Trump 2nd Impeachment News/Talk Megathread

[GeorgiaModerate]

The results of a conviction is very small, Trump loses his Govt pension and can't run for office.

He can be disqualified from future federal offices, but I don't think he would even lose his pension on a conviction.  The relevant section of the Former Presidents Act is:

(f) As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person--

(1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;

(2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and

(3) who does not then currently hold such office.

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/former-presidents.html

Even if Trump is convicted in the Senate trial, his term will have ended due to its expiration, not by removal.

[Torie]

2. I can't believe Trump really believes that the election being stolen is a defense to his actions. The remedy is not violence.

Both 1 and 2 are probably true.

Well, if the election was in fact stolen by massive fraud and the legal system would not entertain challenges, then overthrowing the government would be a justifiable recourse.

But he has to prove that there was actually massive fraud. He can't do this because it didn't happen, and his lawyers (maybe him, who knows) will look like fools before the Senate while trying and increase the chance of his conviction. This proves though that Trump was not merely grifting post-election and truly believes that the election was stolen from him.

The defense of assuming arguendo that the election was stolen, and the courts, each and every one of them, wrongfully denied redress, then the storming of the Capitol to stop by violence the count of the electors is justified, and therefore even if Trump incited violence, that is an act of a freedom fighter, will not work out well for Trump. JMO.

I agree, it won't work out well for him in our universe where the coup failed. But from a purely moral perspective, if Trump's allegations were true (of course they are utterly false), then overthrowing the government would be justified.

The "optics" are bad to spend time chatting about when it is appropriate to attack the Capitol and take it over, and lock all the people inside in the basement, and ... .  A much more minor footnote is that I don't want to encourage the kooks to internalize the talking point, and say, hey, I thought in food faith that it was all stolen, and I don't claim to be a rocket scientist, and thus sincerely believed I was a freedom fighter when I stormed the Capitol, so I am really a good person. That would irritate me.

In other news, Trump really, really seems to be deranged.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

FWIW, I had earlier expressed some skepticism that the Senate has jurisdiction to try Trump’s impeachment. I am no longer skeptical of that fact.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Rs are using the same argument that D's used in 1998 that Trump should be Acquitted due to we gotta take care of the people's business.  Schumer was the lead defense counsel on the Judiciary panel in the House and in the Senate as a Juror due to fact he won the Senate seat in 1998.

We must move past this nightmare

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-impeachment-trial-political-proceeding-163958825.html

This article explains why 45 Rs stood ready to dismiss the charges, Impeachment is a political case not a criminal Incitement case

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

2. I can't believe Trump really believes that the election being stolen is a defense to his actions. The remedy is not violence.

Both 1 and 2 are probably true.

Well, if the election was in fact stolen by massive fraud and the legal system would not entertain challenges, then overthrowing the government would be a justifiable recourse.

But he has to prove that there was actually massive fraud. He can't do this because it didn't happen, and his lawyers (maybe him, who knows) will look like fools before the Senate while trying and increase the chance of his conviction. This proves though that Trump was not merely grifting post-election and truly believes that the election was stolen from him.

The defense of assuming arguendo that the election was stolen, and the courts, each and every one of them, wrongfully denied redress, then the storming of the Capitol to stop by violence the count of the electors is justified, and therefore even if Trump incited violence, that is an act of a freedom fighter, will not work out well for Trump. JMO.

I agree, it won't work out well for him in our universe where the coup failed. But from a purely moral perspective, if Trump's allegations were true (of course they are utterly false), then overthrowing the government would be justified.

The "optics" are bad to spend time chatting about when it is appropriate to attack the Capitol and take it over, and lock all the people inside in the basement, and ... .  A much more minor footnote is that I don't want to encourage the kooks to internalize the talking point, and say, hey, I thought in food faith that it was all stolen, and I don't claim to be a rocket scientist, and thus sincerely believed I was a freedom fighter when I stormed the Capitol, so I am really a good person. That would irritate me.

In other news, Trump really, really seems to be deranged.

On the other hand, it is proof positive that everyone who ‘condemned’ violence but peddles the election conspiracy theory is lying on way or the other.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The House impeachment brief for the trial has been posted: https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/house_trial_brief_final.pdf.  I don't have time to read it now, but this is the Table of Contents:

INTRODUCTION...1

STATEMENT OF FACTS...5

A. President Trump Refuses to Accept the Results of the 2020 Election................................5
B. President Trump Encourages His Followers to Come to Washington on January 6,
2021 and “Fight” to Overturn the Election Results............................................................. 12
C. Vice President Pence Refuses to Overturn the Election Results....................................... 18
D. President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol ........................................ 20
E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol ....................................... 22
F. President Trump’s Dereliction of Duty During the Attack ................................................ 29
G. The House Approves An Article of Impeachment with Bipartisan Support................... 34

ARGUMENT... 36

I. PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.......................................... 36

A. President Trump Violated His Oath of Office ..................................................................... 37
B. President Trump Attacked the Democratic Process............................................................ 38
C. President Trump Imperiled Congress .................................................................................... 39
D. President Trump Undermined National Security ................................................................. 40

II. THERE IS NO DEFENSE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT ........................................................ 42

A. Fair Impeachment Process... 42
B. Criminality... 43
C. Election Results... 44
D. Free Speech... 45

III. THE SENATE HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY THIS IMPEACHMENT ...................................................... 48

A. Former Officials in England and the Early American States Were Subject to
Impeachment and Disqualification for Abuses Committed in Office .............................. 50
B. The Framers Adhered to the Tradition That Former Officials Were Subject to
Impeachment, Conviction, and Disqualification for Misconduct in Office..................... 53
1. The Constitutional Convention ................................................................................. 55
2. Constitutional Text and Structure ............................................................................. 59
C. Congressional Precedent Supports Jurisdiction over President Trump............................ 71

CONCLUSION... 75

[riceowl]

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1356654528515473408

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1356654528515473408

He believes *and* avers it? Stop the presses!

[lfromnj]

Trump is going the Charles 1st route I see

[Sestak]

"UNITES STATES SENATE"

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/pbump/status/1356659396726714368

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

So what happens when the Senate disqualifies him and he runs in 2024 anyway?

[brucejoel99]

So what happens when the Senate disqualifies him and he runs in 2024 anyway?

State & local election officials (& - if necessary - judges) don't allow his name to be printed on ballots.

[Former President tack50]

So what happens when the Senate disqualifies him and he runs in 2024 anyway?

State & local election officials (& - if necessary - judges) don't allow his name to be printed on ballots.

Essencially impossible hypothetical, but could he win via write-in? And if he won any states via write-in, would any Electoral Votes for him be able to be issued?

[brucejoel99]

Alrighty, then:

https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1356657014206775307

[brucejoel99]

So what happens when the Senate disqualifies him and he runs in 2024 anyway?

State & local election officials (& - if necessary - judges) don't allow his name to be printed on ballots.

Essencially impossible hypothetical, but could he win via write-in? And if he won any states via write-in, would any Electoral Votes for him be able to be issued?

Most states require legitimate write-in candidates to still register in order for their votes to be counted, so any votes cast in his name would simply be thrown out like joke votes for fictional characters.

[GeorgiaModerate]

So what happens when the Senate disqualifies him and he runs in 2024 anyway?

State & local election officials (& - if necessary - judges) don't allow his name to be printed on ballots.

Essencially impossible hypothetical, but could he win via write-in? And if he won any states via write-in, would any Electoral Votes for him be able to be issued?

Most states require legitimate write-in candidates to still register in order for their votes to be counted, so any votes cast in his name would simply be thrown out like joke votes for fictional characters.

If Trump is convicted and disqualified, he becomes Constitutionally ineligible for the office.  It would be like a former two-term President trying to run and win again. 

On another note, I've finally had time to read the House brief.  If you have time, by all means read it!  At least the first part, which describes the insurrection and the events leading up to it.  It's a masterpiece -- extremely well written and a gripping read.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If the Rs want to nominate Trump again and lose again, it would be good for Dems than have a Ron DeSantis win, Trump would no doubt clear the field, so having Trump run again in 2024 would be better for the D's.

That's why the CONVICTION of Trump doesn't make sense.


Just, like Schumer and the D's were silly not to get Bill CLINTON to resign and Gore would have won as the INCUMBENT and we would perhaps avoided Tsuami Katrina aftermath

Nadar vote would have went to Gore Instead of splinter off

Robert C Byrd said the pep rally was silly

Clinton didn't do anything for AA, the rate poverty was still 33 percent, that's why AA supported Obama in 2008 over Hillary

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The problem for D's, isn't that the coup failed, the R argument is that we should be concentrating on the people's concern than Trump concern.  The same argument D's used when Rs were impeaching Bill Clinton.

The results of a conviction is very small, Trump loses his Govt pension and can't run for office.

This is nothing to Covid

D's said that no matter if Clinton committed perjury, the Stock Market is at record high, but it was for wealthy people, not poor people

You're missing the biggest result of a conviction: a formal decision by the United States Congress that attempts to overthrow the duly elected government by force, threats and abuse of  power are illegitimate.

That should be utterly uncontroversial, but apparently the Republicans have a very hard time realizing why its a bad thing. Likely because they are incapable of even imagining that they could ever be on the receiving end.

[emailking]

If hypothetically a state submitted electoral votes for a disqualified (or otherwise ineligible) candidate then Congress would have the duty not to count those votes. If they count them anyway, well then I guess we don't have a Constitution anymore.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump is a known criminal, but I was clarifying the position of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle that in 1999 Bill Clinton shouldn't of resign, v 2020 Trump and how he must resign

Graham and Schumer were in the Senate and vocal supporters of their Prez parties candidate in 1998 and 2020

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1357391350942031875

Will he do it?

[7,052,770]

Has there been any consideration to admitting DC before the trial to decrease the number of Republicans who would have to go out on a limb and convict?

Not that admitting states just for impeachment votes is a good precedent, but since DC statehood is a 100% lock this year anyway, might as well move it up on the calendar. After all, the Americans living in DC deserve a voice in this matter.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I will be glad it will be over, Trump is a criminal and hopefully when Garland is confirmed he will have NY prosecute Trump
.
I am ready to move on.

It's already known that Impeachment is a political not a legal process and Jurors don't have to follow normal Crt law