Impeachment 2: Orange Tub of Goo

[Z Buck McFate]

I'm hard pressed to believe there isn't already an impeachment discussion happening, and it's 95% likely I just can't find it, but here we are.

NPR: 'I Said The Opposite': Criticism Of Trump's Impeachment Defense Intensifies

A constitutional law professor whose work is cited extensively by former President Donald Trump's lawyers in their impeachment defense brief says his work has been seriously misrepresented.

In a 78-page brief filed in the U.S. Senate on Monday, Trump's lawyers rely heavily on the work of Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt, author of the seminal article about impeachment of a former president. His work is cited 15 times in the Trump brief, often for the proposition that the Senate does not have the authority under the Constitution to try an impeached former president.

The problem is that Kalt's 2001 book-length law review article concluded that, on balance, the historical evidence is against Trump's legal argument.

"The worst part is the three places where they said I said something, when, in fact, I said the opposite," Kalt said in an interview with NPR.
​

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Raskin started the hearings with this:

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm hard pressed to believe there isn't already an impeachment discussion happening, and that it's 95% likely I just can't find it, but here we are.

Not sure what there is to discuss at this point.

He should be convicted, or there is no impeachable crime that could ever be charged in our country.
Even if they were just going on the professionalism / arguments by the lawyers, he should so far be convicted.
But he's going to walk, for various reasons. The fix is in.

It's despicable, and depressing, and I'm blocking much of it out as yet another failed exercise in the political process.

Looks like we'll have to do all this the hard way, through grassroots conversion of each of the little areas of the country that are building this impenetrable wall.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I'm not seeing a whole lot of discussion anywhere of how to hold him accountable as a private citizen - if it's available, what the charges would be exactly, what the likely outcomes would be, etc.

There's this huge vacuum between "there needs to be accountability, it's just insane to set a precedent of literally absolute carte blanche for the last month or so of a POTUS's term" and "the only reason to impeach is to remove from office, so it's redundant". Surely if a private citizen (with a huge, overzealous cult following) exercised their "free speech" to incite a mob to invade the Capital carrying guns and zip ties for restraint - killing at least one cop - surely there would be consequences for that? If one private citizen used his "free speech" to encourage violence and push a lie that ends up costing the government over half a billion dollars in total damage, surely there'd be consequences?

I just wish there was more discussion about that vacuum between the two extremes. I'm personally probably not 100% invested in impeachment conviction per se being the consequence, so long as there IS sufficient consequence.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Because the thing is, I'm *not* a legal expert on the Constitution and/or impeachment (for all the people who jump headfirst into these conversations with a strong opinion and unmerited confidence, very few know what they're talking about). There was a great deal of emphasis yesterday on how it's imperative there be consequences (and rightfully so); I'd like to know why an impeachment conviction is preferable to being tried as a private citizen.

 

[Totenkindly]

Because the thing is, I'm *not* a legal expert on the Constitution and/or impeachment (for all the people who jump headfirst into these conversations with a strong opinion and unmerited confidence, very few know what they're talking about). There was a great deal of emphasis yesterday on how it's imperative there be consequences (and rightfully so); I'd like to know why an impeachment conviction is preferable to being tried as a private citizen.

I don't know the specific issues either, although it would be a basis to prevent him from running against in 2024 if his attention span holds up for four years and he doesn't die of poor health by then.

I'm fine with him also being charged as a private citizen, as long as it generates consequences of some kind equitable to the crimes committed. I don't see how anyone can claim he didn't stoke an insurgency. We have so much documentation of this.

Do people get that if the law continues to not hold people accountable for crimes against the country, then this is how everything devolves and people starting finding their own ways to hold people accountable? The law was supposed to provide a fair, impartial means of justice, to head off all the crazy stuff.

 

[The Cat]

 

[ceecee]

The GOP argument against impeachment is basically "you can do crimes at work if you've already turned in your two weeks notice."

 

[ceecee]

Not impeachment related per se but it runs parallel.

Georgia Prosecutors Open Criminal Probe of Trump’s Call Urging Secretary of State to ‘Find’ Votes – NBC Chicago

Fulton County prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn Georgia's election results, including his call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, NBC News reports.

The probe, first reported by The New York Times, comes two days after Raffensperger's office confirmed it had opened its own investigation into a phone call between Trump and the state's top elections official in which the then-president said he wanted to “find” enough votes to overturn his loss in the state.

 

[ceecee]

Apparently - Trump reviewed the permit for the rally at the Ellipse, which originally did not include marching to the US Capitol - and had it revised to allow that.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Ted Lieu: "I'm not afraid of Trump running again in four years. I'm afraid he's going to run again in four years, lose, and do all this again."

 

[Jaguar]

Wait, this woman is still on? My god. Kill me now!

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I missed yesterday because I had too many things to do. Is the actual trial available anywhere after the fact? I'd prefer to watch the actual trial.

From what I hear, yesterday was even more upsetting? If so, I'll need to break yesterday's watch up into several pieces. This is wrenching to watch.

ETA: I don't even have a broadcast antenna hooked up to my TV (and I'm not hooked up to any kind of cable service), so the only available source I can find on my TV is ABC News coverage on HULU - which sucks, it keeps freezing. I can't even find an option on the PBS app to watch. I wonder why it's more difficult to find coverage of this impeachment than the one last year. (I can find an option on my phone NPR app, but not the PBS app on the TV). (And that's the story about how Z Buck figured out she should install the NPR app on her TV).

 

[Jaguar]

Your post is confusing. Do you want to watch it live right now or what happened yesterday?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I was looking for suggestions on where to find yesterday's footage and how to find a better source live. (I resolved the live thing on my own).

 

[Jaguar]

I was looking for suggestions on where to find yesterday's footage and how to find a better source live. (I resolved the live thing on my own).

Did you check out c-span.org?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Did you check out c-span.org?

Thanks. Found C-Span channel on the YouTube app, this is the best stream. And it looks like I'll be able to watch yesterday's too.

 

[Deprecator]

I envy those who get to watch it live... the evidence for impeachment is obviously pure gold.

 

[Jaq]

Wait, this woman is still on? My god. Kill me now!

Jaguar, I think we should play a drinking game. Take a shot every time we see Trump's lawyers essentially just trying to earn their paycheck.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

From a surprising source: Washington Examiner. Coach Tuberville blew the whistle on Donald Trump

The House impeachment managers already have built a strong and massive case. They convincingly have argued that Trump bore significant blame for recklessly riling up an angrily chanting mob to make a show of “force” to intimidate Congress into refusing to complete the electoral vote count. Not even they, though, had closed the loop of responsibility entirely. Trump’s defenders still could have offered excuses, extremely thin yet sounding at least plausible, why Trump’s culpability was limited enough to avoid Senate conviction.

Tuberville’s report takes away those excuses. Trump knew then Pence was in danger, but he kept inciting the mob against his own loyal lieutenant. The mob came within a minute of reaching its target.

Trump should be convicted, forthwith.
​

No mention of all the other officials being targeted (i.e. Democrats), so it's still portraying the situation as less severe than it was, but if that's what it takes to convince a few people then so be it.