proposition that once a president or any office holder leaves office they are olly olly oxen free regarding impeachment proceedings, what's not Trump quite specifically impeached by the house while he still was in office? The Senate vote is for conviction, not impeachment.

Even if your questionable analysis of questionable language is correct, a strict reading of that very language in no way prohibits conviction after leaving office when the actual impeachment occurred while the subject was still an office holder.

[Torie]

It was probably posted above, but what I found out today, was the Rand Paul failed motion was merely to debate the Constitutionality of a trial for an ex President, and not a motion to dismiss the case - instead it was a mere matter of the timing as to the order in which the case would be discussed. Thus, his motion rejected, instead the law will be discussed at the trial, and it is not necessarily the case that those who wanted the matter discussed first, necessarily believe at this time that the trial is in fact illegal, and/or that Trump is not guilty on the merits.

My response is if the Trump is convicted, he can appeal to SCOTUS to throw it out, and the Senators are jurors, and not the judge, and thus Trump is not being prejudiced, and thus the merits should be reached, and while the chat about legality may be interesting to some, not me, it is not an appropriate use of the Senate's time.

That aside, as I have said about 6 times now, I think the claim that an ex President cannot be impeached and convicted is frivolous given that a possible punishment is being barred from holding federal office. If that were not the case, a person could avoid the being barred punishment, by resigning just before the conviction vote, or for that matter just before the vote on the second prong of the punishment, rending the barring from office prong essentially a dead letter. That interpretation is well, LUDICROUS. Dismissed! Torie bangs down the gavel, and pops in his mouth his favorite edible.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/DeaconBlues0/status/1354289378844147712

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://twitter.com/DeaconBlues0/status/1354289378844147712

Trump only has to convince 12 Rs not to convict, even if Mcconnell and Portman votes to convict that's far short than the 67  D's need.  The vote to not hear the case already had 45 Rs voting to dismiss


It's a waste of money when the money can be spent elsewhere

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My response is if the Trump is convicted, he can appeal to SCOTUS to throw it out

Not really, as the SCOTUS has already ruled that impeachment is a "political issue" beyond the scope of the court.

[Inmate Trump]

https://twitter.com/DeaconBlues0/status/1354289378844147712

Trump only has to convince 12 Rs not to convict, even if Mcconnell and Portman votes to convict that's far short than the 67  D's need.  The vote to not hear the case already had 45 Rs voting to dismiss


It's a waste of money when the money can be spent elsewhere

Punishing the ringleader of an attempted coup and domestic terror attack is never a waste of money.

[roxas11]

https://www.axios.com/trump-censure-kaine-collins-senate-impeachment-9a67a569-0526-45b7-9bfb-67b8d17f901b.html

So I just saw that that Tim Kaine and Susan Collins want to pass a censure resolution that would bar Trump from ever holding office again

If that is the case than I think the Dems should strongly consider supporting it since its becoming clear that many of the GOP in congress are cowards who will never hold him Trump accountable for anything and unlike impeachment you don't need a two-thirds vote in order to pass the censure resolution
 
my main issue with a censure resolution in the past was that I felt it simply did go not go far enough when it came to holding trump accountable. For example during the the first impeachment the GOP wanted a censure resolution that basically did nothing except warn trump to never do bad things again


now having said all of that If collins and Kaine are serious about this censure resolution
than at this point I would support that over a impeachment trial that will not do anything to win over many of the fools in the GOP nor will it succeed in holding trump accountable since the republicans will most lilke vote acquit him anyway

[wbrocks67]

I feel like the odds of them approving a censure that only needs 51 votes to ban him from office is just as unlikely.

Disappointed in Kane. Even Manchin thought it was ridiculous.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

I feel like this whole "14th Amendment route" is on dubious Constitutional grounds. The 3rd Section of the 14th Amendment doesn't establish a process for removing people's right to hold office, only restoring it. Presumably this means that disqualification is not through a Congressional process.

Then again, Section 5 gives Congress the power to pass legislation to enforce the amendment. Is there any case law on this? The only time this was ever invoked was right after the Civil War.

[VAR]

The way our Senators try to stay relevant is embarrassing. Kaine and Warner's moderate hero schtick has gotten extremely tiresome at this point, esp. because they are not moderates by any stretch of the imagination.

[Inmate Trump]

Convicting Trump in the Senate was never going to happen.

Censuring him and disallowing him from ever again serving in public office is probably the way to go.  I support this.

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1354766447097081856

[Torie]

Responding to BRTD above, the issue of whether or not the Senate has the authority under the Constitution to convict an ex President, is a SCOTUS issue. It does not involve what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor, where Congress has been deemed the sole arbiter. Apples and oranges.