Donald Trump

Impeach and Remove

If not now, then when?

|

Unfortunately, Donald Trump has been playing with fire ever since he launched his first presidential campaign. Since he lost his bid for reelection, he has only intensified his efforts to subvert American democracy. The events of today are both shocking and yet all-too-foreseeable, and the president bears substantial responsibility for what has transpired. Moreover, he has shown no leadership since the attack on the capitol. His behavior is disgraceful. What is more, it is conduct completely incompatible with the duties and responsibilities of the office of the presidency. The president should resign in disgrace, but of course he will not.

The House should impeach the president for high crimes and misdemeanors as soon as is practical. The Senate should hold a trial and vote to impeach and remove the president from office as expeditiously as possible. The House should request that the Senate bar the president from holding future federal office, and the Senate should vote to apply that constitutional penalty upon conviction.

This need not be a lengthy process. The evidence of the president's actions are clear and available to all. The House does not need an elaborate inquiry. The Senate does not need a lengthy trial. House and Senate members need only determine whether they believe that the president's words and actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and whether Donald Trump can be safely left to exercise the powers of the presidency until the scheduled inauguration of his elected successor. That does not seem like a difficult question, and the members of Congress should go on record with an answer to it.

NEXT: Court Grants Motion to Seal Saudi Crown Prince's WhatsApp Number

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I predict that this is probably not going to happen.

    1. And Trump is responsible for the pipebomb found in the RNC?

      1. Yeah, his supporters are targeting the RNC for being insufficiently supportive of his efforts to steal the election.

        1. Supporters with “hammer and sickle” tattoos?

          1. Cite your source, you fucking liar.

            I’ve been watching the whole thing unfold the entire day. I’ve watched the live video with my own eyes.

            You. Are. Full. Of. Shit.

            1. OK, Names and addresses for the 30 that had been arrested several hours ago. Show your cards or shut up.

              1. Where’s your evidence? Surely by now you’ve fabricated something? I’ve been waiting for hours now for your “hammer and sickle” citation to materialize.

                You’re an insurrectionist clownfucker, a coward, and a liar.

          2. it’s not a hammer and sickle – its a symbol from the game Dishonored

    2. True…

      But it’s more likely than it was yesterday.

      Procedural games aren’t going to keep Trump as President, Biden is either inaugurated or it’s civil war. And if Trump keeps escalating GOP senators are eventually going to realize that choice is coming and they’ll choose Biden. Especially after Trump largely stood by while his supporters stormed the Senate.

      McConnell already spoke out against Trump shenanigans and that was before the Senate was stormed. He’s 78 and just won re-election (meaning he’ll be 84 next time around). He doesn’t need to worry about a primary or re-election so has a lot less to fear from Trump.

      And if McConnell endorses an impeachment vote it probably passes.

      1. Biden is either inaugurated or it’s civil war.

        Trump actually won in a landslide, and if there *is* a civil war, it will be *because* BiteMe is inaugurated as Thief in Chief.

        ” Trump largely stood by while his supporters stormed the Senate.”

        Or was it False Flag? Antifa was talking about doing something exactly like this and blaming it on MAGA.

        And if McConnell endorses an impeachment vote it probably passes.

        I doubt it. It’s Trump’s party now.

        1. You are funny.

        2. You keep saying Trump not only won, that he won in a landslide. There is nothing anywhere that supports that. It’s crazy talk. A fairy tale.

          1. What are you talking about? The President himself said it.

        3. so was dr ed banned and this is his new account and he’s insane, or is this a troll account mocking the original?

        4. “Trump actually won in a landslide”

          Fantasy. Pure fantasy. What the hell is wrong with you?

        5. Serious question: Does it ever bother you to realize that everything you write confirms that you’re a moron?

    3. You know, if they ever tried it, and if Trump wanted to play hardball, he would still be POTUS until conviction. So he could issue a blanket pardon to anyone disrupting the proceeding and publicly announce that he did.

      I don’t know if that would stand up in court (but why wouldn’t it?) but that wouldn’t matter. People would think it would, and he’d have a full-fledged riot.

      As an aside — 2 live pipebombs found at Republican National Hqrs, both safely detonated by authorities.

  2. <<<>>>

    Do you honestly think the next thing that happens won’t be gunfire?

    It’s the left that has been playing with fire for the past five years, and now you’ve managed to light a conflagration. So you want to pour gasoline onto it?

    Do you have any idea what happens when you make someone a martyr? Doing this — wow…

    Did you actually graduate from an accredited law school?

    1. Somehow the CRINGE got deleted.

    2. Do you honestly think the Trump supporters can overpower the US military?

      If gunfire does happen, The people rioting will be the ones on the losing end of it..

      1. Do you think the U.S. military infantry divisions, composed of mainly white conservatives, is going to die on your hill?

        1. Yes. They will follow orders and maintain the Constitution.

          1. No they won’t. Not if you ask them to start shooting protesters.

            1. Protesters shooting at them? of course they will

              1. Yeah, that didn’t happen today, and you know it.

                1. Yes, the hypothetical situation that we were talking about as something that hasn’t happened didn’t happen yet. Are you always this confused?

            2. Rioters. Insurrectionists. Not “protesters.”

          2. Didn’t work with the DDR — they simply wouldn’t shoot large numbers of their fellow Germans and the wall fell.

        2. Having been one of those kids at one time, yes, yes they will. And they will love it. The thing that people don’t like to talk about is that our infantrymen are very well programed to kill, and to want to kill. I wanted to kill. If someone let me do it, I was gonna do it.

          Every time you walk anywhere for 13 weeks of basic and infantry school you are reciting things like:

          Call:Every time that left boot hits the ground, I want to hear that killing sound.
          Response: Kill! Kill I will!

          or

          Call: What makes the grass grow green?
          Response: Blood! Blood makes the grass grow green!

          1. People who didn’t serve fail to grasp how true this is. People romanticize this to the point they believe they’re fighting redcoats with muskets rather than the most experienced and preparedodern military force on the planet.

            The only way the active military doesn’t stomp the shit out of any armed insurgency in this country is if they are ordered not to.

      2. Matthew: One word: Vietnam.

        Who won there, and how?

        1. That’s an ignorant statement. The military won the battles. The politicians lost the war.

          The modern military is also a very different entity than it was then but what remains the same is that the only way they fail to win is if they’re ordered not to.

          1. Iraq? Afghanistan?

            Killing people is relatively easy for a modern military.

            Convincing people that you’re their friend, after you just killed their neighbours, friends, and family, is exceedingly difficult.

            Either way, a civil war is something quite different than fighting an insurrection in an occupied country. And proposing a civil war as a way to take power after losing an election is a terrible idea.

  3. Hear, hear! Trump has demonstrated that there is no depth to which he won’t sink to keep his office. Who’s to say that his next desperate attempt won’t involve the launch codes?

    1. And he should be impeached and, I presume, this also limits his future access to state secrets. Does anyone really have doubts about whether Trump would have no compunction to share highly classified information with a foreign government to grease a business deal or for a straight out payoff?

      If you haven’t yet realized that the man cares about nothing beyond himself, you have to be a moron not to see it now. He can’t be trusted with anything of value to the country.

      1. He would have to be able to remember stuff.

        1. I saw on TV where he’s a super stable genius.

          1. And the best memory!

  4. That was my first take: after 4 years, DJT finally commits an impeachable offense.

    1. Which is? Asking for a peaceful protest?

      1. This was a peaceful protest? They forcibly entered the US Capitol building. This was a riot.

        1. Trump didn’t ask for a violent protest. Whittington’s dumb idea is to impeach Trump for actions that he discouraged and told people not to do.

          1. I think you mean encouraged and told people to do.

            1. He told people to riot? He told people to force their way into the Capital building?

              Link?

          2. “The saga began in the morning, when Trump urged his followers to march to the Capitol at a rally during which his attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, earlier called for a “trial by combat.” Trump later took to social media to attack his own vice president, Mike Pence, for failing to overturn the results of the election on his behalf.” – WaPo

            His supporters did march to the Capitol and storm it.

            Then, under pressure, he issued a statement in which he told people to “continue” to be peaceful after they already weren’t, told them the election was stolen and that he won in a landslide, but, oh yeah, to go home. Oh, and in a tweet said Pence should shirk his constitutional oath and award Trump the Presidency.

            You may not see that standing next to Guiliana who calls for “trial by combat”, after pressuring the Georgia SoS to “find” votes then claiming he actually won the election, is inciting a riot with the explicit goal of stopping the certification of Biden as President, but, if that’s the case, try to imagine Obama had done that. What would you want then?

            1. A “March to the capital” is asking for a violent protest?

              Just curious. Because if that’s the case, we’re going to have to arrest a lot of politicians.

              1. March to the Capitol followed by let’s give them “trial by combat”, in the context of “they are stealing the election” and “we won’t let them do it”. In addition to unspecified threats from Jr. and others (of the “they better or else” variety).

                So, yeah, not exactly the same as “March to the Capitol!”

        2. Maybe the peaceful demonstration just intensified. ABC

    2. OK, I’m curious: What impeachable offense did Trump commit?

      1. Being Trump.

        It’s what he was impeached for the first time, it’ll serve for the NPCs the second time as well.

        Personally, I can’t wait to apply their logic to them in the future. It’s fun to watch these lawyers argue that trying to convince a court that your interpretation of the law is correct, even if you lose, is threatening to overthrow our democracy and seditious.

        1. By having protestors and supporters?

          There’s a lot of sedition going around…

      2. Brett, I asked exactly the same question. You’d think a law professor would at least state the charge.

        If I had to draft the articles myself, I would go the ‘abuse of office’ route. The POTUS abused his office when he…[fill in the blank].

        I don’t see that happening in the next two weeks.

  5. This post is as unhinged as the “Lock Her Up” chants after the last election. It’s never going to happen. And even if you tried, it would do more to destabilize the institution and to increase the polarization than any possible positive effects.

    1. No, it’s far more unhinged, because “lock her up” was at least about something Hillary herself had actually done. This is about something a few people conspicuously NOT named “Donald Trump” did at a quarter of a million person rally. For all we know it was even a false flag operation, but even if it wasn’t, what possible reason is there to think Trump ordered Congress attacked?

  6. Riiiiight. Inauguration is two weeks away. The ONLY reason to impeach and remove now is petty revenge.

    What a stupid idea.

    1. No. If it were “petty revenge,” then it wouldn’t make sense to do it two weeks before Trump goes back to running a failing golf course empire; it’s not as if kicking him out two weeks early would cause him any significant suffering. Rather, it’s to express the view that this is an unacceptable act of sedition not seen since 1861, and that the country needs to be protected from him for all time.

      1. Your reasoning is even more petty. What’s Trump gonna do, run for President again in 2024? If you think that’s dangerous, you must be one of those Marxist-loving Democrats who thinks the Green Raw Deal is just peachy keen.

        1. Make up your mind. Is your problem that he’ll be gone in two weeks or that he didn’t do anything impeachable?

        2. What’s Trump gonna do, run for President again in 2024?

          He and his supporters have certainly suggested that, yes.

          you must be one of those Marxist-loving Democrats who thinks the Green Raw Deal is just peachy keen.

          You have accurately perceived me, yes.

      2. If an actual law were broken were by Mr trump he can be prosecuted starting on January 21. Why would Congress waste its time in the meanwhile?

    2. I’ve been against impeachment and most of the investigations as they felt like fishing expeditions. I don’t see how he can be trusted with the reins of power any longer – impeach and remove

  7. People think [falsely] but with extreme passion that an election was stolen. Then, the supposed victim [Trump] is removed from office after a drum head procedure so that he can never run again.

    Don’t you see a bit of a downside?

    1. I see a bigger upside. Those people are irredeemable; the point is to reassure everyone else.

      1. The people are revolting.

        [I’ll let everybody guess for themselves which sense of “revolting” fits here.]

        1. Why be exclusive about it. Both senses apply.

        2. Shamelessly stealing from Mel Brooks.

      2. A lot depends on how much of his base is willing to push things that far.

        Biden’s margin in the popular vote was under 5%. 47% of the voters supported Trump. If even half of them are willing to go this far (no, I don’t think it will be that bad) that’s a pretty big downside.

        1. But I think there is a reasonable argument that if Mitch McConnell, Ben Sasse, Todd Young, Tim Scott, Tom Cotton, and other unquestionably conservative Senators vote to convict, they may actually peel off some of the rabid Trump supporters who think the election was stolen and send the message that what he is doing is unAmerican. If 25% of the country is irredeemable after that, they are no less dangerous now than they would be after impeachment and removal. But the other 75% might be more committed to avoiding anything close to this. Those on the edge might see how serious this is, instead of just “Trump being Trump” and “the other side does it.”

          No. This is different. That message should be sent. Clearly.

          (Also, do you trust a disgruntled Trump with national secrets? I mean, it’s not like we could trust a gruntled Trump with them. He spilled the beans numerous times, purportedly by accident. You don’t think he’ll ask for his ex-President briefing then brag at Mar-a-Lago about the top secret info he knows?)

          1. Do you really think the GOP-controlled Senate will impeach Trump? For anything? No matter how much evidence?

            I have zero confidence in the current GOP to police their own, largely because a significant number of them are supporting Trump’s “fraudulent election” lie and amplifying his message. In for a penny, in for a pound.

            1. Make them vote and hold their record over them for the remainder of their careers.

      3. They be reassured when criminal charges are filed. Anything less looks like petty political revenge.

    2. Wouldn’t want their feelings to be hurt after all

      1. It’s not about hurt feelings. The official election result is 51.4% to 46.9%. If even half the people who voted for Trump are willing to riot over the outcome, it’s going to be ugly.

        That is not of and in itself a reason not to impeach Trump at this point, but it’s a factor that has to be considered, to be prepared, if for no other reason.

        1. If you haven’t noticed, Trump supporters are already rioting. Impeachment and removal would put all patriots on one side and die-hard Trumpists on the other. It would clarify matters. 25% could not deny that 75% of the country absolutely rejects their aims and methods. There is value in that.

    3. A bit of a downside? A bit? I’m all for jailing the people who broke into the capitol buildings, but if they used THIS as a pretext to disqualify Trump for running again in 2024, I’d say it’s time to nuke DC, the place is irredeemable.

      Seriously, THAT would be the starting gun for civil war.

      1. Hold on. How is a constitutional process requiring a bipartisan Senate supermajority the starting gun for a civil war you aren’t rooting for to begin with?

        1. Perverting a constitutional process on specious grounds, in order to disqualify a popular opposition candidate. Democracy can’t work if the people in power start preemptively disqualifying potential opponents.

          For starters, where’s the evidence that Trump is responsible for the crime? That he held a rally?

          1. Brett,

            He pressured the Georgia SoS to violate his oath of office and “find” enough votes to turn the state. Failing that, he pressured Pence to violate his oath of office during the electoral vote counting process. Failing that, he predicted a “wild” day, told the crowd the election was stolen and told his supporters to march to the Capitol (granted, object not stated), but (not sure if before or after) Guiliani suggested to the crowd that they settle the matter via “trial by combat.” You don’t have to say all the seditious things yourself when you are the leader of a rally at which sedition is urged by your personal attorney and then the crowd takes you and your attorney at your word.

            If Trump himself had suggested trial by combat, would you have a problem with that?

            1. And when it went down, Trump did nothing to stop it for hours.

            2. “If Trump himself had suggested trial by combat, would you have a problem with that?”

              Not at all. Bone-spurs in trial by combat is a losing bet. He’s never had to fight for anything in his entire life. He’s the Washington Generals of manly arts.

  8. I’m just here to see what the Trumpers have to say. “waa waa we shouldn’t follow the law because people are really stupid” appears to be the main argument.

    Well, that might have made sense before you assaulted the capitol- but now it’s time to put an end to seditionists like we always have in this country whenever the perpetrators weren’t white supremacists.

  9. What is wrong with FIRE? This is AMERICA you moron!!!

  10. Trump has just set off an insurrection. He needs to be impeached and removed now, today, no wait. House can get it written up quickly, vote, and pass it to the Senate where they can vote to remove. This can be done in less then an hour.

    1. Mitch isn’t going to do any such thing, despite the fact that Trump cost the party control of the Senate.

  11. If there’s evidence that Trump explicitly incited a riot (and by this I mean something a lot more direct than stirring up his supporter’s emotions) to stop the certification, once he’s been removed from office he should be charged with treason.

    1. Treason consists only in levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies. Riots don’t qualify. Otherwise Al Sharpton would have been executed long ago.

      1. Sorry, but rioting to prevent the US Congress from certifying the outcome of a Presidential election is something I would classify as “levying war against the United States”.

        1. It’s not too far a leap to label Donald Trump as an enemy of the United States, and they’re definitely adhering.

    2. That’s a freaking huge “if”, but that said, I wouldn’t disagree IF the evidence could be demonstrated.

      I don’t see it, though: This didn’t stop the certification, it guaranteed it, and predictably so.

      1. “This didn’t stop the certification”

        Only because your would-be elite shock troops weren’t able to snatch up the EC ballots from the capitol floor.

    3. ” once he’s been removed from office he should be charged with treason.”

      Nah, let him face charges for soliciting vote fraud in the two states where he was recorded doing it. In two weeks’ time he can be charged in any state where he’s committed a crime.

    4. You certainly do not understand the meaning of treason. But inciting a violent riot, that calls for criminal charges two weeks from now.

    5. If there’s evidence that Trump explicitly incited a riot (and by this I mean something a lot more direct than stirring up his supporter’s emotions)

      Um, do you understand what the words “inciting a riot” mean?

      1. Incitement has a very specific meaning under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

  12. This goes too far. You know perfectly well that the President raised his objections honestly, to uphold an honest vote, not to prevent it. He should pursue a defamation case against anyone attempting this including yourself.

    1. I remember when the VC was a site for educated people, not seniors suffering from dementia.

      1. It has always, in my experience, been a dominated by partisan polemics that lather downscale, alienated right-wing rubes. A grievance-consumed political rant with a scant academic veneer, designed to advanced the Federalist Society’s ugly, stale thinking.

        1. While trying to claim with a straight face that FedSoc isn’t partisan.

          1. And whining about how good law schools won’t emulate lousy law schools by hiring more movement conservatives for faculty positions, demanding affirmative action for bigots and clingers.

      2. And yet Somin and Whittington have been allowed to post for many years…

        1. Neither of them belongs here. They deserve better. How long before they follow Prof. Kerr out the door in the academic version of bright flight?

    2. Trump and honestly have never once belonged together in the same sentence ever. He’s a crook, a thief, and a liar. He’s a traitor and seditious. He’s guilty of every crime one can imagine, from petty theft up to rape. (As far as I know he’s never killed anyone, though his response to covid was criminally negligent.) And yes, including election fraud.

      He should pursue a defamation case against anyone attempting this including yourself.

      To quote the previous Republican president: Bring. It. On.

      1. Such a pity he got distracted by Section 230 and never got around to repealing the first amendment and “opening up” the defamation laws.

    3. “You know perfectly well that the President raised his objections honestly”

      That’s why he asked his followers to vote for him twice in North Carolina, and suggested all he needs is 11,000 votes when trying to bully the AG of Georgia. an overabudance of honesty.

  13. The electoral votes were not counted today as they were expected to be. Sounds to me like the mob got what it wanted.

    1. they are counting them tonight

    2. Days not over. Meet tonight and count them.

    3. “Sounds to me like the mob got what it wanted.”

      They would have if they’d been able to capture the EC ballots on the capitol floor. But the staff saved them.
      I’m sure the Trumpistas will be claiming that chain of custody means we can’t trust the 306-232 outcome when you count the votes now.

  14. This is the writings of an incel….

    1. She’s out there for you somewhere, Jimmy, just keep looking.

  15. It’ll be a great precedent. If the President can get a fair and impartial trial in under 2 weeks after committing the offense then obviously less than 2 weeks is plenty of time to prepare for any criminal trial. Should help unclog the court system — no requests for delays, 2 weeks is plenty of time.

    The full impeachment process in under 2 weeks based on the actions of some protesters and reports from our “unbiased” news media would be as much of a coup as Trump stealing the election.

    1. Two weeks? No. Two hours.

    2. In two weeks, he’s removed from office due to term limit. No need to hold a hearing, or ask Mitch to bother himself with actually doing anything. That’s a win for everyone.

      1. But he then can be charged with a criminal offense in DC.

        1. Along with solicitation of election fraud in NC and GA, and anywhere else he was recorded doing it, that hasn’t become public yet.

  16. You haven’t just lost it, this was crazy enough to make me doubt you ever had it to lose.

  17. If Trump stoops as low as Nadler, he will claim it is a “myth” that anything happened.

    1. If Trump stoops as low as Trump, he’ll praise the “good people” who vandalized the capitol.

      1. He said he loved them in his statement hours ago. While he was ostensibly asking them to be peaceful while repeating how the election was stolen from him.

        1. He was talking about the peaceful protesters.

  18. White House staff can do what they’ve done with Trump in the past: ignore him when he orders something crazy. But now, ignore him 24/7. Just don’t listen to him. Let him rant.

    Note this recent cartoon:

    https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5fa5a15947f34744b625b7f1/master/w_1600%2Cc_limit/201116_r37365_rd.jpg

    1. Just leave him “inspecting” the White House bunker.

      1. Don’t unlock it until next month.

  19. “This need not be a lengthy process. The evidence of the president’s actions are clear and available to all.”

    Vacuum IS notably clear, and available inside the skulls of anyone who takes Whittington seriously after this.

    There’s no evidence presented of “the President’s actions” at all!

    1. Um, his speech this morning and his speech this evening are both on video. As are the rest of his speeches and all of his tweets.

      1. Fake News! I choose not to believe my liberal commie lying eyes!

    2. “There’s no evidence presented of “the President’s actions” at all!”

      There’s giving benefit of the doubt, and there’s “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”.
      The President presented his own evidence.

  20. “Moreover, he has shown no leadership since the attack on the capitol.”

    Why would he start now?

    1. Do you recognize the mental conflict necessary to hold as true both the position that Trump is leading the riots AND that he has provided no leadership during this time?

      1. “Doublethink is a process of indoctrination whereby the subject is expected to accept a clearly false statement as the truth, or to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in contravention to one’s own memories or sense of reality.” – Wikipedia

      2. Perhaps you miss the fact that he has shown no ability to the lead the cult. I think we can all agree that he is an effective cult leader. He has cultivated that talent all his life, business not really being his thing. Cult of personality is what he’s got, but that’s all he’s got. So, yeah, he can and has incited his supporters to violence with his, at best, careless words and baseless allegations of a “stolen” election.

        But, being a Trump supporter, I wouldn’t expect you to be able to distinguish statesman-like leadership from the cheap “leadership” of a cultist. They are different things. One involves caring about someone other than yourself. The other doesn’t.

        1. *he has shown no ability to lead the country…..obviously, he has created a cult of which he is the head.

        2. “Perhaps you miss the fact that he has shown no ability to the lead the cult. I think we can all agree that he is an effective cult leader.”

          So, is he an effective cult leader, or does he have no ability to lead the cult?

          You didn’t have to work so hard to demonstrate Toranth’s point.

          1. Michael,

            “Leading” a cult or riot doesn’t require the leadership referred to above. As I already explained. Leading a riot just means you instigated it, for example.

            Just because people use the same word (or words with the same root) to refer to two different things (leader / leadership) it doesn’t mean they are using the word to refer to identical characteristics. Words can have multiple meanings and/or shades of meanings. Use your context clues.

            Learn to read, get a decent vocabulary, and get back at me.

            1. Prevarication and the motte and bailey fallacy. Yawn. Learn to write, grow a moral backbone, and get back to me.

            2. Learn to read, get a decent vocabulary, and get back at me.

              While you’re scolding people about their English language skills, you might want to note that in this sentence, you identify yourself as a Trump supporter: “But, being a Trump supporter, I wouldn’t expect you to be able to distinguish statesman-like leadership from the cheap ‘leadership’ of a cultist. “

      3. No conflict at all. The leadership not provided was against the riot. Trump was too busy leading the riot to provide the needed leadership against it.

      4. “Do you recognize the mental conflict necessary to hold as true both the position that Trump is leading the riots AND that he has provided no leadership during this time?”

        Since I presented exactly one of these positions, I think I can keep all one of them straight with no mental conflict at all.

  21. Oh come on! Trump should have given up like a good soldier long since (a few days ago at least). He certainly should have sent a message to his supporters sooner than he did that they should behave like proper protestors. But impeach him as he goes out of office? Why? Why not retroactively impeach Obama for conspiring to undermine the Trump Presidency with baseless charges of collusion with Russia? The idea that we have this pure virginal political system that has never before been sullied by politics (Oh, except by Nixon, and oh yes Clinton) is not even stupid; it’s silly.

    1. Baseless?! Since when?
      The best you can muster within the evidence gathered is “insufficient evidence to convict” but “baseless”…no.

      1. Even worse: “insufficient evidence to convict AT THIS TIME”.

    2. Why not retroactively impeach Obama for conspiring to undermine the Trump Presidency with baseless charges of collusion with Russia?

      Well, first of all because there’s no such thing as “retroactively impeach.” Second, the charges weren’t/aren’t baseless. Third, Obama didn’t charge Trump with collusion with Russia.

      But impeach him as he goes out of office? Why?

      Because he’s still got two more weeks of damage to do, plus the fact that it’s not clear he’s going to leave and/or not going to try to come back.

      1. Actually, I just discovered that impeaching an ex-president isn’t as crazy as it sounds. It is apparently an open question whether that would be possible. (I.e. in order to disqualify them from holding office in the future.)

    3. ” Why not retroactively impeach Obama for conspiring to undermine the Trump Presidency with baseless charges of collusion with Russia?”

      Maybe because Obama didn’t make any charges of collusion with Russia?

  22. “I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country. And maybe there will be.”

    Nancy Pelosi

    “We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And sadly the domestic enemies to our voting system and our, honoring our Constitution are right [at] 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the United States.”

    Nancy Pelosi

    “It’s really actually shameful. Enemies of the state.”

    Nancy Pelosi

    “I don’t care that much about statues. People will do what they do.”

    Nancy Pelosi

    “If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.”

    Joe Biden

    “You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives.”

    Ayanna Pressley

    “No peace, no sleep! No peace, no sleep! … God is on our side! … If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

    Maxine Waters

    “I don’t know why people take it. I think Americans should be out in the streets screaming to the top of their voice. Do something. Make something happen.”

    Maxine Waters

    1. False equivalencies are the last refuge of the traitorous cult. Seeing a whole lot of that from the cult today. More than usual even.

    2. Well, your side uses “whataboutism” too.

      (Think about it)

      1. Incepted!

      2. I see what you did there.

  23. Seems very inflammatory. Is this what the nation needs right now?

    Perhaps everyone needs to tone down the rhetoric (very much including Trump, but not just him).

    1. Yes, it absolutely is.

      “We gather today due to a selfish man’s injured pride and the outrage of his supporters whom he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months and stirred to action this very morning. What happened here today was an insurrection, incited by the President of the United States. Those who choose to continue to support his dangerous gambit by objecting to the results of a legitimate, democratic election will forever be seen as being complicit in an unprecedented attack against our democracy. They will be remembered for their role in this shameful episode in American history. That will be their legacy,” Romney said.

      Fuck Trump, and all of those who support him.

      1. Right back at you Jason — your own medicine tastes bad?????

        1. Have an adult proof-read your comments before posting. You’ll stand less of a chance of looking like a twit.

  24. what is needed is a Barry Goldwater moment where a team of GOP leadership goes to the WH and tells Trump he needs to resign or be removed.

    1. What was needed was a mental competency exam performed by a non-toady.

  25. He probably should be impeached and removed, but I doubt Congress has the power to prevent him from running again. The impeachment clause says that judgement shall not extend further than removal and disqualification, but that doesn’t give Congress any power. They can’t disqualify somebody from an office where they don’t have the authority to set qualifications.

    1. “The impeachment clause says that judgement shall not extend further than removal and disqualification…”

      Yes, thus Congress can in fact disqualify someone from becoming President again after being impeached and removed as President. That’s how words work.

      1. Hey, no fair using reading comprehension as a weapon against someone who is defenseless in that regard. Sheesh.

      2. Twelveinch has repeatedly demonstrated he has trouble with words. But you are kind to try to educate him.

      3. “Yes, thus Congress can in fact disqualify someone from becoming President again after being impeached and removed as President. That’s how words work.”

        Then why did they add, “The 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.” without a corresponding provision specifying applying to disqualification?

        Y’all’s reading comprehension sucks.

        1. I am baffled.

          What exactly do you think the disqualification provision does?

          1. It limits the scope of judgements of impeachment. Reading comprehension, my man.

            It does the same thing as the “removal” provision, which can’t be to give Congress the power to remove the President, or Article II Section IV would have no effect.

        2. Twelveinch,

          Whose reading comprehension sucks?

          Art. I, Sec. 3: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

          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: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

          It’s pretty clear, this is talking about all impeachments, including that for President. I mean, it says “When the President of the United States is tried…” The. Very. Next. Paragraph. says what a judgment of impeachment may entail, what it precludes and what it does not preclude.

          You are entirely misinterpreting Art. II, Sec. 4, which provides:

          The 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.

          Which, instead of specifying what may happen, specifies what “shall” happen upon conviction of the specified offenses.

          Maybe never, ever, complain about anyone else’s reading comprehension. You may feel this is an attack on your intelligence, vocabulary, and reading abilities. It is.

          1. “Whose reading comprehension sucks?”

            Yours. I just said that. Please try to keep up.

            Article II has an exhaustive list of qualifications to be President, and not having been previously disqualified is not on it.

            1. “‘Whose reading comprehension sucks?’

              Yours.”

              Guess again.

            2. Twelve,

              You aren’t good at this.

              Your ipse dixit that the qualifications clause is “exhaustive” and, in a tenuous use of logic, that, therefore, conviction of a crime during a trial on impeachment can only result in removal from office carries no weight. It is especially silly given that the Senate’s powers on conviction explicitly include disqualification from “any office of honor, trust, or profit”. Read some contemporaneous state constitutions and read the cases decided under them and you will see that the disqualification clauses general applied to the executive (in the case of states, the Governor).

              In short, the most natural reading is also the reading adopted by Courts interpreting identical or nearly identical language in contemporaneous state constitutions. The burden is on you to show your idiosyncratic reading, which ignores plain language interpretation, is the better or more historically plausible one.

    2. “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; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
      Seems pretty clear.

      1. Only if you know how to read, which our little pianist seems to be unable.

      2. “The 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.”

        Mere surplusage?

        1. Attempted coup would count.

  26. No, Keith — The people have entered the people’s house — mostly peaceful?

    1. Do the people have a stand your ground law?

      1. You mean Castle Doctrine, not Stand Your Ground.

        This kind of faulty ideation is typical from the left.

        1. Given that it was a metaphor in any case, I’m not even going to bother arguing with you about who’s right, or about whether I’m “the left”.

          1. Sounds like you’re dealing with one of those people who labels anyone they disagree with as “the left”.

  27. In the interests of national unity, what about a motion to censure the President for his call to the Georgia Secretary of State and for his remarks today? I recognize that many believe a more drastic remedy is called for, but if one could get most of the Republicans in Congress to sign on to a motion of censure that might do a better job of healing the awful wounds the Trump era has opened.

    1. Can’t we just stick with open mockery of anyone who believes that Donald J Trump has a temperament suitable to the Presidency of the United States?

  28. Seems like a lot of effort for a time frame by definition less than 15 days. That’s some weapons-grade TDS.

    To quote one of our Great Leaders, “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

    1. Seems like a very, very good time to strip him of the pardon power.

  29. I understand the argument for impeachment, and in principle I agree that a President who attempts to undermine the foundations of democracy has fully earned removal and disqualification. I wonder though whether Democrats might find that strategic considerations weigh in the other direction.
    Trump has always been divisive within the Republican party, but in recent weeks we’ve seen the development of a full-scale schism. He attacks other Republicans on a daily basis, and several including McConnell and Pence have opposed him in public. We saw the result in the Georgia runoff – candidates who align with Trump lose too many moderate conservative voters to win. As long as he continues to split the GOP Democrats gain from keeping him in play, and although disqualification wouldn’t necessarily make him entirely benign in 2024 he can do much more damage to Republican chances if he can be in the running again.

    1. Trump did help deliver the Senate into Democratic hands. But he enjoys breaking things that other people care about, and cutting off the pardon power seems wise.

  30. “The evidence of the president’s actions are clear and available to all.”

    Then show us some of this evidence. If you provide quotes, the provide the context as well.

    1. The evidence is clear and available to all, even you.

  31. Who was it that subverted American democracy?

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2020/08/01/ethics-quote-of-the-month-andrew-mccarthy-and-the-integrity-test-it-presents/

    This blog recognized what was going on in general , if not all its specifics: hence the stuffed 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck, still crazy after all these years. I knew the FBI and the deep state ein the Justice Department were part of the plot, as well as the Clinton campaign. I did not suspect that Barack Obama himself was involved until recently—Biden too, of course. That was my confirmation bias: much as I believe Obama was a destructive and wrongfully admired POTUS, I do not want to think holders of the highest office in the land actively work to pervert democracy.

    – Jack Marshall

    “The Obama administration and the FBI knew that it was they who were meddling in a presidential campaign — using executive intelligence powers to monitor the president’s political opposition. This, they also knew, would rightly be regarded as a scandalous abuse of power if it ever became public. There was no rational or good-faith evidentiary basis to believe that Trump was in a criminal conspiracy with the Kremlin or that he’d had any role in Russian intelligence’s suspected hacking of Democratic Party email accounts…To believe Trump was unfit for the presidency on temperamental or policy grounds was a perfectly reasonable position for Obama officials to take — though an irrelevant one, since it’s up to the voters to decide who is suitable. But to claim to suspect that Trump was in a cyberespionage conspiracy with the Kremlin was inane . . . except as a subterfuge to conduct political spying, which Obama officials well knew was an abuse of power. So they concealed it.”

    Former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy in the National Review

  32. I now share Jack Marshall’s opinion.

    That’s just academic derangement. Not condemning a lawless act to everone’s satisfaction is now a high crime? What an idiotic position.

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2021/01/07/further-observations-on-the-pro-trump-rioting-at-the-capitol/comment-page-1/#comment-736351

Please to post comments