I’m not surprised because I doubt you could wrap your mind around many things.
Feel free to address the arguments.
But you won’t. We all know why.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots
- Thread starter Sam I am
- Start date
Feel free to address the arguments.
But you won’t. We all know why.
I found the law review article about late impeachments. It will down load, no paywall. Mr Kalt makes some of the same points as you. It is lengthily. I found the historical insights most interesting.
On the history of impeachment, it has been correctly noted on these pages that the majority of the founders rejected maladministration as a impeachable offense. Yet the vast majority of the state's constitutions at the writing of the US Constitution specified maladministration as impeachable. Yet some members from those states choose not to include it in Article II.
There is plenty of evidence and, I think, good augments for late impeachment for crimes committed before being elected or appointed to office, while the target remains in office, even if the crime was adjudicated in the justice system. That is the reach back of late impeachment. One late impeachment is not another. There is a good discussion in the article about late impeachments and specifically Blount and Belknap.
Article II section 4 refers to "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States". I have been stuck on that as it regards jurisdiction. The phrase is not Presidents, Vice Presidents and all who hold or have held civil offices of the United States. Of course the argument is made that section 4 refers to all those who ever held those offices. hence the sometime late impeachment in our history. "The President" seems to me to refer to the current president. We have only one President at a time. The title remains as an honor and is not a feature anywhere in the Constitution. I'd be interested in more history on the honorific retentions of President, Judge, etc. I am sure it must go back to the English system. All that said, it is the case that Trump was the President when actually Impeached and in that sense, the current case is not a true late impeachment.
All precedent regarding the Senate trial is political, not legal. There is no requirement for a trial. The Senate can do what they wish and I think the juice is not worth the squeeze. If the impeachment process is primarily about public trust in our government, I don't see how the impeachment or especially a trial, does anything to restore public trust in the office of the President and is likely to harm public trust in Congress. It is abundantly clear what most members of Congress, let alone media and respected former officials think of Trump. Impeachment and conviction is not necessary to convey disapproval of Trump by Congress.
Since public trust is not likely to be improved by a trial, the only real reason for a trail is to ban from future office. That looks a lot like Congress fears Trump and are not convinced he could be beaten in a future political contest. Not a good look. How do you think that will be played by Trump with his still adoring supporters? He can still be a force even if banned from office, and I would not want to make him a political martyr to his factions.
Not a fair assessment. I realize it’s 2021, but we need to drop the idea that because someone viscerally disagrees with someone else, that that person is automatically ZOMG AFRAID SUCH A TRIGGERED SNOWFLAKE!!1!!
It’s entirely possible, and arguably probable, that the people pushing for the impeachment aren’t thinking “Oh, no, I might lose an election to this guy,” but “this guy is a genuine threat to our constitutional order.”
There needs to be some kind of acknowledgement that the post-election fight to overturn the election was based on The Big Lie, and that what Trump did was about the worst thing a President can do. It wasn't mismanagement. It was an attack on our Constitutional institutions.
Truth and accountability. Not just for the last POTUS, but for all of the enablers too. I don't really care where it comes from, but it needs to come from somewhere. I'm fine with all of the Repubs acknowledging the truth of what happened and then acquitting for all of the standard political reasons, I just want the acknowledgement.
I thought foreign interference in the 2016 election was accepted data at this point, but maybe I have to look back into it?
I accept “interference” and I think that probably should be held as a reasonable conclusion based on the investigations that were done.
Unfortunately, some Democrats really over reached with the definition of “hijacked.” As usual, hyperbole comes back to bite in the ass.
Interference via IW tools such as manipulating social media and other information outlets with bots/troll farms is certainly an influence on our electoral process, but isn’t the same as say...stuffing ballot boxes or hacking voting machines to change votes. Not that I’m saying that’s what happened - I’m saying one is literally just trolling us and trying to manipulate people, the other is very clearly something that would qualify as a stolen or hijacked election.
I didn't mean to imply everyone voting for impeachment was threatened by a future candidacy. I said it was a bad look and that his supporters would be fueled by the conclusion that since he is out of office the only reason to convict is to ban from office. And I do not think it "probable" that the people pushing for impeachment think he is a threat to the Constitution. Just my observation. In any case, he can't be much of a threat to the Constitution if he is beaten at the ballot box. And if you are afraid you might not be able to beat him, then banning him from office will guarantee he doesn't sit in the oval office again.
Ohh, this is dangerous. We are talking politics here. People/politicians support one another for various reasons. Who decides who was enabling, on what subject and to what extent? How do you define accountable? You will end up with simple guilt by association. It is happening now. People are losing jobs, contracts, being erased. We don't need that. That is banana republic stuff. Nixon was shown the door and Congress did not impeach. Lincoln got it right. There is your example. Post election tactics and even the Capitol incursion pale compared to the aftermath of the Civil War. This is a time for a real leader and statesman and be Lincolnesque. We have a free media that will tell the story and make a record. In places where there have been "truth and reconciliation" type programs or movements there was either no free press, rule of law or an impregnable wall of secrecy. Not the case here. Wave enough money and the most trusted confident will tell a story.
You ask a good question.
I just want acknowledgement that The Big Lie was in fact the big lie. Let the Cruzes and Hawleys and the house reps who exploited it be faced with that truth. Ideally they'd act like leaders and tell their constituency the truth too.
The Dominion Voting Machine suits will likely provide an avenue for truth, as will the criminal trials of the rioters. Probably better than the impeachment trial.
Fully 1/3 of the voters think there was election fraud. That's more than enough to justify a real investigation.
I personally don't think there was enough to overturn the election but there definitely need to be changes nationwide to fight fraud.
So just like the riots, if you are going to impeach Trump over the leftie perceived actions he took or didn't take, do an actual investigation first instead of just assuming.
Fully 1/3rd think there was fraud because Trump told them The Big Lie for two months. That's the problem.
That's right - if they don't think like you, they're gullible and can't think for themselves.
Big Lie? Like the crap the leftie libtard Fake News has been spouting for the last 4 years? Excuse me that's Big Lies, plural, since they've spread a hell of a lot more than one.
it doesn’t mean they are inclined to conspiracy theories....but the notable figures in the StoptheSteal movement are also prominent conspiracy theorists.
And that doesn’t necessarily make them wrong either, but we also don’t stop everything to disprove every claim they make either when their false alarm rate is so terribly high.
I do agree with you an investigation is warranted - but more to hammer down the process for the next election and restore voter confidence. I don’t expect them to be able to prove a negative regarding the “fraud” - unless we want them to take every ballot and do a door to door search or some other ridiculous thing...which is bullshit and probably illegal as far as protecting voters from not having to say who they voted for.
The other problem is I’ve never seen any objective standard of proof that would suffice for some of the Stop the Steal people. A 10 day Cruz Hawley led audit wasn’t going to do it when multiple hand recounts didn’t do it. The guys mainlining Sidney Powell weren’t going to care what Cruz or Hawley with their “Harvard mouths” had to say after their audit. Their single source of truth is Donald J Trump and nobody else.
I get more grossed out by the phone call where Trump’s cronies insinuate threats to the Georgia SecState for not finding votes than I do about any unjustified dismissiveness they may have had over those claims. The process is the process. If you don’t like the results fix it for next time. The Democrats are to some extent just as guilty of this in that the 2016 “hijacked election” should have been an opportunity to really nail down the electoral process integrity in a transparent way.
Tell it to the Republican Secretary of State and the Republican governor in Georgia. They ran 3 recounts and matched every paper receipt 100% with the voting machines, yet Trump kept up The Big Lie. Etc.
That is a waste of time, because that doesn't address the problem.
It doesn't matter how great the process is, if Trump is going to tell his base that it is fraudulent, which he did with some absolutely batshit crazy arguments that were easily refuted and yet believed by his base.
The process wasn't the problem. Trump was the problem.
