Articles of Impeachment officially drafted against President Trump

Unimportant · Jan 10, 2021

cbenoi1 said:
Trump has been cut off from media. He is hiding in the White House. The indicment is coming so he's negotiating the last remains of his presidency. Forget 2024. Cross his heart. Really. Biden will get his fucking transition, the last 11 days of it (as if this is going to change anything at this point for Biden). The beast is in chains. Alone and desperate. No escape his destiny. No more harm can possibly come out the man nor his minions with the little time he has left.

Did you skip a /s? If not: The beast is alone and desperate, but still has massive powers and can do a lot of harm with executive orders and pardons. After his 'little time left' he can continue to have rallies and whip up mobs, all the while enjoying a pension, million dollar a year travel budget, and SS guards. Impeach and convict, or 25 him. He'll lose the SS detail and the $$$, which would go to Pence along with a few days of the Presidency -- and honestly I think Pence is gonna be in more need of SS protection over the next year than most people.

cbenoi1 · Jan 10, 2021

Unimportant said:
Did you skip a /s?

I was being sarcastic.

-cb

Chris P · Jan 11, 2021

Article of impeachment to be introduced at 11 am EST today. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/house-democrats-impeachment-plans/index.html

"Incitement of insurrection" to be the only article. Being that the House might wait until after Biden's first 100 days to send to the Senate, removing Trump before January 20 is not the objective.

I'm torn on the all or none approach. On one hand, the case (to me anyway) is a slam-dunk and being focused might be the best way to get it through quickly with the most concurrence both sides of the aisle. On the other hand, Trump defenders could argue Trump was raising credible (to them) uncertainties about the election security, and that Trump although saying to march to the Capitol did not say "storm it," his "we love you" comments after the fact aside. With a single charge, I'm biting my nails that one technicality could result in acquittal.

RichardGarfinkle · Jan 11, 2021

Chris P said:
Article of impeachment to be introduced at 11 am EST today. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/house-democrats-impeachment-plans/index.html

"Incitement of insurrection" to be the only article. Being that the House might wait until after Biden's first 100 days to send to the Senate, removing Trump before January 20 is not the objective.

I'm torn on the all or none approach. On one hand, the case (to me anyway) is a slam-dunk and being focused might be the best way to get it through quickly with the most concurrence both sides of the aisle. On the other hand, Trump defenders could argue Trump was raising credible (to them) uncertainties about the election security, and that Trump although saying to march to the Capitol did not say "storm it," his "we love you" comments after the fact aside. With a single charge, I'm biting my nails that one technicality could result in acquittal.

There are no technicalities in a Senate trial for impeachment. The Chief Justice (even though he's presiding) has no power to dismiss the case. And because the trial will be held after the change to the new Senate, the Republicans will have no power in setting how the trial will go and what evidence and testimony will be allowed. They also have no power to prevent it being televised and livestreamed.

What there is is a record of how each Senator voted. Using Insurrection as the only article means that each Senator has to go on record as saying whether they approve of having a mob sent to invade the capital and put all of their lives at risk.

I think the weirdest thing about this trial is that each member of the jury (the Senate) is also a witness and many of them are probably co-conspirators.

Chris P · Jan 11, 2021

CNN Fact Check on the perks Trump would lose if impeached.

tl;dr: Impeachment by the House affects nothing, removal by the Senate affects some things, subsequent actions by Congress affect more.

Roxxsmom · Jan 11, 2021

It's correct that impeachment by itself doesn't stop a former POTUS from running again, if they have a term left. That would have to be decided in the Senate if they vote to convict. I would hope that they would make that stipulation, though. Why should someone whose malfeasance led to an impeachment and conviction ever be given a chance to repeat their crimes?

Chris P · Jan 11, 2021

Roxxsmom said:
It's correct that impeachment with conviction by itself doesn't stop a former POTUS from running again, if they have a term left. That would have to be decided in the Senate if they vote to convict. I would hope that they would make that stipulation, though. Why should someone whose malfeasance led to an impeachment and conviction ever be given a chance to repeat their crimes?

My wife pointed out the CNN Fact Checker missed something: Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment (adopted 1868):

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

tl;dr: If you've taken an oath and then engaged in insurrection, you can't be elected again unless Congress says so.

Seems to me removal from office for "inciting of insurrection" would qualify for this prohibition on office holding. I don't see why CNN's analysts think a simple-majority vote would impose the penalty. Thoughts anyone?

History tidbit: Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederacy, fits this description almost to the letter: He served in the U.S. House from 1842 to 1859, served as Jefferson Davis's veep during the war, came back to the U.S. House for Georgia from 1873 to 1882, before becoming Georgia governor for four months in 1883, when he died. The only thing I can't find out is if Congress voted by 2/3 majority to allow him to run and be seated.

Roxxsmom · Jan 11, 2021

Hmmm, so if Trump were impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for inciting an insurrection attempt, he could be ineligible on those grounds.

That is a good point.

One source of confusion I've seen over and over is confounding the word "impeachment" with the process of conviction and removal as well. We've had three Presidents impeached in our history thus far, but none have (yet) been convicted by the Senate. Nixon would have been impeached, of course, and very likely convicted and booted, but he resigned.

Maybe it's because the 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1868, and they didn't make the penalties for rebellion retroactive?

As I understand it, though, Lincoln actually pardoned some of the former Confederate leaders, and of course Johnson issued a proclamation granting amnesty to most Confederates and restoring their property and rights as citizens. Lee was not pardoned, nor did he have his citizenship restored, but he was released from prison, as was Stephens. I don't know if Stephens was one of the Confederates Lincoln pardoned or not.

Stephens was elected to the Senate in 1866, but he wasn't allowed to take the seat because of restrictions on former Confederates. He was elected to the house in 1873 and was seated then. I'm guessing Stephens had his rights restored re Johnson's amnesty.

cbenoi1 · Jan 11, 2021

Roxxsmom said:
Hmmm, so if Trump were impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for inciting an insurrection attempt, he could be ineligible on those grounds.

So are a couple of representatives and senators, me guess. Like Ted Cruz et al.

-cb

Chris P · Jan 11, 2021

Roxxsmom said:
Stephens was elected to the Senate in 1866, but he wasn't allowed to take the seat because of restrictions on former Confederates. He was elected to the house in 1873 and was seated then. I'm guessing Stephens had his rights restored re Johnson's amnesty.

Britannica says Stephens wasn't seated in 1866 because Georgia hadn't yet reconstructed to Congress's guidelines. Of course, this was two years before the 14th Amendment was ratified. This article says Stephens was pardoned in 1865 by Johnson when he was released from prison. So maybe the 14th didn't apply to him by nature of the pardon?

Seems odd though to pass an amendment when everyone it applies to has been pardoned or granted amnesty, but that's politics for you.

We now return you to our current governmental meltdown.

Prozyan · Jan 11, 2021

Diana Hignutt said:
Speaking of the SCOTUS, Thomas needs to resign ASAP:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...omas-Aiding-Abetting-the-Capitol-Insurrection

Since his wife paid for 80 buses worth of domestic terrorists to go storm the Capitol.

Ginni Thomas certainly has many objectionable qualities and views, but this isn't remotely accurate or true.

frimble3 · Jan 11, 2021

Chris P said:
Seems odd though to pass an amendment when everyone it applies to has been pardoned or granted amnesty, but that's politics for you.

When the 'unthinkable' actually happens is when we actually think about it, and make provision for the future.
If the Founding Fathers had envisioned their brand-new, shiny country falling apart, they would have doubtless made arrangements, they were smart men. But, e pluribus unum, etc. They figured their only problems would be the British and the Original Inhabitants.

Diana Hignutt · Jan 11, 2021

Prozyan said:
Ginni Thomas certainly has many objectionable qualities and views, but this isn't remotely accurate or true.

There were multiple sources available stating this when I posted, but it has since been debunked. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. My apologies.

JJ Litke · Jan 11, 2021

Another really strong reason for impeachment and removal is that this is not over. Demonstrations are planned for all the state capitals between now and the inauguration.

This is a coup, and it’s still going on. We can’t ignore it and hope it will go away. The coup leaders must be stopped and held accountable. Anything less sends a message that they can keep getting away with attacks like this. There’s no better way to embolden and ensure more domestic terrorism.

Chris P · Jan 12, 2021

Washington Post provided the following analysis of Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Key parts for ease and avoiding paywall:

Ending Trump’s presidency under the 14th Amendment is probably impossible, scholars say, because there is no mechanism for removal in the provision. It could, however, be used to prevent Trump or other politicians who supported the attempted insurrection from holding office again.

snip

Gerard N. Magliocca, an Indiana University law school professor who has studied Section Three, said a majority vote in Congress would express lawmakers’ opinion that Section Three applies. The courts would then have to make that legal declaration.

“It’s not just something that Congress can do,” he said in an interview.

I'm not sure I completely understand this last part. Sure, upon a challenge the Court would need to rule that Sec 3 applies (Trump is sure to appeal it somehow), but until the court rules it doesn't or until Congress votes to remove the disability it applies automatically. I don't see how it can't, but I'm not the expert here.

Introversion · Jan 12, 2021

McConnell is said to be pleased about impeachment, believing it will be easier to purge Trump from the G.O.P.

NY Times said:
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has told associates that he believes President Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing that it will make it easier to purge him from the party, according to people familiar with his thinking. The House is voting on Wednesday to formally charge Mr. Trump with inciting violence against the country.

At the same time, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader and one of Mr. Trump’s most steadfast allies in Congress, has asked other Republicans whether he should call on Mr. Trump to resign in the aftermath of the riot at the Capitol last week, according to three Republican officials briefed on the conversations.

While Mr. McCarthy has said he is personally opposed to impeachment, he and other party leaders have decided not to formally lobby Republicans to vote “no,” and an aide to Mr. McCarthy said he was open to a measure censuring Mr. Trump for his conduct. In private, Mr. McCarthy reached out to a leading House Democrat to see if the chamber would be willing to pursue a censure vote, though Speaker Nancy Pelosi has ruled it out.

Taken together, the stances of Congress’s two top Republicans — neither of whom has said publicly that Mr. Trump should resign or be impeached — reflected the politically challenging and fast-moving nature of the crisis that the party faces after the assault by a pro-Trump mob during a session to formalize President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s electoral victory.

...

Liz Cheney, No. 3 House Republican, to vote to impeach Trump

CNN said:
Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, the party's third-ranking House leader, announced on Tuesday that she will vote to impeach President Donald Trump, becoming the highest-ranking official from her party to support charging and removing him from office following the Trump-incited riot at the Capitol last week.

In a statement, Cheney, a staunch conservative, said Trump was responsible for the death and destruction that day.

"The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President," said Cheney. "The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not."

"There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution," she added.

The House plans to vote on one article of impeachment Wednesday charging Trump with "incitement of insurrection," as it races toward making him the first President in history to be impeached twice. Cheney has said that the vote should be driven by one's conscience.

...

Introversion · Jan 12, 2021

House GOP leader fears Trump supporters may assassinate Republicans who vote to impeach

Raw Story said:
Republicans are increasingly worried they may be in danger for not following the demands of violent Trump supporters seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

"There is particular fear among Republicans in Trump-heavy districts who voted against the GOP's doomed bid to overturn the election results," Politico reported Monday. "Many came home last week to find constituents — preachers, school superintendents, churchgoing men and women — cheering on the effort rather than condemning it, according to multiple GOP lawmakers."

One Republican explained why Trump supporters are more dangerous than activists on the left.

"Both parties have extremists," the lawmaker told Politico. "There's a difference in our crazy people and their crazy people. Our crazy people have an excessive amount of arms. They have gun safes. They have grenades. They believe in the Second Amendment. They come here and Trump's made them think this is the Alamo."

Those worries are apparently shared by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), according to a new report by John McCormack of the conservative National Review.

"According to a GOP source on conference phone call yesterday, Kevin McCarthy warned members not to verbally attack colleagues who vote for impeachment because it could endanger their lives," McCormack reported.

...

Roxxsmom · Jan 12, 2021

Introversion said:
House GOP leader fears Trump supporters may assassinate Republicans who vote to impeach

So the takeaway is that he and others in his party are finally admitting that the thugs they helped radicalize are more dangerous than left-wing extremists because they have too many guns (gee, could this be because these same scared lawmakers have opposed any attempt at gun control)? I suppose he'll also use this an an excuse for saving his own skin over doing what is right?

Of course he'll say anything rather than admit his true agenda right now. McCarthy is a nasty piece of work, which is why he's his party's House leader. CA may be a "blue" state, but our Republicans can hold their own with the craziest of the crazy reactionaries from any state.

frimble3 · Jan 12, 2021

Perhaps this will be their excuse for suggesting a secret ballot, which means no-one will be accountable for anything?
Of course, in the eyes of the lunatic fringe, this will mean that everybody they don't like will be presumed guilty.

cbenoi1 · Jan 13, 2021

There should be a limit of one door per building and fitted with a metal detector. Occupants will have to use transparent bags and portfolios and pay for those on their own dime. Leaders will have to carry guns at all time and be trained appropriately. Office doors will be replaced with metal doors and desk be made of Kevlar so they can be easily turned over and used as a shield.

Only then will the Capitol be just as safe as a Florida highschool.

-cb

PS: Yes, this is sarcasm.

Bufty · Jan 13, 2021

Texas speech. What a surprise.

Every time this narcissistic *rump lunatic gets hold of a microphone he spews the same old vitriolic rhetoric destined to keep stirring the turmoil.

Lyv · Jan 13, 2021

cbenoi1 said:
There should be a limit of one door per building and fitted with a metal detector.[/QUOTE]
They installed new metal detectors through which Congress members have to pass, and, predictably, Republicans, who make sure schoolchildren have to do the same and be traumatized by active shooter drills, freaked out and behaved with all the emotional control and logic of pre-schoolers.

GOP lawmakers dodge metal detectors added after Capitol riots, blast them as an ‘atrocity’

The scene, first chronicled by CNN congressional reporter Ryan Nobles, was one of many tense interactions between GOP House members and Capitol police over the new security measures.

Some refused to go through the detectors. Others pushed past police after setting off the devices. One legislator even took to the House floor to call the measures “an atrocity.”

The complaints left Democrats fuming that Republicans were more concerned about basic security changes than investigating their party’s role in instigating the riot that necessitated the measures.

Click to expand...

To be fair, they're also far more concerned with losing social media followers than with the injured and dead. And once again, the "back the blue" crowd shows that was a meaningless slogan they weaponized.

Still, a group of GOP lawmakers ignored the new security measures. Matt Fuller, a HuffPost reporter, tweeted that he witnessed about a dozen Republicans walk around the magnetometer, including Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) and Rep. Randy Weber (R-Tex.). A handful barreled through, even if they set off the alarm, he reported.

Click to expand...

If that barreling through meant they made contact with Capitol Police, the offender should be in a jail cell.

I don't understand why these disgusting fools are allowed to endanger their colleagues by refusing to wear masks and refuse to submit to basic security measures. I don't understand why they want to, but I think that's my basic humanity preventing me from getting into their heads. And those poor Capitol Police officers, those who aren't sympathizers, having to deal with these idiots days after losing two of their own, while others are still injured.

Articles of Impeachment officially drafted against President Trump

No COVID yet. Still masking.

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

Nurture Phoenixes

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

Beastly Fido

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

Beastly Fido

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

Are you one, Herbert?

Heckuva good sport

Very Tired

People are not wearing enough hats

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!

Beastly Fido

Heckuva good sport

Where have the last ten years gone?

I meant to do that.