Trump faces calls for removal, possible impeachment after Capitol chaos

[crobe]

4 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

There were at least separate instances.  The one you refer to was the authorization of the DC National Guard to go to the defense of Congress.  Apparently, that authorization was refused by Trump and ultimately issued by Pence, who, however, lacks authority give such permission.  

 

The other instance was the request by Governor Larry Hogan to the Secretary of Defense for authorization to send Maryland National Guard troops as requested by Rep. Steny Hoyer to the defense of Congress.  The Acting (and unconfirmed) Secretary of Defense declined to take the call from the Governor and never took any action.  In a later phone call with the Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy, the Secretary advised the Governor to go ahead and send the Maryland National Guard to the Capitol.  The Secretary of the Army had no authority to give such permission as Governor Hogan undoubtedly knew.

 

So, at no time did the Trump administration actually legitimately authorize the use of any National Guard troops to protect the Congress.

 

Wednesday was intended to be the American Reichstag Fire.

What will come out in the investigation is whether the acting Secretary of Defence, who failed to respond to the call, did indeed run this up the chain to the President.

"According to the timeline, the D.C. National Guard troops did not leave the D.C. armory until 5:04 p.m, and arrived at the Capitol at 5:40, four hours after they were first requested by the mayor."

Above courtesy of CBS News

[Walker88]

Just now, J Town said:

Pence does NOT want to compete against 45 in 2024.

Neither do ted cruz, josh hawley or half a dozen other Senators with presidential ambitions.

 

Besides wanting to 'rehabilitate' their reputations after last week, I can see many repub senators voting to convict 45, in additional to the senators with principles, like Romney, Sasse, & Thune, who will vote to convict.

 

45 would lose the ability to hold national public office and also lose his $200K/year pension, which he will likely need when he sees his 'brand' is suddenly worth zero and banks begin recalling loans.

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, crobe said:

What will come out in the investigation is whether the acting Secretary of Defence, who failed to respond to the call, did indeed run this up the chain to the President.

"According to the timeline, the D.C. National Guard troops did not leave the D.C. armory until 5:04 p.m, and arrived at the Capitol at 5:40, four hours after they were first requested by the mayor."

Above courtesy of CBS News

 

But by the oath of omerta Mr. Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who was appointed on Nov. 9 after (Senate confirmed) Secretary Mark Esper was pushed out, will not rat out his Commander-in-Chief.  It will be found that Acting Secretary Miller was fully occupied with meetings at the time and therefore unable to take the call from Governor Hogan.  And proving otherwise will be very difficult.

[crobe]

6 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

But by the oath of omerta Mr. Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who was appointed on Nov. 9 after (Senate confirmed) Secretary Mark Esper was pushed out, will not rat out his Commander-in-Chief.  It will be found that Acting Secretary Miller was fully occupied with meetings at the time and therefore unable to take the call from Governor Hogan.  And proving otherwise will be very difficult.

An argument which will not hold

The duty of the acting secretary is to inform his superiors of the request - if he fails to do so he can be charged - possibly with aiding an insurrection

If he did inform his superiors then the call from the official line is recorded

If he called from a non-government line then both will be culpable 

It depends if he is willing to dive under the bus for Trump once the heat is on

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by crobe

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, crobe said:

An argument which will not hold

The duty of the acting secretary is to inform his superiors of the request - if he fails to do so he can be charged - possibly with aiding an insurrection

If he did inform his superiors then the call from the official line is recorded

If he called from a non-government line then both will be culpable 

It depends if he is willing to dive under the bus for Trump once the heat is on

 

Since Acting Secretary Christopher Miller was regrettably unable to take the call from Governor Hogan, he can hardly be expected to know the purpose of the call.

 

As to how likely Miller is to stop a bullet for his Commander-in-Chief I assume Trump put him in that position after the election after vetting him for just that talent.

 

In any case Trump can always pardon him.  Now might be the time for Trump's legal advisors to explain to him that in fact he can grant a pardon to all  4,000 members of his administration with the stroke of a pen.  And why wouldn't he?

 

Nothing is going to happen to Miller.

[stevenl]

23 minutes ago, J Town said:

Pence does NOT want to compete against 45 in 2024.

Agreed. So if Pence invokes the 25th now, he is keeping a Trump run in 2024 open. In that case he will not run. So my guess is he will not invoke the 25th and hope that Congress impeaches. If that happens good for Pence's 2024 run, if it doesn't happen he hasn't lost anything.

[crobe]

3 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Since Acting Secretary Christopher Miller was regrettably unable to take the call from Governor Hogan, he can hardly be expected to know the purpose of the call.

 

As to how likely Miller is to stop a bullet for his Commander-in-Chief I assume Trump put him in that position after the election after vetting him for just that talent.

 

In any case Trump can always pardon him.  Now might be the time for Trump's legal advisors to explain to him that in fact he can grant a pardon to all  4,000 members of his administration with the stroke of a pen.  And why wouldn't he?

 

Nothing is going to happen to Miller.

Again, respectfully, that argument does not hold

There are records of both Mayor Bowser and Capito Police Chief Sund calling in to the DoD, and this will be recorded. 

The calls to the DoD were transferred to the acting Secretary who, it seems, refused to take the call, and any argument he may have that he was unavailable will of course beg the question "what was more important that he could not take the calls"

The Senate will probably hear this evidence when it reconvenes to look at the impeachment only on the 19th, so too late for Trump to issue a pardon - if he issues a pardon in advance it is tantamount to an admission of guilt.

My own view - Miller is going down or taking someone else down in the process

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2021 at 2:28 PM, skorp13 said:

Impeachment? The man has less than 2 weeks lwft in office and you're going to spend how much time and money that those could be sent on your citizens. Really dumb and disgraceful. he already stated a peaceful transfer of power on the 20th

Not dumb at all, he would be able to hold a public office in the rest of his life. 

"he already stated a peaceful transfer of power on the 20th" why would anyone with a brain believe him?

Edited January 10, 2021 by FritsSikkink

[Opl]

4 minutes ago, crobe said:

Again, respectfully, that argument does not hold

There are records of both Mayor Bowser and Capito Police Chief Sund calling in to the DoD, and this will be recorded. 

The calls to the DoD were transferred to the acting Secretary who, it seems, refused to take the call, and any argument he may have that he was unavailable will of course beg the question "what was more important that he could not take the calls"

The Senate will probably hear this evidence when it reconvenes to look at the impeachment only on the 19th, so too late for Trump to issue a pardon - if he issues a pardon in advance it is tantamount to an admission of guilt.

My own view - Miller is going down or taking someone else down in the process

 

And Trump meanwhile, watching it live on TV and doing nothing, except twitting his allies to delay the certification.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Opl

[J Town]

21 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agreed. So if Pence invokes the 25th now, he is keeping a Trump run in 2024 open. In that case he will not run. So my guess is he will not invoke the 25th and hope that Congress impeaches. If that happens good for Pence's 2024 run, if it doesn't happen he hasn't lost anything.

It's looking most likely Pelosi will get the impeachment done this week. She is fed up with his insanity. The loser-in-chief is absolutely dangerous. He's a child running with sharp pointy scissors, aiming them at anyone who gets in his way.

[cmarshall]

25 minutes ago, crobe said:

Again, respectfully, that argument does not hold

There are records of both Mayor Bowser and Capito Police Chief Sund calling in to the DoD, and this will be recorded. 

The calls to the DoD were transferred to the acting Secretary who, it seems, refused to take the call, and any argument he may have that he was unavailable will of course beg the question "what was more important that he could not take the calls"

The Senate will probably hear this evidence when it reconvenes to look at the impeachment only on the 19th, so too late for Trump to issue a pardon - if he issues a pardon in advance it is tantamount to an admission of guilt.

My own view - Miller is going down or taking someone else down in the process

 

Trump can issue a pre-emptive pardon at any time including today.  He has already discussed his plan to issue such a pre-emptive pardon for Don Jr., Ivanka, Jared, and Giuliani, none of whom has been charged with any crime and not even investigated as far as we know.  The implication of guilt in the issuance of such pre-emptive pardons is not likely to be much of a deterrent to a psychopath who is incapable of feeling either guilt or shame.  

 

I'll stick with my bet that nothing will happen to Miller one way or another.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 hours ago, cmarshall said:

 

As far as I know banning the President from holding office in the future could only be imposed as a sentence after conviction by the same two-thirds of senators present required to impose a sentence of removal from office.  

 

 

I'm seeing the following:

 

"A person who meets the above qualifications would, however, still be disqualified from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:

• Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases, the Senate has the option to order, by a simple majority, that an individual be forever disqualified from holding federal office, which includes that of president.^[2]
   

• Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, no person who swore an oath to support the Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States, is eligible to become president. However, this disqualification can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.^[3]
   

• Under the Twenty-second Amendment, no person can be elected president more than twice. The amendment also specifies that if any eligible person serves as president or acting president for more than two years of a term for which some other eligible person was elected president, the former can only be elected president once.^[4][5]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation

 

The middle section is interesting in Trump's case:

 

Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, no person who swore an oath to support the Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States, is eligible to become president. However, this disqualification can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.^[3]

 

Also, in the first impeachment section above, it appears to say that a simple majority Senate vote AFTER impeaching someone would allow the Senate to also ban them from ever holding future federal office.  Apparently, impeachment alone, absent that second majority vote to ban, doesn't accomplish a ban on future officeholding.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

It's kind of interesting in Trump's case...

 

On one hand, the future 2024 Republican presidential hopefuls in the Senate, along with Pence, might well wish Trump is taken out of running in some way or another.

 

But on the flip side, they probably don't want to have their own fingerprints on that happening, for fear of making all the Trump acolytes out there go crazy against them.

 

Such a dilemma.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I don't know if the Senate can impeach a president who's already left office, even if the House started the process while the president was still in office. I think not...

 

And at this point, Trump's little remaining time in office would make it seem pretty unlikely that both houses of Congress could or would act against him.

 

Perhaps the House Democrats could pass an impeachment indictment in time. But doubtful the current Senate is gonna do anything with that in the 10 days remaining in Trump's term. For the Senate to convict anyone of impeachment requires a 2/3rds vote.

 

[cmarshall]

7 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

 

I'm seeing the following:

 

"A person who meets the above qualifications would, however, still be disqualified from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:

• Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases, the Senate has the option to order, by a simple majority, that an individual be forever disqualified from holding federal office, which includes that of president.^[2]
   

• Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, no person who swore an oath to support the Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States, is eligible to become president. However, this disqualification can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.^[3]
   

• Under the Twenty-second Amendment, no person can be elected president more than twice. The amendment also specifies that if any eligible person serves as president or acting president for more than two years of a term for which some other eligible person was elected president, the former can only be elected president once.^[4][5]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation

 

The middle section is interesting in Trump's case:

 

Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, no person who swore an oath to support the Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States, is eligible to become president. However, this disqualification can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.^[3]

 

Also, in the first impeachment section above, it appears to say that a simple majority Senate vote AFTER impeaching someone would allow the Senate to also ban them from ever holding future federal office.

 

 

This is the complete text of Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:

 

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.

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

 

As you can see there is no mention of assigning any punishment by a simple majority, nor does the link you provided contain such language.  The Wikipedia link you provide includes that language, but cites another link as source which does not contain it.  So, I think that conclusion is in error.

 

Therefore, my contention holds that a two-thirds majority of the senators present is necessary to convict and to impose any punishment.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

See the following... It's much in the news the past two days:

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/impeachment-could-ban-trump-2024-run.html

 

Impeachment Could Ban Trump From Running in 2024

 

"But there is a case increasingly being made for proceeding with impeachment and forcing a Senate trial of Trump that would conclude after January 20 in order to ban him from holding office in the future.

 

There is no question that the Constitution authorizes a ban on future officeholding as an option for the Senate as a “sentence” after an impeachment trial.

...

Indeed, Senate rules provide that such a ban may be enacted by a simple majority vote after two-thirds of the Senate has voted for conviction in an impeachment trial."

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Congress should impeach Trump again and bar him from holding any future public office

 

"Why bother to impeach a president on his way out the door? This time, impeachment would not be about removing him from office, but rather about disqualifying him from running again.

...

The Constitution’s Article I, Section 3 provides for “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States” as a penalty for an impeachable offense. And critically, while removal from office requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, disqualification is different.
 

Per the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: "Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote, the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote."

 

https://news.yahoo.com/congress-impeach-trump-again-bar-164547104.html

 

 

That's a very interesting argument, in that it seems to be saying that the Senate could by a simple majority vote decide to bar Trump from holding future federal office -- without having to get the 2/3rd vote required to convict on an impeachment.

 

Whereas the NY Mag article above makes the removal from office majority vote as a follow-on to a prior 2/3rds impeachment conviction vote....

 

Wonder which is correct???

 

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[cmarshall]

8 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

See the following... It's much in the news the past two days:

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/impeachment-could-ban-trump-2024-run.html

 

Impeachment Could Ban Trump From Running in 2024

 

"But there is a case increasingly being made for proceeding with impeachment and forcing a Senate trial of Trump that would conclude after January 20 in order to ban him from holding office in the future.

There is no question that the Constitution authorizes a ban on future officeholding as an option for the Senate as a “sentence” after an impeachment trial.

...

Indeed, Senate rules provide that such a ban may be enacted by a simple majority vote after two-thirds of the Senate has voted for conviction in an impeachment trial."

 

 

Looks like there are two precedents for imposing disqualification of further office with a simple majority vote.  If so, and assuming that a Senate trial cannot be convened before the end of Trump's term on Jan. 20, then it looks like no trial of articles of impeachment is actually required.  The Senate with a simple majority can therefore simply bar Trump from holding office again by passing a motion to that effect.  Would take one R senator, but that seems possible.  

 

Easy-peasey.

Edited January 10, 2021 by cmarshall

[Virt]

14 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I don't know if the Senate can impeach a president who's already left office, even if the House started the process while the president was still in office. I think not...

 

And at this point, Trump's little remaining time in office would make it seem pretty unlikely that both houses of Congress could or would act against him.

 

Perhaps the House Democrats could pass an impeachment indictment in time. But doubtful the current Senate is gonna do anything with that in the 10 days remaining in Trump's term. For the Senate to convict anyone of impeachment requires a 2/3rds vote.

 

 

If I understand this article correct it's highly unlikely an impeachment will pass through all requirements in time and get the required votes , but my technical English is lacking so I might misunderstand something. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-impeachment-trump-mcconnell/2021/01/08/5f650ad0-520d-11eb-b2e8-3339e73d9da2_story.html

[stevenl]

26 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

It's kind of interesting in Trump's case...

 

On one hand, the future 2024 Republican presidential hopefuls in the Senate, along with Pence, might well wish Trump is taken out of running in some way or another.

 

But on the flip side, they probably don't want to have their own fingerprints on that happening, for fear of making all the Trump acolytes out there go crazy against them.

 

Such a dilemma.

 

Exactly, which is why Pence won't invoke article 25. He is hoping for Pelosi to do the dirty work for him and impeach him. And I'm sure he hopes the impeachment succeeds, so Trump is out of contention for 2024.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Looks like the cites on future bans are coming from here, among other places:

 

"Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,⁸⁵⁵ the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.⁸⁵⁶

 

 

The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 Cannon’s precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 Deschler’sprecedents ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607 (1936)."

 

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

If I understand this article correct it's highly unlikely an impeachment will pass through all requirements in time and get the required votes , but my technical English is lacking so I might misunderstand something. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-impeachment-trump-mcconnell/2021/01/08/5f650ad0-520d-11eb-b2e8-3339e73d9da2_story.html

 

The Post article you link above seems to envision the possibility of a Senate impeachment trial for Trump commencing AFTER his term as president has expired.

 

In that case, since removal from office would not longer be possible, the only other thing that would be possible is a future ban on holding any federal office -- which might be allowed via a simple Senate majority vote.... if you read the info posted above.

 

"On Jan. 20 or 21, the Senate would proceed to consideration of the impeachment articles at 1 p.m., and officially begin the trial. McConnell’s memo noted that the “Senate trial would therefore begin after President Trump’s term has expired — either one hour after its expiration on January 20, or twenty-five hours after its expiration on January 21.”
 

There is also a question of who exactly would preside over a trial of a former president. Senate impeachment rules require Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. preside over a trial of a sitting president, but whether he would have to once Trump is no longer president is “unclear,” the memo said."

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

13 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Looks like there are two precedents for imposing disqualification of further office with a simple majority vote.  If so, and assuming that a Senate trial cannot be convened before the end of Trump's term on Jan. 20, then it looks like no trial of articles of impeachment is actually required.  The Senate with a simple majority can therefore simply bar Trump from holding office again by passing a motion to that effect.  Would take one R senator, but that seems possible.  

 

Easy-peasey.

 

I think the notion of the Senate voting to ban someone from future federal office would still have to happen in the Senate as a result of a House-initiated impeachment to start the process.  ... I think....

Edited January 10, 2021 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[cmarshall]

34 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

It's kind of interesting in Trump's case...

 

On one hand, the future 2024 Republican presidential hopefuls in the Senate, along with Pence, might well wish Trump is taken out of running in some way or another.

 

But on the flip side, they probably don't want to have their own fingerprints on that happening, for fear of making all the Trump acolytes out there go crazy against them.

 

Such a dilemma.

 

 

But there is an easy way out for them: boycott the Senate trial or motion to disqualify.  They can express their indignation that such an item is even on the agenda and refuse to soil their hands by attending.

[cmarshall]

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I think the notion of the Senate voting to ban someone from future federal office would still have to happen in the Senate as a result of a House-initiated impeachment to start the process.

 

Sounds logical enough, but I don't see the textual basis for such a requirement.  If they can indeed impose disqualification for future office then where is that tied to conviction in the Senate under articles of impeachment.  If they can do it at all, then they can do it without conviction as it appears to me.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Well, this exchange has been VERY interesting...

 

Before today, I had generally thought that the House trying to impeach Trump now was kind of pointless...because it's almost certainly not going to get the required 2/3rds Senate vote for removal prior to Jan. 20... for both political and procedural reasons.

 

But now that the whole ban from holding future federal office issue is on the table, and the notion that that could occur AFTER Jan. 20 and possibly with only a majority Senate vote, it kinda becomes an entirely different ballgame.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

But there is an easy way out for them: boycott the Senate trial or motion to disqualify.  They can express their indignation that such an item is even on the agenda and refuse to soil their hands by attending.

 

I like that!  ????

 

[J Town]

34 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I don't know if the Senate can impeach a president who's already left office, even if the House started the process while the president was still in office. I think not...

 

And at this point, Trump's little remaining time in office would make it seem pretty unlikely that both houses of Congress could or would act against him.

 

Perhaps the House Democrats could pass an impeachment indictment in time. But doubtful the current Senate is gonna do anything with that in the 10 days remaining in Trump's term. For the Senate to convict anyone of impeachment requires a 2/3rds vote.

 

The Senate has nothing to do with the impeachment. Their role is the subsequent removal from office. Articles of impeachments are scheduled for Monday with a congressional vote Wednesday. Pelosi has already promised the impeachment unless the loser-in-chief resigns. RESIGNS! 555!!

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

But now that the whole ban from holding future federal office issue is on the table, and the notion that that could occur AFTER Jan. 20 and possibly with only a majority Senate vote, it kinda becomes an entirely different ballgame.

 

 

Especially when you consider that the Republican senators covertly want to be rid of Trump, but without their fingerprints on it. 

[crobe]

13 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Sounds logical enough, but I don't see the textual basis for such a requirement.  If they can indeed impose disqualification for future office then where is that tied to conviction in the Senate under articles of impeachment.  If they can do it at all, then they can do it without conviction as it appears to me.

This is the crux of the argument and you are quite right to point it out.

From my reading of the articles of the senate, the requirement is for a super-majority for a conviction (whether that is 67 senators or a super-majority of those present is not clear to me), but only after the conviction could any sentence be pronounced

It is possible that a simple majority could then be enough for disbarment from future public office