yellowstone123 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 4:43 pm
I do believe this that the first impeachment trial was a witch-hunt. One of the squad when she took office the first day of the new congress said lets go impeach the m’thr fkr. The first impeachment was a clown-show- case and they would never get a conviction with McConnell as the majority leader of the Senate and those who were under his influence. The second impeachment was about the January 6th 2021, debacle. I believe they did it to prevent a second presidency in the future. I’m not too sure about timelines if the senate could convict after he left office to prevent him from being reelected in four years.
In the God Father the famous line, “It’s not personal, it’s business”. I would say the first impeachment was personal. The second one had merit, but someone needs to explain the process, likely Res Ipsa.
The shame of the United States Government to create kangaroo courts for some of those entering the capital especially Mr. Antler with his red, white and blue face was heart breaking and he should have sued his attorney for malpractice. First, he needed to be assessed by a psychiatrist from the prosecution side and those of the defense. But I don’t think he ever saw one or anyone to deal with his mental health issue.It was a shark frenzy by the media, likely told to plead guilty by his attorney to avoid a longer sentence if he went to trial. He sat in jail and then prison without the needed mental health help.
Trump may be immune to certain things as president but not all. He can’t do what President Nixon did who we all know resigned before impeachment. He can’t break the law while in office, and if he did and it was not a witch hunt, and obvious, both the House and the Senate would convict. I actually believe in the process.
*To be continued
i understand your perspective, but mine is a little different. The problem with term "witch hunt" is that sometimes there are witches. The first impeachment started with a witch -- the transcript of Trump's telephone call with the President of Ukraine. It certainly provided evidence that Trump abused his power as president to pressure the Ukrainian President to start a corruption investigation, not for the benefit of the United States or Ukraine, but purely for the benefit of Donald J. Trump's re-election campaign. The Constitution permits impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors, but does not define either. It's up to Congress to decide whether those terms apply. In my opinion, abuse of Presidential power for personal gain, whether it's taking a bribe or threatening another country, should be an impeachable offense.
The process itself, other than the number of votes required for the House to impeach and the Senate to convict, is pretty much up to Congress. The leaders of both houses have quite a bit of discretion, and the Supreme Court apparently sees the process as one reserved to Congress. The Constitution designates who will be the judge for a trial in the Senate, but it's not clear that the Senate is even required to hold a trial. That's how loose the process is.
Personally, I think the House should conduct an impeachment inquiry when it has reason to believe the President has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The impeachment power is the Constitutional "check" given to Congress with respect to the executive, and it should take that responsibility seriously. If the inquiry results in persuasive evidence of impeachable conduct, it should vote. I don't think the House should take into consideration the politics of the Senate, as the voters are also a check on abuse of presidential power.
I have less of an opinion about the Senate. If the Senate wants to hold a trial, hold it. Or not. The people can decide whether their Senators are doing their Constitutional duty.
The second impeachment is tougher for me. I agree that the purpose was not to remove Trump from office, as he was only a couple of weeks away from leaving office. The purpose was the vote to bar him from further office holding. I don't think the timing of the process should have been an issue -- otherwise the President could abuse power to his heart's content in the final weeks of his term with no consequences. Because impeachment is a prerequisite to the bar from holding office, I think Congress should have the power to impeach a President even after he leaves office.
But, in my opinion, because of the rush to hold a vote before Trump left office, the necessary investigation wasn't done before the vote. Had the House been able to fully investigate the full extent of the conspiracy to overturn the results of the election, it would have had perhaps the strongest case in history for impeachment. in my opinion, the President shouldn't be able to escape the bar from holding office by running out the clock.
I don't know why antler guy was not given a psychiatric evaluation. I don't know that much about him, but he looked like a good candidate for one.
On the information known at the time of the impeachment vote, I tend to think the first impeachment had more merit than the second. With all the facts in, I'm convinced that the second had far more merit.