The Trump Impeachment Thread

[TexRex]

Trump's superb work in Home Alone 2 & Zoolander? It will live on!

Well, the former won't on Canadian television, anyhow.

 

[Biggles]

Well, the former won't on Canadian television, anyhow.

Yeah ... & I'm pretty ticked off about that!

 

[Tired Tyres]

Trump has quit the Screen Actors' Guild (before it had a chance to expel him).

View attachment 989599

In response, the union has released a two-word statement in response: "Thank you". I could think of another two-word response they could perhaps instead have made, but let's stay classy here.

Is it legal for him to call himself president at this point or is that a privilege extended to all ex-presidents?

 

[Liquid]

Is it legal for him to call himself president at this point or is that a privilege extended to all ex-presidents?

It is informally accepted, yes. The correct form of address is The Honourable but it's quite common to refer to some political officies with those names even after they've left the office; a different example is Mitt Romney often being called Governor Romney in 2012 even though he'd stopped being a Governor in 2007.

Like I said, it's informally common but I'm sure with Trump it'll become far more weaponised than references to President Carter or President Clinton.

 

[BobK]

Is it legal for him to call himself president at this point or is that a privilege extended to all ex-presidents?

He can call himself anything he wants as long as he doesn't attempt to take any action only the President can legally do. I suppose he'll still be referred to as Mr resident, same as Bush, Carter, et al, particularly by Republicans.

Hell, he's been called enough other things.

 

[Biggles]

He can call himself anything he wants as long as he doesn't attempt to take any action only the President can legally do. I suppose he'll still be referred to as Mr resident, same as Bush, Carter, et al, particularly by Republicans.

Hell, he's been called enough other things.

Mr. Resident Evil?

 

[TexRex]

 

[UKMikey]

Only the best sources...

 

[inkiphox]

Mr. Resident Evil?

I can literally hear the Mansion Basement music from RE1 DC DualShock Edition in my head right now, suits Trump down to the ground.

 

[UKMikey]

I can literally hear the Mansion Basement music from RE1 DC DualShock Edition in my head right now, suits Trump down to the ground.

LOL.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Better source?

 

[huskeR32]

Here's the opening video shown at today's proceedings:


It's quite a watch.

 

[Touring Mars]

I fear the real tragedy is yet to come. Trump, an American fascist, has enormous support and he will stop at nothing to destroy democracy in America. Hell, he practically promised to do so in his run for the presidency. But what many Republicans don't understand is that when Trump said "Drain the swamp", he was talking about them too - and indeed the entire governance and judicial system of the USA.

His malign influence is very deep and very corrosive - he even has a staggering 45% of US Senators supporting the idea that the ultimate Constitutional vandal shouldn't be prosecuted because it is 'unconstitutional' to prosecute him because he is no longer the President - NOT that he didn't do anything wrong, but that his non-president status means that the prosecution is not allowed. How utterly crazy is that??

To let Trump off with this over a technicality is absurd, and it speaks volumes about what those senators who continue to support him really want. I sincerely hope they know what they are doing by not kicking this odious tyrant (and his equally odious family) into touch, because the consequences of their cowardice and appeasement will only lead to ruin.

 

[Blitz24]

I fear the real tragedy is yet to come. Trump, an American fascist, has enormous support and he will stop at nothing to destroy democracy in America. Hell, he practically promised to do so in his run for the presidency. But what many Republicans don't understand is that when Trump said "Drain the swamp", he was talking about them too - and indeed the entire governance and judicial system of the USA.

His malign influence is very deep and very corrosive - he even has a staggering 45% of US Senators supporting the idea that the ultimate Constitutional vandal shouldn't be prosecuted because it is 'unconstitutional' to prosecute him because he is no longer the President - NOT that he didn't do anything wrong, but that his non-president status means that the prosecution is not allowed. How utterly crazy is that??

To let Trump off with this over a technicality is absurd, and it speaks volumes about what those senators who continue to support him really want. I sincerely hope they know what they are doing by not kicking this odious tyrant (and his equally odious family) into touch, because the consequences of their cowardice and appeasement will only lead to ruin.

That's the extreme danger with all of this. They want to have unity so they will refuse to bite off their nose to save their faces.

 

[Joey D]

His malign influence is very deep and very corrosive - he even has a staggering 45% of US Senators supporting the idea that the ultimate Constitutional vandal shouldn't be prosecuted because it is 'unconstitutional' to prosecute him because he is no longer the President - NOT that he didn't do anything wrong, but that his non-president status means that the prosecution is not allowed. How utterly crazy is that??

I think support for Trump and the desire to acquit him of charges is way lower than 45%, it's just those in that 45% are worried about their reelection, their donors, and the safety of themselves and their families. While I don't agree with why they're doing it, I do understand the reasoning behind their support. If my family was being threatened, I'm not sure I'd have the cajones to vote to convict.

 

[Touring Mars]

While I don't agree with why they're doing it, I do understand the reasoning behind their support. If my family was being threatened, I'm not sure I'd have the cajones to vote to convict.

This is practically the very definition of tyranny.

The most powerful lawmakers in the land are too scared to stand up for the law (and common decency) for fear of the violent mob that a fascist leader has whipped up into a mindless frenzy?

If they tolerate this, then they will be the ones to blame when the likes of the Trump clan take control.

 

[Danoff]

If they tolerate this, then they will be the ones to blame when the likes of the Trump clan take control.

They're going to tolerate it. They're already told everyone they're going to. The impeachment trial, as was the case with the first round, is for educating the country rather than for punishing Trump*. Not just for educating the country about what Trump has done, but educating the country about what their representatives in congress are doing. Trump skating through congress is not really the point (at least not at this point. I'd argue it might have been originally).

Trump is prosecutable outside of this proceeding anyway. He interfered with the election in Georgia, and is under investigation for that, and I think also he can be brought up on conspiracy to commit sedition outside of congress. This is likely the first of many rounds of attempts at holding Trump accountable.

* and of course, about some members of congress doing their sworn duty

 

[UKMikey]

They're going to tolerate it. They're already told everyone they're going to. The impeachment trial, as was the case with the first round, is for educating the country rather than for punishing Trump. Not just for educating the country about what Trump has done, but educating the country about what their representatives in congress are doing. Trump skating through congress is not really the point (at least not at this point. I'd argue it might have been originally).

Trump is prosecutable outside of this proceeding anyway. He interfered with the election in Georgia, and is under investigation for that, and I think also he can be brought up on conspiracy to commit sedition outside of congress. This is likely the first of many rounds of attempts at holding Trump accountable.

It'd be poetic justice if he were to get at least as many cases raised against him as he did against America.

 

[huskeR32]

I understand why Schoen's argument is focused solely on the question of whether a former President can be convicted - just need to give Republicans an excuse to acquit - but it's still wild to see in action; he's not spent a single word bothering to deny any of the things Trump is accused of.

 

[Danoff]

I understand why Schoen's argument is focused solely on the question of whether a former President can be convicted - just need to give Republicans an excuse to acquit - but it's still wild to see in action; he's not spent a single word bothering to deny any of the things Trump is accused of.

It's demonstrably wrong, of course. There is precedent, and it's also just fundamentally flawed from top to bottom - both the spirit and technical application suggests that he absolutely can be convicted after leaving office. But I think that the people who thought that Trump was telling them the truth will also happily latch on to this excuse.

 

[Joey D]

This is practically the very definition of tyranny.

The most powerful lawmakers in the land are too scared to stand up for the law (and common decency) for fear of the violent mob that a fascist leader has whipped up into a mindless frenzy?

If they tolerate this, then they will be the ones to blame when the likes of the Trump clan take control.

I don't disagree and I wish lawmakers would do their job, but I do understand where their fear, whether founded or not, is coming from. Trump was horrendous for the county and it's going to take years for the divide he caused to settle down and even then I can't see things going back to the way they were without some major, life-changing event that unites the county. Kind of like 9/11 but bigger. I guess if climate change ends up going the way science fears it's going, we might be there sooner rather than later.

*Cue nervous laughter*

We do need some sort of "reset" within the government though, I'm just not sure how you achieve that. We have far too many representatives that have been there far too long and are completely bought and paid for by the highest bidder. People taking an interest in who they're actually voting for instead of just checking what party they belonged to would be a good start.

 

[UKMikey]

As I understand it Castor's defence of Trump is that he wasn't physically present when the riots he's accused of instigating happened. Also that Democrats had better watch out otherwise the Republicans will do the same to them when they gain power. Have I got this right?

 

[Danoff]

I don't disagree and I wish lawmakers would do their job, but I do understand where their fear, whether founded or not, is coming from. Trump was horrendous for the county and it's going to take years for the divide he caused to settle down and even then I can't see things going back to the way they were without some major, life-changing event that unites the county. Kind of like 9/11 but bigger. I guess if climate change ends up going the way science fears it's going, we might be there sooner rather than later.

*Cue nervous laughter*

We do need some sort of "reset" within the government though, I'm just not sure how you achieve that. We have far too many representatives that have been there far too long and are completely bought and paid for by the highest bidder. People taking an interest in who they're actually voting for instead of just checking what party they belonged to would be a good start.

They will have no choice but to go away if they can't win elections. Violence isn't going to fix their issue. All we really need to do is preserve democracy by making sure that the minority isn't disproportionately represented.

 

[Joey D]

They will have no choice but to go away if they can't win elections. Violence isn't going to fix their issue. All we really need to do is preserve democracy by making sure that the minority isn't disproportionately represented.

Unfortunately, I don't know if that's going to happen anytime soon. There are far too many people in the US that don't support democracy at all, or at least only support whatever their own twisted few of democracy is.

I'd love to be wrong on this though.

 

[Danoff]

Unfortunately, I don't know if that's going to happen anytime soon. There are far too many people in the US that don't support democracy at all, or at least only support whatever their own twisted few of democracy is.

I'd love to be wrong on this though.

There's a bill on proposal, but I think it requires an end of the filibuster (another bastion of disproportionate representation) to pass.

 

[Biggles]

They will have no choice but to go away if they can't win elections. Violence isn't going to fix their issue. All we really need to do is preserve democracy by making sure that the minority isn't disproportionately represented.

That is the key question. One of the advantages of the two party system ... or it should be ... is that citizens basically have an up or down vote on Trumpism. Republicans have a significant advantage within the electoral system, but disgust with Trump resulted in a pretty lopsided vote in the Presidential election. What happens in the 2022 House & Senate elections may determine the direction the GOP decides to take in the future.

 

[huskeR32]

As I understand it Castor's defence of Trump is that he wasn't physically present when the riots he's accused of instigating happened. Also that Democrats had better watch out otherwise the Republicans will do the same to them when they gain power. Have I got this right?

Yeah, I'd say you've got that right.

It was also amusing to hear him, in no uncertain terms, reject his client's notion that the election was fraudulent.

The American people just spoke, and they just changed Administrations... The people are smart enough to pick a new administration if they don't like the old one. And they just did!

 

[Imari]

This is practically the very definition of tyranny.

The most powerful lawmakers in the land are too scared to stand up for the law (and common decency) for fear of the violent mob that a fascist leader has whipped up into a mindless frenzy?

If they tolerate this, then they will be the ones to blame when the likes of the Trump clan take control.

This is not exactly a new phenomenon in the US (and a lot of other places too, to be clear). It's probably the most transparent example of it so far, but it's been the case for a long time that most politicians put electoral and personal concerns over what was best for the citizens and the country.

They will have no choice but to go away if they can't win elections. Violence isn't going to fix their issue. All we really need to do is preserve democracy by making sure that the minority isn't disproportionately represented.

I mean, doesn't that problem already exist? And was the reason that Trump was even in the race with a chance to start with? You can't preserve democracy if the system was undemocratic to start with.

Seems to me that your system doesn't do anything like what it says on the tin, and yet because mostly it happens to give results that are not worth having a civil war over (apparently more through luck than anything else) it somehow gets to continue.

And honestly, violence can fix their problem just fine. Myanmar seems to be the latest example that violence or the threat of it can work perfectly well as a method to seize power. Violence is always an answer to political problems, and the point of political systems is supposed to be to make sure that things don't get to that stage.

That is the key question. One of the advantages of the two party system ... or it should be ... is that citizens basically have an up or down vote on Trumpism. Republicans have a significant advantage within the electoral system, but disgust with Trump resulted in a pretty lopsided vote in the Presidential election. What happens in the 2022 House & Senate elections may determine the direction the GOP decides to take in the future.

The problem with the two party system is that it strongly depends on what's on the other side of the vote. By the time you're getting into the territory of "I will vote for anything that isn't this" then things are pretty bad. You would hope for a system that is a little more responsive than that.

 

[TexRex]

I think support for Trump and the desire to acquit him of charges is way lower than 45%, it's just those in that 45% are worried about their reelection, their donors, and the safety of themselves and their families. While I don't agree with why they're doing it, I do understand the reasoning behind their support. If my family was being threatened, I'm not sure I'd have the cajones to vote to convict.

But Republicans are the "law and order" party. What do they have to fear?

/s

I understand why Schoen's argument is focused solely on the question of whether a former President can be convicted - just need to give Republicans an excuse to acquit - but it's still wild to see in action; he's not spent a single word bothering to deny any of the things Trump is accused of.

It's as if Schoen knows his client's going to be acquitted regardless of how spectacularly bad his representation is. I can't imagine what gave him that idea.

 

[Danoff]

I mean, doesn't that problem already exist? And was the reason that Trump was even in the race with a chance to start with? You can't preserve democracy if the system was undemocratic to start with.

Seems to me that your system doesn't do anything like what it says on the tin, and yet because mostly it happens to give results that are not worth having a civil war over (apparently more through luck than anything else) it somehow gets to continue.

We haven't had a direct challenge to democracy like this before. Yes, our weirdly weighted system of government gives them more voice then it should, but their voice is new, and the problem itself is, for the most part, new. The electoral college has disagreed with the popular vote in 1876 and 1888 (we were still pulling the country out of the dregs of the civil war), and 2000, and 2016. Bush v. Gore was a close election. Gore took the popular vote by a margin of 0.5%. So you might anticipate that things might get weird. Clinton took the popular vote by a margin of 2% and still lost.

The idea that the republicans are clinging to a candidate that just lost the popular vote by a 4.4% margin is basically entirely down to disproportional representation. I'm not going to say we've never seen anything like it, but this particular group and the way it aligns with our political system is a new problem.

Gerrymandering is also a problem that has become exacerbated in modern times due to modern polling and population tracking.

The filibuster has existed for a long time. The senate has existed in its current state for a long time. So those issues are not particularly new, but they're challenging our system of government in new ways.

I would definitely not call the US system "undemocratic" as a whole. But definitely there are aspects of it that are undemocratic, and those aspects are rearing their heads right now.

And honestly, violence can fix their problem just fine. Myanmar seems to be the latest example that violence or the threat of it can work perfectly well as a method to seize power. Violence is always an answer to political problems, and the point of political systems is supposed to be to make sure that things don't get to that stage.

...and Trump couldn't manage it. Because violence is not going to solve their problem. If our military were willing to hand Trump a second presidency I can guarantee you we would not have Biden in office. Because he'd have snapped that up in a heartbeat.

Meanwhile, the capitol riot got them nowhere, Trump is out of office, the US military shows no signs of backing coups. They're not going to get traction with violence.

The problem with the two party system is that it strongly depends on what's on the other side of the vote. By the time you're getting into the territory of "I will vote for anything that isn't this" then things are pretty bad. You would hope for a system that is a little more responsive than that.

Yea things got pretty bad under Trump. We need to make sure we don't get anywhere near where we got last year. I hope we can.