![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fridi posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe whole thing reminds me of when a cop shoots someone and everybody wants them charged with murder, but if they do charge them with that, it goes nowhere because it's such a high bar to prove, and you end up with a not guilty verdict.
Democrats Are Pursuing the Wrong Impeachment Charges Against President Trump
"However, if House Democrats want to minimize politicization and maximize the chances of conviction in the Senate, they would have a much better chance if they adopted articles of impeachment stripped of partisan rhetoric and containing multiple, independent charges, each grounded on federal criminal law and indisputable evidence."
"The draft article of impeachment characterizes the president’s impeachable conduct as “Incitement of Insurrection.” After all, Trump had fanned the flames that led to the events on January 6 for months with baseless claims of election fraud. And just hours before the deadly mob attack, at a rally down the street, he encouraged his mass of supporters, who had gathered in D.C. in the thousands, “to fight much harder” and to head toward the Capitol “to show strength.” But the charge as written not only makes bipartisan support difficult; it also creates a hornet’s nest of legal argumentation—about the First Amendment, how to prove “incitement” and the meaning of “insurrection”—that could complicate and impede Senate conviction."
Maybe it's academic since they are going to wait to pursue anything till after Trump is out of office, but I think the charge is guaranteed to fail because it's overreach.
Trump did say "peacefully" a couple of times in his directions to the crowd, and for that reason I don't think this meets the legal definition of him inciting the attack. Trump has always couched his words in such a way as to leave himself an escape route between what he said and what he meant. I suspect it's because he's been sued enough times to understand how this stuff works. The Dems did the same thing with the impeachment over the Ukrainian phone call, they tried to make a case about what he meant instead of what he said.
It didn't work then, I don't think it will work now.
I like this approach better:
"It is also not necessary to characterize the events that transpired as an insurrection, which may strike some as an exaggeration, when the behavior of those who attacked the Capitol fit the federal crime of “seditious conspiracy” (which actually carries twice the ten-year sentence of insurrection). This crime is committed whenever two or more people conspire “by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States,” which is exactly what took place on Wednesday. Also, those who attacked the Capitol did so with the explicit purpose of preventing Congress from carrying out its legal duty to certify the election, thus committing another form of seditious conspiracy: conspiring “by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”"
The Dems are trying to create drama instead of actually being effective, and I don't agree with it.
"Charging Trump with being a party to seditious conspiracy eliminates any First Amendment arguments that he was merely making a speech to a public gathering or expressing his opinion that the election results were tainted by fraud."
What Trump claimed Pence could do is also an issue:
"Two additional articles of impeachment could be grounded on the federal law making it a crime to use “official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the election for the office of President.” Trump’s statements in the past week about (and implicitly to) Vice President Mike Pence as well as his documented conversations with Georgia election officials are examples of such abuse of authority. Even though the statute is written to apply to persons employed by the United States in an “administrative position,” for purposes of impeachment it surely makes sense to hold the president to the same standard of legality as would apply to his subordinates."
"Trump’s actions forced Pence to issue a letter to Congress on January 6, stating correctly that “my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted.” Trump immediately responded by posting on Twitter: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country.” By this conduct, the president clearly used his official authority for the purpose of attempting to interfere with or affect the vice president’s constitutional duties in relation to the presidential election."
Really good op-ed, IMO. I hope the Dems are paying attention and don't get so swept up in their own outrage that they shoot themselves in the foot. It's that "virtue signaling" thing that the conservatives are always talking about. The Dems are concerned with image over getting shit done. After what happened on Wednesday, you'd think they would realize people are sick of them failing on purpose.
It was their asses stuck in that building and if they are really worried about this happening again they better ditch the learned helplessness.
At the end of the day, I do not believe Trump can be impeached once his term ends. The Constitution reads:
"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." U.S. Const. art. II, § 4. Once Trump's term ends and Biden is sworn in, Trump will no longer be the president. All that can be done then would be criminal prosecution."
Although that's not what top Dems seem to think:
Democrats promise quick move to impeachment if 25th Amendment push fails
Pointless, IMO. It's just going to sow more division and piss off the people who voted for the Dems in the hopes they'd get something, anything, done.
Democrats Are Pursuing the Wrong Impeachment Charges Against President Trump
"However, if House Democrats want to minimize politicization and maximize the chances of conviction in the Senate, they would have a much better chance if they adopted articles of impeachment stripped of partisan rhetoric and containing multiple, independent charges, each grounded on federal criminal law and indisputable evidence."
"The draft article of impeachment characterizes the president’s impeachable conduct as “Incitement of Insurrection.” After all, Trump had fanned the flames that led to the events on January 6 for months with baseless claims of election fraud. And just hours before the deadly mob attack, at a rally down the street, he encouraged his mass of supporters, who had gathered in D.C. in the thousands, “to fight much harder” and to head toward the Capitol “to show strength.” But the charge as written not only makes bipartisan support difficult; it also creates a hornet’s nest of legal argumentation—about the First Amendment, how to prove “incitement” and the meaning of “insurrection”—that could complicate and impede Senate conviction."
Maybe it's academic since they are going to wait to pursue anything till after Trump is out of office, but I think the charge is guaranteed to fail because it's overreach.
Trump did say "peacefully" a couple of times in his directions to the crowd, and for that reason I don't think this meets the legal definition of him inciting the attack. Trump has always couched his words in such a way as to leave himself an escape route between what he said and what he meant. I suspect it's because he's been sued enough times to understand how this stuff works. The Dems did the same thing with the impeachment over the Ukrainian phone call, they tried to make a case about what he meant instead of what he said.
It didn't work then, I don't think it will work now.
I like this approach better:
"It is also not necessary to characterize the events that transpired as an insurrection, which may strike some as an exaggeration, when the behavior of those who attacked the Capitol fit the federal crime of “seditious conspiracy” (which actually carries twice the ten-year sentence of insurrection). This crime is committed whenever two or more people conspire “by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States,” which is exactly what took place on Wednesday. Also, those who attacked the Capitol did so with the explicit purpose of preventing Congress from carrying out its legal duty to certify the election, thus committing another form of seditious conspiracy: conspiring “by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”"
The Dems are trying to create drama instead of actually being effective, and I don't agree with it.
"Charging Trump with being a party to seditious conspiracy eliminates any First Amendment arguments that he was merely making a speech to a public gathering or expressing his opinion that the election results were tainted by fraud."
What Trump claimed Pence could do is also an issue:
"Two additional articles of impeachment could be grounded on the federal law making it a crime to use “official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the election for the office of President.” Trump’s statements in the past week about (and implicitly to) Vice President Mike Pence as well as his documented conversations with Georgia election officials are examples of such abuse of authority. Even though the statute is written to apply to persons employed by the United States in an “administrative position,” for purposes of impeachment it surely makes sense to hold the president to the same standard of legality as would apply to his subordinates."
"Trump’s actions forced Pence to issue a letter to Congress on January 6, stating correctly that “my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted.” Trump immediately responded by posting on Twitter: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country.” By this conduct, the president clearly used his official authority for the purpose of attempting to interfere with or affect the vice president’s constitutional duties in relation to the presidential election."
Really good op-ed, IMO. I hope the Dems are paying attention and don't get so swept up in their own outrage that they shoot themselves in the foot. It's that "virtue signaling" thing that the conservatives are always talking about. The Dems are concerned with image over getting shit done. After what happened on Wednesday, you'd think they would realize people are sick of them failing on purpose.
It was their asses stuck in that building and if they are really worried about this happening again they better ditch the learned helplessness.
At the end of the day, I do not believe Trump can be impeached once his term ends. The Constitution reads:
"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." U.S. Const. art. II, § 4. Once Trump's term ends and Biden is sworn in, Trump will no longer be the president. All that can be done then would be criminal prosecution."
Although that's not what top Dems seem to think:
Democrats promise quick move to impeachment if 25th Amendment push fails
Pointless, IMO. It's just going to sow more division and piss off the people who voted for the Dems in the hopes they'd get something, anything, done.
(no subject)
Date: 13/1/21 17:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/1/21 00:20 (UTC)'Super majority' to a voter sounds like shit is about to get done by the side holding it, but how often does it actually translate to that?
'I'm trying really hard' is somehow enough if you're in the minority and no results are expected of you.
Dem voters have expectations now - impeachment is a good way for their leaders to appear busy.
(no subject)
Date: 14/1/21 00:26 (UTC)That said, it is a bit sad that the ban from Twitter is going to cause the president more distress than anything the congress can do.
(no subject)
Date: 14/1/21 11:33 (UTC)The egregious abuse of power has to be symbolically punished. The Second Amendment demands the sacrifice of many innocents. For this to be at all justifiable the rest of the Constitution as a whole needs to be upheld; pour encourager les autres.
An example has to be made.
(no subject)
Date: 14/1/21 20:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/1/21 04:15 (UTC)What exactly was it, then? A Confederate cosplay party?
(no subject)
Date: 14/1/21 06:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/1/21 11:24 (UTC)The Lost Insurgency?
Mr White Supremacist goes to Washington?
How to Make Friends and Influence People?
Naming it is a thread all by itself. And lots more fun than watching the footage.
(no subject)
Date: 14/1/21 20:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/1/21 15:44 (UTC)On one hand, I think this is unfortunate in its timing because it makes it hard to punish. There's very little chance that the second that Trump is out of office that senate republicans don't pivot to "Whataboutism?": "Why don't we impeach Clinton?" "Why not impeach George Washington?!" completely ignoring that such a question is moot (no other living president, save Jimmy Carter, is eligible to run again). We've never had a post-term impeachment and it will be very easy for republicans to dub Democrats only concerned with going on "witch hunt" never mind that trump very nearly led a bloody coup.
I think whether a second impeachment works is going to come down to how much republicans want to clear the field in 2024, because there's a very good chance Trump will run again (he will only be 78, and I don't think the courts will bind him in four years time), or run one of his children as a surrogate. Moderate Republicans might want a way to shut the barn door on the fascists they've buddied up with now that their corporate donors are smacking them and tbh I'm not sure whether it's smarter for the party to try to shut out the fascy people and trust that if they vote, they'll vote on their side, or for them to try to go back to moderate republicanism and are like hahahahaha anyway forget that whole trump era...
Either way, this has to suck for Biden, whose choices are to "forgive and forget" (and get hit hard by democrats who will be infuriated by his egregious forgiveness of a pretty unforgivable crime) or let most of his early term, which will most likely be the only time he can really get things done, be consumed on a condemnation of Trump, a man who we are all exhausted of talking about already.
(no subject)
Date: 14/1/21 18:31 (UTC)Seems like Trump running could be a divide for republicans. If impeachment ensures he can't run again, do democrats realize that makes the other sides 2024 primary that much easier?
I guess the argument against this is - he could win again. I think that would require Joe doing a poor job, in which case - he'd probably have a better chance against Trump than someone else who has none of the trump baggage other than his endorsement.
(no subject)
Date: 14/1/21 20:45 (UTC)