Impeachment of Trump, Part Deux

[jclay]

Snippets from CNN this afternoon: House Democrats are planning to introduce an impeachment resolution on Monday, a move that would allow Democrats to fast-track an impeachment vote next week, though Democrats have not committed yet to holding such a vote. The latest draft of the impeachment resolution, obtained by CNN, includes one article of impeachment for "incitement of insurrection."

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who led the impeachment probe in 2019, made clear to his caucus the realities of moving ahead with impeachment now and the potential pitfalls. His concern: the precedent of fast-tracking an impeachment and the perception that House Democrats were attempting to protect Biden by trying to prevent Trump from running again, according to multiple sources on call."

From me: I call bullshit; what he's worried about has already been bought; it is a sunk cost. The perceptions of Trumpians have long been the turd at the bottom of the toilet; it can't go any lower and it doesn't matter if it could. This event requires an iron fisted response and one essential element of it is to grow the backbone to ram impeachment through with alacrity.

Folks need to be ringing their representative's phones, as well as Mr. Schiff's, off the hook to make the point clear.

[Mabouya]

As much as I agree that Trump should be made to pay a price for his anti-democratic behavior (finally!) IMO it's like throwing a player out of a game with 2 seconds left on the clock, something with marginal utility.

Personally, I think time and effort would be much better spent on shoring up the electoral process, and make it way more difficult to votes to be ignored. Where would we be if Republican officials in places like GA had not stood up to Trump? THAT's what needs to be fixed.

[gregl]

As much as I agree that Trump should be made to pay a price for his anti-democratic behavior (finally!) IMO it's like throwing a player out of a game with 2 seconds left on the clock, something with marginal utility.

Personally, I think time and effort would be much better spent on shoring up the electoral process, and make it way more difficult to votes to be ignored. Where would we be if Republican officials in places like GA had not stood up to Trump? THAT's what needs to be fixed.

The utility of successfully impeaching Trump is that he could never run for President again. It would reinforce our Governmental policy as set forth in the Constitution and act as a deterrent for future wannabe dictators. If a player makes a flagrant foul with 2 seconds left, you still need to eject them from the game. Agreed that the rest of the electoral process needs strengthening. Let's start with elimination of gerrymandering and getting Citizens United overturned!

Greg

[Mark Kelly]

The disqualification vote is separate from the conviction vote.

I thought it had less chance of success as it also required a 2/3 majority but it turns out it only requires a simple majority according to Justia.

[theflashunc]

There also needs to be clear precedent set that even if the clock runs out, an insurrection attempt by a President against the government is met with an immediate response.

To not do so is a complete abdication of responsibility.

[sine]

There also needs to be clear precedent set that even if the clock runs out, an insurrection attempt by a President against the government is met with an immediate response.

To not do so is a complete abdication of responsibility.

I agree with this. This bloke needs to go away.....politically.

[72gmc]

I’ve read that even if the removal from office vote is made moot by the end of his term, the disqualification vote can still be held. That is a very good reason to proceed.

[ides1056]

Additionally:

He loses his pension and all financial benefits.

He loses Secret Service protection.

He is no longer privy to intelligence briefings.

These are good enough reasons to go through with it.

[robin3mj]

Not to mention the oh so minor fact that all of the Congress and the VP had to shelter in place in their workplace due to the actions of the POTUS. And not responding to that sets a ridiculously awful precedent for US democracy as a whole.
Where’s the tipping point? One dead cop is OK, but if they’d managed to punch a Congressman, THAT would have been over the line?

I can’t believe the call to Raffensberger was only a week ago.

[OnTheEllipse]

Not to mention the oh so minor fact that all of the Congress and the VP had to shelter in place in their workplace due to the actions of the POTUS. And not responding to that sets a ridiculously awful precedent for US democracy as a whole.
Where’s the tipping point? One dead cop is OK, but if they’d managed to punch a Congressman, THAT would have been over the line?

I can’t believe the call to Raffensberger was only a week ago.

I thought that when Congress reconvened, after the attempt on their lives, every single one of them would change their vote, join in song like after 9/11 and not leave until Trump was escorted out. How naive of me. The fact that any less happened is sheer madness. The fact that they went back in and doubled down has me concerned about the stability of the country.

If the confederates had access to a plane, is there any doubt they would have tried to fly it into the Capitol instead? The GOP is a terrorist orginazation.

[mg2ride]

... Congress reconvened, after the attempt on their lives,....

This a sample of why we will never have unity. Ridiculously, over dramatized story telling. By both sides BTW. It makes many people discount everything else said.

[Mark Walberg]

Isn't the penalty for treason still death?

[claritycycler]

I believe treason is aiding a foreign country/power against the US, if anything trump's actions are worse.

[9tubes]

Additionally:

He loses his pension and all financial benefits.

He loses Secret Service protection.

He is no longer privy to intelligence briefings.

These are good enough reasons to go through with it.

Do these things happen if he is impeached (Congress votes to approve articles of impeachment) or only if he is convicted of the impeachment charges?

[Tom]

He can be disqualified. In several previous instances people were disqualified from holding future office by a simple majority vote of the Senate.

You know if they do it, Giuliani will have a meltdown and start filing court motions like confetti. But you know they'll do that if he's convicted, too, so what the heck.

[Clean39T]

He can be disqualified. In several previous instances people were disqualified from holding future office by a simple majority vote of the Senate.

You know if they do it, Giuliani will have a meltdown and start filing court motions like confetti. But you know they'll do that if he's convicted, too, so what the heck.

Hopefully Giuliani will be disbarred shortly....

[BBB]

Additionally:

He loses his pension and all financial benefits.

He loses Secret Service protection.

He is no longer privy to intelligence briefings.

These are good enough reasons to go through with it.

I'm curious about the intelligence briefing part. Given Trump's apparent lack of a filter, providing him with on-going intelligence briefings would appear to be a security risk. If he is not actually impeached, is this something that the incoming administration can withhold? As I recall Trump took steps to have security clearances torn up when people spoke out against him. Can an ex-President's security clearance be taken away without an impeachment?

[ides1056]

Ex-Presidents are routinely briefed.

[claritycycler]

Can an ex-President's security clearance be taken away without an impeachment?

Anyone know? I can't imagine trump sitting through a briefing when he pretty much checked out paying attention to them when he was in office.

[Sino]

Anyone know? I can't imagine trump sitting through a briefing when he pretty much checked out paying attention to them when he was in office.

Technically in any position that requires a clearance, once that position ends, so does the clearance unless you move into another position that requires a clearance. With any clearance, "need to know" is part of the rules, so just because you have a top secret clearance for example, doesn't mean you can get access to any information (including less than your clearance level- top secret clearance can't access secret information outside their projects/work for example), beyond your specific scope of work/responsibility.

However, ex-presidents and I *believe* senators and congressmen can still be provided with classified information on a need to know basis without a clearance. Trump will most likely continue to receive classified information about potential threats to him and his family, however beyond that, most likely nothing. He could be consulted as an expert with unique insight, but the chances of any of the next administrations doing that seems pretty slim.

Everyone who has a clearance knows there are severe penalties for breaking the rules, (unless you're Hilary Clinton, but that's another topic altogether and very irksome to anyone who's had a clearance, but I digress).

Should Trump disclose absolutely any classified information for the remainder of his lifetime (including declassified publicly available information) he will be subject to prosecution.