Should Trump be Impeached <again>

[Thekri]

This idea that it has to succeed in the senate just doesn't make sense to me. Did you think we shouldn't have impeached him a year ago, or did you think that was gonna succeed in removing him?

I think there is a major difference between impeaching a president with a year left, and a President that has minus one hour left. That said, after reading some of the other information about what an impeachment can actually do to an ex-President, I retract my objections. Fine, lets do it. I still don't think it is the best idea ever, but fuck Trump anyway. Maybe it will give him an ulcer or something at least.

[draynay]

Fine, lets do it. I still don't think it is the best idea ever, but fuck Trump anyway.

That has been my attitude, since it won't be fast enough to make a real difference, it will just be a big "fuck you" but Trump deserves the biggest "fuck you".

[beanman12345]

That has been my attitude, since it won't be fast enough to make a real difference, it will just be a big "fuck you" but Trump deserves the biggest "fuck you".

exactly!!!! big "fuck you" to Trump and big "fuck you" to everyone who's bought into any of this vote fraud bullshit!

[Ripster42]

I think there is a major difference between impeaching a president with a year left, and a President that has minus one hour left. That said, after reading some of the other information about what an impeachment can actually do to an ex-President, I retract my objections. Fine, lets do it. I still don't think it is the best idea ever, but fuck Trump anyway. Maybe it will give him an ulcer or something at least.

How would you teach children about this day if we didn't impeach him? 'Yes Honey, that's right, he incited an insurrection, but we didn't want to prevent him from running again.'

I also think there's a much better chance he's convicted this time. The house vote is going to be bi-partisan just from GOP members that have already called for his removal. More gop senators have already voiced there agreement as well.

Edit: their agreement, holy crap.

[nonameelf]

So McConnell just sent out the procedures for a Senate trial if Trump is again impeached by the house... and well, this is why I think the exercise is pointless. According to the timeline laid out, the Senate would most likely recieve the formal notification of the impeachment of the President on the 19th of January, and according to Senate Impeachment rules, would not be taken up until 1 pm the following day, which is the twentieth. Given that Joe Biden will be President an hour before that, that makes Trump no longer president when a Senate Trial begins.

Now McConnell does note that it could be considered earlier, but only given the unanimous consent of all 100 senators to conduct business out of normal session. Which is... not likely.

So I fail to see what this little excercise in pointlessness actually accomplishes, if the Senate cannot remove Trump from office, because he will not be in office by the time they start the trial. For the record, McConnell isn't slow walking this at all, this is the earliest he could possibly act on it (Not doubting that he wouldn't slow walk it if he had too, but he doesn't need to do so here). I believe the Senate could still convict Trump after he is removed from office, but the only result of that would be disqualification from further office. Which might be worth doing if it had a chance of passing, but it doesn't.

Why is Mitch still deciding shit? New congress started on the 3rd, he should just be minority leader now so should just sit down and shut up.

[Ripster42]

Why is Mitch still deciding shit? New congress started on the 3rd, he should just be minority leader now so should just sit down and shut up.

Neither ossof or warnock have been sworn in. Won't be until georgia certifies their vote, which probably won't be until trump leaves office.

[nonameelf]

Neither ossof or warnock have been sworn in. Won't be until georgia certifies their vote, which probably won't be until trump leaves office.

Gross, but I guess it's fitting that Mitch has 1 last time to fuck over the country before he loses power.

[Very Tired]

Sure, would be nice to cement in our history books and show to people in future generations that this president was a joke.

[Nakuul]

Would be great if you did not labelled anyone that disagrees with you as a duck.

Yes, because that was clearly the takeaway from that. Try harder, please. Their actions have proven them to be everything people are calling them.

[DarkTZeratul]

So like the honorary position of former potus that entitles him to a pension.

I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that "former President" is considered an office.

For clarification, see the Former Presidents Act especially (f)(2).

This, on the other hand, seems quite clear, but for the technical matter that if he gets impeached after Biden is sworn in, his tenure will have ended without invoking (f)(2).

Gross, but I guess it's fitting that Mitch has 1 last time to fuck over the country before he loses power.

I'm not entirely certain this one's on Mitch; if the Senate has already recessed until the inauguration, he's merely issuing a statement of fact. If he wanted to fuck us over he'd make clear that he was doing so.

[Zaktar]

So McConnell just sent out the procedures for a Senate trial if Trump is again impeached by the house... and well, this is why I think the exercise is pointless. According to the timeline laid out, the Senate would most likely recieve the formal notification of the impeachment of the President on the 19th of January, and according to Senate Impeachment rules, would not be taken up until 1 pm the following day, which is the twentieth. Given that Joe Biden will be President an hour before that, that makes Trump no longer president when a Senate Trial begins.

Now McConnell does note that it could be considered earlier, but only given the unanimous consent of all 100 senators to conduct business out of normal session. Which is... not likely.

So I fail to see what this little excercise in pointlessness actually accomplishes, if the Senate cannot remove Trump from office, because he will not be in office by the time they start the trial. For the record, McConnell isn't slow walking this at all, this is the earliest he could possibly act on it (Not doubting that he wouldn't slow walk it if he had too, but he doesn't need to do so here). I believe the Senate could still convict Trump after he is removed from office, but the only result of that would be disqualification from further office. Which might be worth doing if it had a chance of passing, but it doesn't.

I'm less sure, to me there's an argument that it's in the republicans' best interest to impeach him quickly. It's hard to guess which way the wind is going to blow politically if you do it, for how much longer Trump has a significant base of support. That said, if you want the party to continue on, he might have a base of support large enough to make a run as a 3rd party spoiler, and he's crazy enough to try if he can't win the nomination - which itself would be dooming the party for at least another 4 years because he has approximately a zero percent change of winning enough votes to become president. It's lose-lose for the GOP if he's capable of running in 2024. Granted this assumes he escapes prosecution, but how much do you want to gamble on a rich white dude going to prison for his crimes? Preventing him from running again seems like a reasonably responsible, safe thing to do, and you get to look like a bipartisan patriot. Smells like a bargain. There are probably downsides I'm not seeing though, most likely one being whether you could keep your seat if you did it. Hard to guess at that which is why I'd probably bet on them not removing him. Still though, it's worth making the offer in the form of impeaching, and worst case scenario we get to paint his record with another historic mark.

As to why he should be removed from office - if nothing else because it is the right thing to do.

[Draco-Onis]

no... he should be in prison...

We can do both.

[Shadowferal]

So I fail to see what this little excercise in pointlessness actually accomplishes, if the Senate cannot remove Trump from office, because he will not be in office by the time they start the trial. For the record, McConnell isn't slow walking this at all, this is the earliest he could possibly act on it (Not doubting that he wouldn't slow walk it if he had too, but he doesn't need to do so here). I believe the Senate could still convict Trump after he is removed from office, but the only result of that would be disqualification from further office. Which might be worth doing if it had a chance of passing, but it doesn't.

As Bernie Sanders put it; to establish precedent.

[kail]

no... he should be in prison...

Why not both? The impeachment would be mostly symbolic, something I'd gladly hang on his record.

[Mormolyce]

There is literally no crime in US history more deserving of impeachment than this one. And there have been some doozies.

So McConnell just sent out the procedures for a Senate trial if Trump is again impeached by the house... and well, this is why I think the exercise is pointless. According to the timeline laid out, the Senate would most likely recieve the formal notification of the impeachment of the President on the 19th of January, and according to Senate Impeachment rules, would not be taken up until 1 pm the following day, which is the twentieth. Given that Joe Biden will be President an hour before that, that makes Trump no longer president when a Senate Trial begins.

Now McConnell does note that it could be considered earlier, but only given the unanimous consent of all 100 senators to conduct business out of normal session. Which is... not likely.

So I fail to see what this little excercise in pointlessness actually accomplishes, if the Senate cannot remove Trump from office, because he will not be in office by the time they start the trial. For the record, McConnell isn't slow walking this at all, this is the earliest he could possibly act on it (Not doubting that he wouldn't slow walk it if he had too, but he doesn't need to do so here). I believe the Senate could still convict Trump after he is removed from office, but the only result of that would be disqualification from further office. Which might be worth doing if it had a chance of passing, but it doesn't.

-It forces Republican Senators to put their name on either convicting Trump or giving him a pass after he incited an assault on the US Capitol.
-If successfully impeached in the House and convicted by the Senate, Trump will lose the benefits of a former President - pension, lifetime Secret Service security detail, travel expenses on the public dime...
-If convicted swiftly enough this can prevent him passing more corrupt pardons.
-The Senate can also bar him from running for future office if convicted.

Furthermore, you should be thinking of the consequences of NOT penalising an attack on democracy, and allowing it to be politicised by partisan propaganda.

- - - Updated - - -

no... he should be in prison...

Impeachment removes the protection from prosecution that he has because for some fucking reason America has accepted that Presidents are above the law. Based on a fucking Nixon era memo...

[Xeones]

So McConnell just sent out the procedures for a Senate trial if Trump is again impeached by the house... and well, this is why I think the exercise is pointless. According to the timeline laid out, the Senate would most likely recieve the formal notification of the impeachment of the President on the 19th of January, and according to Senate Impeachment rules, would not be taken up until 1 pm the following day, which is the twentieth. Given that Joe Biden will be President an hour before that, that makes Trump no longer president when a Senate Trial begins.

Now McConnell does note that it could be considered earlier, but only given the unanimous consent of all 100 senators to conduct business out of normal session. Which is... not likely.

So I fail to see what this little excercise in pointlessness actually accomplishes, if the Senate cannot remove Trump from office, because he will not be in office by the time they start the trial. For the record, McConnell isn't slow walking this at all, this is the earliest he could possibly act on it (Not doubting that he wouldn't slow walk it if he had too, but he doesn't need to do so here). I believe the Senate could still convict Trump after he is removed from office, but the only result of that would be disqualification from further office. Which might be worth doing if it had a chance of passing, but it doesn't.

The worst president in US history deserves to be impeached and blocked from ever running from office again. Even if they technically convict him after he has left office.

[Egomaniac]

I believe the Senate could still convict Trump after he is removed from office, but the only result of that would be disqualification from further office. Which might be worth doing if it had a chance of passing, but it doesn't.

As I understand it, while they need a 2/3 majority to convict Trump, they would only need a simple majority to ban Trump from seeking office again.

[DingDongKing]

As I understand it, while they need a 2/3 majority to convict Trump, they would only need a simple majority to ban Trump from seeking office again.

This is what I was assuming. Would be great if it could be confirmed for sure. Because really, that’s the most important thing. End his political career once and for al. It’s the least he deserves, given he’s a fucking criminal.

[ati87]

I think there is a major difference between impeaching a president with a year left, and a President that has minus one hour left. That said, after reading some of the other information about what an impeachment can actually do to an ex-President, I retract my objections. Fine, lets do it. I still don't think it is the best idea ever, but fuck Trump anyway. Maybe it will give him an ulcer or something at least.

I don't think that there is a actual difference even if you discover after the President leaves office, you need to uphold the law.
The idea of impeaching the President is also to send a message to any future presidents "You are not above the law".

I understand why Obama didn't really want to punish Bush and co for the havoc that they created across the world because as horrible as what Bush did, every action that Bush took was as President. If you wanted to punish Bush you would have had to do it before he left office not afterwards.

The impeachable offenses of Trump have nothing to do with his task as President, Democrats need to go after Trump regardless how much time he has.

- - - Updated - - -

The worst president in US history deserves to be impeached and blocked from ever running from office again. Even if they technically convict him after he has left office.

I would also add.
The President that broke norms also should have the dubious honor of being impeached two different times.

If any politician cares about there legacy (every god dam rich person cares about there bloody so called legacy) they need to vote yes on impeaching Trump.

[Pann]

I have to say that I am struggling to understand this impeachment business.

I read the other day (I can't remember who said it) that Trump should be impeached to show that he is not above the law and I very much agree with this sentiment but from what I can gather - and this is probably my flawed understanding - the impeachment process is ultimately decided by politics rather than the rule of law.

As far as I can see, you have an outgoing president who has, at the very least, incited a mob to break the law but as long as he has enough political allies the impeachment will fail regardless of whether the facts establish that he broke the law.

Is this correct?