The Trump Impeachment Thread

Quote: Mission146

Without Freedom of Speech, the Republic would be lost. It's one of the only Constitutional protections generally afforded the seriousness that it deserves.

This is NOT a freedom of speech case!

Quote: Mission146

Without Freedom of Speech, the Republic would be lost. It's one of the only Constitutional protections generally afforded the seriousness that it deserves.

Well, if you can get people angry enough, you don't have to tell them to do anything, and take no blame when they do. I find that PROBLEMATIC.

Maybe even worth calling a "Loophole" in the safety and security balance.

should be freedom and security edit

Quote: TominNV

Under our current system of laws and law enforcement there are many people who did nothing wrong are subjected to abuses, and the implementation of our laws declares those abuses to be perfectly legal. Perhaps not legal under the letter of the law, but legally permissible due to the corruption of law enforcement.

I agree with that. I think that's something that should definitely be changed, but not by way of having more people subject to those very abuses.

Quote:

If congress believes Trump committed impeachable offenses, impeach him. If the Senate believes he did it, convict him. We all obviously knew the outcome before it happened. The people with a D next to their name would vote one way, the people with an R would vote the other way. If you want Trump instead held to the same standard as everyone else, then we would be seeing a DA somewhere get a warrant for his arrest. Which means instead of this trial in the Senate, he should have been put in handcuffs and then a jail cell. If that isn't happening, then there is a different standard. I am ok with that. But for a president, it should mean the different standard is that he is held to the highest standards.

I agree with that. If a particular Senator believes he did it, then convict him. If a particular Senator believes he did not do that, then acquit him. What you'll see individual Senators actually do, almost unanimously, is whatever is politically best for them.

There's nothing for a DA to get a warrant for because Trump didn't do anything that even remotely approaches committing a crime. That should be the standard not only for Trump, but for anyone. No reasonable suspicion of a crime; no arrest warrant.

If anyone in the District or Federally felt that a criminal violation had occurred, I believe Trump could be arrested. While it has been held that a sitting President cannot be indicted, Trump is no longer a sitting President. The holdings also did not maintain that someone cannot be criminally charged for something that was done whilst he was POTUS...just that he can't be indicted if he's sitting. IOW, if the authorities in question felt that criminal charges of incitement had any possible chance of success, then there is nothing stopping them from pursuing those.

Quote: Tripdufan

The context matters.

This was the LAST attempt at overturning the result of the election and the clock was ticking. You're claiming that Trump was saying, "hey, march down to the capitol and protest with your voice", the SAME thing they have been doing all over the country with NO RESULTS for the last couple months? Anybody with any inkling of common sense knows that while Trump may have not directly advocated for violence, he definitely elicited it.

And no, that is NOT what you'd need as a minimum for impeachment. Criminal? Private citizen protected first amendment speech? Maybe. But NOT impeachment of a government official.

I'll grant your last sentence. They can theoretically impeach and convict for anything that they decide is a, "High crime or misdemeanor," even if the things in question aren't (criminally speaking) crimes or misdemeanors.

I'm not claiming that is what Trump was saying. I think we all have some idea that Trump wanted something to happen beyond mere peaceful protest...though I don't know that it was that. My point is that what Trump wanted to happen doesn't matter in the context of Incitement unless you can first prove that's actually what Trump wanted to have happen...i.e. that the goal was to incite an insurrection.

The point being that he never specifically and directly told those people to do what they did---anything short of that being protected under Free Speech.

Quote: Tripdufan

This is NOT a freedom of speech case!

What kind of case is it? They're wanting to convict (even though it's not a criminal conviction) on Incitement of Insurrection based on something that was said.

Quote: Mission146

The point being that he never specifically and directly told those people to do what they did---anything short of that being protected under Free Speech.

Couldn't disagree more. He is not protected under the First Amendment. He was not a private citizen and this is not a criminal trial.

Here's a decent read:

https://www.vox.com/22272734/trump-impeachment-first-amendment-lies-incitement-brandenburg-new-york-times-sullivan-bond

Quote: rxwine

Well, if you can get people angry enough, you don't have to tell them to do anything, and take no blame when they do. I find that PROBLEMATIC.

Maybe even worth calling a "Loophole" in the safety and security balance.

should be freedom and security edit

HA!!! We don't even get the Constitutionally guaranteed securities under the Amendments we already have from the very Government that those Amendments are supposed to be protecting us from. The Constitutional guarantees provided for by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment might as well be written on toilet paper. Do we really want to lose other rights?

Quote: Mission146

What kind of case is it? They're wanting to convict (even though it's not a criminal conviction) on Incitement of Insurrection based on something that was said.

Plenty of people have been convicted on a preponderance of evidence in regular trials. This means, no actual smoking gun, but other evidence. Shouldn't that be a factor?

It's pretty common for people to try to get rid of the direct evidence. But we still get convictions on other evidence.

Quote: Tripdufan

Couldn't disagree more. He is not protected under the First Amendment.

Here's a decent read:

https://www.vox.com/22272734/trump-impeachment-first-amendment-lies-incitement-brandenburg-new-york-times-sullivan-bond

I'll quote from your source:

Quote:

The first is that impeachment is, essentially, a human resources matter. The Constitution provides that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office.” So, with Trump out of office, the only question in his second impeachment trial is whether he should be permanently disqualified from certain federal jobs.

I agree with that completely as Impeachment is not a criminal conviction. I'm not suggesting that the Senate can't impeach him for this, but rather that they shouldn't, or if they should, then they should do it under a new article---I like SOOPOO"s dereliction of duty. I'd vote to impeach on those grounds.

I'd mentioned earlier that disqualification from future federal office is the only practical consideration here, so I obviously also agree with this.

Quote:

The second reason Trump cannot invoke the First Amendment is that many of the statements he made, which allegedly incited the January 6 attack on the Capitol, are lies. Trump accused Democrats of trying to “steal the election,” and he falsely claimed that he “overwhelmingly” won an election that he lost by over 7 million votes.

As the Supreme Court held in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the First Amendment does not protect individuals from defamation suits if they make a false claim “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” For the reasons explained below, a similar rule should apply to Trump.

First Paragraph: Where in the First Amendment does it say that Freedom of Speech only applies if the subject matter of the underlying speech is truthful? In fact, being forced to ONLY say truthful things would be the exact opposite of Free Speech. Of course you're Constitutionally allowed to lie.

Second Pargraph: This has nothing to do with anything. He's not being impeached on grounds that he committed defamation.

Quote:

Finally, some of Trump’s statements — such as a January 6 speech where he told his supporters to “fight like hell” and that “you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong” — may constitute incitement to imminent illegal action, which is not protected by the Constitution.

We've already discussed this. Politicians say, "Fight like hell," or, "Fight for xxxx," all the time without meaning that they actually want someone or someones to physically attack something or someone.

The article goes on to talk about more defamation cases as well as dismissal from employment, with only the second of those two things even being loosely applicable here. The second one is applicable only to the extent that they can bar him from future employment by way of Federal office, which is fine.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Impeachment itself is Unconstitutional.

The problem is that they want to Impeach on the grounds of, "Inciting an Insurrection," the first of which is a legal word with a clear criminal meaning. They could have called it anything they wanted to that DOESN'T refer to a criminal term with a pretty clear definition in criminal law. They chose, "Inciting an Insurrection," because it's, like, super dramatic and serious sounding and they're a bunch of hyper-dramatic ten year old girls.

So...I'm left with the definitions for, "Incitement," and for, "Insurrection." Okay, an insurrection definitely happened, so did Trump say something specific that would have incited such an insurrection? He didn't. He never said to attack anyone, destroy Government property, etc. etc...

Therefore, I would vote against this article of impeachment. That said, you could go for something like, "Dereliction of Duty," or even go with something to describe the same exact speech (and others) such as, "Conduct unbefitting a sitting President of the United States," and I'd be on board with voting to impeach on those grounds all day long and bar from holding future office.

The only reason that they don't is because it would set a precedent for all time that you could impeach and remove using, "Conduct Unbefitting..." as grounds for same. They'd be worried about doing that because it would create something that could be abused in the future as you now have to ask, "What sort of conduct is unbefitting a sitting POTUS?"

Well, the answer is simply: Any conduct that you think is unbefitting, because (much like Impeachment in the first place) it's pretty much left to the minds and opinions of the Representatives and Senators and has no clear definition---excepting bribery and treason.

So...they wanted to strike a balance of trying to use a word that might arguably describe Trump's conduct (even though I don't believe it does) while leaving it specific enough that it couldn't easily be applied to anyone else.

Quote: rxwine

Plenty of people have been convicted on a preponderance of evidence in regular trials. This means, no actual smoking gun, but other evidence. Shouldn't that be a factor?

It's pretty common for people to try to get rid of the direct evidence. But we still get convictions on other evidence.

Preponderance of the evidence is the civil standard for conviction or to find against a Defendant. To the extent that this is essentially the equivalent of a civil trial, that's fine, but I don't even think it meets that standard of proof.