Author Topic: The Case for Trumps Impeachment  (Read 876 times)

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« on: January 17, 2021, 09:51:57 AM »
Ok beyond what happened on Jan 6 of this year. What facts can be used to support the current impeachment of Trump.
Well lets start with all of the lies about the election results.  He has used these lies to sow doubt and distrust in our electoral system.  With no evidence of wide spread fraud he has pushed the idea that multiple states had enough undetected fraud to swing tens of thousands of votes. Even in states run by Republicans.

He then tried to force state leaders to "change" the vote tallies in their states and make him the winner (see phone calls to GA SOS and Governor). 

He then tried to have State legislatures over turn the popular vote results in their states.

He then tried to convince his VP that he could over turn the results on Jan 6.

Each of these things are efforts to over turn the legal election of Joe Biden.

Using this plan Trump has been trying to get his followers to bully politicians into changing the results of the election.

That is insurrection.

msquared


Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2021, 08:40:19 PM »
Please let me know when you're going to provide some facts so we can get started.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2021, 08:44:41 PM »
Please let me know when you're going to provide some facts so we can get started.

Trump told all these lies for months in public. He called for the rally. The rally didn’t have a permit to march to the capital. Trump told them he would march down to the capital with them (he didn’t). He told them to fight to save their country. Then you all act shocked when someone actually acted on his lies and rhetoric.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2021, 09:17:34 PM »
Had another article of impeachment been included, detailing the president's dereliction of duty during the insurrection, at first encouraging the insurrection, then enjoying the spectacle, but unquestionably NOT doing anything to act against the insurrection, neither speaking against it publicly, not ensuring that military forces be mobilized to protect the Capitol... that article would be more of a slam dunk.  But regardless, the process is political, and not one of facts before a jury of his peers.  If the Republicans in the Senate become convinced they are better off convicting him, he will be convicted.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2021, 12:50:52 AM »
Had another article of impeachment been included, detailing the president's dereliction of duty during the insurrection, at first encouraging the insurrection, then enjoying the spectacle, but unquestionably NOT doing anything to act against the insurrection, neither speaking against it publicly, not ensuring that military forces be mobilized to protect the Capitol... that article would be more of a slam dunk.  But regardless, the process is political, and not one of facts before a jury of his peers.  If the Republicans in the Senate become convinced they are better off convicting him, he will be convicted.

Just remeber conviction and sentencing are two different things, and the sentence is presumably subject to revision by later congressional sessions. Which could be amusing.

We could end up with Trump being impeached from an office he no longer holds (a first, and of very questionable legal standing), with the Democrats voting to bar him from holding further office.

Only for the Republicans to get control of Congress in 2023 and revoke the prohibition on Trump's ability to hold public office. Unlikely, but possible.

I'm inclined to think there are going to be enough Republicans balking at the "why are we impeaching someone not in office?" part to make it fail at getting a 2/3rds majority.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2021, 06:50:18 AM »
Trump has already been impeached.  You mean 'convicted'.

As for being convicted after leaving office being a first, any Senate conviction of a president, either while still serving or later, would be a first.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2021, 08:49:12 AM »
Please let me know when you're going to provide some facts so we can get started.

You could listen to McConnel.

Quote
The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2021, 08:54:01 AM »
Which things that I listed are not facts?  They seem pretty obvious to me just listening to Trumps own words.

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2021, 10:44:29 AM »
Like I read somewhere, the case for impeaching with offices one does not hold anymore is simple: if it was enough to simply not hold the office anymore, one would only have to resign shortly before sentencing to avoid any of the penalties for the impeachable offense, or, like in this case, commit the offense sufficiently close to the end of one own office.
As these penalties include being disbarred from further public offices, and that penalty strikes even after the end of the office, if you did not allow this late impeachments, you would lose a large part of the deterrence power of impeachment.


Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2021, 11:43:05 AM »
Well lets start with all of the lies about the election results.

Not a fact.  Just your opinion.  In fact, most people believe Trump believes what he says.

Quote
He has used these lies to sow doubt and distrust in our electoral system.

Not a fact, just an unfounded opinion.  It's also attributing your belief that our electoral system does not deserve to be mistrusted as it is, and your own complicity in not objecting to the legal manipulation of our electoral system by your own team that are actually the source of the doubt and distrust to Trump as some kind of crime.

Quote
With no evidence of wide spread fraud he has pushed the idea that multiple states had enough undetected fraud to swing tens of thousands of votes.

He has plenty of evidence of wide spread illegal voting. Indisputable.

He has statistical evidence that indicates the possibility or even liklihood of wide spread fraud.  Our system is designed to ensure that no stronger evidence can ever be obtained.

Ergo, this is your lie.  He does in fact have evidence of wide spread fraud, you just believe its weak, because the courts won't accept it as proof and won't order the states involved to provide discovery that would allow for proof.  It's funny because if you believe this, you're being inconsistent on countless left principals (e.g. systemic racism) that rely completely on statistical anomalies.

Quote
Even in states run by Republicans.

I'm most familiar with GA, where the SoS entered into a number of pro-DNC orders despite being a Republican.  Not sure why he did that but I suspect his position now is to cover his ass.  GA election law look at part (B) requires reviewing the signature on the envelope against 2 signatures on file.  https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-21-elections/ga-code-sect-21-2-386.html  The clear implication is that if the reviewer does not find that the signatures on file don't match, or the signature on the envelope doesn't match both signatures on file then the ballot has to be rejected and verified.  Raffensperger, however, signed on to modify the procedures - apparently in his personal authority - to instead require that the signature on the vote match any one of the signatures on file and then only to reject if 2 out of 3 reviewers agree that the ballot signature doesn't match any signature on file (including the one that was used to request the ballot).  https://demdoc2.perkinscoieblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/07/GA-Settlement-1.pdf  Pretty much a law that used signatures to prevent voter fraud, was modified by Raffensperger personally to facilitate signature fraud.  If it turns out that fraud occurred, Raffensperger is facing personal liability, no wonder he's a reformed anti-Trumper that leaked a call to the Washington Post.  He's desparately trying to avoid going to jail.

PA, the other I'm most familiar with, was manipulated by DNC officials and judges, even though the legislature was majority Republican.

Quote
He then tried to force state leaders to "change" the vote tallies in their states and make him the winner (see phone calls to GA SOS and Governor).

Not what happened.  I read the call transcript, and you're just repeating lies about what what was said.  Read the entire transcript and try again.  100% clear that Trump's team believed they'd identified fraudulent and illegal votes for Biden at scale that was more than a factor of 10 more than enough to tip the election.

End of day, you seem to be considering it a crime to challenge an illegal election result.  What's up with that?

Quote
He then tried to have State legislatures over turn the popular vote results in their states.

He tried to have State legislatures investigate whether the "popular" votes were legitimate or the result of illegal voting, manipulation and fraud.  Not sure what exactly you think is illegitimate about having the state legislatures (charged by the Constitution with such duty) consider whether the election process was illegally manipulated and led to an illegal, fraudulent and/or false result.

Again, there's nothing there that's a fact, only an outcome oriented conclusion on your part.  Essentially, "my team won, ergo it was fair, ergo challenging it is a crime."

Quote
He then tried to convince his VP that he could over turn the results on Jan 6.

I still haven't looked at the law in question, have you?  It's pretty clear in the write ups (well at least those not written by the frothing left) that what Pence was asked to do was to send the issue to the respective state legislatures.  it's a repeat of what they asked the courts to do. 

The argument here is quite simple.  The elections were illegally modified (pending resolution of a Constitutional question this is more likely than not true), those modifications resulted in illegal votes and in increased ease of fraudulent votes, we have statistical evidence of fraudulent votes and actual proof of illegal votes.  Do something.  The courts won't take the case unless we can prove enough fraudulent votes, and no one will grant us access to the records in a state that are required to demonstrate fraud.  Effectively, unless the state officials directly involved in the fraud prove the fraud for us we can never have standing  or be granted relief in the courts, and that's before you consider that many of the courts have their own political interests involved.  However, you - the state legislature - are the party charged with the Constitutional duty to appoint electors, you are the party that was harmed when the process you set for this was illegally and unConstitutionally modified, you are the party that can demand and receive all relevant information, you are the party that determine if bad faith decisions resulted in an improper result, and ultimately, you can decide to affirm the election results, or to reject them and grant relief (they have more than one choice for relief).

It's really a play on the argument that if these elections were evaluated by someone with all the evidence at hand they would be overturned.  If you believe the elections were actually fair, this process should prove they were fair.  If you believe, as I think you do, that they were not fair then this creates the possibility that it would be proven that they were not fair.

Quote
Each of these things are efforts to over turn the legal election of Joe Biden.

Each of these are efforts to demonstrate the legal election of Donald Trump, and the illegality of the election of Joe Biden.  Doesn't mean that Trump's right about the underlying facts, but what you said is just assuming the conclusion.

Quote
Using this plan Trump has been trying to get his followers to bully politicians into changing the results of the election.

Again, not a fact.  This was clearly designed to get an evaluation of the election improprieties.  You can't point to a single place - any where or at any time - where Trump's team purported to dictate to the State legislatures how they would have to rule.  I'm pretty sure that is because they believe it's self evident that fraud and illegal voting occurred and that an investigation not hampered by the court's processes designed to deny relief on standing and to block access to information would demonstrate publically to everyone that the election was stolen.

Just stop for one second, and consider that.  If an investigation would demonstrate to the public that an election was in fact stolen, does any part of what you said hold together?

Quote
That is insurrection.

That's not insurrection.  What you just discussed were all challenges to a fraudulent election, if you characterize that as insurrection all you're really saying is that opposing cheating to win an election is a crime.

Quote
msquared

Singing it doesn't help.  Go back and prove something or provide a fact rather than a conclusion.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2021, 11:48:44 AM »
Quote
Well lets start with all of the lies about the election results.

Not a fact.  Just your opinion.  In fact, most people believe Trump believes what he says.

Your being obtuse and disingenuous

Your narrow definition of a lie is your opinion. The argument that Trump believes what he says something you can't know

AS a leader we get to ask that what he says fit with the facts available to him, to repeat as a fact their was fraud without being able to prove it becomes a lie.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2021, 11:50:54 AM »
Just because he believes the lie (if he really does) does not make the lie go away.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2021, 11:54:36 AM »
Well lets start with all of the lies about the election results.

Not a fact.  Just your opinion.  In fact, most people believe Trump believes what he says.

Quote
He has used these lies to sow doubt and distrust in our electoral system.

He has plenty of evidence of wide spread illegal voting. Indisputable.

What evidence? Be specific please. I have yet to see any of it. Unless you are talking about voting procedures approved by the executive branch of governments and upheld by courts prior to the election. But in your opinion they violated state law so the votes are "illegal."

And I'll ask again please completely separate the issue of when you are talking about a procedure you think was illegal despite court rulings and fraudulent votes or votes being counted in a way contrary to how they were cast.

Trump is really arguing that there was fraud. Calling votes that were cast by rules approved by the executive and approved by courts on election day "illegal" is a lie. Is a big lie. Its meant to deceive and make people believe those votes didn't represent the will of the people who cast them. Or that there weren't people associated with the votes.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2021, 11:56:29 AM »
Seriati may be lamenting with cherry - "There was a time when you could believe in something without proof. You could proselytize your belief without any evidence. Those days are gone. I wonder how that's going to bode for God." without going deeper into the impact of taking political action based on a belief you can't backup with evidence.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2021, 11:57:44 AM »
Quote
Well lets start with all of the lies about the election results.

Not a fact.  Just your opinion.  In fact, most people believe Trump believes what he says.

Your being obtuse and disingenuous

Your narrow definition of a lie is your opinion. The argument that Trump believes what he says something you can't know

rightleft22, get informed, go read the GA SoS call transcript and come back and tell me that Trump doesn't believe he won Georgia.  I dare you.

It's not a "narrow" definition of a lie.  Being wrong or mistaken is not a lie, not even if you refuse to change your view after others present evidence they find convincing of your error.

Quote
AS a leader we get to ask that what he says fit with the facts available to him, to repeat as a fact their was fraud without being able to prove it becomes a lie.

Except, he did prove it.  The world doesn't agree that he proved it to the standard required.  And there's no question he accepted evidence without question that I wouldn't have accepted with out exceptional proof.

But if that were the real standard I could ask what most of the left is doing in office, the things they say about socialism and communism are objectively false, yet they repeat them endlessly because they believe them.  By your standard they're all dangerous liars.  As was everything said by virtually every Democrat about Russian collusion, some things which are still being said even on this board, are they are clear dangerous liars too?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2021, 12:01:57 PM »
Quote
Well lets start with all of the lies about the election results.

Not a fact.  Just your opinion.  In fact, most people believe Trump believes what he says.

Your being obtuse and disingenuous

Your narrow definition of a lie is your opinion. The argument that Trump believes what he says something you can't know

AS a leader we get to ask that what he says fit with the facts available to him, to repeat as a fact their was fraud without being able to prove it becomes a lie.

And not just not being able to prove it, there is massive amounts of evidence there wasn't wide spread fraud. The people from his own administration say "the election was secure" (Krebs), "there is no evidence of widespread fraud" (Barr), and every state government and law enforcement agency who has looked into allegations has found no fraud. Repeating the fraud claim is a lie.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2021, 12:06:06 PM »
Not a fact.  Just your opinion.

Woe is us, the unknowability of existence!

Who can tell that Brad R. could perhaps not actually have a brother that worked for China. Do we know every single person his father may have slept with? Perhaps he does have such an unknown brother.

Who can tell whether states wanted or not wanted to get their votes back, whether their legislatures certified or not. How can we trust they really did so. Who can tell whether we were all created just two minutes ago in the dreams of Azathoth, and to be gone in another two minutes when his dream shifts.

In fact, most people believe Trump believes what he says.

Let me quote Ted Cruz again:
"I'm going to tell you what I really think of Donald Trump. This man is a pathological liar. He doesn't know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth. And in a pattern that I think is straight out of a psychology textbook, his response is to accuse everybody else of lying.
He accuses everybody on that debate stage of lying. And it's simply a mindless yell. Whatever he does, he accuses everyone else of doing. The man cannot tell the truth, but he combines it with being a narcissist. A narcissist at a level I don't think this country has ever seen.

Donald Trump is such a narcissist that Barack Obama looks at him and goes, 'Dude, what's your problem?' Everything in Donald's world is about Donald. And he combines being a pathological liar, and I say pathological because I actually think Donald, if you hooked him up to a lie detector test, he could say one thing in the morning, one thing at noon and one thing in the evening, all contradictory and he'd pass the lie detector test each time. Whatever lie he's telling, at that minute he believes it.

The man is utterly amoral. Morality does not exist for him."


Ted Cruz also said Trump believes in every lie he's telling, but it didn't stop him from calling them lies.

And yeah, that makes sense, because if a man can mind-edit himself into believing whatever falsehood benefits him, he's in all intends and purposes utterly indistinguishable from a liar.

Nobody but Trump knows for a fact if he's actually delusional or a liar. And it doesn't really matter much at all, except perhaps to his psychologist.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2021, 12:07:28 PM »
Quote
Well lets start with all of the lies about the election results.

Not a fact.  Just your opinion.  In fact, most people believe Trump believes what he says.

Your being obtuse and disingenuous

Your narrow definition of a lie is your opinion. The argument that Trump believes what he says something you can't know

rightleft22, get informed, go read the GA SoS call transcript and come back and tell me that Trump doesn't believe he won Georgia.  I dare you.

Trump is a pathological liar who will say whatever he thinks helps him most in the moment. I doubt there would be any distinction between what he would say as a liar vs a mentally unstable deluded person. Would you be less offended if we said Trump spread falsehoods? Because we're really started to split hairs if we are making a distinction between someone who repeatedly spreads falsehoods despite between told he's wrong and a liar.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2021, 12:09:57 PM »
Quote
Well lets start with all of the lies about the election results.

Not a fact.  Just your opinion.  In fact, most people believe Trump believes what he says.

Your being obtuse and disingenuous

Your narrow definition of a lie is your opinion. The argument that Trump believes what he says something you can't know

rightleft22, get informed, go read the GA SoS call transcript and come back and tell me that Trump doesn't believe he won Georgia.  I dare you.

It's not a "narrow" definition of a lie.  Being wrong or mistaken is not a lie, not even if you refuse to change your view after others present evidence they find convincing of your error.

Quote
AS a leader we get to ask that what he says fit with the facts available to him, to repeat as a fact their was fraud without being able to prove it becomes a lie.

Except, he did prove it.  The world doesn't agree that he proved it to the standard required.  And there's no question he accepted evidence without question that I wouldn't have accepted with out exceptional proof.

But if that were the real standard I could ask what most of the left is doing in office, the things they say about socialism and communism are objectively false, yet they repeat them endlessly because they believe them.  By your standard they're all dangerous liars.  As was everything said by virtually every Democrat about Russian collusion, some things which are still being said even on this board, are they are clear dangerous liars too?

Please explain how Trump proved his allegations
Would you accept such a definition of proof presented to you about a issue you didn't agree with?

You ought to ask better of your leader then repeating a allegation that he can't prove.  I doubt you would accept anyone you disagree with presenting such statements as anything other then a lie or disinformation.

Seriati get informed and stop being a hypocrite.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2021, 12:14:13 PM »
What evidence? Be specific please. I have yet to see any of it.

Where have you looked?  Seriously, I don't believe anyone made a good faith search and found nothing.  Heck you can look at the leaked phone call and see a number of things, you can look at the statistical studies and see a number of things.  I suspect that all you've done is "accept" the explanations of the left as to why things are no big deal.  And that's exactly the issue, there's no neutral arbiter or transparent process there.

Quote
Unless you are talking about voting procedures approved by the executive branch of governments and upheld by courts prior to the election. But in your opinion they violated state law so the votes are "illegal."

It's funny how much sanitising you're doing there.  Let's have you go on record then, if say a Republican official is in a position to change the election rules in a major blue state in such a manner that it will tip  the election to Republicans, and they manage to get an elected Republican judge to approve that change in an unreviewable manner, you're 100% on board that this executive branch action held up by the courts prior to election is 100% okay and the resulting red flip of the state is a legitimate result, whether or not they "technically" violated an explicit state law to do so?

It seems to be that you prefer that we have a system where the team with the best lawyers and the party officials most willing to abuse their power gets to change the rules.  I guess that's understandable given that this describes your team, but it's not going to inspire confidence.

Quote
And I'll ask again please completely separate the issue of when you are talking about a procedure you think was illegal despite court rulings and fraudulent votes or votes being counted in a way contrary to how they were cast.

Why would I do that?  Just to make it easier to strawman the arguments?  If you can't deal with the fact of illegal voting and only want to deal with the impossibility of proving fraud without access to state records that says more about the bankruptcy of your position than mine.

Quote
Trump is really arguing that there was fraud.

No, he's also arguing that, its your inability to confront illegal voting allegations that is making you desparate to close your ears and only deal with fraud.  Why are you so desparate to argue a strawman position?

Quote
Calling votes that were cast by rules approved by the executive and approved by courts on election day "illegal" is a lie. Is a big lie. Its meant to deceive and make people believe those votes didn't represent the will of the people who cast them. Or that there weren't people associated with the votes.

Article II, Section 1 US Constitution:  "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

I see a direct reference to the state's legislature in the U.S. Constitution, I don't see your reference to the executive and courts.  Maybe you can point it out to me?  Or is your "Big Lie" argument actually the Big Lie?

You guys are smarter than this, or maybe I give you too much credit.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2021, 12:19:02 PM »
Yet another thread where you guys pile on with quotes about how bad Trump is (ie opinions) and diatribes on how unreasonable his positions are, or assertions without proof.

Are you guys still capable of making a facts based argument without assumptions that rely on hatred of Trump?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2021, 12:20:33 PM »
Yet another thread where you guys pile on with quotes about how bad Trump is (ie opinions) and diatribes on how unreasonable his positions are, or assertions without proof.

Are you guys still capable of making a facts based argument without assumptions that rely on hatred of Trump?

Are you??

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2021, 12:29:37 PM »
Article II, Section 1 US Constitution:  "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

I see a direct reference to the state's legislature in the U.S. Constitution, I don't see your reference to the executive and courts.  Maybe you can point it out to me?  Or is your "Big Lie" argument actually the Big Lie?

You guys are smarter than this, or maybe I give you too much credit.

And state legislatures pass laws that the executive executes and enforces. Sometimes they give executive branches rule making authority, courts are the first line of defense if the executive violates the legislative authority. If they fail then the legislature could come back and pass a clarification. Calling the rules of the election illegal doesn't make them so.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2021, 12:31:53 PM »
What evidence? Be specific please. I have yet to see any of it.

Where have you looked?  Seriously, I don't believe anyone made a good faith search and found nothing.  Heck you can look at the leaked phone call and see a number of things, you can look at the statistical studies and see a number of things.  I suspect that all you've done is "accept" the explanations of the left as to why things are no big deal.  And that's exactly the issue, there's no neutral arbiter or transparent process there.

You said he proved it. I'm not going to go digging around in the Donald Trump conspiratorial lies to try to figure our which ones you think are credible. Pick one and present the facts, you don't need to present all of them. Just the one you think he's proved the best. I'm happy to dig through numbers and statistics if you think they are convincing. But I'm not going off on a blind search of conspiracy land.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2021, 12:35:51 PM »
And I'll ask again please completely separate the issue of when you are talking about a procedure you think was illegal despite court rulings and fraudulent votes or votes being counted in a way contrary to how they were cast.

Why would I do that?  Just to make it easier to strawman the arguments?  If you can't deal with the fact of illegal voting and only want to deal with the impossibility of proving fraud without access to state records that says more about the bankruptcy of your position than mine.

I'm asking you to pick one to discuss at a time and be clear with your language as to what you are alleging. If your only case is election procedures weren't properly followed I'm going to tell you that the courts should have addressed that prior to the election. If you are arguing that there were fraudulent votes then make that case.

I'm tired of you, Cruz, Trump, etc using ambiguous language and when confronted argue whichever is more advantageous at the time.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2021, 12:47:19 PM »
Yet another thread where you guys pile on with quotes about how bad Trump is (ie opinions) and diatribes on how unreasonable his positions are, or assertions without proof.

Are you guys still capable of making a facts based argument without assumptions that rely on hatred of Trump?

Yes, we do, but every time we do so, you just utterly ignore it. Or you effectively do so.

Here's the simplest case: He said Brad R has a brother that works for China. Brad R doesn't even have a brother. Trump never corrected his tweet nor apologized for the false accusation.

But it's not a lie you'd say, because the moment he said it he possibly believed it. And it's (you'll say) not a lie to afterwards neglect to correct or withdraw the falsehood, when it's been pointed out.

Since "he possibly believed it" is a standard that's so low that it can never be disproven, Trump therefore can never be proven a liar. I mean even if he went out and said "I'm a liar" he could possibly be joking, so that'd not be proof either. If he said "I'm a liar and I'm seriously not joking about it", that could also be part of the comedy routine.

Oh, how, how to ever prove someone a liar.

And when he lies about whether states want their certification back, and whether Pence has the right to send back the envelopes with the certifications... why it may be that he's just that misinformed, or that he perhaps confused a dream he saw the previous night with reality, or perhaps one of his advisors lied to him and that's what they said.

Who can possibly prove another person a liar using *your* standards?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2021, 12:48:44 PM »
It's funny how much sanitising you're doing there.  Let's have you go on record then, if say a Republican official is in a position to change the election rules in a major blue state in such a manner that it will tip  the election to Republicans, and they manage to get an elected Republican judge to approve that change in an unreviewable manner, you're 100% on board that this executive branch action held up by the courts prior to election is 100% okay and the resulting red flip of the state is a legitimate result, whether or not they "technically" violated an explicit state law to do so?

It seems to be that you prefer that we have a system where the team with the best lawyers and the party officials most willing to abuse their power gets to change the rules.  I guess that's understandable given that this describes your team, but it's not going to inspire confidence.

I live in a state where exactly that happened and I didn't burn down the state house. Republicans passed illegal gerrymanders, as determined by the courts. It took 8 years for the court cases and maps to be resolved to the satisfaction of the courts. So for 8 of the 10 years the maps applied they were illegal, nothing to be done about the past elections that were won "illegally." But illegal isn't a good description for those races. The races were legal at the time the election was held even if the rules were stacked against legitimate representation.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2021, 12:54:58 PM »
If the state legislature had a problem with how the executive and the courts interpreted their voting laws and therefore the vote, they could have reflected that in the electors they chose. They could have made new laws. That they chose to do neither does not grant the Supreme Court or the Vice President the ability to reject the duly selected electors.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2021, 01:27:43 PM »
Like I read somewhere, the case for impeaching with offices one does not hold anymore is simple: if it was enough to simply not hold the office anymore, one would only have to resign shortly before sentencing to avoid any of the penalties for the impeachable offense, or, like in this case, commit the offense sufficiently close to the end of one own office.
As these penalties include being disbarred from further public offices, and that penalty strikes even after the end of the office, if you did not allow this late impeachments, you would lose a large part of the deterrence power of impeachment.

Too bad the precedent has been that removal from office has been deemed sufficient in the past.

Nixon's resignation was deemed sufficient, the House didn't even bother to vote on the drafted articles of Impeachment.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Impeachment/Impeachment-List/
Mark H. Delahay was impeached for intoxication on the bench on February 28, 1873. He resigned prior to the Senate trial being held. No trial was held.

George W. English was impeached on charges of abuse of power on April 1, 1926 . He resigned during trial by the Senate, the proceedings were subsequently dismissed as he was no longer in office.

Samuel B. Kent was impeached "on charges of sexual assault, obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, and making false and misleading statements" on June 19, 2009. He resigned during trial, the House dropped charges before the Senate could render a verdict.

No impeachment conducted by the House has continued to completion in the Senate once the accused has left office. Impeachment as outlined by the founders was to remove people from public office, not politically prosecute/persecute people after they've left it. Remember a year ago when people were justifying the first impeachment because "impeachment is a political process" which needed to be carried out before the justice system could assume its role?

Well, there is no need for the political process at this stage, and the justice system can now do its job. And if Trump does attempt to enter public service again, well, the public knows what they're buying.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2021, 01:35:19 PM by TheDeamon »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2021, 01:50:09 PM »
It will be interesting to see which argument Mitch goes with

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2021, 01:54:56 PM »
Like I read somewhere, the case for impeaching with offices one does not hold anymore is simple: if it was enough to simply not hold the office anymore, one would only have to resign shortly before sentencing to avoid any of the penalties for the impeachable offense, or, like in this case, commit the offense sufficiently close to the end of one own office.
As these penalties include being disbarred from further public offices, and that penalty strikes even after the end of the office, if you did not allow this late impeachments, you would lose a large part of the deterrence power of impeachment.

Too bad the precedent has been that removal from office has been deemed sufficient in the past.

But not always.

Quote
But other precedents go the other way. In 1876, for instance, the corrupt secretary of war, William Belknap, raced to the White House to hand in his resignation just minutes before the House voted to impeach him. But the Senate determined it had the right to try an impeached former Cabinet member and went on to try Belknap "for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office." While the trial went forward, though, in the end, their vote to convict fell short of the necessary two-thirds.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2021, 02:00:31 PM »
Like I read somewhere, the case for impeaching with offices one does not hold anymore is simple: if it was enough to simply not hold the office anymore, one would only have to resign shortly before sentencing to avoid any of the penalties for the impeachable offense, or, like in this case, commit the offense sufficiently close to the end of one own office.
As these penalties include being disbarred from further public offices, and that penalty strikes even after the end of the office, if you did not allow this late impeachments, you would lose a large part of the deterrence power of impeachment.

Too bad the precedent has been that removal from office has been deemed sufficient in the past.

But not always.

Quote
But other precedents go the other way. In 1876, for instance, the corrupt secretary of war, William Belknap, raced to the White House to hand in his resignation just minutes before the House voted to impeach him. But the Senate determined it had the right to try an impeached former Cabinet member and went on to try Belknap "for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office." While the trial went forward, though, in the end, their vote to convict fell short of the necessary two-thirds.

Failed conviction all the same, nice find though.

Precedent still stands, if the person was no longer in office, the impeachment on the part of the House fails.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2021, 02:07:16 PM »
It's a reason for the Senate to dismiss the charges or for Senators to vote against impeachment. That Belknap's trial went ahead means there's precedent for the Senate to hold the trial regardless.

Not to mention the unprecedented nature of the situation makes absolute statements based on precedent seem a little absurd.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2021, 02:40:21 PM »
Failed conviction all the same, nice find though.

Precedent still stands, if the person was no longer in office, the impeachment on the part of the House fails.

In most of the cases you mention the guy resigned -- I'm thinking this would presumably be seen as an admission by the accused that the impeachment would have succeeded, or at least that the accused preferred to resign rather than face the proceedings. Which leads to the Senate *choosing* to stop the proceedings, as the impeachment effectively did achieve its purpose of causing the accuse to face the consequences of his actions.

So I'm thinking that the fact that Trump did not resign, but rather his term simply expired, may affect the dynamic.

Either way, from my reading of the constitution to the extent that I understand it, I think that the Senate has the power to dismiss the impeachment for whatever reason it wants (including the fact that the office-holder has left office), but it also has the power to NOT dismiss it. That's how I interpret "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments".

A more interesting question to me relates to this sentence: "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside". Trump isn't the president, but he was the president when he was impeached. The Constitution doesn't seem to explicitly specify who presides the trial when it's *not* the current president who's being impeached (presumably the Vice President, as President of the Senate?).

I think both Democrats and any Republicans who want to convict might prefer for the Chief Justice to be presiding rather than Kamala Harris, as it'd look more bipartisan. Could the Senate just decide by majority vote that it'll be Roberts rather than Harris who'll preside over the impeachment trial? Would that be constitutional?

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2021, 03:45:19 PM »
If I had to guess I'd think that they'd go with the precedent that impeachment trials in the Senate are overseen by the Chief Justice. There's enough wiggle room in the wording to perhaps have a court make a decision if pushed, I just don't know who would file that suit with the court.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2021, 11:25:22 PM »
If I had to guess I'd think that they'd go with the precedent that impeachment trials in the Senate are overseen by the Chief Justice. There's enough wiggle room in the wording to perhaps have a court make a decision if pushed, I just don't know who would file that suit with the court.

The Senate usually makes the rules such that the Chief Justice is largely a figure head. So unless Roberts makes an issue out of it I doubt anyone in the senate is going to object to him being there. No reason for anyone who wants to convict to make anything about the trial subject to challenge on that type of technical ground.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2021, 10:02:14 AM »
Pffffffffffttt.  That's the sound of air going out of a tire. 

The only article of impeachment that I have read charges The Perfect Caller with Incitement to Insurrection. 

Not sure where to begin. 

From a criminal law and first amendment standpoint, incitement is very very difficult to prove.  Trump would have actually had to have clearly stated for the mob to commit crimes.  I mean very very clearly.  The Supreme Court has often unanimously supported this standard.  In all honesty, Trump did not explicitly order the crowd to commit crimes.  He didn't tell them to break through the barriers, trespass, physically harm anybody, etc.  He also clearly told the crowd that "we are going to march peacefully" or something to that nature. 

If you're looking at it from evidence to criminally convict of incitement, you're not going to get it.  Sorry.  I'd like nothing better.  But if this were the case Maryland State Troopers could have already picked him up. 

Now, most agree, and so do I, that you don't necessarily need a clear cut criminal case to impeach.  It's a political process for political crimes.  You can be impeached for actions that do not constitute criminal actions. 

I have supported that idea, and continue to do so, while simultaneously always stressing the dangers of impeachment when there is no clear evidence for whatever is being charged.  I honestly believe that from a criminal standpoint, this impeachment may have less evidence than the previous one.  Political trials are dangerous.  That's why you need 66%+ to impeach. 

While not criminally guilty of incitement, I can unequivocally state that the riot would not have happened without Trump.  He brought them to Washington.  He told them to head to the capitol.  He  riled them up with language about the election being stolen and their need to fight for their country.  It's already apparent from the defenses made by those arrested and charged for participation in the riot that they did it because they thought Trump wanted them to.  Their stupidity does not absolve them from their responsibility for the crimes they committed, but their own statements seem to support that Trump was in part responsible for the storming of the Capitol. 

I'd like nothing more than to see Trump impeached.  But this is a really sticky situation.  The article of impeachment probably went too far.   

I personally hold Trump responsible for the riot.  But I'm not sure if it's impeachable because he did not explicitly tell his followers to commit crimes.  The previous impeachment which charged him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress was much easier to prove and he should have been impeached then.  Nevertheless, the impeachment will be a political trial.  Several Republican Senators see him as responsible with his rhetoric.  I don't think he will be convicted, but if he is, it will be purely on political grounds.  I'm not thrilled about that but if they get 17 Republican Senators to vote to convict, that is no small number. 

There are plenty of other things you can try to pin Trump with that are probably easier than incitement.  The call to Raffensperger, etc. 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2021, 10:34:44 AM »
I'll start off by saying that the Senate won't convict.  Whether the president's actions rise to the level of a criminal conviction is almost academic, though (as you observed); the being said, if the Senate were working properly, they probably would convict, if for no other reason than they should draw a line in the sand - this far, but no farther.  It really is the Senate's responsibility to warn future presidents against using the bully pulpit to incite their followers into threatening the physical safety of the legislative branch members in order to do the executive branch's bidding, especially in the context of the electoral processes and overturning an election.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2021, 01:31:54 PM »
I'll quote in part what I've written in a different forum:
Quote
Trump spent hours (and months before that) telling a crowd that the election was stolen, that supposedly the people in the Capitol building had the power to correct that injustice (false), and effectively that everyone in the Capitol who voted to confirm the electoral college's result was a traitor to the constitution and knowingly participating in the election being stolen

Trump also told the crowd that they need to fight as hell, that if Biden is allowed to get the presidency the country will be literally destroyed, and that they must never give up or surrender. He told them it was urgent that Biden be stopped.

The violence was a direct consequence of Trump's words. The violence was a *reasonably expectable* consequence of Trump's words. The violence wouldn't have happened if not for Trump's words. Hence "Trump incited the violence". No, he didn't order the violence. He didn't use words to explicitly support the violence. He incited the violence nonetheless. The crowd wouldn't have done it, if not for the urgency and hatred (towards the supposed traitors in the Capitol) that Trump instilled into them.

Yes, I'm sure Trump's defense will be that in that two-hour speech, he used the word 'peacefully' once. And his accusers will say that this was clearly not enough, and that he should have known it wouldn't be enough.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2021, 02:35:55 PM »
The violence was a direct consequence of Trump's words. The violence was a *reasonably expectable* consequence of Trump's words. The violence wouldn't have happened if not for Trump's words. Hence "Trump incited the violence". No, he didn't order the violence. He didn't use words to explicitly support the violence. He incited the violence nonetheless. The crowd wouldn't have done it, if not for the urgency and hatred (towards the supposed traitors in the Capitol) that Trump instilled into them.

I agree with everything here in principal, except for the fact that you're using a non-legal definition of "incitement".  There is a good reason for such a strict narrow interpretation of incitement legally.  You need to think about why there is such a strict interpretation, and why the SCOTUS was unanimous in it's decision in Brandenburg v Ohio.  Every time a politician says anything negative and some wackos start rioting or shooting up the place could be construed as incitement to violence.  James Hodgekinson attempted to assassinate several Republican Congressmen in 2017 because he believed Trump and Pence were traitors.  Did he get that into his head on his own, or did he pick it up working for Bernie Sanders or listening to MSNBC? 

kidv

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2021, 03:03:00 PM »
I think we should acknowledge there is a very high bar for criminal incitement, particularly for political speech, as noted by Grant.  Check out the legal eagle youtube on the subject (bonus points to sadly note that Trump is already part of the court record for his history of incitement).

But we should also note that for purposes of impeachment, or civil liability, the same burden of proof or legal standard does not apply.  As noted in many quarters, there is a common understanding of the idea of incitement which is not the same as the strict criminal definition. For the jury of the senate to determine: did Donald Trump engage in a course of conduct which a reasonable person would believe could reasonably lead to a mob breaking in and attacking us (the senate)?   This isn't a criminal trial.  McConnell's declared standard seems to apply, if the senators are willing to remove "we've got to protect our team" from the equation:

“The mob was fed lies,” McConnell said. “They were provoked by the president and other powerful people, and they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like.”
https://globalnews.ca/news/7585742/mcconnell-trump-provoked-capitol-riot/



TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Case for Trumps Impeachment
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2021, 08:53:41 PM »
Reuter's is reporting only a very slim majority in favor of impeaching Trump. I'd say the Republicans are going to be comfortable enough with that the let the process die in the Senate. No 2/3rds majority vote in favor is likely to happen.