Trump Impeachment Trial 2.0

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/steventdennis/status/1360008560898428931

Can you please explain in your own words what is wrong with What Sen Cassidy said?

[PlatinumGuy]

Can you please explain in your own words what is wrong with What Sen Cassidy said?

On the contrary, I posted it because I agree with what Cassidy said (at least the part I remember hearing him say)

[aygart]

On the contrary, I posted it because I agree with what Cassidy said (at least the part I remember hearing him say)

Ahh so nothing to do with the guy whose tweet you quoted. Okay.

[PlatinumGuy]

Ahh so nothing to do with the guy whose tweet you quoted. Okay.

I don't really care what he thinks but it seemed to me like Steven Dennis is also agreeing with Cassidy and quoting him to amplify the point that clarification is required for what exactly DJT was saying and doing between 2pm and 6pm.

It can be determined pretty easily by calling Meadows etc to testify, so I think the Dems simply prefer DJT isn't convicted, and the trial is all just to appease their voters and donors and taint the acquitters.

[zh cohen]

It can be determined pretty easily by calling Meadows etc to testify, so I think the Dems simply prefer DJT isn't convicted, and the trial is all just to appease their voters and donors and taint the acquitters.

Another possibility it that they would rather be able to continue to make insinuations instead of revealing the truth and losing that talking point.

If there was any truth to the allegations that he knew what was going on and wanted it to continue, they would gain a lot more by proving it than they gain by getting Republicans to vote to acquite.

[PlatinumGuy]

Another possibility it that they would rather be able to continue to make insinuations instead of revealing the truth and losing that talking point.

If there is truth that can be revealed and portray DJT better, why aren't his lawyers or Republicans revealing it?

If there was any truth to the allegations that he knew what was going on and wanted it to continue, they would gain a lot more by proving it

I don't think so politically. If all of the GOP voted for convicting, they would distance themselves from his legacy and move on (like Nikki Haley is trying). They might lose some of the hard core Trumpsters but those don't have anywhere to go to, so I would think losing moderated and independents who can just cross the aisle is a bigger issue. Also, Patriot Party isn't so hard to believe. 

Dems want it to stick.

[jj1000]

@PlatinumGuy I am jumping in middle here, but I saw you post a few times that intent doesn't matter, but that is simply not true when it comes to the threshold of incitement according to US law.

In fact intent must be proven to convict someone of incitement, otherwise it's just regular free speech under the Brandenburg test.

[biobook]

@PlatinumGuy I am jumping in middle here, but I saw you post a few times that intent doesn't matter, but that is simply not true when it comes to the threshold of incitement according to US law.

In fact intent must be proven to convict someone of incitement, otherwise it's just regular free speech under the Brandenburg test.

@jj1000 How does one prove intent?  I'm thinking of Michael Cohen and others who have provided many examples of Trump's style of speech, in which he offers only hints as to his intent, and expects others to interpret what he means.  Then, if criticized, Trump responds that he never said those words. 

[jj1000]

@jj1000 How does one prove intent?  I'm thinking of Michael Cohen and others who have provided many examples of Trump's style of speech, in which he offers only hints as to his intent, and expects others to interpret what he means.  Then, if criticized, Trump responds that he never said those words. 

Hence the Brandenburg test is a very high standard to reach and the first amendment rights almost always wins out.

The onus is on the prosecutor to prove intent, not the defendant...

[PlatinumGuy]

@PlatinumGuy I am jumping in middle here, but I saw you post a few times that intent doesn't matter, but that is simply not true when it comes to the threshold of incitement according to US law.

In fact intent must be proven to convict someone of incitement, otherwise it's just regular free speech under the Brandenburg test.

I appreciate that data point, but;

A. Under prevailing law, intent is required for incitement of violence, the Senate trial is for incitement of insurrection. The bar isn't necessarily the same - for example incitement of a riot doesn't require intent in Kansas, MT, PA, and other states and courts haven't ruled it unconstitutional yet (as another example of crimes that don't require intent, in a few states like Arizona a riot is a crime even if it is intentional). That's aside from the fact the Senate can hypothetically overrule the Brandenberg test/SCOTUS precedent.

B. The senate can convict a Federal official of something they consider to be a 'crime' even if it isn't a crime under US law.

Jonathan H. Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, wrote that Mr. Trump might be protected by the Brandenburg decision — in court.

“However awful and unpresidential his comments may have been, I will accept for the sake of argument that they did not pose a sufficient risk of inducing imminent lawless action of the sort necessary to sacrifice First Amendment protection,” Professor Adler, wrote in a blog post. “Would that mean he could not be impeached for those remarks? Not at all.”

The Constitution allows impeachment for “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” That last phrase — “other high crimes and misdemeanors” — is vague, but it plainly does not encompass every ordinary crime. Rather, it follows two offenses that give a general sense of the kinds of crimes the framers had in mind: treason and bribery. Those are crimes against the state and the rule of law that undermine the ability of the government to function

....

The distinction between criminal and impeachable conduct helps explain why Mr. Trump’s First Amendment defense has no place in the Senate trial, Keith E. Whittington, a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote in a blog post.

“It is not hard to imagine examples of speech that would be constitutionally protected if uttered by a private citizen but that could and should be grounds for impeachment and removal if uttered by the president of the United States,” he wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/us/incitement-court-senators-impeachment.html

I will assume, for the sake of argument, that nothing President Trump said this week would constitute actual incitement under existing First Amendment doctrine. That is, however awful and unpresidential his comments may have been, I will accept for the sake of argument that they did not pose a sufficient risk of inducing imminent lawless action of the sort necessary to sacrifice First Amendment protection. Would that mean he could not be impeached for those remarks? Not at all.

As others have explained at length (including my co-blogger Keith Whittington and Timothy Sandefur), a president may be impeached for lawful actions. The phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was never understood to be limited to actual crimes, whether at common law or as defined by the U.S. Code (the latter of which scarcely existed at the time). It has always been understood to include abuses of power and other actions that are wrongful when committed by a public official, even if legal. See, for instance, Alexander Hamilton's comments in Federalist 65. So whether or not Trump's comments would be criminal under federal law is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they could constitute an impeachable offense....

Just as "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" need not be actual crimes or misdemeanors,  "Incitement" as an impeachable offense need not have the same definition as "incitement" for the purposes of criminal law or the First Amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution or its history that would impose such a constraint.
...

 And let's not forget that we have seen public officials impeached for speech that would be protected today, and one of the articles of impeachment brought against Andrew Johnson concerned his irresponsible rhetorical excesses.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/08/yes-congress-may-impeach-and-remove-president-trump-for-inciting-lawless-behavior-at-the-capitol/



I will acknowgdlge that if indeed there was no intent, the First Amendment is much more relevant than I claimed, in the sense that if you interpret the constitution to explicitly allow it, you can argue the constitution bars Congress from sanctioning it.

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1360304813259452416
https://twitter.com/andrewfeinberg/status/1360321258785751049

What a clown show

[PlatinumGuy]

Another possibility it that they would rather be able to continue to make insinuations instead of revealing the truth and losing that talking point.

If there was any truth to the allegations that he knew what was going on and wanted it to continue, they would gain a lot more by proving it than they gain by getting Republicans to vote to acquite.

https://twitter.com/steventdennis/status/1360336201010581504

https://twitter.com/noahcrothman/status/1360335825746149378

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/acosta/status/1360340886610194443
https://twitter.com/jakesherman/status/1360341886561624079

Definitely squeaky clean

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/ariberman/status/1360710561017782278

[yitzgar]

https://twitter.com/ariberman/status/1360710561017782278

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1360689966385356813

This is the answer to those who claim impeachment was only a political charade.

Even if you assume the Democrats are trying to gratify a desire for vengeance motivated purely by unreasonable hate. From their 80m voters half are non-existent or dead, the other half are simply brainwashed by the liberal fake news media and big tech, and the handful of people who are pulling the strings to the whole apparatus and actually understand what they’re doing are bogeymen like George Soros, Bill Gates, & Obama intent on destroying the US & Israel purely for evils sake.

And even if you assume that unlike the dirty radical leftist democrats most of the GOP isn’t acting out of politics but motivated by an honest and good faith belief that acquitting is appropriate, because Jan 6 events weren’t as bad as the left makes them to be & BLM protests were worse than made out to be, and even if Jan 6 was bad, Trump wasn’t responsible for it, and even if he was responsible for it somewhat, it doesn’t meet the technical literal bar of being a crime, and even if it might be a crime, he did enough good for the country that he deserves the benefit of the doubt, and even if he did commit a crime, sanctioning him isn’t worth the divisiveness it would cause, and even if all of the above aren’t true he shouldn’t be convicted because the Senate procedurally can’t convict after he left office.

And even if you assume the Mitt Romney is a RINO who voted out a personal vendetta against DJT and an attempt to stay in the headlines with contrarian views.

How do you explain Liz Cheney and her clan of hard right Republicans who voted to convict without any political gain? Liz Cheney took great political risk and was almost dethroned from one of the most senior Republican positions. She won her seat in Wyoming 61%-29% and gains absolutely nothing from pandering to the left.

[Jellybelly]

Ah, now that the trial is over, I feel so unified!

[PlatinumGuy]

Ah, now that the trial is over, I feel so unified!

Said the cancer patient when the doctor failed to remove his tumor. At least I didn’t suffer the pain of surgery recovery and my body is still intact.

[AsherO]

Said the cancer patient when the doctor failed to remove his tumor. At least I didn’t suffer the pain of surgery recovery and my body is still intact.

Nothing would change either way. This whole unity theme is BS.

[PlatinumGuy]

Nothing would change either way. This whole unity theme is BS.

Only 4% of American weddings are between Rs & D’s. There is definitely an objective lack of unity. Cutting off the extremes like Trump & Ilan Omar allows the middle 70% or 95% to be more unified.