Trump 2nd Impeachment News/Talk Megathread

[BlueSwan]

I don't like it. It essentially allows for the GOP to get rid of Trump without having to be accountable in any way. They can just blame democrats (and a couple republicans) for censuring Trump and then continue down this destructive path.

If the GOP wants to get rid of Trump - and I think deep down most of them do - they have to face the music themselves.

[Torie]

I don't like it. It essentially allows for the GOP to get rid of Trump without having to be accountable in any way. They can just blame democrats (and a couple republicans) for censuring Trump and then continue down this destructive path.

If the GOP wants to get rid of Trump - and I think deep down most of them do - they have to face the music themselves.

Yes, every Senator should have to hear the evidence, along with the public, as well as airing the silly Rand Paul Constitutional point, and then have to vote yea or nay, and be held accountable for that vote for the rest of their life. This is one vote, tough as it may be for some, that absolutely should not be allowed to be finessed away. They must choose.

[Inmate Trump]

I don't like it. It essentially allows for the GOP to get rid of Trump without having to be accountable in any way. They can just blame democrats (and a couple republicans) for censuring Trump and then continue down this destructive path.

If the GOP wants to get rid of Trump - and I think deep down most of them do - they have to face the music themselves.

But they won’t face the music.

Conviction won’t happen, no matter the evidence.

The goal now should be ensuring Trump can’t return to office.

[emailking]

Can they just do both? Or does holding the trial mean they can't censure?

[Ferguson97]

Can they just do both? Or does holding the trial mean they can't censure?

Because censuring is useless

[Inmate Trump]

Can they just do both? Or does holding the trial mean they can't censure?

Because censuring is useless

Barring Trump from running again in 2024 isn’t useless.  That’s more than we’ll get otherwise because the Senate will never convict.

[SteveRogers]

Can they just do both? Or does holding the trial mean they can't censure?

Because censuring is useless

Barring Trump from running again in 2024 isn’t useless.  That’s more than we’ll get otherwise because the Senate will never convict.

A censure doesn’t do that. The only thing that can bar Trump from running again is a conviction in the United States Senate.

A censure is literally just a wag of the finger by congress telling someone that they disapprove of their conduct.

[Ferguson97]

Can they just do both? Or does holding the trial mean they can't censure?

Because censuring is useless

Censure does not barr Trump from holding office. It’s the equivalent of a strongly worded letter.

Barring Trump from running again in 2024 isn’t useless.  That’s more than we’ll get otherwise because the Senate will never convict.

[Roll Roons]

Can they just do both? Or does holding the trial mean they can't censure?

Because censuring is useless

Barring Trump from running again in 2024 isn’t useless.  That’s more than we’ll get otherwise because the Senate will never convict.

A censure doesn’t do that. The only thing that can bar Trump from running again is a conviction in the United States Senate.

A censure is literally just a wag of the finger by congress telling someone that they disapprove of their conduct.

The censure includes a provision that would bar him from running under the 14th Amendment.

[SteveRogers]

Can they just do both? Or does holding the trial mean they can't censure?

Because censuring is useless

Barring Trump from running again in 2024 isn’t useless.  That’s more than we’ll get otherwise because the Senate will never convict.

A censure doesn’t do that. The only thing that can bar Trump from running again is a conviction in the United States Senate.

A censure is literally just a wag of the finger by congress telling someone that they disapprove of their conduct.

The censure includes a provision that would bar him from running under the 14th Amendment.

Well, that’s silly.

[Roll Roons]

Can they just do both? Or does holding the trial mean they can't censure?

Because censuring is useless

Barring Trump from running again in 2024 isn’t useless.  That’s more than we’ll get otherwise because the Senate will never convict.

A censure doesn’t do that. The only thing that can bar Trump from running again is a conviction in the United States Senate.

A censure is literally just a wag of the finger by congress telling someone that they disapprove of their conduct.

The censure includes a provision that would bar him from running under the 14th Amendment.

Well, that’s silly.

At this point, it may be the best solution. It imposes a real consequence for his actions and might be easier for Republicans to get on board with.

[SteveRogers]

Can they just do both? Or does holding the trial mean they can't censure?

Because censuring is useless

Barring Trump from running again in 2024 isn’t useless.  That’s more than we’ll get otherwise because the Senate will never convict.

A censure doesn’t do that. The only thing that can bar Trump from running again is a conviction in the United States Senate.

A censure is literally just a wag of the finger by congress telling someone that they disapprove of their conduct.

The censure includes a provision that would bar him from running under the 14th Amendment.

Well, that’s silly.

At this point, it may be the best solution. It imposes a real consequence for his actions and might be easier for Republicans to get on board with.

It’s not a real consequence if it absolutely will not hold up in a court of law.

[emailking]

I heard on the news they can do both. So I say do that. Hold the trial. If he's not convicted,  censure. There's nothing to lose at that point.

[brucejoel99]

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.

The one time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was invoked was against Victor Berger in 1919, when Congress voted to refuse to seat him on that basis after he'd been convicted of violating the Espionage Act, so the one precedent on the books of this having occurred would seem to dictate that it could at the very least be invoked merely through a majority of a congressional chamber's power to determine their own membership.

(At the same time, they also determined that a criminal conviction wouldn't have been necessary for them to invoke it if they so chose, so the relevant precedent would also dictate that all which would be necessary is a simple majority of a congressional chamber saying that somebody has aided an insurrection, with no formal conviction or anything similar actually being required.)

Alternatively, a congressional chamber's power to determine the qualifications of its members is something which the courts have determined (in Powell v. McCormack) that a chamber can give effect to through its power to expel, so a requisite 2/3rds majority of a congressional chamber needed to expel a member could exist & summarily vote to do so on the basis that such a member engaged in insurrection.

[Badger]

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.

No. Do it only as Plan B if and when impeachment fails.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I can only go back to Schumer statement on Bill Clinton and how the D's Acquitted Bill Clinton, there won't be any conviction of Prez Trump. Schumer contradictory on Bill Clinton and Trump

But, 5 people died and fortunately no one else died or got injured

[Antonio the Sixth]

Congress barring someone from elected office with a simple majority, potentially in a partisan vote, is a terrible precedent to set. This is the opposite of "moderate".

It has to be impeachment, and if Republicans want him out they need to take responsibility and vote to convict.

[Torie]

I don't see how section 3 of the 14th amendment can be used without a conviction in a court of law myself. Maybe I am missing something.

[Ferguson97]

Can they just do both? Or does holding the trial mean they can't censure?

Because censuring is useless

Barring Trump from running again in 2024 isn’t useless.  That’s more than we’ll get otherwise because the Senate will never convict.

A censure doesn’t do that. The only thing that can bar Trump from running again is a conviction in the United States Senate.

A censure is literally just a wag of the finger by congress telling someone that they disapprove of their conduct.

The censure includes a provision that would bar him from running under the 14th Amendment.

That can’t possibly be true.

[brucejoel99]

Can they just do both? Or does holding the trial mean they can't censure?

Because censuring is useless

Barring Trump from running again in 2024 isn’t useless.  That’s more than we’ll get otherwise because the Senate will never convict.

A censure doesn’t do that. The only thing that can bar Trump from running again is a conviction in the United States Senate.

A censure is literally just a wag of the finger by congress telling someone that they disapprove of their conduct.

The censure includes a provision that would bar him from running under the 14th Amendment.

That can’t possibly be true.

It is, though:

Kaine is still gathering input but has drafted a resolution that would formally censure Trump. It also includes provisions that would mirror language in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment on barring officials from holding future office.

"In a way I view it as kind of censure plus because it has these two factual findings that could have the same consequence as an impeachment conviction," Kaine said. "It's not just, 'hey you did those things and that's bad.'"

[Badger]

Congress barring someone from elected office with a simple majority, potentially in a partisan vote, is a terrible precedent to set. This is the opposite of "moderate".

It has to be impeachment, and if Republicans want him out they need to take responsibility and vote to convict.

But how often has such provision ever had even the theoretical opportunity to be used against someone who most arguably did in fact Aid and abet literal sedition?

I'm not saying that in some crazy alternative universe Republicans then wouldn't turn around and try to say that Hillary Clinton's handling of Benghazi was the equivalent of sedition because she betrayed those killed at the embassy along with the flag, motherhood, God and apple pie, Ergo per the 14th Amendment herp derp blah blah blah. But at the same time, in this ugly timeline we inhabit, if we are going to stop from exercising any governmental discretion due to the possibility that Republicans could turn around and completely abandon any pretense of following basic constitutional Norms or precedence of governing if it suits their political aims, well then we might as well not take any major government action ever again if the precedent it sets is going to be judged by that incredibly low bar.

[Torie]

Can they just do both? Or does holding the trial mean they can't censure?

Because censuring is useless

Barring Trump from running again in 2024 isn’t useless.  That’s more than we’ll get otherwise because the Senate will never convict.

A censure doesn’t do that. The only thing that can bar Trump from running again is a conviction in the United States Senate.

A censure is literally just a wag of the finger by congress telling someone that they disapprove of their conduct.

The censure includes a provision that would bar him from running under the 14th Amendment.

That can’t possibly be true.

It is, though:

Kaine is still gathering input but has drafted a resolution that would formally censure Trump. It also includes provisions that would mirror language in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment on barring officials from holding future office.

"In a way I view it as kind of censure plus because it has these two factual findings that could have the same consequence as an impeachment conviction," Kaine said. "It's not just, 'hey you did those things and that's bad.'"

I hope you are right. I will leave it at that.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/McCormackJohn/status/1354915687509221377

[Antonio the Sixth]

But how often has such provision ever had even the theoretical opportunity to be used against someone who most arguably did in fact Aid and abet literal sedition?

I'm not saying that in some crazy alternative universe Republicans then wouldn't turn around and try to say that Hillary Clinton's handling of Benghazi was the equivalent of sedition because she betrayed those killed at the embassy along with the flag, motherhood, God and apple pie, Ergo per the 14th Amendment herp derp blah blah blah. But at the same time, in this ugly timeline we inhabit, if we are going to stop from exercising any governmental discretion due to the possibility that Republicans could turn around and completely abandon any pretense of following basic constitutional Norms or precedence of governing if it suits their political aims, well then we might as well not take any major government action ever again if the precedent it sets is going to be judged by that incredibly low bar.

I'm not saying we should "stop from exercising any governmental discretion" (although that's such an vague notion that I'm not saying we shouldn't either). You know I'm in support for full accountability for the Capitol insurrection. But accountability still has to go through legally sound channels, otherwise it's just another coup.* The constitutionality of Congress unilaterally barring someone from office is dubious to begin with (and with a conservative SCOTUS, there's almost no chance it would be sustained). And even beyond that, it's just not a power Congress should have. It's not just a matter of "if we do this to Republicans, Republicans will do this to us". There are plenty of institutional issues on which I'm happy to take the risk, because those would be institutionally positive things. Abolishing the filibuster is a good thing on principle, even if one day it might help Republicans pass some horrible law. Same with court-packing actually, because the ultimate effect would be to reduce the power of the judiciary, which is too powerful to begin with. This, on the other hand, would be a bad thing on principle. I don't want Republicans exercising that kind of power, and I don't want Democrats exercising that kind of power, because that kind of power should not exist. We have to be principled in the kind of institutions we want for this country, because institutions do have long-term outcomes.

*And look, if your answer is "maybe a liberal counter-coup is the only choice we have to prevent a fascist coup and save democracy long-term" I'm not even sure I would necessarily disagree with you on principle. But the fact is, if the Democratic party was going to pull of a full-fledged counter-coup, there is a lot more it would need to do than barring one guy from office, and it's clear they have neither the will nor the ability to take the kind of measures necessary to achieve that. There are no half-measures in these matters. You either go all in or not at all.

[Badger]

But how often has such provision ever had even the theoretical opportunity to be used against someone who most arguably did in fact Aid and abet literal sedition?

I'm not saying that in some crazy alternative universe Republicans then wouldn't turn around and try to say that Hillary Clinton's handling of Benghazi was the equivalent of sedition because she betrayed those killed at the embassy along with the flag, motherhood, God and apple pie, Ergo per the 14th Amendment herp derp blah blah blah. But at the same time, in this ugly timeline we inhabit, if we are going to stop from exercising any governmental discretion due to the possibility that Republicans could turn around and completely abandon any pretense of following basic constitutional Norms or precedence of governing if it suits their political aims, well then we might as well not take any major government action ever again if the precedent it sets is going to be judged by that incredibly low bar.

I'm not saying we should "stop from exercising any governmental discretion" (although that's such an vague notion that I'm not saying we shouldn't either). You know I'm in support for full accountability for the Capitol insurrection. But accountability still has to go through legally sound channels, otherwise it's just another coup.* The constitutionality of Congress unilaterally barring someone from office is dubious to begin with (and with a conservative SCOTUS, there's almost no chance it would be sustained). And even beyond that, it's just not a power Congress should have. It's not just a matter of "if we do this to Republicans, Republicans will do this to us". There are plenty of institutional issues on which I'm happy to take the risk, because those would be institutionally positive things. Abolishing the filibuster is a good thing on principle, even if one day it might help Republicans pass some horrible law. Same with court-packing actually, because the ultimate effect would be to reduce the power of the judiciary, which is too powerful to begin with. This, on the other hand, would be a bad thing on principle. I don't want Republicans exercising that kind of power, and I don't want Democrats exercising that kind of power, because that kind of power should not exist. We have to be principled in the kind of institutions we want for this country, because institutions do have long-term outcomes.

*And look, if your answer is "maybe a liberal counter-coup is the only choice we have to prevent a fascist coup and save democracy long-term" I'm not even sure I would necessarily disagree with you on principle. But the fact is, if the Democratic party was going to pull of a full-fledged counter-coup, there is a lot more it would need to do than barring one guy from office, and it's clear they have neither the will nor the ability to take the kind of measures necessary to achieve that. There are no half-measures in these matters. You either go all in or not at all.

I agree with what you're saying in principle Antonio, but I think you're missing my underlying point. This is not merely a matter of Congress seeking to exercise theoretical power to Bar any person from holding future political office by simple majority vote based on "because reasons". The very explicit and narrow language of this portion of the 14th Amendment relates to individuals involved in Insurrection against the United States of America. Realistically, how many times could this have been theoretically in vote between whenever the last high-ranking Confederates died and earlier this month with Donald Trump? Literally zero?

Based on such extremely narrow circumstances of literal sedition that this measure of the 14th Amendment involves, and that Trump's actions quite arguably fit that definition, I am perfectly fine with exercising such precedent setting power when Trump acted in such a precedent breaking manner.