Impeachment Trial - Not Guilty Enough

Trump's first pleading misspells "United States" in the fifth line in (before the argument even starts). "To: The Honorable, the Members of the Unites States Senate"

45th-presidents-answer-to-article-of-impeachment-final.pdf (45office.com)


he has the best people


They repeated the same typo on Page 9. You would think they would at least have some associate proofread the document.


I find the whole "you can't impeach a private citizen" argument pretty compelling - if I was a republican.  At least they're publicly admitting that he isn't president.

If this does pass - then it will give presidents free reign to do as they wish in their remaining few months in office.

Unfortunately - we all know the outcome.  Lindsay and crew are desperate to get right to the vote and get it over with.


First of all, he was impeached while he was President.  History has shown that resignation doesn't protect you from a trial and conviction.


I think the question of whether former presidents can be impeached is a real question -- some commenters I've seen on the left have written with an attitude dismissive of the issue, which I don't agree with. Having said that, to my mind the case for moving forward with Trump's impeachment is pretty strong to my mind.

First, I agree with Steve -- I think the fact that the actual impeachment happened while he was president is significant.

A response to this might be to claim that even though the impeachment was legitimate, the case is moot now that Trump is out of office, but I think that's undermined by the fact that upon conviction a president can be barred from future office.

Between these two facts -- that Trump was impeached while still in office, and that the Senate must decide whether he should be prevented from becoming president (or any other federal office) in the future, I think the case for a Senate trial is pretty solid.


For precedent, Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached while holding office, resigned, and was then tried by the Senate.


Steve said:

For precedent, Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached while holding office, resigned, and was then tried by the Senate.

 I expect Trump's trial will follow that precedent -- he will avoid conviction, with at least some of those voting to acquit citing their belief that the Senate does not have jurisdiction.


On the substantive, rather than procedural, points, I think the most damning part of Trump's actions is how he behaved during the riot. The fact that he took no steps to try and calm the situation down for several hours, that he was reported to be very excited to see the mob in the Capitol, and that when he did finally speak he told the rioters "we love you, you're very special people" pretty thoroughly demolishes any attempt to distance he words at the rally from the riot that immediately followed.

One can hardly claim that calls to "fight" were merely rhetorical when, upon witnessing people taking your words literally, you express joy at their actions and unwillingness to de-escalate the situation.


Looks like the Dems are trying to get Trump to testify in person. I wonder if he will.

It would be quite the show if he did.


Donny would love to show up - he does anything for publicity.  Might be the biggest turnout EVER for a congressional hearing - how could he say no?


Anybody else thinking of The Caine Mutiny right now?


Trump says he won't show. Chicken.


drummerboy said:

Trump says he won't show. Chicken.

 Of course he won’t. If he lies under oath he could do time. The next step is subpoena. Would be interesting to hear him explain himself when he’s on video tape inciting a riot.


ml1 said:

Anybody else thinking of The Caine Mutiny right now?

 Or A Few Good Men 


nohero said:

 Or A Few Good Men 

 I can't resist that film. I'm sure I can recite about half the dialogue. G I Jane's another one. For a Peacenik, I do like my military movies.


Is George Costanza secretly Trump's attorney?


dave said:

Is George Costanza secretly Trump's attorney?

 all of these are bringing back memories of past MOL cons who used to come up with absurd defenses for George W.  I recall somebody trying to convince us that W didn't lie about WMD in Iraq because he really believed it was true.

The past few months have reminded me that Trumpism didn't spring up out of nowhere.  We've been on this path for decades, and conservatives have been excusing the inexcusable going back to Iran-Contra and even before ("when the president does it, that means it's not illegal.")


and in the midst of all of this, Trump decides to write an insane resignation letter to SAG-AFTRA:

Donald Trump Resigns From SAG-AFTRA After Union Moves to Expel Him


ml1 said:

and in the midst of all of this, Trump decides to write an insane resignation letter to SAG-AFTRA:

Donald Trump Resigns From SAG-AFTRA After Union Moves to Expel Him

 Not for nothing, but I wonder if that would interfere if he wanted to try and revive the Apprentice or create something like it.


I was wondering if his attorneys managed to persuade him not to appear (what a **** show that could be!).  Or maybe it was just an "I don't have to" thing.

And regarding the roots of unreality, i remember being shocked by a piece in the Times mag, probably in the days of W, first reading a president's advisor (maybe Rove?) quoted as saying "reality doesn't matter anymore."  Quote from memory, so sue me.  Truly shocked, not "shocked! shocked!"


mjc said:

I was wondering if his attorneys managed to persuade him not to appear (what a **** show that could be!).  Or maybe it was just an "I don't have to" thing.

And regarding the roots of unreality, i remember being shocked by a piece in the Times mag, probably in the days of W, first reading a president's advisor (maybe Rove?) quoted as saying "reality doesn't matter anymore."  Quote from memory, so sue me.  Truly shocked, not "shocked! shocked!"

 

"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush, NYT Magazine 10/17/2004


I've never understood why that Rove quote was so shocking.

As a whole, it doesn't even make much sense, since the second part of the quote doesn't really follow from the first part, where he says "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." The second part, starting with "That's not the way the world really works anymore" has nothing to do with coming up with solutions.

The whole thing is pretty banal if you think about it. And if he hadn't used the phrase "reality-based community", which is kind of catchy, the quote would have been forgotten.

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." What does that even mean?   No sh!t Sherlock. Of course when you act you create a "reality".

It was also, I think, widely misinterpreted. People talked about it as if Rove was admitting there was a "reality-based community" on the one hand, and then there were the Bushies, who were not reality-based,  i.e. they just made stuff up willy-nilly completely un-tethered to reality, which is not what he was saying at all.


I took it as being in the tradition of "people of action" dismissing intellectuals and others who just observe after the fact, but with a much more aggressively arrogant tone.

And of course that arrogant overconfidence turned out to be completely, profoundly, tragically misplaced. I mean, even if the claims on WMD had turned out to be 100% correct, the whole "let's invade Iraq and turn it into a European style democracy" was always a stupid idea, as anyone in the "reality-based community" could, and did point out. And then on top of that terrible premise, the actual execution was a disaster. So I think all the chest thumping by the Bush team was completely deserving of all the scorn it incurred. Sure, there's a lot to be said for bold action rather than over analyzing a situation, but a proud disregard for  situational, historical, cultural, and political reality is generally going to end poorly.


The GQP Senators are starting their excuses for Trump.


I can't stop staring at Raskin's huge bald spot on the back of his head.


That was a potent video. I've seen clips many times but it still shocks me. 

Go Jamie Raskin!



Yeah, I'm surprised they didn't bleep out the curses.


The video.  Open and shut case.


so whats the deal with justice roberts recusing?  what does this ultimately mean to whatever decision results?  anything?



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.