Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump

[jadednihilist]

I just had a debate with a conservative friend about this issue this evening, and their underlying assumption is whether or not Trump's post-election behavior, as outlined by the Article of Impeachment, crosses the threshold into criminality. I'm not a lawyer/prosecutor, and what I've heard from the Preet Bhararas (to use an anti-Trump example) is that it is a possible, but nonetheless a hard case to make. However, Trump is not being tried in criminal court. This is a political/constitutional court with a completely different set of standards.

No presidential candidate in American history has ever challenged and try nearly as hard to overturn the results of their own election anywhere near as much as Donald Trump. Every candidate is within their rights to ensure that the votes have been properly and fairly counted, but have always respected the decisions of the courts. They never pressured governors, secretaries of state, state legislators, boards of canvassers, and every other potential avenue they could find to overturn the results of the election; especially while simultaneously losing every single legal argument minus one in court. You can argue the scope of what was argued in court, but a lot of that responsibility is on the side of the legal team of Trump's campaign and not on other government officials.


So, that said, the questions I have for members of this board are:

From the standpoint of our norms and original intent dating back to the Founding Fathers, do you believe that Donald Trump's post-election behavior upholds the oath he took to the Constitution? If so, could you explain how (in terms of principle)? If not, what is the appropriate form of accountability for Trump or any other future transgression on this scale?

[Rate This]

I just had a debate with a conservative friend about this issue this evening, and their underlying assumption is whether or not Trump's post-election behavior, as outlined by the Article of Impeachment, crosses the threshold into criminality. I'm not a lawyer/prosecutor, and what I've heard from the Preet Bhararas (to use an anti-Trump example) is that it is a possible, but nonetheless a hard case to make. However, Trump is not being tried in criminal court. This is a political/constitutional court with a completely different set of standards.

No presidential candidate in American history has ever challenged and try nearly as hard to overturn the results of their own election anywhere near as much as Donald Trump. Every candidate is within their rights to ensure that the votes have been properly and fairly counted, but have always respected the decisions of the courts. They never pressured governors, secretaries of state, state legislators, boards of canvassers, and every other potential avenue they could find to overturn the results of the election; especially while simultaneously losing every single legal argument minus one in court. You can argue the scope of what was argued in court, but a lot of that responsibility is on the side of the legal team of Trump's campaign and not on other government officials.


So, that said, the questions I have for members of this board are:

From the standpoint of our norms and original intent dating back to the Founding Fathers, do you believe that Donald Trump's post-election behavior upholds the oath he took to the Constitution? If so, could you explain how (in terms of principle)? If not, what is the appropriate form of accountability for Trump or any other future transgression on this scale?

Absolutely not. His penalty clearly must be a ban from future office holding. Nobody imagined a 6 year old being elected president. If they had known that the electoral college would do this I doubt it would be there. They believed in the value of a peaceful transition.

[bmw]

They believed in the value of a peaceful transition.

Hmmm...that's odd; I don't seem to recall Trump being forcibly hauled out of the White House on his last day.

[jadednihilist]

They believed in the value of a peaceful transition.

Hmmm...that's odd; I don't seem to recall Trump being forcibly hauled out of the White House on his last day.

To Trump's credit, he did leave the White House on his own volition and did so peacefully. However, whether or not Trump truly committed to the peaceful transfer of power hinges on how much you attribute his behavior towards the events on January 6th. January 6th was considered an insurrection attempt by US government officials before Biden was sworn into office, so I view that to point to be nonpartisan, and thus, by definition, nullifies that the transition of power was peaceful.

[Rate This]

They believed in the value of a peaceful transition.

Hmmm...that's odd; I don't seem to recall Trump being forcibly hauled out of the White House on his last day.

That means not throwing a fit all the way to the end of the earth a back once you’ve lost. Sometimes you lose... in the case of a party with no platform it’s more often than not.

[Deleted User 9015]

No. The Rally and his speech ended at 1 or so... then the folks converged on the capital. The cell phone location data is damning.

Ended at 1, you say?

From a quick search:
12:30 p.m.: Crowds of pro-Trump supporters gather outside the U.S. Capitol building.
12:53 p.m.: Rioters overwhelm police along the outer perimeter west of the Capitol building,

Subtract out the time it would take to make it through the crowds and get down to the Capitol, and how much earlier would they have to have left the rally? Most of those folks didn't look like very good sprinters either.

You haven’t seen the really cool cell phone location time lapse have you?

Everyone leaves an event and arrives at an event at the exact same time! Everyone left at exactly 12:30! Everyone was involved in overwhelming at exactly 12:53! No one left early or arrived late!

That's how it works!

The time lapse shows everyone moving in a matter of minutes... they don’t all move at once.

i was being facetious my man.

[screen glare]

Anybody care to guess the LONG TERM psychological damages to our congressional lawmakers and others inside the capitol that day - who intensely feared they were about to be violently killed?

They spent hours as hostages - knowing the RARE fear - that they surely were about to suffer violent deaths.

That means they are now suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - it’s short term disturbing effects - and as time goes on - it’s severe long term effects.

We’ve all read about or watched stories documenting PTSD symptoms suffered by Vietnam War veterans. All of those same symptoms will soon begin to torture these PTSD victims.

Their loved one’s lives will also be impacted as these victims are ravaged by the long term symptoms of PTSD.

[Bryce]

Funny. You never seemed to concerned about the lasting effects of the people affected by the riots in Baltimore, Portland, Seattle, Denver and various other cities where BLM and ANTIFA burned business's and killed people and the political leaders let it happen unabated.

History Check...

In 1974, Richard Millhouse Nixon was loathed by the left as well as the majority of the American population. His level of unpopularity was at a higher level than that of Donald John Trump today. He committed actual crimes. Crimes for which there was a plethora of evidence.

Did he get impeached? Did they have a trial in the United States Senate? No. Why? He resigned and wasn't President anymore.

[Lester The Nightfly]

Hmmm...that's odd; I don't seem to recall Trump being forcibly hauled out of the White House on his last day.

To Trump's credit, he did leave the White House on his own volition and did so peacefully.

Well then, he surely has earned a God damn cookie for doing what he was supposed to do...

[Rate This]

Funny. You never seemed to concerned about the lasting effects of the people affected by the riots in Baltimore, Portland, Seattle, Denver and various other cities where BLM and ANTIFA burned business's and killed people and the political leaders let it happen unabated.

History Check...

In 1974, Richard Millhouse Nixon was loathed by the left as well as the majority of the American population. His level of unpopularity was at a higher level than that of Donald John Trump today. He committed actual crimes. Crimes for which there was a plethora of evidence.

Did he get impeached? Did they have a trial in the United States Senate? No. Why? He resigned and wasn't President anymore.

They Impeached Trump WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT. It doesn’t say “null and void when term expires” anywhere. He was also pardoned.

[Bryce]

They Impeached Trump WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT. It doesn’t say “null and void when term expires” anywhere. He was also pardoned.

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.

It also doesn't say " Conviction of The Ex President"

[Rate This]

They Impeached Trump WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT. It doesn’t say “null and void when term expires” anywhere. He was also pardoned.

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.

It also doesn't say " Conviction of The Ex President"

Touché.

[Robert Faygo]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

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.

Which, in my opinion, is the relevant part of the Constitution that this impeachment trial is addressing. No one is trying to remove him from office.

[Rate This]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

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.

Which, in my opinion, is the relevant part of the Constitution that this impeachment trial is addressing. No one is trying to remove him from office.

Exactly. It’s about barring from future office. Aside from Johnathan “I’ve lost contact with reality” Turley and a few others this all looks kosher to most.

[bmw]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

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.

Which, in my opinion, is the relevant part of the Constitution that this impeachment trial is addressing. No one is trying to remove him from office.

But that's the punishment - removal from office.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

And you can't issue the second punishment (ie, disqualification from future office-holding) without the removal happening first.