Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Trump's Impeachment
82 Answers
Why are they bothering when he's leaving in 10 days anyway ? If they do, would he still be called Mr.President with all the security etc. after he leaves as other ex presidents are ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Samuraisan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
... and gives every future President a little window between the election and the inauguration where they think they can try something as serious as sedition, and the worst that can happen (to them at least) is that they won't get away with it.
This election wasn't even close. America can think itself lucky that it wasn't a Bush/Gore scenario, with Trump in Gore's position.
This election wasn't even close. America can think itself lucky that it wasn't a Bush/Gore scenario, with Trump in Gore's position.
Impeachment isn't necessarily for a crime in the legal sense -- indeed, almost by definition it's not a question of legality. Criminal cases are tried in Court, not the Senate. Impeachment, instead, is for "high crimes and misdemeanours", where a "high crime" is usually understood to be a behaviour contrary to the duties of high office.
I don't think anything can be more clear-cut as a "High Crime" than inciting a riot. I'd also like to point out how in some ways Trump is seriously lucky that things didn't get even more out-of-hand. For several minutes and perhaps even a couple of hours, the security of Congress was compromised, and everyone in the building was in danger. We are seriously, seriously lucky that "only" five people died and "only" relatively superficial damage to the building. People entered the Capitol armed with guns and, apparently, a few pipe bombs and other explosives. In the event, no explosives were used, but they were present. But this is as close as anyone should ever wish to get to a genuine terrorist attack that could easily have killed many, many more. Imagine if someone had been allowed in the building who was competent enough and determined enough to actually do damage.
This was a crowd whipped up hours earlier by the President himself (to say nothing of what he has been doing in the last several months, before and after the election). He had no control over it then on, but once he tried to whip it up he was clearly inciting a riot. He deserves no sympathy and every consequence of this dangerous behaviour, and those who refuse to recognise this are blind to just how close we came to a deadly attack on Congress.
I don't think anything can be more clear-cut as a "High Crime" than inciting a riot. I'd also like to point out how in some ways Trump is seriously lucky that things didn't get even more out-of-hand. For several minutes and perhaps even a couple of hours, the security of Congress was compromised, and everyone in the building was in danger. We are seriously, seriously lucky that "only" five people died and "only" relatively superficial damage to the building. People entered the Capitol armed with guns and, apparently, a few pipe bombs and other explosives. In the event, no explosives were used, but they were present. But this is as close as anyone should ever wish to get to a genuine terrorist attack that could easily have killed many, many more. Imagine if someone had been allowed in the building who was competent enough and determined enough to actually do damage.
This was a crowd whipped up hours earlier by the President himself (to say nothing of what he has been doing in the last several months, before and after the election). He had no control over it then on, but once he tried to whip it up he was clearly inciting a riot. He deserves no sympathy and every consequence of this dangerous behaviour, and those who refuse to recognise this are blind to just how close we came to a deadly attack on Congress.
// ... where a "high crime" is usually understood to be a behaviour contrary to the duties of high office. //
I should perhaps add that merely being "contrary to the duties of High Office" is probably too vague, in fact, to be called a High Crime. It would, for example, be "contrary to the duties of high office" to steal the office stationery, but that would be manifestly unimpeachable even though it's the wrong thing to do. Still, behaviour "contrary to the duties of high office" isn't necessarily a legal crime, and refers to political misconduct. It's therefore nonsense that the White House has tried to head off a second Impeachment (and, for that matter, the first) by calling it "political". Of course it's political. That is why it falls to the Congress, not to any Court, to decide whether to Impeach, and whether to convict.
In 1999, Clinton was impeached after being accused of lying under oath and trying to obstruct justice. His was acquitted by the Senate, partly because the Democrats there en bloc voted against, and partly because even Republicans seemed somewhat split about whether to convict or not. Regardless, the point is that at the time Impeachment was described as being appropriate for "...[only] the most serious offenses, and in particular those that subvert [the US] system of government..."
I am not sure you can get more open-and-shut a case of "subverting the system of government" than whipping up a riot that marches on that Government in the hopes of forcing it to declare you the victor in an election, or in the hopes of intimidating it. Trump's behaviour surrounding the election has been disgusting. What is disheartening is that there are still those in that same Government that support him even today, even in spite of the fact that he effectively encouraged an attempt to overthrow them and put their very lives at risk.
I should perhaps add that merely being "contrary to the duties of High Office" is probably too vague, in fact, to be called a High Crime. It would, for example, be "contrary to the duties of high office" to steal the office stationery, but that would be manifestly unimpeachable even though it's the wrong thing to do. Still, behaviour "contrary to the duties of high office" isn't necessarily a legal crime, and refers to political misconduct. It's therefore nonsense that the White House has tried to head off a second Impeachment (and, for that matter, the first) by calling it "political". Of course it's political. That is why it falls to the Congress, not to any Court, to decide whether to Impeach, and whether to convict.
In 1999, Clinton was impeached after being accused of lying under oath and trying to obstruct justice. His was acquitted by the Senate, partly because the Democrats there en bloc voted against, and partly because even Republicans seemed somewhat split about whether to convict or not. Regardless, the point is that at the time Impeachment was described as being appropriate for "...[only] the most serious offenses, and in particular those that subvert [the US] system of government..."
I am not sure you can get more open-and-shut a case of "subverting the system of government" than whipping up a riot that marches on that Government in the hopes of forcing it to declare you the victor in an election, or in the hopes of intimidating it. Trump's behaviour surrounding the election has been disgusting. What is disheartening is that there are still those in that same Government that support him even today, even in spite of the fact that he effectively encouraged an attempt to overthrow them and put their very lives at risk.
// acquitted by the Senate, partly because the Democrats there en bloc voted against, //
we have been froo this a few times - high crimes and misdemeanours
needs definition, (only two to learn from)
and a majority verdict
in fact with Clinton - they had a little rest and wondered where it would go ( aftter x days ) so had a vote on
how is it going so far?
and there was nothing like a mahority so they called it a day
and it was recognised that a proceeding in the legislature was not a trial but a political proceeding
we have been froo this a few times - high crimes and misdemeanours
needs definition, (only two to learn from)
and a majority verdict
in fact with Clinton - they had a little rest and wondered where it would go ( aftter x days ) so had a vote on
how is it going so far?
and there was nothing like a mahority so they called it a day
and it was recognised that a proceeding in the legislature was not a trial but a political proceeding
There is no way that Trump could make a comeback. Even if he tried, without party backing he would not be elected. I agree, though, that his standing would cause divisions in the Right. My guess is that next time the Republicans may well choose a candidate who appears to the public as a more 'moderate', 'rational' version of Trump.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Another Belter From Our Government Of...
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
What Next Step Should I Take With My...
Law12 mins ago
