[Discussion] Impeachment, Legacy, and Discussion of Individual 45

Pages

Though noted as discussion, news, debate, and all things related to events that occurred during the Tr*mp administration can go here. The scope of this thread is specific to the former administration and it's hangers-on in the aftermath of the shift in power for the United States and impacted areas worldwide.

Conversations about the Biden administration and governmental shift after January 20th, 2020, belong in the Welcome to the Biden Administration thread.

Conversations about the duplicity and inherent racism/fascism within police ranks can be directed to the Police, White Nationalists, and the Rise of Overt Racism and Fascism thread.

Hopefully justice can be achieved. I'm not overly confident that it will be, however.

It's being reported that Michael Ellis, the guy Trump tried to install as the General Counsel for the NSA, was placed on administrative leave today. Apparently he's the subject of a DoD IG investigation and there's a new allegation that he mishandled classified information.

Civics-wise, we are living through a very interesting time. Some constitutional law questions we’ll likely see play out in the next many weeks are:

1. Does an impeachment trial require the impeached to still be in office? Seems like no based on intent and precedent, but maybe SCOTUS will have to weigh in to endorse that.

2. Is the Chief Justice required to preside over the impeachment of a then-former president? The Senate doesn’t seem to think so.

3. Is the 2/3 majority required for removal from office also required to apply a bar to future office, or only a majority. I’ve seen legal pundits claim certainty on which threshold is required, but they disagree on which that is.

4. Regarding the Former Presidents Act and related statutes, can either the Senate alone or Congress with new legislation strip an official impeached and convicted of their pension, travel budget, secret service protection, and other statutory grants? While a strict constitutional reading suggests no they cannot, but it is easy to argue that that is at odds with the intent and that the Constitution was written without and would have been phrased differently if they had any conception that there would be statutory benefits of being a former president.

Keithustus wrote:

3. Is the 2/3 majority required for removal from office also required to apply a bar to future office, or only a majority. I’ve seen legal pundits claim certainty on which threshold is required, but they disagree on which that is.

This is most confusing to me. I've seen it said that 2/3 to impeach and then simple majority to bar from office, but only after impeachment. So like if impeachment fails they can't do the other vote?

But the other thing is the crime he's being impeached for is "incitement to insurrection". So if he's found guilty of that, then he's automatically barred from running again under the 14th amendment, section 3, right? I haven't seen anyone say this on TV or an article. And IANAL, but I can f*cking read. It's pretty plain language:

The Constitution wrote:

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.

So it sounds to me like if he's found guilty of insurrection, he can't ever hold office again. And to overturn that would take a 2/3 vote the other way, by BOTH houses.

For a second we had three impeachment threads and for a moment I wondered if they could impeach him again.

Rat Boy wrote:

For a second we had three impeachment threads and for a moment I wondered if they could impeach him again.

IMAGE(https://media.giphy.com/media/xXXhLy1M4RML6/giphy.gif)

Keithustus wrote:

Civics-wise, we are living through a very interesting time. Some constitutional law questions we’ll likely see play out in the next many weeks are:

1. Does an impeachment trial require the impeached to still be in office? Seems like no based on intent and precedent, but maybe SCOTUS will have to weigh in to endorse that.

2. Is the Chief Justice required to preside over the impeachment of a then-former president? The Senate doesn’t seem to think so.

3. Is the 2/3 majority required for removal from office also required to apply a bar to future office, or only a majority. I’ve seen legal pundits claim certainty on which threshold is required, but they disagree on which that is.

4. Regarding the Former Presidents Act and related statutes, can either the Senate alone or Congress with new legislation strip an official impeached and convicted of their pension, travel budget, secret service protection, and other statutory grants? While a strict constitutional reading suggests no they cannot, but it is easy to argue that that is at odds with the intent and that the Constitution was written without and would have been phrased differently if they had any conception that there would be statutory benefits of being a former president.

I read the screen grab as, "What does a President lose upon his removal? His penis?"

I’m glad you’re confused too. Maybe expert pro constitutional lawyers and Congress and Trump lawyers can figure this out, adversarially, of course. I’d hate to have to try to predict how the questions will all go.

Note though...

Impeachment has not failed. He has been impeached twice. He has been acquitted once. Yes, every source I’m run across requires the 2/3 vote for conviction as a threshold question required before the Senate may entertain the future-office prohibition.

“Engaging” in insurrection (Constitutional prohibition) must be different than “inciting”insurrection (statute) because otherwise they would have used the same words. That’s a common statutory interpretation trap. As for actually implementing the Amendment’s text against insurrectionists (Amend. 14, section 3) no one knows. It’s never been used, as far as I know. We don’t even know if it’s self-executing—whether it’s automatically applied to anyone who engages in insurrection, or whether it requires to be named in statute. Lincoln could have had Congress use it, but he elected for conditional pardons instead: you may return as a free citizen of the U.S. so long as you swear loyalty to it. There are insurrection statutes now that could apply to some of the Capitol invaders, particularly those shouting to capture or kill the VP or Speaker, but, again, we don’t know the relationship, if at all, between those criminal statutes and this Constitutional power.

I don’t have the experience necessary on these particular matters to go much further here. But like I said, we’ll probably have good answers before too far into 2021.

It seems fairest that Congress shouldn't be able to impose a punishment on anyone without convicting them of a crime, first. The legal system can't indict a sitting President, so Congress has to take on that role, and presumably they can do anything a court could do.

They might need a law, first, that says they can strip a civil servant's or elected official's pension, which AFAIK does not presently exist.

In general, I think the idea of stripping pensions should probably be out of bounds for any civil servant, elected or otherwise. If they commit a crime with a monetary penalty attached, fine, impose that. But your pension is something you earned, and shouldn't be cancelable just because the government is pissed at you. It's not a punishment that can be imposed on a private party, so it shouldn't be applicable to someone who worked for the government, either.

Even if it's Trump. As is often the case with defending rights, attempts to strip them are always first applied to a serious scumbag, which sets the precedent to attack people who are lesser scumbags, and eventually becomes a routine punishment. People defending the first jerk can end up looking like they're supporters. Fortunately, most of you should know me well enough to realize l am not a Trumpet.

They should probably, however, put a cap on office rent, which is currently unlimited for ex-Presidents. Trump is known for double dealing, so he'll probably rent out all of Trump Tower as an office and charge the government a few million a month.

The usual punishment for being a traitor to a country is death. He wouldn't get a pension then either. Should consider himself lucky to live off the millions he stole from taxpayers the last 4 years.

edit: Atras has the right idea. Removed this.

Let's...not get into hangings on the first page, please. I detest that person with a fiery hatred, but lynching is def CoC territory >:|

On second thought, I'll just self-edit this. Sorry for causing trouble, it was not my intent
-edited

Atras wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

Let's...not get into hangings on the first page, please. I detest that person with a fiery hatred, but lynching is def CoC territory >:|

On second thought, I'll just self-edit this. Sorry for causing trouble, it was not my intent
-edited

No, it's a semantics argument based on lack of information, and also off topic.

Murder is murder and justice can feel justified. And not something I feel comfortable discussing in the wrong thread (or ever?) for the sake of the marketplace of ideas.

edit: Atras is correct, this went to a bad place and shouldn't have.

Upshot: I don't like the idea of stealing anyone's pension. It's a bad idea, and could be used, for instance, as a weapon against whistleblowers. It doesn't matter to the rich, but for the career civil servant, that would almost always be an unjust penalty.

Malor wrote:

Honestly, I would be happier with the precedent of just hanging the bastard.

When the full truth of the Trump regime sees the light of day, your desire may seem quaint. At least Benedict Arnold provided excellent military service for this country. Has Trump ever provided anything except boorishness, chaos, and death?

Stripping the rich of their pensions is a slap on the wrist. I want him drained of all assets and connections so as to be so poor the soulless ghouls that hover around him will evaporate and he'll die old in useless in prison as a poor schmuck no one cares about. He and the type of people he aspires to hate the poor. I want him to suffer under the system he took advantage of and subjected so many of us to. I want him to struggle with worthlessness and the exhaustion it feels to be really, really poor and actually oppressed. Doubtful anything that satisfying will happen, though.

It will be incredibly interesting to learn what the new administration uncovers about 45 and the details of what absolutely wild sh*t they were up to that hasn't been public knowledge. People are going to start uncovering things and talking. Looking quite forward to it.

~mod~
edit: Since I apparently didn't make myself clear: enough with the lynching oh, sorry, "hanging" talk. Any further posts will be removed.

Atras had the right idea, so I edited out most of my upthread posts. I added some minor thoughts on pensions.

Like...I get it. It's a natural impulse to want to enact some kind of physical justice. Especially when we're eye for an eye, when it really feels like cruel should beget cruel. But it's not okay to entertain that fantasy here. It can escalate to disturbing places when everyone's pissed and then suddenly feeling very empowered.

Sorry to carry on, just wanted to acknowledge your post, I appreciate it.

However, f*ck them and their pensions! They screwed up. Royally. I will die probably old and penniless because I've never had jobs with that luxury, so I have 0 sympathy. You should not have a "right" to extras you have "earned" if you have broken the law. Especially if you've done irreparable damage, harm, and expenses to your constituency. I understand that is a slippery slope. I've been wrong before, but I'm unconcerned with being wrong in this moment.

thread poke

No Person shall be a citizen 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.

Why didn't they write this instead? As it is, we're telling the cancer cells they can't be liver anymore. Attempting a coupe is a renunciation of citizenship.

Danjo Olivaw wrote:

Why didn't they write this instead?

That would have led to stateless persons, an idea which had not penetrated western / American thought yet. Lincoln, Johnson, and the Republicans wanted unity. Barring office was a negotiated compromise.

I am hoping a solid & real investigation can finally take place into ALL his treasonous acts. Then he is in prison until he gets himself a pardon from some jerk in the future.

Hobear wrote:

I am hoping a solid & real investigation can finally take place into ALL his treasonous acts. Then he is in prison until he gets himself a pardon from some jerk in the future.

I wouldn't be surprised if his obesity, diet, underlying medical conditions, and general lifestyle choices remove him from the picture before a pardon happens. Or even before investigations conclude.

JC wrote:
Hobear wrote:

I am hoping a solid & real investigation can finally take place into ALL his treasonous acts. Then he is in prison until he gets himself a pardon from some jerk in the future.

I wouldn't be surprised if his obesity, diet, underlying medical conditions, Russian poison, and general lifestyle choices remove him from the picture before a pardon happens. Or even before investigations conclude.

Added for accuracy.

Hobear wrote:

I am hoping a solid & real investigation can finally take place into ALL his treasonous acts. Then he is in prison until he gets himself a pardon from some jerk in the future.

In the Darkest Timeline he goes to prison but is pardoned in 2024 by President Giuliani.

Nevin73 wrote:
JC wrote:
Hobear wrote:

I am hoping a solid & real investigation can finally take place into ALL his treasonous acts. Then he is in prison until he gets himself a pardon from some jerk in the future.

I wouldn't be surprised if his obesity, diet, underlying medical conditions, Russian poison, and general lifestyle choices remove him from the picture before a pardon happens. Or even before investigations conclude.

Added for accuracy.

Two days ago Russian state TV was showing the clip of Trump climbing the air stairs to AF1 with toilet paper stuck to his shoe and were referring to him as "the President with the smallest hands."

Putin's useful idiot is no longer useful to him, but he isn't going to risk a global confrontation by poisoning said idiot.

Putin's just going to quietly take the "W" knowing that his investment of pennies into hacking, troll farms, and social media bots did far more damage to the US than the Soviet Union at its Cold War peak could have managed.

Amoebic wrote:

Stripping the rich of their pensions is a slap on the wrist. I want him drained of all assets and connections so as to be so poor the soulless ghouls that hover around him will evaporate and he'll die old in useless in prison as a poor schmuck no one cares about.

For Trump, that would actually be justice, but bending the laws to get one specific individual means that those laws can be bent to get others that maybe don't deserve it. Taking away his pension is mostly meaningless; if his empire implodes, it'll probably end up going to a bank for the rest of his life, but it's just not a meaningful amount of money to him, and depriving him of it won't hurt him.

However, once we can do that, I guarantee you the tool will be used again, and on people that are much less deserving. Further, that punishment would be extreme for any career civil servant, because they won't have any other income. It would mean destroying their life, and once we'd established the precedent that pensions could be taken, we'd continually find new ways to use that as a weapon, particularly by the right-wing to keep the conscientious in line.

I just don't think that's a place we want to go. The person we actually want to punish won't be hurt by it, and people we don't want to punish might suffer a great deal.

I 100% agree with your point Malor, and i think harm to innocents is a good argument against it.

however I also think as a whole the "We shouldn't set a precedent of doing X, because the right wing will use X for evil" is a really unconvincing one. The right wing doesn't need our precedents to do evil, they never did. Their willingness to do evil shouldn't factor into our calculations at all, and if 'they might misuse it' is the only reason not to do something, we should consider than no reason at all.

When we set precedents, we give them extra tools to use. So we want to be careful about the precedents we set. It makes it difficult or even impossible to argue against them later.

Pages