SisterMidnight
111293
3305
104
Jan 26, 2021 2:26 PM
SisterMidnight
111293
3305
104
Thisisbullshitalready
I just know he won't. GOP already making excuses for him. "Let's move on," they say. "We need unity." Fuck them.
MetaSomma
Turbolibros
lordretroCartoonGod
Had to explain this yesterday to coworkers. He was impeached, it already happened. This is the next phase where he gets punished.
therealhobbes
*where they decide if he gets removed from office and barred from holding any future federal position. That's all the senate can do.
redpandabanana
Apparently there is precedent in the 1800s when a general was impeached and tried after he resigned
Counterfit
*Secretary of State. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap
Turbolibros
Snowdogsbitch
If he gets off again sorry to say America you're f***** with a big F and the cunt will return in 4 years time and then decimate everything
CoarseAndSalty
I'm not unsympathetic. If you believe it would be wrong to try Trump for his crimes a drone strike will work just as well.
KommSusserTod
Rand fuckface Paul is contesting the constitutionality of a trial, because of course he is. He is also a dimwit.
Counterfit
He needs to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap
marteney1
Reps want to not convict because it sets a precedent for them all going forward
ThailandExpress
SergeantMajorSpoiler
Amen.
pattyymac
haha, get a load of this dwork
bloxxing
stop asking if he should be jailed...
ReaperCDN
Sorry your honour, I realize at the time of the murder I had indeed pulled the trigger, but immediately after that I became a former killer.
WhatTheFrench
I think there should be a limit to how long after departure...I don’t think we should be going back and impeaching Dubya or Clinton, but
WhatTheFrench
yeah, impeachment proceedings and the Senate trials should be able to proceed after a Pres. term, especially since some of the consequences
WhatTheFrench
are still actionable afterward. I also think clarifying some of these questions should be a goal of the new administration.
wingineer
The Administration has no authority to clarify impeachment questions, though—it’s strictly a Congressional power, after all.
therealhobbes
There is a lot of confusion about what kind of punishment the senate can dole out.
dogdays2025
Republicans-"we can't hold an sitting president accountable!!!" And now that he's gone, Republicans-"why? He's no longer president?"
VHDQueen
What are the Republicans scared of The Trial???
guitarfourtysix
Like the collusion deal "it's a witch hunt, you have no evidence" *summons for testimony and evidence* " we refuse. It's a witch hunt"
GraveyardWater
SCOTUS just threw out the emolument lawsuits because since he's not president anymore it no longer matters.
GrumpyOldMillennial
Despite the fact that he was, in fact, clearly in violation of it many times over.
SomeDetroitGuy
To be completely clear - if Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter solicited bribes from a foreign power or obstructed justice or incited a riot while
ArkoneAxon
Bill Clinton totally did, and worse. Jimmy... no, Jimmy Carter's a good person. Not the best president, but a great and good man.
SomeDetroitGuy
Clinton was already impeached and the Senate already had their say on those charges.
ArkoneAxon
Clinton was not impeached for his real crimes - hell, people here talk about Trump's good friend Epstein. Guess who was also buds with Jeff?
SomeDetroitGuy
they were President then by all means, impeach them and try them (yes, I know they already did with Clinton).
dogdays2025
You are absolutely right. Republicans must have guns to their heads, or just hate America, which makes them either pussies or traitors
Bhargo
little bit of both I think
FrolickingFrolicking
The Supreme Court decision about “well he’s no longer president, so, all crimes magically disappear” is so corrupt. System broken.
edgareplekjekk
Impeachment is not for punishing crimes though.
Counterfit
That was because he was being sued to stop it from happening anymore in the future. He can't violate the Emoluments Clause out of office
Dimensionsatire
So because the courts delayed for FOUR GODDAMN years, that means he gets off scott-free for FOUR GODDAMN years of ignoring a law?
Counterfit
Everyone needs to watch this https://youtu.be/CsSLG6q9FMw
therealhobbes
(2/?) you killed a week ago? What's needed now is a criminal case. That's why the suit stopped.
therealhobbes
(1/?) It's because a civil suit now has no meaning. To borrow from the other comment: a civil injunction to stop you from murdering someone
FrolickingFrolicking
You can’t murder a murder victim after you murder them and then walk away from the body
AMagicianWasDrivingDownTheRoadThenHeTurnedIntoADriveway
Ok so they didn't actually impeach him the first time, right? Did the 2nd time work? Like, did he lose his salary and secret service?
AMagicianWasDrivingDownTheRoadThenHeTurnedIntoADriveway
I don't know why this got downvoted to hell. I'm not American and just asked a simple question. Jesus.
Monkeyspearfish
Impeachment =/= conviction. He has been impeached twice (i.e. had charges laid against him) but never convicted.
notthatkaren
He was impeached but not convicted by the Senate the first time because Mitch refused to allow any testimony.
matthiasfactor
Impeachment is placing charges against a civil servant. Trump has yet to be tried by Congress.
MadeYouLookAgain
Doesn’t he get tried by the senate not congress? Congress delivers the terms of impeachment no?
aslowgiantfart
The house delivers the terms of impeachment. Both the house and senate are part of congress.
MadeYouLookAgain
Let’s not parse hairs here. In commonly used colloquial terms they’re often defined as the congress and the senate. Hence why they’re 1/
MadeYouLookAgain
Called a congressman or a senator.
gooftroop
He was impeached twice. Senate Republicans wouldn't allow evidence or witnesses during the first trial and he wasn't convicted/removed.
ProfessorAV8R
Impeachment is in effect an indictment and is voted on by the House (simple majority). The trial takes place in the Senate and requires 1/
ProfessorAV8R
a 2/3 majority vote. If convicted, an additional vote could be held to prohibit holding future office w/a simple majority.
Anju42
When they talk about being able to impeach or convict former presidents, I don't understand why not. I mean they all still know gov secrets
Feldspartacus
I thought it was a moot point since they started the process while he was in office
edgareplekjekk
Because impeachment is only for removing officials from their posts. Not for anything else. The result of an impeachment is not conviction.
SolaceAvatar
They also lose a paycheck, a bunch of perks, and the ability to run for office again, so there's still good reasons to impeach.
MikeStinse
It's also to prevent holding office in the future and, other perks including national security briefings he could profit off.
edgareplekjekk
That is not what the constitution says about impeachment.
MikeStinse
You're probably right, it's better to just let them do whatever they want after losing and then let them run again by being obstructionist.
edgareplekjekk
I never said that.
MikeStinse
We also definitely haven't impeached anyone after they no longer held office either.
Anju42
And are perfectly capable of treason or really any crimes and shouldn't be able to run again even if they do it after their presidency.
PastaJesus
Also if we let this logic hold, what is to stop people in executive offices from doing treason or something on their last day ?
Timexican
Just pick a super weak VP and you have at least your last full month to commit treason.
joells101
A morale code. Going forward rules might need to be put in place to prevent this
PastaJesus
Rules are in place, just people are trying to obstruct there enforcement. There are also a ton of ethics rules flagrantly violated
PastaJesus
But executive branch is in charge of enforcing those, so they just didn't.
therealhobbes
(1/?) It's a legal nuance. A Senate 'Conviction' holds no criminal justice implications or consequences. All a Senate Conviction does is
therealhobbes
(2/?) remove that person from office. And potentially prevent future office. So the upside could be that Trump can't run again. However,
Anju42
That's the whole point---one major consequence is not running again. It doesn't just apply to Trump but future presidents and any office
therealhobbes
(2/2) Office they don't hold? I suspect it will be that the senate gets to decide. But that's the legal nuance.
therealhobbes
(1/2) Yeah, I added detail because a lot of people don't understand the senate part. Really it's "can you legally remove someone from an
therealhobbes
(3/?) the sole constitutional purpose of impeachment was to remove someone from office. The legal debate is can you remove someone from
therealhobbes
(4/?) an office they don't hold? It will probably happen - because the Senate gets to decide what it does - but the normal life equivalent
Jackofslayers
I don't think he should be convicted for the insurrection. The things he said were bad, they do not qualify as incitement.
gooftroop
Cool, thanks - now let's see what a Judge thinks about it in court.
Jackofslayers
I am also interested in that. Though that would also be separate from the impeachment.
LrrrRulerOfThePlanetOmicronPerseiEight
Oh well if you say so then that's it. Pack it in folks!
dontrike
Okay, then the failing of the Covid response. Quid Pro Quo with Ukraine. Working with Russia. Emolument Clauses. There's a dozen different
dontrike
things you could get rid of him for, including him being a fucking piece of shit.
kakivara
I hope anyone actually putting up a defense has some way to back up that assertion that was he said is not incitement. Because it was.
Jackofslayers
They have a legal test for incitement. The hard part of the test to meet is imminence. I haven't seen any statements that go that far
kakivara
I don't see "imminence." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te">/18/2383">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
kakivara
This may also apply: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
wingineer
How about when he failed to send in the Nat’l Guard and delayed telling the insurrectionists to go home?
Jackofslayers
one of the more fucked up things he did. Honestly they should impeach him for that if anything. Unrelated to incitement, which is the charge
wingineer
Agreed, but some allowance must be given for (I’d say rightly) trying to impeach him ASAP before he could act again.
wingineer
(Also, maybe not totally unrelated. I feel like seeming approval of the insurrection suggests that he had indeed been hoping to incite it.)
twozerooz
They factually do qualify. You're inability to understand is irrelevant.
Jackofslayers
Are their any Trump quotes from before the 6th encouraging violence on the day of the vote count? I haven't seen anything that passes 1/2
Jackofslayers
The imminent part of the test. So that is what I have been looking for. 2/2
twozerooz
I'm sure with your "test", saying "Nice family you have there, would be a shame if anything happened to them" isn't a threat.
Jackofslayers
You are correct. That would not pass the test for a violent threat.
twozerooz
Also it's "there", not "their". Why are conservatives in your country always so illiterate? Fascinating.
Youhavinagiraffe
His actions are to blame for the insurrection and he deserves removal/ ban from running for office even if it wasn't certainly criminal
Dracon27
That's not for you to determine.
edgareplekjekk
Then the opposite should also be true? Noone here should say that what Trump said qualifies for incitement.
Jackofslayers
Why not?
StampyTheObeseOstrich
Why would it?
suiseiseki
Because you're not a judge nor part of a jury, genius.
damogen
Indictments, laws, lawyers, judges, courtrooms... any of this ring a bell?
wereid
The only precedence for former officials being impeached resulted in a scotus decision against it. History look it up.
wingineer
Your assertion is unconvincing. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-14/trump-impeachment-trial-after-his-term-ends-is-backed-by-history
kakivara
You're still not understanding, are you? He was already impeached the second time, while he was in office. That's over. That phase is done.
wereid
The effect of all impeachment convictions is removal from office (the very purpose of impeachment). This political in any case not legal.
kakivara
Well, no, the Constitution says what the POSSIBLE results of conviction are, it does not require anything. Removal from office is one of the
kakivara
things the Senate can do. It's not the only one, and it's not required.
wereid
Correct the constitution allows for a politically driven impeachment rather than a legal one.
kakivara
That's a weird, stupid statement. Is it Constitutional, or not? That's a yes or no question. If yes, then it's legal.
wereid
But when you have over 49% of the voting public voting for someone, impeaching him after that is tantamount to saying 'Civil War please.'
kakivara
Seriously, you're trying to say "if you punish the people who tried to start a civil war, then there might be a civil war." What other
kakivara
He had 34% approval after the insurrection he incited. Not only is impeachment not going to instigate a civil war, but it's actually going
kakivara
And here's a prediction: Trump promises to not form a third party, Trump gets Republicans to vote to not ban him from holding future office,