Trump Impeachment Public Hearings [serious discussion]

[franky1]

hes definitly going to get aquited

the real question to ask.
did him having 'office' give him powers that he negatively used to cause harm/damage to people/property. if so he will lose his office (current civil office of 'former president' and all privileges assigned to that.)

so ask yourself. does he deserve to keep having access to privileges that can and will be used negatively

if a phys-ed teacher said to his class
"hey athletes, the science nerds are stealing the budget that coud be used for sports equipment,stop them, be strong, fight"
and then class wars and fights and criminal damage to the school happened due to the sport kids

should the schoolboard keep the teacher employed, using lame excuses that the teacher personally smash anything.
should the schoolboard keep the teacher employed, thus endorsing the teachers actions were not wrong

[1713249058]

1713249058

[1713249058]

1713249058

[1713249058]

1713249058

[TwitchySeal]

the real question to ask.
did him having 'office' give him powers that he negatively used to cause harm/damage to people/property. if so he will lose his office

The reality is a conviction requires 67/100 votes and there are 50 republicans in the Senate.  So unless 17 of them vote to convict, there's no chance he will be convicted.  The over under on total votes at every sports book I've seen is 54.5 and the odds of him being convicted are between 2 and 6%.  Basically, something big needs to happen between now and the vote.

(current civil office of 'former president' and all privileges assigned to that.)

Biden already said because of his erratic behavior he won't be getting the classified briefings other former presidents get.  Not really a big deal since obviously Biden won't be calling him for advice and Trump doesn't read briefings.  It would be pretty unreasonable to take away his security detail, are there any other 'perks'?


I wasn't expecting any criminal investigations or indictments to be formally announced until after the Senate trial, but the District Attorney of Fulton County, Georgia made public there was an open Criminal investigation into Trump for:

attempts to influence the administration of the 2020 Georgia General Election . This investigation includes , but is not
limited to, potential violations of Georgia law prohibiting the solicitation of election fraud, the making of
false statements to state and local governmental bodies , conspiracy , racketeering, violation of oath of office
and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election's administration

he did it so many times that if you went step by step with him theres literally nobody left to believe except him.  you cant believe the media, or any journalist at all, or scientists, or military leaders, or other world leaders, or other politicians, only him.

First lie: the size of the crowd at his inauguration.  I remember thinking 'what a clown, does he really think anybody will believe him?' as I watched Spicer tell a room full of journalists not to believe what they saw with their own eyes.  And here we are today, people still believe that he received millions more votes than Biden and is a victim of the press.

[_Miracle]

I skipped the video portion on purpose. Did they include Trump’s comment during the last debate regarding Proud Boys and Antifa?

“Disorganized and random” is accurate and the referrals to The Federalist Papers were odd and out of place for the point they were trying to make.
It was disappointing but not surprising to see only a handful of the GOP voting for an impeachment trial.
On the same but other note, Why his Georgia phone call isn’t enough to keep him from holding any public office again (aka: impeached) is also disappointing.

I believe they only included stuff from Jan 6th.  The video is intense.  I encourage anyone that thinks what happened isn't a big deal or that Trump played no roll in what happened to watch it.

There's a decent chance Trump is indicted for what he tried to do to the Georgia SS.

I watched a lot of footage from the protest/riot/insurrection, a few from our biased news outlets (fox/cnn----bbc *not as biased) and then just hours of YouTube.
Watching the officer getting crushed while some idiot was reaching for his gear just made me *pissed (for lack of a more elegant term) "Elizibeth from Knoxville" getting maced while "storming the capitol" because "it's a revolution" lightened it up a little.

 I am sure they made an "awesome" cut out of all that footage and I'll watch eventually but didn't want to start the hearings that emotionally charged. They are making a  case with the video while leaving out what is most relevant: his years of rhetoric leading up to this point. Surely they could have found enough from his campaign - now to add a 5-10 min precursor?
We've all been witness to the last 4+years it's almost a gaslighting of humanity to *still have Trump be a representative of conservative values,
for there to be a question whether he participated in inciting what happened and if he should still hold any privileges or ability to hold office.
 


"Office of the Former President"   there's a meme for that (I'll put it in the appropriate thread)


If anyone can listen to the Georgia phone call and not see clearly what that was? Money buys verdicts, so he'll get off on that too.

[TwitchySeal]

They were expected to have final vote bringing a close to the trial.  Instead they voted to call witnesses.  Pretty big deal, this thing could go on for another couple weeks if they end up taking a recess. 

Have lots of thoughts, no time right now though.

[theymos]

They voted to acquit. 7 Republicans flipped, which is surprisingly high IMO; I'd expected it to stay at the 5 who voted to table Rand Paul's motion from a while ago. It's especially odd that Richard Burr voted to convict when he previously voted that the whole thing was unconstitutional. With such a high number, maybe there's some small chance that they could bar Trump from running again via Kaine's censure resolution, though I doubt it.

I don't think that this will have much political effect compared to just not having a trial at all. Maybe if the Democrats had not freaked out about every little thing that Trump did, people would take them more seriously here, and would be less forgiving of the Republicans who voted to acquit. I find myself more-or-less agreeing with many of the House managers' arguments in this case, but they've been baselessly using the same language for years, such as in the last impeachment. All politicians lie so constantly that everyone just rolls their eyes when they speak unless they already agree, so any attempt at real argument is wasted.

If I were a senator looking at this as an impartial juror:

Trump's conduct was definitely not criminal incitement. He didn't tell his supporters to go break into the capitol, and he was careful to always use words like "peaceful". The specific language he used covered his ass enough to avoid criminal incitement, and a private citizen could definitely have used the same language and be protected by the first amendment. Impeachment is another matter, though, and maybe there's also some separate "abuse of office" civil/criminal law which could be used against him.

Trump's conduct was really beyond the pale for a president. He was clearly spreading misinformation and ginning up his supporters in a dangerous way which any idiot could've seen would lead to this sort of outcome. I don't think that he had some sort of premeditated coup in mind, but I think that he was rather happy with the riot, at least initially, and it's quite possible that when he was making his speeches and spreading his misinformation, he was hoping that his supporters would burn down everything and somehow manage to keep him in office, even if he wasn't actually explicitly planning what would happen. It was a months-long childish outburst based on narcissism, not a real, rational plan to stay in office. "If this sort of reckless disregard for his office and the country isn't impeachable, what is?" is a compelling argument IMO.

The best arguments I've heard against impeachment come from this line in the Constitution:

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

First, Donald Trump is neither President, Vice President, nor a Civil Officer of the US. However, that sentence in the Constitution is in Article II, whereas a lot of the other stuff about impeachment is some distance away in Article I, such as the now-famous sentence, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." Because these things are in completely different sections of the Constitution, it seems to me that the Senate has the power to impeach someone and disqualify them from office in a context disconnected from Article II. And in fact when the Senate has impeached judges, they are dealing with an Article III official, and that Article II excerpt doesn't apply at all. So I think that it's constitutional to impeach a former President, or anyone in fact.

Second, "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in that first Constitution excerpt above is meant to be read in context as "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors on the same sort of level as Treason or Bribery, which we mentioned explicitly." The Framers explicitly did not want Presidents impeached for "mal-administration". So I think that the argument really comes down to whether you think that Trump's extremely irresponsible conduct reaches about the same level as treason or bribery, in which case he can be impeached, or whether you think that it's more a case of him being a really terrible President, in which case impeachment is not constitutionally appropriate.

It's a close one, but I think I'd vote to impeach if I was in the mindset of being an impartial juror. The level of recklessness and selfishness brings it roughly to the level of bribery IMO, and not merely a type of "mal-administration". (If I were actually a senator, I wouldn't look at it as an impartial juror, though. I'd be making utilitarian calculations, and it's difficult to say what I'd do, especially since I would never agree to be a senator in the first place, or ever be elected if I ran.)

[PrimeNumber7]

Trump's conduct was definitely not criminal incitement. He didn't tell his supporters to go break into the capitol, and he was careful to always use words like "peaceful". The specific language he used covered his ass enough to avoid criminal incitement, and a private citizen could definitely have used the same language and be protected by the first amendment. Impeachment is another matter, though, and maybe there's also some separate "abuse of office" civil/criminal law which could be used against him.

Impeachment is ultimately a political matter. If a Senator were to vote a certain way that their constituents don't like, they may not get their party's nomination, or may not get reelected the next time they are up for election.

Trump's conduct was really beyond the pale for a president. He was clearly spreading misinformation and ginning up his supporters in a dangerous way which any idiot could've seen would lead to this sort of outcome.

I think Trump was trying to delegitimize the Biden Presidency the same way that Obama and Clinton delegitimized his presidency. Trump was not using serious election law lawyers and was not making serious claims in court. I think Trump did have legitimate grievances about the election and may have been able to get the results corrected, but perhaps he knew if he did successfully was able to remain in office that his second term would have been viewed as even less legitimate than his first.

[dupeddonk]

Trump's conduct was definitely not criminal incitement. He didn't tell his supporters to go break into the capitol, and he was careful to always use words like "peaceful". The specific language he used covered his ass enough to avoid criminal incitement, and a private citizen could definitely have used the same language and be protected by the first amendment. Impeachment is another matter, though, and maybe there's also some separate "abuse of office" civil/criminal law which could be used against him.

Impeachment is ultimately a political matter. If a Senator were to vote a certain way that their constituents don't like, they may not get their party's nomination, or may not get reelected the next time they are up for election.

Trump's conduct was really beyond the pale for a president. He was clearly spreading misinformation and ginning up his supporters in a dangerous way which any idiot could've seen would lead to this sort of outcome.

I think Trump was trying to delegitimize the Biden Presidency the same way that Obama and Clinton delegitimized his presidency. Trump was not using serious election law lawyers and was not making serious claims in court. I think Trump did have legitimate grievances about the election and may have been able to get the results corrected, but perhaps he knew if he did successfully was able to remain in office that his second term would have been viewed as even less legitimate than his first.

i think its pretty nuts to think obama did the same thing as trump and evern more so that trump could have stayed in office if he wanted to but chose not to because he was worried what other people would think of him. he filed dozens of lawsuits trying to disqualify millions of votes and judge after judge concluded they were nonsense and it wasnt even close.  he tried to pressure other republicans to declare him the winner even though they told him he received fewer votes.  he incited a literal violent mob that stormed the capital and tried to stop congress from certifying the results of the election.  how can you possibly come to any of these conclusions?  its beyond irrational.

[PrimeNumber7]

Trump's conduct was definitely not criminal incitement. He didn't tell his supporters to go break into the capitol, and he was careful to always use words like "peaceful". The specific language he used covered his ass enough to avoid criminal incitement, and a private citizen could definitely have used the same language and be protected by the first amendment. Impeachment is another matter, though, and maybe there's also some separate "abuse of office" civil/criminal law which could be used against him.

Impeachment is ultimately a political matter. If a Senator were to vote a certain way that their constituents don't like, they may not get their party's nomination, or may not get reelected the next time they are up for election.

Trump's conduct was really beyond the pale for a president. He was clearly spreading misinformation and ginning up his supporters in a dangerous way which any idiot could've seen would lead to this sort of outcome.

I think Trump was trying to delegitimize the Biden Presidency the same way that Obama and Clinton delegitimized his presidency. Trump was not using serious election law lawyers and was not making serious claims in court. I think Trump did have legitimate grievances about the election and may have been able to get the results corrected, but perhaps he knew if he did successfully was able to remain in office that his second term would have been viewed as even less legitimate than his first.

i think its pretty nuts to think obama did the same thing as trump and evern more so that trump could have stayed in office if he wanted to but chose not to because he was worried what other people would think of him. he filed dozens of lawsuits trying to disqualify millions of votes and judge after judge concluded they were nonsense and it wasnt even close.  he tried to pressure other republicans to declare him the winner even though they told him he received fewer votes.  he incited a literal violent mob that stormed the capital and tried to stop congress from certifying the results of the election.  how can you possibly come to any of these conclusions?  its beyond irrational.

The steps Trump took to overturn the election never had a serious chance of succeeding. Election laws were not followed, as written by the state legislatures, as required by the constitution in many states, and there were other irregularities in the 2020 election. However, Trump's legal team never made these legitimate arguments in court.

It is probably more accurate to say that Judges didn't want to get involved in the election dispute.

[_Miracle]

They voted to acquit. 7 Republicans flipped, which is surprisingly high IMO; I'd expected it to stay at the 5 who voted to table Rand Paul's motion from a while ago. It's especially odd that Richard Burr voted to convict when he previously voted that the whole thing was unconstitutional. With such a high number, maybe there's some small chance that they could bar Trump from running again via Kaine's censure resolution, though I doubt it.





(If I were actually a senator, I wouldn't look at it as an impartial juror, though. I'd be making utilitarian calculations, and it's difficult to say what I'd do, especially since I would never agree to be a senator in the first place, or ever be elected if I ran.)

I thought the number would go down (so I was wrong there).

Most of those who flipped don't seem to have much "political skin" left in the game.

In one way you almost can't fault a politician for making utilitarian calculations based on what they think will keep themselves in office.
Some may even believe it to be their duty and there is some truth to that, given the current political climate.  *I don't like it---at all but here we are.


BTW McConnell's stance that he could not vote to convict Trump because he is “constitutionally not eligible for conviction/ because he is no longer president" is some brilliant political maneuvering on his part ---as is per his usual.

[_Miracle]

Also on a side but related note:
the defenses "fight" video splice was an interesting switch up, though Trumps original campaign generated more than that footage before he was elected.

It would be a positive turn if our leaders began acting like people good enough for 10 year olds to watch.

[TwitchySeal]

Pretty bummed they ended up not calling any witnesses after getting my hopes up.  I doubt it would've persuaded 10+ Republicans to convict, but it would've been good to have McCarthy on the record regarding his phone call with Trump as the protestors were breaking into his office through the windows and being told by Trump they cared more about the election than he did.

Overall I think the house managers did a really great job (especially the guy from Colorado) at laying out the time line of events and sharing a bunch of information that would still be unknown otherwise.  Hopefully it will result in an independent council to take a much closer look at exactly what happened, who was involved, and what their intent was.

It is probably more accurate to say that Judges didn't want to get involved in the election dispute.

There's a reason that Trumps defense didn't bother re litigating the 'stolen election' argument.  It's a bullshit argument that's already been litigated.  Over and over.
You're conflating judges unwillingness to overturn an election based on nonsense arguments and judges not wanting to get involved with election disputes.  They listened to Trumps arguments and made a decision.  A few examples:
"This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits."
"The plaintiff asked for the rule of law to be followed, It has been.”
“Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so.”
“Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible, which they must do to state a claim under Federal pleading standards,”
“This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence,”
“What we saw here were a bunch of overzealous lawyers trying to make the transition from the political realm, where facts and law have ceased to be very important, into the judicial realm, where the norms are still hard and fast,”

If you still think what Trump did was something worth defending, or that he is a victim somehow, or that because he said the word 'peaceful' once means he's innocent, there's obviously no way any argument by someone you've diagnosed with TDS could change your mind, hopefully Mitch McConnel can:

January 6th was a disgrace.
American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like.
Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President.
They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an election.
Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty.
The House accused the former President of, quote, 'incitement.' That is a specific term from the criminal law.
Let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.
The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President.
And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth.
The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on January 6th.
It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged 'trial by combat.'
It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by our now-President.
I defended the President's right to bring any complaints to our legal system. The legal system spoke. The Electoral College spoke. As I stood up and said clearly at the time, the election was settled.
But that reality just opened a new chapter of even wilder and more unfounded claims.
The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.
This was different.
This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began.
Whatever our ex-President claims he thought might happen that day... whatever reaction he says he meant to produce... by that afternoon, he was watching the same live television as the rest of the world.
A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him.
It was obvious that only President Trump could end this.
Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the Administration.
But the President did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed, and order restored.
Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election!
Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in danger... even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters... the President sent a further tweet attacking his Vice President.
Predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as further inspiration to lawlessness and violence.
Later, even when the President did halfheartedly begin calling for peace, he did not call right away for the riot to end. He did not tell the mob to depart until even later.
And even then, with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals.
In recent weeks, our ex-President's associates have tried to use the 74 million Americans who voted to re-elect him as a kind of human shield against criticism.
Anyone who decries his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters.
That is an absurd deflection.
74 million Americans did not invade the Capitol. Several hundred rioters did.
And 74 million Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it.
One person did.

[suchmoon]

It is probably more accurate to say that Judges didn't want to get involved in the election dispute.

That's a good one. So a parking ticket that I had to pay years ago was because a judge didn't want to get involved in a parking dispute. And all this time I thought I lost the challenge.