It's supposedly Constitutional, BUT

[Sloe Djinn]

Because banning someone from being in office is inappropriate for genuine crimes. If a president murdered someone (for sake of argument) while in office what would be the point of impeaching him after office? If he were guilty he would just go to prison, and that pretty much solves that rather completely dont you think? Is he going to run from his prison cell?

Fair argument. If he was convicted of war crimes he would probably be imprisoned and possibly executed. The example was brought up primarily to point out that the impeachment, in the same sense as war crime charges, focuses on his conduct as related to his role at that time as opposed to that of a private citizen now. I'm not sure if your use of the term "genuine crimes" is intended to differentiate from the more malleable "high crimes and misdemeanors". I see the inability to hold office as an appropriate equivalent consequence to imprisonment upon the person as a figurehead. True, he didn't murder anyone, and I would agree that anyone who murders another should go to jail so perhaps that's where the war crimes example doesn't hold. In this case however, he is alleged to have knowingly wielded his power and influence as a national leader in a reckless (at the least) way that was intended to overturn the democratic institutions that he is sworn to preserve and uphold (at the most). It's my opinion that if true, then in the context of his role as a president it seems appropriate to restrict him from regaining it. Otherwise we're pretty much saying that it's ok to avoid the established consequences of impeachable offenses as long as you're at the end of your term.

Edit: Convicted of reckless driving that resulted in manslaughter = your license to drive the country gets permanently revoked.

 

[Reason]

What do you think of his supporters? Were they stupid?

I would assume like any group of people they would be a mix of different levels of intelligence. I dont really see the relevance

Why wouldn't he have done it much sooner?

Goalposts shifted, as with every one of these discussions from "he didnt do that" to "ok he did but it's still not good enough" why does this happen every time?

What's the value in charming violent protestors who are trying to actively destroy the democratic process?

To make them stop? What's the value in trying to convince anyone not to commit crimes?

Not sure what BLM has to do with trying to violently overturn election results and potentially destabilizing and destroying democracy in the USA? Or is this a whataboutism argument?

The point is if 2 billion in damages from riots in multiple cities wasn't enough to convince him to invoke the insurrection act then why would a million in damages in one city do it? Left wing protesters tried to break down the door to the Senate chamber during the Kavanaugh hearings he didn't use his emergency power then either. The point is this seems consistent over time in multiple scenarios.

Are you arguing for the First Amendment? Do you think it was the same in 2016 even though Hilary Clinton conceded and there were no violent attempts to interrupt the government from doing their duty so that there could be a peaceful transfer of power?

He did commit publicly to peaceful transfer of powers multiple times. He did condemn the rioters and he did call for peace.

 

[Reason]

No, you didn't misread the prompt, but I'm asking for your opinion.

Again, you're welcome not to answer, but I do think it's relevant to the question of his fitness to the office.

My opinion on whether or not I'd be able to justify Trump to someone is that it hugely depends on the person in talking to.

 

[Reason]

It is possible to have an argument and not be an ass, you know.

Not my intention, sorry.

 

[Reason]

Fair argument. If he was convicted of war crimes he would probably be imprisoned and possibly executed. The example was brought up primarily to point out that the impeachment, in the same sense as war crime charges, focuses on his conduct as related to his role at that time as opposed to that of a private citizen now. I'm not sure if your use of the term "genuine crimes" is intended to differentiate from the more malleable "high crimes and misdemeanors". I see the inability to hold office as an appropriate equivalent consequence to imprisonment upon the person as a figurehead. True, he didn't murder anyone, and I would agree that anyone who murders another should go to jail so perhaps that's where the war crimes example doesn't hold. In this case however, he is alleged to have knowingly wielded his power and influence as a national leader in a reckless (at the least) way that was intended to overturn the democratic institutions that he is sworn to preserve and uphold (at the most). It's my opinion that if true, then in the context of his role as a president it seems appropriate to restrict him from regaining it. Otherwise we're pretty much saying that it's ok to avoid the established consequences of impeachable offenses as long as you're at the end of your term.

Edit: Convicted of reckless driving that resulted in manslaughter = your license to drive the country gets permanently revoked.

Who is better to judge the guilt of someone, people sworn to review evidence and (at least try) to remain neutral or bitter enemies who have much to gain on finding guilt?

Would you be ok being tried if, in the case you were found guilty every member of the jury got to take your possessions or benefited in some other way?

 

[Deleted member 16771]

My opinion on whether or not I'd be able to justify Trump to someone is that it hugely depends on the person in talking to.

Could you articulate why for your own sake? As in, justify him to yourself?

Surely if it's just about policy positions, we could find a candidate to represent the same without being a narcissistic liar who threatens the very foundations of the democracy, right?

 

[SpecialEdition]

I would assume like any group of people they would be a mix of different levels of intelligence. I dont really see the relevance

The relevance is that they believed that he called them there. And if they truly believed that and they were answering his call to action, do his words not matter? Do you believe this would count as inciting the insurrection?

Goalposts shifted, as with every one of these discussions from "he didnt do that" to "ok he did but it's still not good enough" why does this happen every time?

I am asking you why you think he didn't do it sooner. If it's true that he knew immediately that this was happening, why would he not take action? I don't know the answer to this question. I am asking you what you think about this.

To make them stop? What's the value in trying to convince anyone not to commit crimes?

Do you think that charming terrorists is effective? Would that be similar to negotiating with them?

The point is if 2 billion in damages from riots in multiple cities wasn't enough to convince him to invoke the insurrection act then why would a million in damages in one city do it? Left wing protesters tried to break down the door to the Senate chamber during the Kavanaugh hearings he didn't use his emergency power then either. The point is this seems consistent over time in multiple scenarios.

We're talking about an insurrection against the Capitol while counting the electoral college votes. I am not sure what Kavanaugh has to do with an attempt to violently overturn election results? Is this another Whataboutism?

He did commit publicly to peaceful transfer of powers multiple times. He did condemn the rioters and he did call for peace.

I believe that you believe this is enough to excuse him.

 

[Reason]

Could you articulate why for your own sake? As in, justify him to yourself?

Oh. I just thought that would be assumed since it would make no sense for me to vote for him otherwise. But yes I can, I'll just need some time im slightly busy in this thread atm but I'll get on that for you i promise.

Surely if it's just about policy positions, we could find a candidate to represent the same without being a narcissistic liar who threatens the very foundations of the democracy, right?

Well you're in luck because my personal belief is that the policies will endure long past Trump's influence on politics. I also dont think Trump will be the Republican candidate in 2024 but that's just my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Oh. I just thought that would be assumed since it would make no sense for me to vote for him otherwise. But yes I can, I'll just need some time im slightly busy in this thread atm but I'll get on that for you i promise.

Thanks, and I know how you feel. I'm actually trying to multitask with a video game at the minute, lol.

 

[Reason]

The relevance is that they believed that he called them there. And if they truly believed that and they were answering his call to action, do his words not matter? Do you believe this would count as inciting the insurrection?

No I believe calling for something is calling for it. If you don't call for something and people reinterpret that you are how could you be held at fault for what's in someone else's brain?

I am asking you why you think he didn't do it sooner. If it's true that he knew immediately that this was happening, why would he not take action? I don't know the answer to this question. I am asking you what you think about this.

I would honestly have no idea.

Do you think that charming terrorists is effective? Would that be similar to negotiating with them?

What would be the penalty for trying and failing to convince them? Seems to me the worst it would get is failing and nothing changes. So potential upside and no downside, let's try it.

We're talking about an insurrection against the Capitol while counting the electoral college votes. I am not sure what Kavanaugh has to do with an attempt to violently overturn election results? Is this another Whataboutism?

It's a question of police and security already existing and there being a mayor, a governor, a military garrison already in place to respond to the crisis via mechanisms that do not involve the president. The insurrection clause is designed for those cases where the problem requires the suspension of constitutional rights to capture people and hold them indefinitely without trial. That is the mechanism by which the president can unilaterally control deployment of the national guard, otherwise it is done via the mechanisms already in place with institutions like the governor's office for example. BLM riots are relevant because the size of the force to be disbanded and retained is what determines the need for activation of the insurrection clause.

Tl;Dr not his job

 

[David54]

What happened January 6 had nothing to do with BLM protests..unrest in other cities..it had to do with a president attempting to stop the certification of an election..using a mob he activated. this was not antifa..or any other group the right wing media wants to name..the Senate will not convict, as they fear losing power through his base..it's all very sad for democracy

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Something interesting about this relates to the counterpart 'precedent' arguments put forth by both the impeachment House Managers and the defense team. The House Managers assert that not impeaching Trump would set a 'dangerous' precedent of what is deemed acceptable presidential behaviour, while the defense assert that the precedent set would be the increased use of frivolous or vexatious impeachments.

Now, the first thing to say about this is that, logically, the riskier precedent to guard against would be presidential power-grabs as we saw on January 6th. I suppose it's something of a Pascal's Wager argument, but who the fuck cares about frivolous impeachment proceedings by comparison? If I'm not mistaken, people don't get killed in impeachments.

The other thing to say is that setting a precedent of frivolous impeachments seems to me entirely unproblematic and, actually, serves the intention of the constitution's framers anyway.

The United States famously prides itself on a 'separation of powers', so as to reign in the influence of each branch of government. However, they also complain when this separation of powers is actually effected, such as when Congress frustrates the President, or vice-versa - perhaps we ought to remember that when government is deadlocked, this is the republic functioning as intended; this is the constitution forcing the branches of government to compromise with each other.

Similarly, all that frivolous impeachment would lead to is the political necessity of the presidential party controlling the House, as is the case in parliamentary democracies. In a parliamentary democracy, the prime minister/executive by definition holds a majority in the legislature, and consequently the counterpart instrument to impeachment - a vote of no confidence - requires the consent of the ruling party.

It seems to me that the only objection to this is that Americans have become used to the enormous princely power that their presidents hold, and would not like this to be constrained in any effective manner by their legislative bodies. Either the constitution is functioning as in tended, therefore, or there is some deep structural flaw in it that prevents it from being the elective monarchy that Americans actually want.

 

[Reason]

@Deleted member 16771 short answer to your question is that it gets a lot easier to vote for Trump when his biggest scandals are just not real.

Now when i say not real, let me tell you what I don't mean: I don't mean that I don't believe them. So if Trump says something and we're all interpreting what he said, who knows what's true because we aren't telepathic and can't read his thoughts.

What i mean is that most of his biggest scandals are objectively, in no uncertain terms, verifiably not real. They didn't happen. It's not interpretation, it's just untrue. So that makes it less insane than it outwardly appears to you. And it makes me more sympathetic to the interpretation stuff because i know objectively that the people who report on him sometimes lie.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

@Deleted member 16771 short answer to your question is that it gets a lot easier to vote for Trump when his biggest scandals are just not real.

Now when i say not real, let me tell you what I don't mean: I don't mean that I don't believe them. So if Trump says something and we're all interpreting what he said, who knows what's true because we aren't telepathic and can't read his thoughts.

What i mean is that most of his biggest scandals are objectively, in no uncertain terms, verifiably not real. They didn't happen. It's not interpretation, it's just untrue. So that makes it less insane than it outwardly appears to you. And it makes me more sympathetic to the interpretation stuff because i know objectively that the people who report on him sometimes lie.

OK, but that sounds like a pretty low bar.

'I vote for this candidate because most of his scandals aren't real'.

I wondered about more positive reasons, perhaps.

 

[SpecialEdition]

No I believe calling for something is calling for it. If you don't call for something and people reinterpret that you are how could you be held at fault for what's in someone else's brain?

I understand your argument here so can leave the point alone.

What would be the penalty for trying and failing to convince them? Seems to me the worst it would get is failing and nothing changes. So potential upside and no downside, let's try it.

My primary concern would be that this would be interpreted as being in favour of what happened and those who were involved in the violence would feel they could engage in it again. If the intention was to convince them to go home and that it was to charm them, it would have been nice for Trump's defense team to explain this when it was brought up by the impeachment managers but unfortunately they did not.

I

t's a question of police and security already existing and there being a mayor, a governor, a military garrison already in place to respond to the crisis via mechanisms that do not involve the president. The insurrection clause is designed for those cases where the problem requires the suspension of constitutional rights to capture people and hold them indefinitely without trial. That is the mechanism by which the president can unilaterally control deployment of the national guard, otherwise it is done via the mechanisms already in place with institutions like the governor's office for example. BLM riots are relevant because the size of the force to be disbanded and retained is what determines the need for activation of the insurrection clause.

Tl;Dr not his job

There was a clarification about the National Guard during the trial today and it was deemed that it was not within the mayor of DC's abilities to call on the National Guard and that it was, in fact, up to Trump. I understand in situations like you describe about BLM this is different.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

Who is better to judge the guilt of someone, people sworn to review evidence and (at least try) to remain neutral or bitter enemies who have much to gain on finding guilt?

Would you be ok being tried if, in the case you were found guilty every member of the jury got to take your possessions or benefited in some other way?

Inherently yes I would prefer to be judged by a jury of my peers who are sworn to impartiality rather than people who are traditionally adherent to constituency majorities or party lines. I think it’s worth mentioning that I would never expect as much during an impeachment trial, where numbers largely dictate the verdict, as opposed to a civil or criminal matter. Politics will always play an influential role in matters related to holding a political office. I would also mention that I don’t view the Presidency as a possession like I would my life or my property.

 

[Reason]

OK, but that sounds like a pretty low bar.

'I vote for this candidate because most of his scandals aren't real'.

I wondered about more positive reasons, perhaps.

Ok it seems I misunderstood your question again, a little more time please.

There was a clarification about the National Guard during the trial today and it was deemed that it was not within the mayor of DC's abilities to call on the National Guard and that it was, in fact, up to Trump. I understand in situations like you describe about BLM this is different.

https://www.nationalguard.mil/About-the-Guard/Army-National-Guard/About-Us/
On the national guard website:
The National Guard has a unique dual mission that consists of both Federal and State roles. For state missions, the governor, through the state Adjutant General, commands Guard forces. The governor can call the National Guard into action during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, fires, earthquakes or civil disturbances.

In addition, the President of the United States can activate the National Guard for participation in federal missions. Examples of federal activations include Guard units deployed to Kosovo and the Sinai for stabilization operations, and units deployed to the Middle East and other locations in the war on terrorism. When federalized, Guard units are commanded by the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Like the Democrats from 2016-2020 when they were claiming fraud?

2016:

 

[Reason]

Inherently yes I would prefer to be judged by a jury of my peers who are sworn to impartiality rather than people who are traditionally adherent to constituency majorities or party lines. I think it’s worth mentioning that I would never expect as much during an impeachment trial, where numbers largely dictate the verdict, as opposed to a civil or criminal matter. Politics will always play an influential role in matters related to holding a political office. I would also mention that I don’t view the Presidency as a possession like I would my life or my property.

I get it but I'm sure you understand my point.

I'm not blind to the fact by the way that this sort of thing is inherently complicated if you look at just the mechanisms on how to deal with criminality from a president and what the response should. There are some unrefined areas that need clear definitions regardless of recent circumstances.

 

[Reason]

2016:

Yes and i think he had the right to say these things, just like the Democrats do. What's your point?