The Trump Card...

[RLENT]

Yes, pretty much.

Well, here is what I actually wrote:

"While I will allow that some were at the rally and were peaceful, the individuals who proceeded to the Capitol and then entered it violated Federal law."

I'm not seeing the "FEW" anywhere in there that you seem to want to attribute to me.

If the quoted line above is not the one that caused the triggering, feel free to quote correct line/word usage back at me that did.

 

[muttly]

Well, here is what I actually wrote:

"While I will allow that some were at the rally and were peaceful, the individuals who proceeded to the Capitol and then entered it violated Federal law."

I'm not seeing the "FEW" anywhere in there that you seem to want to attribute to me.

If the quoted line above is not the one that caused the triggering, feel free to quote it back at me.

Yeah that's it, some. Some were at the rally and were peaceful.
It should read most were peaceful and some were complete knuckleheads.

 

[RLENT]

Yeah that's it, some. Some were at the rally and were peaceful.
It should read most were peaceful and some were complete knuckleheads.

Well, when you starting writing the copy, you can make that call.

Most of what I've seen so far however are efforts to minimize what transpired and shift blame elsewhere.

I don't have a handle on what the total numbers were at the rally, so my comments largely addressed, were in reference to, and focused on, those that actually went to the Capitol itself. The rally attendance is just not something I've focused on.

I don't even have a good handle on the numbers at the Capitol for that matter ... but from what I've seen so far (and I have seen quite a bit), I'd guess that the numbers on the Capitol grounds were easily in the high hundreds, if not well over 1,000. Could be in the thousands.

You do understand that ANYONE who went inside the Capitol Building after the breach occurred - regardless of whether or not they were actually the ones breaking out windows and busting down doors - committed "Violent Entry" (of a restricted Federal building) ... right ?

 

[ATeam]

Your friends and neighbors aren't calm now?

Some are not. Those who flew Trump flags, spent weekends on Trump boat parades, and stood on street corners waving signs while dressed head to toe in MAGA gear are agitated and angry in their walk and talk. They stomp to the mail box when they walked more peacefully before. They wave nervously when they waved friendly before. It's tense. I avoid starting conversations with them when I used to start conversations before. I do that because there is no telling when they will shift into politics and go into a rant.

It's sad. When the last hurricane came through, we helped each other clean up the mess. Now we keep our distance because they have Trump fever which has yet to break.

In our area, most of the Trump flags have come down and the bumper stickers are coming off. But there are those who fiercely contend Trump won the election and are willing to keep fighting to keep Trump in office. As I said above, this is really hard for them. They are clinging fiercely to the story they believe while they watch the world move on as if another story is true.

 

[RLENT]

I've left the next door folks alone, although I have thought about stopping by and gently suggesting that maybe they might want to consider taking their Trump yard sign down.

Then figured I'd let it alone until after the Inauguration at least.

The other sign is tacked up on a tree, about 10' off the ground at the end of a long drive that goes to multiple homes. Not really sure whose it is, could be one families or multiple.

All the rest of the signs on my street - probably 6 - 8 or so - were taken down shortly after the election, within a couple of weeks.

It's not an easy subject to deal with for some I'm sure.

 

[Turtle]

The question was inherent in your stated position ("I'm not yet convinced ..." hence an uncertainty ... aka a question ... in your mind at least) ... so not really necessary for you to frame or state it in the form of an actual question, stated explicitly.

Please don't try and tell me what I mean. I know what I meant when I wrote it. The reason I know that is because I'm the one who wrote it and I wrote what I meant. If I had a question I would have, in fact, stated it explicitly. There was no inherent question hidden within my straightforward statement. The reason there was no inherent question is that I know full well that despite the reasonings, rationales, and various and sundry opinions, there is no definitive answer to the question of whether the Senate has the authority to convict and remove from office someone who no longer holds the office. It's never been done, it's never been tested to get a definitive answer.

See the case of impeachment of disgraced Secretary of War William Belknap, in 1876

I'm aware. Thank you, though.
He wasn't convicted, by the way. So there was no precedent set for removing someone from office after they already no longer hold the office.

And since SCOTUS says impeachments are non-justiciable, it would seem the issue is settled, in terms of the law.

So we have the law (via plain text of the Constitution, which you quoted), a SCOTUS ruling in terms of a legal precedent on the general matter (Jurisdiction and Authority of the Senate as trier of Impeachments) and all that remains at this point is whether enough members Senate have the will to act.

It's certainly a valid opinion, but it's not the only opinion nor the definitive opinion, as you alluded to with, "I wouldn't want to bet on which way it will go..." And it may end up being correct. But we don't know until it happens and either is or is not challenged. The Constitution makes it very clear that the president (and other civil officeholders) shall be removed from office upon Senate conviction for impeachment, and it also makes quite clear that Senate judgment cannot extend beyond removal from office (plus prohibition from holding future office, if the Senate so chooses). But the Constitution makes no mention of conviction and removal from office someone who is already out of office.

Such a judgement, it would seem, is outside the scope of the Constitution and calls into question the constitutional authority of the Senate to make that judgement. The Senate certainty has the authority to hold a trial, but they are tightly constrained in what they can do with it. One of the things they cannot do is remove someone from an office that the person on trial does not hold.

Can they do preemptive impeachments and convictions to prevent someone from running for office? If your opinion holds true, then it would certainly seem so. Congress has exercised its power to impeach three presidents, one senator, one cabinet official, and 15 federal judges already. A couple of years from now, if Mike Pompeo announces his run for president, what's to stop the House from impeaching him and the Senate from convicting him and ruling that he is prohibited from holding office, just to make sure he can't run for president?

 

[RLENT]

Please don't try and tell me what I mean. I know what I meant when I wrote it.

I didn't tell you what you meant - I told you what you said ... and what I inferred from that.

Sorry for the confusion.

If there is no uncertainty in your mind, please feel free to state as much.

The reason I know that is because I'm the one who wrote it and I wrote what I meant. If I had a question I would have, in fact, stated it explicitly. There was no inherent question hidden within my straightforward statement. The reason there was no inherent question is that I know full well that despite the reasonings, rationales, and various and sundry opinions, there is no definitive answer to the question of whether the Senate has the authority to convict and remove from office someone who no longer holds the office. It's never been done, it's never been tested to get a definitive answer.

How would you "test" something which SCOTUS says is non-justiciable ?

I'm aware. Thank you, though.

You're quite welcome.

He wasn't convicted, by the way. So there was no precedent set for removing someone from office after they already no longer hold the office.

The Senate does not need a "precedent" in order to exercise an Authority or Power which it inherently has.

The matter is non-justiciable, per SCOTUS in Nixon v. US (1993) - that is the controlling precedent.

It's certainly a valid opinion, but it's not the only opinion nor the definitive opinion, as you alluded to with, "I wouldn't want to bet on which way it will go..."

It's only a matter of whether the Senate has the political will to exercise their Authority.

The definitive opinion in this case will be what the Senate, as a body, decides to do.

That is as it should be - since impeachment is a political act.

And it may end up being correct. But we don't know until it happens and either is or is not challenged.

How ya gonna "challenge" something that SCOTUS precedent says is non-justiciable ?

The Constitution makes it very clear that the president (and other civil officeholders) shall be removed from office upon Senate conviction for impeachment, and it also makes quite clear that Senate judgment cannot extend beyond removal from office (plus prohibition from holding future office, if the Senate so chooses). But the Constitution makes no mention of conviction and removal from office someone who is already out of office.

So what ?

You're really focused on the incorrect thing (the consequence of a conviction vs. the actions that the conviction resulted from):

The Senate has the power to try and convict on a set of charges - and then deliver a sentence. This is a political act.

If the sentence is 1. removal from office and 2. disqualification from future office, then the first is moot (of no practical importance or consequence; irrelevant in a practical sense) for people who no longer hold office - since the party is already gone - while the second remains quite relevant.

However, where an individual still holds office, they are removed first (because the first step is to remove them from office) ... and then the disqualification occurs.

These are two separate steps.

One happens before the other.

Such a judgement, it would seem, is outside the scope of the Constitution and calls into question the constitutional authority of the Senate to make that judgement. The Senate certainty has the authority to hold a trial, but they are tightly constrained in what they can do with it. One of the things they cannot do is remove someone from an office that the person on trial does not hold.

That's true in a practical sense ... since the person no longer holds the office.

So it's moot at that point.

I think that maybe the difficulty here is too much focus on Article II, Section 4:

"President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

If that were the only thing the Constitution said on impeachment, then there might be something to the argument/point you seem to be making.

But if we go to Article I, Section 3 we see that it says:

"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States"

This shows that there are two distinct remedies the Senate is deliberating on:

1. Removal from office

and

2. Disqualification from holding any future Federal office.

They are clearly separate issues - as evidenced by the fact that of the 8 officers that the Senate voted to remove, it subsequently voted to disqualify only 3 of them from future office.

Can they do preemptive impeachments and convictions to prevent someone from running for office?

At the Federal level, yes I suppose.

But I suspect that barring a good case, the political will to do so would be nil.

If your opinion holds true, then it would certainly seem so. Congress has exercised its power to impeach three presidents, one senator, one cabinet official, and 15 federal judges already. A couple of years from now, if Mike Pompeo announces his run for president, what's to stop the House from impeaching him and the Senate from convicting him and ruling that he is prohibited from holding office, just to make sure he can't run for president?

The only things I know of would be a good case and the political will to do so.

But I do have to say, I'm really liking the way you are thinking ...

 

[dalscott]

No where near the same amount and with all the apparatus the Left had. Not even close. Are you willing today least be honest enough to admit that the Left undermined his Presidency from day 1? Yes or no?

No more than you did with Obama or Clinton. We never had a meeting at the caucus house restaurant and all but signed a blood oath to block everything that he did, including things that we agreed with.
I remember sitting in my delivery van while Clinton was President elect listening to an interview on WJIM am at 0:645 on a Wednesday morning by a Republican congressman who said “we’re going to run this guy out of office if it’s the last thing we do”.
Remember, republicans who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

 

[muttly]

No more than you did with Obama or Clinton. We never had a meeting at the caucus house restaurant and all but signed a blood oath to block everything that he did, including things that we agreed with.
I remember sitting in my delivery van while Clinton was President elect listening to an interview on WJIM am at 0:645 on a Wednesday morning by a Republican congressman who said “we’re going to run this guy out of office if it’s the last thing we do”.
Remember, republicans who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

At that time, all he had was talk radio. Now there is Big Tech, most of the "news" organizations and other resistance that were against him. Nothing comparable.

 

[ATeam]

It's not an easy subject to deal with for some I'm sure.

No. It's not an easy subject. Before Trump became a candidate, these people were ordinary neighbors. Over time they bought into the Trump story and became consumed by it. Their friendships reoriented around pro-Trump/anti-Trump. Their time, their thoughts, their actions became Trump-infused. They are hooked on Trump like a drug.

I see that same thing in the people now being arrested. The podium guy with a doctor wife and five young sons sticks in my mind. What got into him so deep that he'd travel from FL to DC to get himself charged with crimes like he did? How could he become so blind to the consequences of his actions that he became willing to choose jail over his family? Five young boys won't have their dad around to teach them baseball. If they want to see him, they'll have to visit with him in prison instead. And for the rest of their lives, everyone who knows them will know their father is "the podium guy" who participated in the failed insurrection.

I'm no expert in this kind of behavior and decision making. I know little about it. But one piece that makes sense to me says Trump fever breaks when great personal pain is suffered as a result of it. I've seen it happen with a Trump-infused Covid denier when his wife died of the disease. Covid was a hoax until the truth killed his wife, who he now dearly misses and wishes he protected, instead of making a political statement by grouping up without masks.

It's different for different people. In some, Trump fever will never break. In others, the pain of the election loss is enough to help people shake it off and move on.

It's interesting reading the comments of those arrested. Now feeling the pain of their arrest and public exposure, some are begging for forgiveness and proclaiming their Capitol invasion the biggest mistake of their life. Others cling fiercely to their beliefs, such that they see themselves as revolutionaries, literally at war with the rest of the world (including 21,000 heavily armed troops called to defend the Capitol and our democracy's processes).

Bit by bit, over time, the spell will break for most people so afflicted. They don't get their 20-times-per-day boost from Trump's twitter feed any more. The belief in Trump's power and Trump's truth gets challenged with every election certification, lost court case, failed insurrection, and the coming inauguration of someone else. Some Republicans voted against Trump in the House impeachment vote. Presidential hopefuls within the Republican Party are working behind the scenes to diminish Trump's influence and move him out of the way.

Trump-fevered people like our neighbors see people around them letting go of Trump as the boat parades decline in number, size or end altogether. They will soon see him, no longer protected by the presidency, defending himself against a number of cases and actions.

It won't all be in the courts. One thing will happen almost immediately, for example. Using the power of the presidency, Trump kept the Treasury Department from turning his tax returns over to Congress under an existing law that says that can happen. Under the new administration, a House Committee will make that request again and it will be fulfilled without objection. Trump once had the power to stop that. He will be powerless to stop it in six days. As the myth of Trump, the brilliant strongman who will vanquish his rivals, falls apart, Trump fever will break in many.

For others, it will never break. They will continue to socialize with and feed off their like-minded groups. They will never stop believing in a stolen election. They will defend Trump til the day they die, and in some cases, they will be willing to go to war and give their lives for Donald Trump.

How far will our neighbors go? Will the fever break such that they can become friendly neighbors again? Or will they become further radicalized and end up going to war? I don't know the answer to that so we (me and other neighbors) keep a comfortable distance so as not to endure the stress of a pro-Trump rant. Their total devotion to Donald Trump has degraded the quality of life in a neighborhood that used to be more relaxed.

 

[ATeam]

... despite the reasonings, rationales, and various and sundry opinions, there is no definitive answer to the question of whether the Senate has the authority to convict and remove from office someone who no longer holds the office. It's never been done, it's never been tested to get a definitive answer.

I agree with Turtle on this. A legitimate question exists as to the applicability of an impeachment trial and conviction (if obtained) after a president has left office. The question will certainly be answered as developments unfold. I'm inclined to believe it is legitimate to convict after the office is vacated. But I have to acknowledge that the opposite opinion is equally valid. We simply don't have a lot to go on at this point. The answer will come, of that I am certain. How it will come and what it will be remains to be seen.

Keep in mind that impeachment is a political act. An impeachable offense is what the House and Senate says it is. If the House and Senate had the political will and votes to do so, they could proclaim a president's failure to license his or her dog to be an impeachable offense and remove him or her from office for that reason.

I also note the question is moot in one way. I think it is highly likely that the Justice Department or others having the authority to do so will prosecute Trump for sedition, insurrection or other crimes under criminal law; regardless of what the Senate does or does not do with the impeachment case they will soon consider.

Those who hope to see Trump banned from running for office ever again -- either by a Senate vote that follows an impeachment conviction, or by a criminal case in which Trump is found guilty of a crime that triggers the 14th Amendment, Section 3 -- would do well to note that such things would not stop Trump from running again if he wanted to. He can run a write-in campaign, even if he is denied ballot access. Such a campaign puts him back on the rally circuit (if he is not incarcerated) and could fire up his supporters once again.

 

[coalminer]

No. It's not an easy subject. Before Trump became a candidate, these people were ordinary neighbors. Over time they bought into the Trump story and became consumed by it. Their friendships reoriented around pro-Trump/anti-Trump. Their time, their thoughts, their actions became Trump-infused. They are hooked on Trump like a drug.

I see that same thing in the people now being arrested. The podium guy with a doctor wife and five young sons sticks in my mind. What got into him so deep that he'd travel from FL to DC to get himself charged with crimes like he did? How could he become so blind to the consequences of his actions that he became willing to choose jail over his family? Five young boys won't have their dad around to teach them baseball. If they want to see him, they'll have to visit with him in prison instead. And for the rest of their lives, everyone who knows them will know their father is "the podium guy" who participated in the failed insurrection.

I'm no expert in this kind of behavior and decision making. I know little about it. But one piece that makes sense to me says Trump fever breaks when great personal pain is suffered as a result of it. I've seen it happen with a Trump-infused Covid denier when his wife died of the disease. Covid was a hoax until the truth killed his wife, who he now dearly misses and wishes he protected, instead of making a political statement by grouping up without masks.

It's different for different people. In some, Trump fever will never break. In others, the pain of the election loss is enough to help people shake it off and move on.

It's interesting reading the comments of those arrested. Now feeling the pain of their arrest and public exposure, some are begging for forgiveness and proclaiming their Capitol invasion the biggest mistake of their life. Others cling fiercely to their beliefs, such that they see themselves as revolutionaries, literally at war with the rest of the world (including 21,000 heavily armed troops called to defend the Capitol and our democracy's processes).

Bit by bit, over time, the spell will break for most people so afflicted. They don't get their 20-times-per-day boost from Trump's twitter feed any more. The belief in Trump's power and Trump's truth gets challenged with every election certification, lost court case, failed insurrection, and the coming inauguration of someone else. Some Republicans voted against Trump in the House impeachment vote. Presidential hopefuls within the Republican Party are working behind the scenes to diminish Trump's influence and move him out of the way.

Trump-fevered people like our neighbors see people around them letting go of Trump as the boat parades decline in number, size or end altogether. They will soon see him, no longer protected by the presidency, defending himself against a number of cases and actions.

It won't all be in the courts. One thing will happen almost immediately, for example. Using the power of the presidency, Trump kept the Treasury Department from turning his tax returns over to Congress under an existing law that says that can happen. Under the new administration, a House Committee will make that request again and it will be fulfilled without objection. Trump once had the power to stop that. He will be powerless to stop it in six days. As the myth of Trump, the brilliant strongman who will vanquish his rivals, falls apart, Trump fever will break in many.

For others, it will never break. They will continue to socialize with and feed off their like-minded groups. They will never stop believing in a stolen election. They will defend Trump til the day they die, and in some cases, they will be willing to go to war and give their lives for Donald Trump.

How far will our neighbors go? Will the fever break such that they can become friendly neighbors again? Or will they become further radicalized and end up going to war? I don't know the answer to that so we (me and other neighbors) keep a comfortable distance so as not to endure the stress of a pro-Trump rant. Their total devotion to Donald Trump has degraded the quality of life in a neighborhood that used to be more relaxed.

Almost like a cult wouldn’t you agree?


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[ATeam]

Almost like a cult wouldn’t you agree?


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

For some, yes; but for others no. 75 million people voted for Trump. Their reasons for doing so are widely varied. For some, it is cult-like. But for many others, that is not the case. Flying a Trump flag on your pickup does not mean that person is a Trump cult member. It would be unwise to paint MAGA people with a broad brush. Numerous MAGA hat wearers denounce the insurrection.

 

[muttly]

I thinks it's kind of cool that some still have their Trump signs up. The area I work and live in there are many private sector blue collar workers. They overwhelming voter for him because they felt he was fighting for them. And in return they got lower gas prices, more money in their pocket, and a booming economy. Along with having a more secure border. Who could be against that?

 

[ATeam]

And in return they got lower gas prices, ...

Are you sure about that? According to this chart, 2016 gas price was $2.14. 2020 gas price was $2.17. In between, there was movement. But if you're going to credit Trump with the decline, you must also credit him with the rise.

 

[blackpup]

For the conspiracy fans among us, by the way , I resemble that remark.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Wondering if these documents will ever see the light of day?

 

[muttly]

Are you sure about that? According to this chart, 2016 gas price was $2.14. 2020 gas price was $2.17. In between, there was movement. But if you're going to credit Trump with the decline, you must also credit him with the rise.

3 cents. Um ok.

 

[muttly]

For the conspiracy fans among us, by the way , I resemble that remark.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Wondering if these documents will ever see the light of day?

I heard by Monday.

 

[Ragman]

. It would be unwise to paint MAGA people with a broad brush.

The same could be said of calling those that lean left a socialist or communist. Agree?

 

[RLENT]

The same could be said of calling those that lean left a socialist or communist. Agree?

To say nothing of people who, in actual fact, lean somewhat right.