Impeachment coming

[BoomerD]

Keep in mind, Trump has never been Pardoned. He can still be tried for many crimes criminally at the federal level. So we can Hope that the DOJ puts him in jail for life. All the Impeachment would accomplish is bar him from holding office again. Criminal Charges and Criminal Conviction would be the true accountability.

"Never pardoned that we know about." I read a story the other day that Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer believes he COULD have issued pardons for himself and his kids/cronies that just haven't been made public yet...known as "pocket pardons," they can be brought out if needed.

Michael Cohen suggests Trump may have already secretly pardoned himself and his children

Michael Cohen said the ‘pocket pardon’ could be the ‘get out of jail free card’ for Donald Trump

www.independent.co.uk

 

[NWRMidnight]

"Never pardoned that we know about." I read a story the other day that Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer believes he COULD have issued pardons for himself and his kids/cronies that just haven't been made public yet...known as "pocket pardons," they can be brought out if needed.

Michael Cohen suggests Trump may have already secretly pardoned himself and his children

Michael Cohen said the ‘pocket pardon’ could be the ‘get out of jail free card’ for Donald Trump

www.independent.co.uk

There has to be offical documents filed, even if it isn't made public. You can bet your ass Biden and/or his administration would have released such information if it happened.

 

[BoomerD]

There has to be offical documents filed, even if it isn't made public. You can bet your ass Biden and/or his administration would have released such information if it happened.

You'd think so, but apparently that's not the case. A pardon can be given verbally...as long as there are witnesses. The legality of any alleged "secret pardons" is up in the air, but it doesn't look like they'd be any more valid than Trump trying to pardon himself. Neither is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution however...so it would be up to the courts to decide.

 

[Jaskalas]

Well Dershowitz doesn't think a president out of office should be convicted. By that logic if a President does his durty deeds while in office during the last few days he is excused because there is no time to do anything about it. He is quite the legal genius.

I'd love for a D congressman/woman to ask him directly, "so if Biden hires a hitman to shoot Trump during his own last week of office, he should be excused?"

Under prevailing conservative constitutional thought the president could have congress killed for attempting to impeach him and nothing could be done about it. (Not a joke)

Impeachment is to remove a sitting official. It has no purpose at this point, against a private citizen.
If a crime was committed, that is for the regular due process of the justice department and or any prosecutor in the nation.
Or is Congress somehow more qualified to act as a court of law for judicial proceedings? I think not.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Cool.

So what will a Trump 2.0 presidency look like? The Purge of all liberals and Democrats?

I can sum it up with two words: civil war!

 

[NTMBK]

Impeachment is to remove a sitting official. It has no purpose at this point, against a private citizen.
If a crime was committed, that is for the regular due process of the justice department and or any prosecutor in the nation.
Or is Congress somehow more qualified to act as a court of law for judicial proceedings? I think not.

The purpose is to bar the dangerous and/or incompetent from holding office again.

 

[fskimospy]

Impeachment is to remove a sitting official. It has no purpose at this point, against a private citizen.

If it is only for a sitting official then can you answer these questions?

1) why has it been repeatedly used against non-sitting officials in the past without complaint? Did everyone in the past get it wrong?

2) one of the punishments after conviction is to bar an official from holding office in the future. If impeachment can only be used against sitting officials then this punishment would be impossible to ever use as it could be easily avoided by simply resigning immediately before conviction. Why would those who wrote the constitution create a punishment that could never be used?

3) combined with a president’s pardon power, what would stop outgoing presidents from committing unlimited crimes within DC? No state could punish them, no fed could punish them, and they could just run for office again and do it over.

If a crime was committed, that is for the regular due process of the justice department and or any prosecutor in the nation.
Or is Congress somehow more qualified to act as a court of law for judicial proceedings? I think not.

This is a common misconception - impeachment is not about enforcement of criminal statutes. Many things that are not crimes may warrant impeachment and many things that are crimes may not.

For example, Trump’s repeated violations of the emoluments clause certainly warranted impeachment, but that’s not a crime. On the other hand if he stole a candy bar from a corner store that is a crime, but if would be foolish to remove the president over.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Impeachment is to remove a sitting official. It has no purpose at this point, against a private citizen.

He was impeached(indicted) while sitting. The Senate trial portion was (again) impeded by the complicit McConnell and the process now moves to the new Senate.

If a person is indicted for embezzlement from their employer, but fired before the trial begins, is the trial moot? Should it continue or be dropped?

 

[fskimospy]

He was impeached(indicted) while sitting. The Senate trial portion was (again) impeded by the complicit McConnell and the process now moves to the new Senate.

If a person is indicted for embezzlement from their employer, but fired before the trial begins, is the trial moot? Should it continue or be dropped?

I think maybe a better analogy would be if someone is accused of embezzling funds and quits before they are fired for it, should the employer be able to refuse to rehire them into the same job?

 

[brycejones]

Impeachment is to remove a sitting official. It has no purpose at this point, against a private citizen.
If a crime was committed, that is for the regular due process of the justice department and or any prosecutor in the nation.
Or is Congress somehow more qualified to act as a court of law for judicial proceedings? I think not.

This is all just so wrong.

1. There have already been impeachments of officials who resigned and were convicted tried in the senate. The notion that this impeachment trial doesn’t comport with the constitution is just the GOP throwing shit at the wall. Stop letting it stick to you.

Meet the other American who was impeached and tried after leaving office

First Read is your briefing from "Meet the Press" and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.

www.nbcnews.com

2. Impeachment is NOT a criminal trial and never has been it is a political event.

edited to correct an error on my part.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I think maybe a better analogy would be if someone is accused of embezzling funds and quits before they are fired for it, should the employer be able to refuse to rehire them into the same job?

A person is fired by their employer. Before they leave the premises, they incite a group of people to violently raid their employer's office, steal items and threaten co-workers. They are then indicted by a grand jury. Should the criminal trial continue after they leave the building?

 

[fskimospy]

A person is fired by their employer. Before they leave the premises, they incite a group of people to violently raid their employer's office, steal items and threaten co-workers. They are then indicted by a grand jury. Should the criminal trial continue after they leave the building?

I think the distinction here is this isn’t a criminal trial (which could also happen!). There is professional sanction and then there is criminal sanction. Impeachment is the former.

The issue at stake with impeachment is if Trump can be ‘rehired’ - under Jaskalas’ reasoning as soon as the guy is out the door the company must stop considering if they will bar him from future employment. I think that’s wrong.

 

[ewdotson]

This is a common misconception - impeachment is not about enforcement of criminal statutes. Many things that are not crimes may warrant impeachment and many things that are crimes may not.

Furthermore, I think it's worth emphasizing that the Constitution is *explicit* that "the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law". Impeachment/conviction and criminal trials are very much parallel tracks and not replacements for each other.

 

[Paratus]

Great. Vermont has a repug governor, so...

Same thought I had. Looked up some VT laws and they have to have a special election if it’s more than 6 months out from a general election. However it also said a senator could be appointed assuming an election was scheduled. So I don’t know.

 

[fskimospy]

Same thought I had. Looked up some VT laws and they have to have a special election if it’s more than 6 months out from a general election. However it also said a senator could be appointed assuming an election was scheduled. So I don’t know.

Well Lehey is out of the hospital and says he feels fine so hopefully that’s the end of it.

That being said, two things:

1) maybe we should really, really start reconsidering why we have so many ancient people running our country.

2) the democrats have a legislative supermajority in Vermont. They should change the law right now to force the replacement to be a democrat.

 

[interchange]

I wouldn't be surprised even if Mitch set up Democrats to pursue impeachment with indicators of openness to support conviction. If Republicans use this as opportunity to further split, they'll continue to consolidate their base. Especially without Roberts presiding, they can easily push a narrative that this is only political theater. While the establishment Republicans hold the political power and know they wouldn't actually institute autocracy, choosing to appear as though they would for political purposes only because they know they could not succeed risks manifesting that reality in the end.

 

[fskimospy]

Also, when republicans argue we shouldn’t hold an impeachment trial when Trump is out of office we should remember that the entire reason it was delayed until Trump was out of office is because Republicans demanded it.

 

[Paratus]

Well Lehey is out of the hospital and says he feels fine so hopefully that’s the end of it.

That being said, two things:

1) maybe we should really, really start reconsidering why we have so many ancient people running our country.

2) the democrats have a legislative supermajority in Vermont. They should change the law right now to force the replacement to be a democrat.

I’ll take number 1 to be a rhetorical question (incumbency advantage)

For number two that’s a good idea. It’s legal so I don’t see a any insurmountable hurdles.

 

[emperus]

Was our politics (Republican party) always this crazy? What do the articulate that they even stand for?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Was our politics (Republican party) always this crazy? What do the articulate that they even stand for?

They claim to stand for things like limited government and freedom. What they actually stand for is oligarchy and white supremacy. Their walk is very, very different than their talk.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

1) maybe we should really, really start reconsidering why we have so many ancient people running our country.

And of all people, Teddy Da'Cruzer is advocating for a Term Limits amendment.

 

[woolfe9998]

Trump won't be convicted on impeachment. The trial will be useful for bringing evidence to the public. That is all.

Trump does need to be criminally prosecuted and sent to jail. Not just for "accountability" or "justice" or because it makes people on the left feel good, but because it will deflate the proto-fascist movement he has started. His defenders say impeachment and/or prosecution will be "divisive" but I think the opposite is true. Trump's charismatic cult of personality, his "mystique" to American conservatives, is based in large part on his perceived invincibility. A defeated and incarcerated "strong man" doesn't inspire anyone or anything.

For the good of the country, Trump needs to be forcibly removed from the American body politic, preferably sooner rather than later. Conviction in the Senate would be nice, but jail is even better.

 

[Jaskalas]

The purpose is to bar the dangerous and/or incompetent from holding office again.

I imagine being a criminal convicted and sentence for a crime in an actual court of law would accomplish that task.

 

[Pohemi]

I imagine being a criminal convicted and sentence for a crime in an actual court of law would accomplish that task.

You would be mistaken. Nothing says convicted criminals, even felons, cannot run for or hold elected offices.

 

[zinfamous]

Trump won't be convicted on impeachment. The trial will be useful for bringing evidence to the public. That is all.

Trump does need to be criminally prosecuted and sent to jail. Not just for "accountability" or "justice" or because it makes people on the left feel good, but because it will deflate the proto-fascist movement he has started. His defenders say impeachment and/or prosecution will be "divisive" but I think the opposite is true. Trump's charismatic cult of personality, his "mystique" to American conservatives, is based in large part on his perceived invincibility. A defeated and incarcerated "strong man" doesn't inspire anyone or anything.

For the good of the country, Trump needs to be forcibly removed from the American body politic, preferably sooner rather than later. Conviction in the Senate would be nice, but jail is even better.

exactly. The trial will bring a lot of it out there, and force Republicans on record to admit their unending defense of a criminal--assuming SDNY does its job proper. I really do hope that the trial calls a lot of witnesses, too, especially the GOP congressmen traitors that are as equally culpable in the insurrection as Trump was. I want them testifying under oath and on record.