Impeachment II thread

[lpetrich]

The Economist magazine's  Democracy Index compared to  List of countries by system of government

It's interesting which countries are high in the DI and what systems of governments they have. Nearly all of the highest scorers have a parliamentary system, where the legislature chooses the acting executive. I say "acting" executive, because such nations often have a ceremonial monarch or a ceremonial president.

I recently found this tidbit:

• Stronger Legislatures, Stronger Democracies | Journal of Democracy
• 1. Fish pp 5-20.pmd - StrongerLegislaturesStrongerDemocracy.pdf
• Measuring Legislative Power: An Expert Reweighting of the Fish‐Kroenig Parliamentary Powers Index - Chernykh - 2017 - Legislative Studies Quarterly - Wiley Online Library

The more powers a legislature has, the stronger the democracy. I'm currently extracting the numbers from those papers to check that assertion, but as far as I can tell, it holds up to within a lot of scatter.

Northern European nations typically score very high on the DI, and also in the PPI - about 0.7 - 0.8. The US scores about 0.6. One-party states like China and North Korea score about 0.3, and absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates score about 0.1.

 

[blastula]

to be clear, the 1st Amendment is a legit argument to bring up in the trial itself in defense of Trump and all of us. But any 1st amendment argument against the impeachment itself is dumb.

A First Amendment defense might work in criminal court, but is irrelevant to an impeachment trial. And it might not even work for Trump in a criminal court.

Constitutional Law Scholars on President Trump’s First Amendment Defense

Even if the principles of First Amendment law are applicable in the impeachment context (and many of us believe they are not), many of us believe there is an extraordinarily strong argument that the Supreme Court’s standards, articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio, for when the government may criminally punish an individual’s deliberate incitement of others to engage in imminent lawless acts are satisfied in this case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The world is in trouble if Obfuscation ever opened up to become an Olympic sport.

Well, you heard what he said on January the 6th, which was not 'go down and fight.' It was that we were supposed to fight and then they'd fight us in the primary if it didn't work out that way.

link

I don't think I can ever vote for a Republican for the decades to come. The GOP is godless (odd choice at this web board, but it feels right) and amoral.

 

[Gospel]

to be clear, the 1st Amendment is a legit argument to bring up in the trial itself in defense of Trump and all of us. But any 1st amendment argument against the impeachment itself is dumb.

A First Amendment defense might work in criminal court, but is irrelevant to an impeachment trial. And it might not even work for Trump in a criminal court.

Constitutional Law Scholars on President Trump’s First Amendment Defense

Even if the principles of First Amendment law are applicable in the impeachment context (and many of us believe they are not), many of us believe there is an extraordinarily strong argument that the Supreme Court’s standards, articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio, for when the government may criminally punish an individual’s deliberate incitement of others to engage in imminent lawless acts are satisfied in this case.

Alright so the First Amendment actually says;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances except if the people are the president of the United States..

I always knew the constitution had some redacted sections. The senate is a part of Congress and Congress can't make a law that abridges the freedom of speech so one would think the senate (in charge of the impeachment trial) can't abridge Freedom of speech during the impeachment trial.

That's just me using my negative ten IQ, so take it with a grain of salt. Full disclosure, I Don't believe Trump should be held accountable, I also don't believe there won't be any negative effects on the impeachment process moving forward regardless of whether congress acquits or convicts Trump.

If Trump is convicted, every President (and member of the government that are impeachable) will have to be very careful with what they say and to whom because anyone can organize a riot using Facebook, a few choice words from said representative and go ape shit in their name.

If Trump is not convicted, it means situations like what happened with Trump won't be discouraged unless extremely heavy sentences are laid out for those who participated in the insurrection (which I think is the better option).

That's my insane take.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's an impeachment.
One does not have to actually commit a crime to be impeached.

You can impeach for anything, if enough people think it's unbecoming or besmirches the office of President, or violates the spirit of his oath.
You can impeach him for his hair, if it makes enough people laugh at the office.


The question is NOT 'did he have a right to say x?'

The question is, 'should Trump be allowed to be president if he says things like x?'
Especially if X gets people killed in an attempt to overthrow democracy.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The world is in trouble if Obfuscation ever opened up to become an Olympic sport.

Well, you heard what he said on January the 6th, which was not 'go down and fight.' It was that we were supposed to fight and then they'd fight us in the primary if it didn't work out that way.

link

I don't think I can ever vote for a Republican for the decades to come. The GOP is godless (odd choice at this web board, but it feels right) and amoral.

Did the word “primary” appear in Trump’s speech? The Republicans want us to take his speech literally and with no extra context, so they shouldn’t be adding color to it. More ridiculous hypocrisy in the three part of Republicans.

 

[Treedbear]

It's an impeachment.
One does not have to actually commit a crime to be impeached.

You can impeach for anything, if enough people think it's unbecoming or besmirches the office of President, or violates the spirit of his oath.
You can impeach him for his hair, if it makes enough people laugh at the office.


The question is NOT 'did he have a right to say x?'

The question is, 'should Trump be allowed to be president if he says things like x?'
Especially if X gets people killed in an attempt to overthrow democracy.

That's right. The claim isn't that he had no right to say the things that incited the riot. But the fact that by saying those things he clearly intended to do so demonstrated that he's not worthy to be POTUS. Or to hold any other elected position either. Which is why impeachment applies to someone who has held office, but isn't necessarily just about removing someone from office. The best way, and maybe the only way to prove that you aren't worthy is to violate the oath of office while holding one. Which is why Trump's lawyers were full of it when they claimed that denying him the ability to hold office in the future would be a slippery slope and would mean they could do the same thing to any other citizen. If you violate the oath one time then there's a good chance you'll do the same next time. That is unless you've demonstrated some remorse, etc., which is why it's an optional part of the impeachment procedure. But with Trump you never get remorse. Ever!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

My dream, the GOP Senate refuses to find Orango guilty of anything, or ban him from running. By 2024, Biden bows out and Kamala Harris runs for President. She wins her primary handily.

Trump runs again. The GOP primary is bizarre, well over the edge, nasty, vicious and Trump squeaks out a very narrow primary victory. And loses the Harris who get 406 electoral college votes. The GOP loses a lot of seats in the Senate and House.

All of this now seems like a nightmare. The GOP Senators, many of them, will bite their lips until they bleed, but will let Trump off the hook and seal their doom and the fate of the GOP. This could all be very, very entertaining.

 

[Treedbear]

...
All of this now seems like a nightmare. The GOP Senators, many of them, will bite their lips until they bleed, but will let Trump off the hook and seal their doom and the fate of the GOP. This could all be very, very entertaining.

As their destiny unfolds this morning the trial continues. And it seems that they are being given all the rope they asked for. Quorum call to figure out how many witnesses both sides will be allowed to summon. Due process anyone? Rep. Senator Tuberville soon be brown bread. Where are those rioters when you need them? Cry and cry again.

ETA - Sounds like defense attorney Van der Veen is worried he's going to be forced into doing this pro bono. Why were they all suddenly laughing? Where's Rudy? We want Rudy! We want Rudy! And what about Catch 22? Er, I mean Rule 23.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They gathered in DC that day because of him.

They went to the Capitol that day because of him.

And when they were in the building, he tweeted that Pence defied him. Pence... a former US Senator. A colleague. Fuck the GOP for the next several decades.

 

[blastula]

“When McCarthy finally reached the president on Jan. 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol,” Beutler said. “McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said, ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’”

And McCarthy still voted against impeachment.

Speaking of scumbags,

The vote came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) signaled that he will vote to acquit Trump.

 

[Shadowy Man]

“When McCarthy finally reached the president on Jan. 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol,” Beutler said. “McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said, ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’”

And McCarthy still voted against impeachment.

Speaking of scumbags,

The vote came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) signaled that he will vote to acquit Trump.

So, Mitch delayed the trial until after Trump was out of office, saying it needed to not be rushed, then says well you can’t convict a former President. Total dick move.

 

[lpetrich]

Acyn Torabi on Twitter: "Williams: Well at least a long the way we got to hear from senators Depp and Madonna (vid link)" / Twitter

Donald Trump’s Lawyer Plays Madonna, Johnny Depp Remarks In Effort To Equate Democrats’ Rhetoric To Former President’s Calls To “Fight”

PREVIOUSLY: Donald Trump’s lawyers argued today that Democrats have often used the same kind of provocative rhetoric that Democrats say the former president employed to incite the Jan. 6 Capitol siege. One clip package his legal team showed interspersed “fight” remarks made by Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden with anti-Trump pronouncements made by Madonna and Johnny Depp.

Depp was shown saying, “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” That was from an event in 2017, and Depp later apologized.

Another snippet was from the Women’s March that year, in which Madonna was shown telling the crowd, “I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.” She later said that the remark was taken out of context.

Manu Raju on Twitter: "Democrats kick off impeachment trial with video of Jan. 6, showing Trump's remarks at the rally followed by the violent and deadly insurrection in the Capitol.
"Senators, the president was impeached by the U.S. House of representatives January 13th for doing that," Raskin says (link)" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: ".@RepRaskin makes us all so proud.

This is truly who he is. A man of great, unabiding love for our country and our democracy, who fights for everyone and our collective future." / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Amanda Terkel on Twitter: "Trump’s impeachment lawyer warns that convicting Trump could bring about a second civil war https://t.co/1UGHiyIuqi" / Twitter
noting
Trump Lawyer: Impeachment Could Bring About A Second Civil War | HuffPost

David Schoen, one of lawyers defending Donald Trump against impeachment charges, warned senators on Tuesday that convicting the former president could bring about a second civil war.

Schoen accused Democrats of knowing that “the so-called trial will tear the country in half, leaving tens of millions of Americans feeling left out of the nation’s agenda, as dictated by one political party that now holds the power in the White House and in our national legislature.”

“This trial will tear this country apart, perhaps like we’ve only seen once before in our history,” he added.

What an argument.

 

[SLD]

Amanda Terkel on Twitter: "Trump’s impeachment lawyer warns that convicting Trump could bring about a second civil war https://t.co/1UGHiyIuqi" / Twitter
noting
Trump Lawyer: Impeachment Could Bring About A Second Civil War | HuffPost

David Schoen, one of lawyers defending Donald Trump against impeachment charges, warned senators on Tuesday that convicting the former president could bring about a second civil war.

Schoen accused Democrats of knowing that “the so-called trial will tear the country in half, leaving tens of millions of Americans feeling left out of the nation’s agenda, as dictated by one political party that now holds the power in the White House and in our national legislature.”

“This trial will tear this country apart, perhaps like we’ve only seen once before in our history,” he added.

What an argument.

Wow! If I made threat of violence like that in a courtroom, I would be disbarred and found guilty of contempt of court. That is stunning. Actually he should be found in contempt and disbarred. It doesn’t matter what the proceeding.

BTW, Ipetrich. Sent you a private note! Lemme know!

 

[lpetrich]

BillMoyers.com on Twitter: "During the video of the insurrection, Trump supporters Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) looked at papers on their desks, Rick Scott (R-FL) looked at papers on his lap, and Rand Paul (R-KY) doodled. (link)" / Twitter
This seems very lackadaisical. Weren't they afraid of getting lynched by that mob? Or if they didn't expect to be lynched, then why did they expect that mob to spare them?


Lindsey Graham told Donald Trump the impeachment case 'is over' - Washington Times - datelined Feb 10, about a phone call the previous night.

That day, he tweeted
Lindsey Graham on Twitter: "The 'Not Guilty' vote is growing after today.

I think most Republicans found the presentation by the House Managers offensive and absurd." / Twitter
A presentation about a mob that he howled about when that mob attacked?

Marie Newman on Twitter: "What is actually offensive and absurd? @GOPSenate ignoring the truth and the presentation." / Twitter

 

[Deepak]

“When McCarthy finally reached the president on Jan. 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol,” Beutler said. “McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said, ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’”

And McCarthy still voted against impeachment.

Speaking of scumbags,

The vote came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) signaled that he will vote to acquit Trump.

The tacit threat, of course, is that there's still a lot of Trump's goon squad out there and they'll get to McCarthy sooner or later if he votes wrong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The House Managers have failed to push very hard that this attack was on one of them... that they were chanting for their Republican colleague to die. And Trump tweeted that Pence had failed him after they had made it into the Capitol. Even then, that probaby wouldn't make a difference, but it could swing a little more public support against Trump and his role in this.

I fear where this country's democracy is heading when the GOP refuses to hold Trump accountable for his blatant actions running up to, on the day of, during it, and after it. The party ax'd Nixon for so much less.

 

[abaddon]

Is it really fear that holds the Repub congresspersons "in thrall" of Trump, as many journalists keep suggesting?

I suspect that for at least some it's more like envy. They see an insurrection at the capitol incited by Trump and think "now THAT is power!" They jeer at Dems complaining about morality and justice because they want access to the same power (the ability to control useful idiots with lies). And since they're "I'll believe whatever I like" idiots themselves, that it might weaken their party (maybe even split it) isn't a concern.

 

[lpetrich]

Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "Trump told insurrectionists to go to the Capitol and fight like hell. They did.

They brought bombs and killed people. They were armed. They had nooses, zip ties, and pipes. They chanted “Hang Mike Pence" and hunted the Speaker.

Senators must do what is right and convict Trump. (vid link)" / Twitter
She said that Trump's lawyers did a "terrible performance" and that they had a "terrible client", and that many Republicans have "a cult of one man". Something like Sen. Ben Sasse saying "Politics is not about the weird worship of one dude"


Trump can't hang on to lawyers after false election claims

Since losing the November election to President Joe Biden, Trump has been hemorrhaging attorneys. Established firms backed away from his baseless claims of election fraud. Those he did retain made elementary errors in cases that were quickly rejected as meritless. His personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was ridiculed for his performance before a federal judge during one election-related case.

His legal options contesting the election exhausted, Trump still needed a team to represent him in his historic second impeachment trial on a charge that he incited the deadly Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot. A team of South Carolina lawyers was retained, then backed out, so Trump was left with a lawyer from Pennsylvania and another from Alabama, giving them only days to prepare.

Then about the awful performance of Trump's lawyers at his Senate trial.

It's hard to feel sorry for Trump about his inability to get good lawyers. I recall from somewhere that some lawyers grumble that Trump won't keep quiet about litigation. Also, he is known to stiff his lawyers.