Impeach!

[jon-nyc]

@xenon said in Impeach!:

Constitutionally it can't spill over outside of this term.

Good luck finding that in the constitution. The current plan is to take up the trial in about three months.

[Aqua Letifer]

@mik said in Impeach!:

So.. they need 2/3, do they not? What happens if they fail...again?

I'd be okay with it. And I think with him gone, most others would accept that, too.

[jon-nyc]

I think, in practice, whether there's a trial or not will depend on what comes out of the FBI/DOJ investigation.

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in Impeach!:

@xenon said in Impeach!:

Constitutionally it can't spill over outside of this term.

Good luck finding that in the constitution. The current plan is to take up the trial in about three months.

And then there would be a constitutional issue. No one knows if you can do that to an ex-President. That could take another 100 days. And there you have it folks Trump dominating a Biden Presidemcy. Sound like people rather fight than govern.

[xenon]

@jon-nyc I think you're right. I thought it was more cut and dried than it is. But it's still a murky constitutional question.

[kluurs]

Maybe I'm the only person who has spoken with and had dinner with actual mobsters. They rarely admit anything. There's a lingo. "We had a 'conversation' with him." "I ran an auto parts business." "A couple of friends of mine had a 'talk' with him and then he changed his mind."

No question that Trump conveys what he wants - but is careful in the words he used.

[jon-nyc]

@loki said in Impeach!:

And then there would be a constitutional issue. No one knows if you can do that to an ex-President. That could take another 100 days. And there you have it folks Trump dominating a Biden Presidemcy. Sound like people rather fight than govern.

Well, the Senate can just do it. Trump could go to court to try to invalidate it but its not like he can stop them.

But I think in practice Biden will make the call whether he wants to deal with the distraction. And that will really depend on what they find in the investigation. I suspect he won't opt for the distraction if it's going to result in another acquittal. Which means most likely, no trial. Again IMO.

[George K]

@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:

What step did they skip?

Examining evidence.

[Aqua Letifer]

[George K]

[Horace]

@kluurs said in Impeach!:

Maybe I'm the only person who has spoken with and had dinner with actual mobsters.

Maybe. But I've watched Goodfellas.

[Aqua Letifer]

@george-k said in Impeach!:

impeached

He was basically indicted on charges that will now be investigated to see if they hold up. I don't really see what the problem is here.

[Copper]

@jon-nyc said in Impeach!:

@xenon said in Impeach!:

Constitutionally it can't spill over outside of this term.

Good luck finding that in the constitution. The current plan is to take up the trial in about three months.

And it started before his term

So we have the answer

[Mik]

@kluurs said in Impeach!:

Maybe I'm the only person who has spoken with and had dinner with actual mobsters. They rarely admit anything. There's a lingo. "We had a 'conversation' with him." "I ran an auto parts business." "A couple of friends of mine had a 'talk' with him and then he changed his mind."

No question that Trump conveys what he wants - but is careful in the words he used.

I have not dealt with Chicago or NY guys, but I have with those in a couple other cities and 1% er bikers. Explicit language is not their way. Can’t say I had dinner with them

[George K]

@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:

He was basically indicted on charges that will now be investigated

A grand jury is convened, agrees that a crime has been committed, and evidence points that a trial should occur. Within hours, evidence comes forward that their decision was based on incorrect evidence.

What should be the course of action?

"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead?"

or...

"Er...."

It was 5 business days between the events that led to his impeachment and the revelation of evidence that's potentially exculpatory. And remember this is the FBI investigating; you know how fast they can be.

You're OK with that?

[George K]

@kluurs said in Impeach!:

No question that Trump conveys what he wants - but is careful in the words he used.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

Lois Lerner smiled at that.

[xenon]

@george-k George - the articles of impeachment make a sort of "doing X could foreseeably be seen to leading to Y" sort of argument.

The "X" is falsely claiming that the election was stolen. The "Y" is political violence.

I supposed you could argue that they need proof that this is false - but given that Trump had multiple court cases on this you could argue that it's false by default until proven true.

If you read the articles of impeachment (they're short), that's the basic claim.

[George K]

@xenon I get it. The process is political. They can do whatever they want, and they will. I've been hearing all the legal arguments in favor of impeachment ("He incited violence"), but those don't hold water, because, on the face of it, that's a high bar to prove. Fact of the matter is, from a legal standpoint, he did not.

The political question is totally different. If you think that he incited violence, then, sure, go ahead and impeach. I'm questioning the wisdom, not the legality of it. The precedent of "The president did something we think is horrible so we must impeach" with no evidence, no argument, nothing...is scary.

This will happen again, and, as McGurn points out, again and again. The process has been cheapened, and that's sad.

[Mik]

Imagine an impeachment overturned by SCOTUS.

“To boldly go where no man has gone before”

[xenon]

@george-k said in Impeach!:

@xenon I get it. The process is political. They can do whatever they want, and they will. I've been hearing all the legal arguments in favor of impeachment ("He incited violence"), but those don't hold water, because, on the face of it, that's a high bar to prove. Fact of the matter is, from a legal standpoint, he did not.

The political question is totally different. If you think that he incited violence, then, sure, go ahead and impeach. I'm questioning the wisdom, not the legality of it. The precedent of "The president did something we think is horrible so we must impeach" with no evidence, no argument, nothing...is scary.

This will happen again, and, as McGurn points out, again and again. The process has been cheapened, and that's sad.

I get where you're coming from. It's not an iron-clad chain of logic from his actions to the violence. Without that rock-solid link, this sets a potentially flimsy precedent.