Should Trump be Impeached <again>

[Edge-]

I wouldnt, waste of even more tax dollars on Trump.

Hes done. I just read one of his golf courses will no longer host a championship. His entire "kingdom" is crashing down.

Impeaching him saves tax dollars actually. No lifetime USSS protection, no $200K a year pension, no $1M+ in travel benefits every year.

And beyond that, we shouldn't put a price on justice and accountability. Especially for the person in charge of the federal government. And especially for histories sake.

[gondrin]

And now it begins. The house vote on a resolution to kick Pence in the ass and use the 25th has failed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgntp

House Republicans Block Democrats' First Efforts to Remove Trump

WASHINGTON—Republicans blocked House Democrats’ first efforts to remove President Trump from office as lawmakers pressed ahead with further measures against Mr. Trump during the last full week of his presidency following the riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Democrats on Monday attempted to pass by unanimous consent a resolution calling for Vice President Mike Pence to use the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to remove Mr. Trump from office, though it was blocked by Rep. Alex Mooney (R., W.Va.).

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she plans to reconvene the full House for a vote on the resolution. If approved and Mr. Pence doesn’t act to remove Mr. Trump from office within 24 hours, the House will proceed to impeachment. Democratic lawmakers introduced an article of impeachment on Monday accusing the president of inciting an insurrection.

With just nine days left in Mr. Trump’s presidency, many Republican lawmakers said the moves were divisive and urged letting the president finish out his term, but Democrats said the president had divided the country.

Democrats said it was imperative that they press ahead with efforts to remove the president for encouraging a mob that last Wednesday scaled the walls of the U.S. Capitol and stormed the building, interrupting a joint session of Congress. A rioter and a police officer were killed during the attack and three others died of medical emergencies.

What this president did was unconscionable, and he needs to be held accountable,” said House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) on CNN on Monday. “I expect that he will be impeached.”

Mr. Pence isn’t expected to move forward with a 25th Amendment process, people familiar with his thinking said. The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, lays out the details of presidential succession in the event that a president dies or becomes ill. One section of the amendment allows for the vice president to take over the president’s duties if the vice president and the majority of the cabinet determine that the president “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

That section of the amendment has never before been invoked, and it could set off a clash between the president and his No. 2. Congress would get the final say over whether the vice president can maintain the president’s powers, which would be decided by a two-thirds majority. Republicans have enough seats to block an incapacity vote in each house of Congress.

Since releasing a statement criticizing Twitter for banning his account on Friday, the president hasn’t issued any comments or appeared in public, a contrast to his typical barrage of tweets on any given weekend.

First lady Melania Trump issued a statement Monday in which she condemned last week’s violence but also took aim at her critics. “I find it shameful that surrounding these tragic events there has been salacious gossip, unwarranted personal attacks, and false misleading accusations on me—from people who are looking to be relevant and have an agenda,” she said.

Several of the president’s allies have broken with Mr. Trump since Wednesday’s riot, with some Republicans calling for him to resign and others saying they would consider supporting impeachment. Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman who served as Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff until March, said in a Fox News interview Sunday that he would seriously consider supporting impeachment if he were still a member of Congress and said lawmakers would view a second impeachment “very differently.”

The unprecedented second impeachment has gathered quick support among House Democrats, with 210 signed on to a resolution that accuses Mr. Trump of inciting an insurrection, according to a Democratic aide. A total of 222 lawmakers are in the House Democratic caucus, and it would take 217 votes to pass an impeachment measure, with 433 House seats currently filled.

Should the House pass impeachment articles and send them to the Senate, it is unlikely the president will be removed before the Jan. 20 inauguration. The Senate is set to be on recess until Jan. 19, and a Senate trial could require unanimous consent to get started before Inauguration Day. A conviction in the Senate needs the approval of two-thirds of senators, requiring significant Republican support. If all 100 senators were to vote, it would take 67 to convict, and the Senate will have 50 Democrats, suggesting they would need support from 17 Republicans.

The House could also hold on to the article of impeachment to avoid triggering a trial before Inauguration Day, and allow the new Democratic-controlled Senate to confirm Mr. Biden’s nominees and get started on his agenda, before sending an impeachment article to the Senate for a trial.\

Instead of backing impeachment, more GOP lawmakers have said that Mr. Trump should resign in his final days in office.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) on Sunday said Mr. Trump should step down. “I think the best way for our country is for the president to resign and go away as soon as possible. I acknowledge that may not be likely, but I think that would be best,” Mr. Toomey said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Some of the president’s advisers, meanwhile, have begun mulling who would join the president’s defense team if the House moves to impeach him. White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who led the defense team during the president’s first impeachment trial, is not expected to join the team this time, according to a person familiar with the matter, nor is Pat Philbin, Mr. Cipollone’s deputy, or Jay Sekulow, or Jane and Marty Raskin, the president’s personal lawyers, according to a person familiar with the matter. Mr. Cipollone initially considered resigning after Wednesday’s riot but is considered likely to stay in his post, according to people familiar with the matter.

The president’s defense team, according to the person familiar with discussions, would likely include Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, and Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional-law professor who assisted the defense team for the last impeachment. Mr. Giuliani wasn’t on Mr. Trump’s defense team last time because of the significant role he played in the events leading up to Mr. Trump’s impeachment over his dealings with Ukraine. He also played a major role in the events for which House Democrats are seeking to impeach the president this time.

Mr. Dershowitz said in a text message Sunday that he hadn’t been asked to join any team but that he would “continue to defend the First Amendment against partisan attempts to weaponize it for short time partisan advantages.”

House Democrats are also discussing how to handle Republican lawmakers who they see as encouraging the mob that stormed the Capitol, possibly using the 14th Amendment that says no one should hold office who has engaged in rebellion or insurrection.

Several lawmakers sent tweets of support for pro-Trump protesters before the crowd turned violent and stormed the Capitol. Rep. Mo Brooks (R., Ala.), speaking at a rally last Wednesday ahead of the riot, asked Mr. Trump’s supporters if they were willing to sacrifice their lives to build the greatest nation. Mr. Brooks told a conservative radio host after the riot that he didn’t regret the comments.

[Machismo]

And now it begins. The house vote on a resolution to kick Pence in the ass and use the 25th has failed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgntp

This was expected, nobody thought she'd get unanimous consent.

Honestly, Pelosi has nothing to lose by pushing this, even though nobody thinks it will get through the Senate. It shows she's willing to act fast and decisively, and even that she's willing to work with the GOP to get it done a different way. It's a very short, and very specific claim that we all watched unfold on live television, or in person.

[wunksta]

This is false....impeachment requires a criminal aspect

Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior. Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive: (1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain

The Constitution describes the grounds of impeachment as “treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”42

While treason43 and bribery44 are relatively well-defined terms, the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution or in statute and remains somewhat opaque. It was adopted from the English practice of parliamentary impeachments, which appears to have been directed against individuals accused of crimes against the state and encompassed offenses beyond traditional criminal law.45

Some have argued that only criminal acts are impeachable offenses under the United States Constitution; impeachment is therefore inappropriate for non-criminal activity.46 In support of this assertion, one might note that the debate on impeachable offenses during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 indicates that criminal conduct was encompassed in the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard.47

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not, however, comport with historical practice.48 Alexander Hamilton, in justifying placement of the power to try impeachments in the Senate, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

[DarkTZeratul]

This is false....impeachment requires a criminal aspect, as in evidence that the President broke the law, to even move forward.

This is untrue. "High crimes and misdemeanors" does not require an actual crime. Abuse of power is not a crime, but Trump was impeached for it. Cheating on your spouse in your office is not a crime, but Clinton was impeached for it.

[kaid]

If the congress is unwilling to impeach an actual attack on their branch of govt by another branch of govt then nothing is ever impeachable and they paint targets on themselves for future attacks.

[Katchii]

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

This is untrue. "High crimes and misdemeanors" does not require an actual crime. Abuse of power is not a crime, but Trump was impeached for it. Cheating on your spouse in your office is not a crime, but Clinton was impeached for it.

OK, fair enough.

But the statement "they're not criminal in nature" is not accurate either. Because it CAN be criminal, but it doesn't always have to be apparently.

[gondrin]

OK, fair enough.

But the statement "they're not criminal in nature" is not accurate either. Because it CAN be criminal, but it doesn't always have to be apparently.

And even if it is criminal, the punishment isn't forfeiture of freedom by going to jail. It is just losing your job and benefits. You know, the kind of punishment they give to white collar criminals.

[XDurionX]

Could Trump evade Impeachment by resigning like Nixon did?

[Katchii]

And even if it is criminal, the punishment isn't forfeiture of freedom by going to jail. It is just losing your job and benefits. You know, the kind of punishment they give to white collar criminals.

I'm not defending it, just trying to explain what it is and that the statement "impeachment cases are not criminal in nature" is not accurate.

The fact that it takes a VOTE to enforce is ridiculous, considering what we've seen with Trump specifically but with the other two Presidents who were impeached as well. If the members of the Presidents party aren't willing to turn against their "leader" it goes nowhere not because of lack of evidence, or because the President didn't do it, but because these sycophants aren't willing to enforce the rules they swore they would.

If there's sufficient evidence to indict, the process needs to happen, period. There should be no voting involved. I don't think it should be tried in an actual criminal court, but the process needs to change to allow the law to actually fucking mean something for the President, and not just be a guideline that may or not be enforced at the whims of the President's lackeys.

- - - Updated - - -

Could Trump evade Impeachment by resigning like Nixon did?

Resignation by itself didn't allow him to evade. Nixon was pardoned by his VP after he took office. So if Pence pardoned him, yes. At this point, I'm not 100% sure Pence would.

[DarkTZeratul]

Resignation by itself didn't allow him to evade. Nixon was pardoned by his VP after he took office. So if Pence pardoned him, yes. At this point, I'm not 100% sure Pence would.

It allowed him to evade impeachment, though; his resignation resulted in the articles dying in the House. Ford's pardon prevented him from actually being criminally charged for the actions listed in the articles of impeachment, though.

[Katchii]

It allowed him to evade impeachment, though; his resignation resulted in the articles dying in the House. Ford's pardon prevented him from actually being criminally charged for the actions listed in the articles of impeachment, though.

I think there's a difference in how we're interpreting it.

The house decided it wasn't necessary to go through with it and closed the impeachment process 2 weeks after he left office because they didn't think it was necessary to go through with it since he already resigned/ left office which was their goal all along. They could have gone through with it if they wanted to, just as they're planning on doing with Trump, but in Nixon's case they just dropped it.

The articles didn't "die" in the House, the House made a conscious decision to close the process because his resignation accomplished what they wanted.

While his resignation is what caused them to ultimately drop the process, he wasn't directly responsible for the process not moving forward, that was solely at the discretion of the House at the time.

The end result is the same, though.

[Logwyn]

Problem is if he isn't impeached, he gets secret service protection and a presidential pension for the rest of his life.

Impeachment strips all of that away.

The Senate has to remove him. Impeachment does nothing but tells the Senate to try the trial. He's already been impeached once.

[DarkTZeratul]

Problem is if he isn't impeached, he gets secret service protection and a presidential pension for the rest of his life.

Impeachment strips all of that away.

While impeachment (or rather, conviction on the articles of impeachment) could prevent him from running again, and would appear to trigger a provision in the Former Presidents Act that would eliminate his pension, I believe he gets the Secret Service detail regardless. Which is probably for the better, because we really don't want him getting captured by foreign agents looking for classified information.

[Shadowferal]

Pretty sure secret service detail is for life.
It's not only about protecting him. It's about guarding against what presidential secrets he may possess. And while the idea that he might have any confidential information by a bit dubious, it's the principle of it all.

[Egomaniac]

While impeachment (or rather, conviction on the articles of impeachment) could prevent him from running again, and would appear to trigger a provision in the Former Presidents Act that would eliminate his pension, I believe he gets the Secret Service detail regardless. Which is probably for the better, because we really don't want him getting captured by foreign agents looking for classified information.

No, if he gets impeached and convicted by the senate he loses SS protection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act

The Former Presidents Act (known also as FPA; 3 U.S.C. § 102 note (P.L. 85-745))[1] is a 1958 U.S. federal law that provides several lifetime benefits to former presidents of the United States who have not been removed from office.[2

[beanman12345]

No, if he gets impeached and convicted by the senate he loses SS protection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act

If he loses SS details it makes it that much easier for him to flee the country to escape federal and state charges. I really don't care about his pension, i want him in prison. If keeping SS detail keeps prison on the table, then I'm not sure I want him to be convicted. Also the massive security risk considering his *potential* knowledge of confidential information, even though I'm suspect he even knows any real details of it w/o someone spoon feeding it to him like a toddler, but I'm sure he's aware of a least some potentially damaging information should it get in the wrong hands.

[Egomaniac]

If he loses SS details it makes it that much easier for him to flee the country to escape federal and state charges. I really don't care about his pension, i want him in prison. If keeping SS detail keeps prison on the table, then I'm not sure I want him to be convicted. Also the massive security risk considering his *potential* knowledge of confidential information, even though I'm suspect he even knows any real details of it w/o someone spoon feeding it to him like a toddler, but I'm sure he's aware of a least some potentially damaging information should it get in the wrong hands.

The SS couldn't stop him from leaving the country. They would just have to accompany him.

[beanman12345]

The SS couldn't stop him from leaving the country. They would just have to accompany him.

They could and would if he has been charged and is waiting trial.

[Egomaniac]

They could and would if he has been charged and is waiting trial.

If he's been charged and awaiting trial he can't leave the country anyway