Impeachment Trial Thread

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 146
Topic's author
#1
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Curious to see where other members stand on various arguments being made in this trial. Here are some of mine:

“This impeachment is unconstitutional”

It seems clear to me that republicans are going to hang their hat on this because they have no defense of the president’s actions. Of course this argument itself doesn’t hold any water. The impeachment took place while Trump was in office, so the argument here is that you cannot *convict* a former president for their final actions in office, which is absurd. And as many have pointed out, this would mean that a president can simply resign just before the final vote and then be free run again.

“The president didn’t incite an insurrection”

Most who make this argument are pointing to the president’s  use of the phrase “peacefully make your voices heard” in his infamous Capitol speech. This is classic cherry picking and ignores common sense. The president’s message to his supporters was that their voices have been stolen and that they need to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Who in their right mind would walk away from that with making their voices heard peacefully to be the take away? This is clearly said for plausible deniability.

“But look at what the democrats said”

Point me to the insurrection that resulted from any of the falsely equivocated words of anyone else and we can talk about whether they should be impeached as well.

Any others? Agree? Disagree? Why?
#2
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
“but look at what theDemocrats said.”
I would rather look at what the Democrats did not say during all the destructive riots all over the country last summer.
#3
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
I would rather look at what the Democrats did not say during all the destructive riots all over the country last summer.
How's that whataboutism working out?
#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Double_R
“This impeachment is unconstitutional”
The President of the United States lost an election but wanted to hold on to office anyway.  He used the power of his office to manufacture false claims and myriad legal impediments to the just transfer of power during a time of profound fiscal and health emergency.   Failing in every effort to overturn the result, the President raised an army against his own parliament at the the constitutionally mandated hour of  certification and interrupted that requisite act of the constitution by force.

The  Founding Fathers anticipated the anti-American aspirations of tyrants and demagogues in the highest offices of our nations and offered impeachment as a constitutional remedy.  If Trump were not impeached for leading an army against the will and authority of the American people then the act of impeachment itself would be proved insufficient to protect American interests and the development of some new instrument justified.

“The president didn’t incite an insurrection”

The army assembled at the time and place tweeted by Trump.  The time and place itself establishes treasonous intent- any legal influence on the Senators' and Vice President's decisions would necessarily require a call to action well before the hour of the vote.  The president personally  interceded in the rally's planning to require the army to march against the Senate at the moment of confirmation, in perfect contradiction against his sacred oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Trump was notified on Nov. 10th by his most trusted advisors that there was no voter fraud of any magnitude sufficient to change the election outcome in any state.  At that moment, Trump understood that there was no legal or constitutional avenue to preserving his power and Trump quite deliberately chose the illegal and anti-constitutional path to power in violation and direct contradiction of his oath.  Every declaration after Nov. 10th that the election was rigged, that Trump had actually won or that Biden was illegitimate was and will always remain incitements to insurrection against the safety and preservation of the United States.  Trump incited insurrection hundreds of times on live television, in tweets, in Fox News interviews for 8 weeks, culminating in the moment Trump pointed at the US Capitol and said:


“We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. …

“You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen. These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about it. …

“We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

“But look at what the democrats said”
There is no Democratic party equivalent to Trump's insurrection since the Civil War.


#5
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,748
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
“This impeachment is unconstitutional”

It seems clear to me that republicans are going to hang their hat on this because they have no defense of the president’s actions. Of course this argument itself doesn’t hold any water. The impeachment took place while Trump was in office, so the argument here is that you cannot *convict* a former president for their final actions in office, which is absurd. And as many have pointed out, this would mean that a president can simply resign just before the final vote and then be free run again.

If this was the impeachment trial of the President of the United States, then per the Constitution Chief Justice John Roberts should be presiding. Since President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy is presiding, this trial is inherently unconstitutional. The trial is unconstitutional. And resigning would have no impact lol. If he gets elected, which he probably won’t, then the Senate convicts him again. 

“The president didn’t incite an insurrection”

Most who make this argument are pointing to the president’s  use of the phrase “peacefully make your voices heard” in his infamous Capitol speech. This is classic cherry picking and ignores common sense. The president’s message to his supporters was that their voices have been stolen and that they need to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Who in their right mind would walk away from that with making their voices heard peacefully to be the take away? This is clearly said for plausible deniability.


How is it cherry picking? It’s legit evidence. If I say I’m going to kill so and so vs I’m going to kill so and so, jk, saying jk is legitimate evidence. As for common sense, the same rhetoric has been used by every politician for decades and literally means to speak up and protest peacefully. As for who would walk away? Literally 99% of the people lol. 

“But look at what the democrats said”

Point me to the insurrection that resulted from any of the falsely equivocated words of anyone else and we can talk about whether they should be impeached as well.


More like Portland politicians not doing any when a police precinct got burned down and CHOP was created. Where the hell were the prosecutions then lol. Oh wait, when Democrats do it, it doesn’t matter.



#6
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Death23
Just fine, thanks
#7
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
What Trump actions? He spoke. If people cannot control their own actions, that’s on them, yeah?
Topic's author
#8
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
I would rather look at what the Democrats did not say during all the destructive riots all over the country last summer.
Show me one riot that occurred *because of* the words of any elected official.
Topic's author
#9
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
If this was the impeachment trial of the President of the United States, then per the Constitution Chief Justice John Roberts should be presiding. Since President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy is presiding, this trial is inherently unconstitutional. The trial is unconstitutional. And resigning would have no impact lol. If he gets elected, which he probably won’t, then the Senate convicts him again
Trump is not the sitting president, so Robert’s doesn’t have to preside. What is so difficult about that?

Allowing him to run and take office completely disregards the whole point of giving the senate the choice to disqualify him.

How is it cherry picking? It’s legit evidence. If I say I’m going to kill so and so vs I’m going to kill so and so, jk, saying jk is legitimate evidence. As for common sense, the same rhetoric has been used by every politician for decades and literally means to speak up and protest peacefully. As for who would walk away? Literally 99% of the people lol.
It’s cherry picking because it ignores everything else he said, and ignores the context in which he was saying it. If you’re just going to ignore that’s which is convenient for your argument then you aren’t making one. The Capitol rioters weren’t ignoring these facts.

More like Portland politicians not doing any when a police precinct got burned down and CHOP was created. Where the hell were the prosecutions then lol. Oh wait, when Democrats do it, it doesn’t matter.
Show me on rioter in Portland who was out there because some democrat told them to be. You’re completely disregarding the entire concept of incitement, which last I checked is the thing we’re actually debating.
Topic's author
#10
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
What Trump actions? He spoke. If people cannot control their own actions, that’s on them, yeah?
Why do you think “incitement of insurrection” is in the constitution?
#11
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,748
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Trump is not the sitting president, so Robert’s doesn’t have to preside. What is so difficult about that?
“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.”

So for this trial he is not the President, nor the Vice President, nor a Civil Officer of the United States. Therefore the trial is unconstitutional, nor really hard. It’s either he is the President and CJ Roberts has to preside or he’s not the President and can’t be convicted in the Senate.

Allowing him to run and take office completely disregards the whole point of giving the senate the choice to disqualify him.
They can impeach and convict him again if he wins election. That’s how the government works. If Nixon ran again, he could be impeached and convicted. Using resignation as an excuse to escape impeachment and conviction only to run again would result in impeachment and conviction.

It’s cherry picking because it ignores everything else he said, and ignores the context in which he was saying it. If you’re just going to ignore that’s which is convenient for your argument then you aren’t making one. The Capitol rioters weren’t ignoring these facts.
You clearly didn’t understand the analogy lol. He specifically said to protest peacefully which nuances what he said in the entire speech. If people don’t listen, that’s not on Trump, that’s on the people. Either way the words he said have been used by politicians for decades in a symbolic way to signify peaceful protest.

Show me on rioter in Portland who was out there because some democrat told them to be. You’re completely disregarding the entire concept of incitement, which last I checked is the thing we’re actually debating.
Literally everyone in CHOP or CHAZ, whatever you call it engaged in an insurrection cause that’s what an “Autonomous Zone” is lol. And the Mayor of Seattle called it a “block party” lol. How is that not aiding an insurrection lmao. 
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Imagine if the Senate had a trial after Nixon resigned....


#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Honestly, I don't see why Biden can't just follow the policies of Obama and just Drone Strike Trump now that he is just an ordinary citizen.


"Trump's citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team."
#14
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,748
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
@fauxlaw
“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.”

Still having a hard time figuring out which one of these Trump is.
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
That's fine. They can call the president to the witness stand, and when nobody shows up by the name of Donald Trump, then the "impeachment" will be over.
#16
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ILikePie5
--> @fauxlaw @Greyparrot
“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.”

Still having a hard time figuring out which one of these Trump is.

The USFG definition of civil officer includes "all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments; of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy."

Former President is a well defined Federal Office of the United States with a salary, a physical Federal office, a Federal staff, and significant rights and privileges.  Trump's Federal job description mandates that he not be convicted of any impeachable offense to retain that office.
#17
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,748
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

That’s what the Constitution says, not something some random person, I assume said. Trump made himself an Officer of the United States, of course he can be impeached and convicted in the Senate
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Constitution also grants no special privileges to former presidents as they are considered citizens. If Biden wishes to execute Trump as a domestic terrorist with a drone as Obama did, nothing in the Constitution can protect Trump.


"Trump's citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team."

#19
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
#20
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
Don't really care about it now honestly. The Republican party needs to move on from Trump.  While he's done some good things, he's turned it into a cult and ultimately I think the image he brings to the party does more harm than good. 

Congress can do with him what they will. I won't pretend to know enough about it to have an opinion on its constitutionality or legitimacy. 
#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@MisterChris
Thank god America has so few actual problems the public can be happy and content that the government can spend 8 years impeaching Trump. No unintended consequences at all.
#22
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Hope he gets prison time and spends some time with the races he treated like dirt.
Topic's author
#23
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Thank god America has so few actual problems the public can be happy and content that the government can spend 8 years impeaching Trump. No unintended consequences at all.
Let me guess... the pandemic? You know, the one Trump didn’t give a rats ass about for the past year but is now all of a sudden his supporters think should be the president’s number one priority?

And I love how much right wingers love to project. Just because republicans spent 4 years investigating, reinvestigating, and investigating again Benghazi,  doesn’t mean democrats plan to do the same.
#24
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I probably SHOULD care somewhat, I just don't. I'm pretty over it. 
#25
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
It is absolutely disgusting the way Obama's administration drone struck a citizen of the U.S. with impunity. Thank you for bringing everyone's attention to it in a thread about Trump's impeachment. It clearly seems very relevant. 

Did you know that civilian casualties skyrocketed under Trump? Under Trump we killed more citizens than the Taliban did. We all remember the 40 citizens that were killed at a wedding party in 2019 as just one example. Of course they weren't American citizens though so it doesn't really matter. Anyway I agree killing Trump with a drone strike should be on the table. 


#26
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
One thing I love about Trump's utterly asinine defense is that it is predicated on him conceding the election.  His lawyers continually referred to him as "the 45th president" in their legal brief rather than the former president because Trump believes he is the legitimate victor. But his first (god awful) lawyer actually argued yesterday that the American people removed Trump from office and so this case is redundant. Does that mean Trump concedes he lost because the American people removed him? I'd like to hear him say that. 
#27
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Why do you think “incitement of insurrection” is in the constitution?
Since you put that phrase in quotes, I take your comment to mean that the entire phrase is contained within the Constitution. It is you who had better show me, because that phrase does not exist in any Article or Amendment. "Insurrection" is mentioned four times, first in Article I, section 8, clause 15; "To... suppress insurrections..." that is, a mandate on Congress to do so as one of a list of 17 specific legislative duties of Congress. So you tell me what Nancy Pelosi is doing on 9/21/2020, on ABC This Week, saying, "We have arrows in our quiver..." and "this administration is a threat to our democracy." Having a quiver of arrows, and charging that the President threatens our democracy does not sound like an effort to suppress insurrection. Charity begins at home, my friend. Two of the four mentions of insurrection deal with Congress suppressing it. Didn't do that, did they?
#28
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Pelosi was asked on Sept. 20th if she would consider impeachment as a tactic to block the upcoming Supreme Court nomination.  Pelosi responded:

"Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now.  But the fact is we have a big challenge in our country. This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election, so right now, our main goal ... would be to protect the integrity of the election as we protect the American people from the coronavirus."
Since Pelosi did not resort to mob violence or indeed any illegal or unconstitutional method to block the Supreme Court nomination (in spite of the majority of Americans feeling strongly that such nomination should wait until after the election as indeed every Republican strongly believed only 5 years ago when Garland was nominated 10 month before the election but Republican principles are soft and fragile things, entirely subject to the exigencies of their king), we can conclude that Nancy's arrows were metaphorical references to parliamentary tactics only.  Once a Democrat runs out of legal options, a Democrat moves on because Democrats are loyal Americans.  Once a Republican runs out of legal options these days, the illegal and disloyal options are brought to table.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Trump's impeachment is Congress removing the primary source of disability.
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
Let me guess... the pandemic? You know, the one Trump didn’t give a rats ass about for the past year but is now all of a sudden his supporters think should be the president’s number one priority?

Right because that's why Biden got booed at the Superbowl for demanding America to be afraid for the .13% at-risk Americans that died while the 95 percenters without connections got the shit stick with neverending arbitrary lockdowns as Washington DC had a 2-year silence for those people.

Let me guess, you're one of those 5 percenters.

This isn't about Trump. Trump won't ever be allowed by the state-run media to participate in politics ever again. This is about setting an example for the next Trump knowing there just might be some unintended consequence when Washington DC ignores 95% of Americans. 
#30
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Danielle
Let us recall that impeachment has but two potential results: removal from office, and disqualification. Sorry that your wish balloon drone is just that. Keep blowing; the balloon needs more hot air.