To Impeach Trump or?? Consequences for Inciting Insurrection.

Done.

I don't know which event you mean by "the riot".

That doesn't change my answer, though.

The FBI knows what is going on.

That's their job. And they certanly are not some lefty organization.

 

If you aren't even aware of the DEFINITION of domestic terrorism as used by the USA, maybe you should stop and do some homework before discussing that topic.

 

As for we are hearing here in Italy, the Senate is going to vote AFTER that Trump will have left the White House.

Frankly speaking this is curious. And Biden's oath will be an oath without the leaving President [and without his daughter, as for I know].

 

Agree completely....I can't help wonder if they in fact have any "personal ideologies"?
Most times it appears to be nothing more than the "I'm right and you are wrong" game.
The country...the Constitution...ideologies...even tRump doesn't seem to matter any more.
What matters most is "you are wrong" and "they are right"...and there are no "facts" known to man that will ever change their mind

 

It's not a legal / procedural matter: you can impeach a President even after his/her death.
It's about the meaning of such a parliamentary act: it's all political.

 

There are several aspects of the impeachment.

First it is a strong and permanent censure. In this case, failing to take action makes one wonder what a president would have to do to get impeached. If inciting an insurgency against our own government isn't enough, then what is?

The impeachment brings an opportunity to deny Trump any opportunity for high elective office. Without it, he could run against in 2024.

The impeachment forces congressmen to go on the record. There IS a very real problem in our Congress. It's not known exactly how bad it is, but certain senators have strongly encouraged the insurgency. And, there are indications that the insurgency was actually aided the invasion of the Capitol.

 

The solutions are all political, too.

It's government.

 

The entire transfer of power on January 20 doesn't actually have any role for the president who is leaving office.

Our constitution specifies the necessary pieces, and those all have to do with the incoming president, the Supreme Court, the oath taken, etc - but nothing for the outgoing president.

This will probably be the first time ever that the outgoing president wasn't present and showing deep suport and respect for the process as well as for the stability of our nation and support for the incoming president.

But, there are serious questions about whether Trump gives a crap about any of that, and has shown major disrespect for everythig even tangentially related to our democratic process - even to the point of attempting to get governors, congressmen and our courts to throw out our election results in order for him to retain power.

 

This is mindless - I asked for your definition of terrorism. You responded "FBI" and gave some Link.

That is not "Done" - and I told you this. Paste from the link what you think the definition of terrorism is.

You are not done .. as per Forum Policy. but if you do not want to post a definition. .. that is fine.

 

I am aware of many definitions .. and will gladly supply what my definition is.

The question that you are avoiding .. is "What is your definition" - Post the definition used by the "USA" .. if this is what you are claiming as the definition you want to use ..

and quit asking others to support your claims for you .. this is both lame .. and pathetic ..

 

After the unsuitable management of the sanitary crisis connected with Covid-19, this lack of respect of the institutional procedures is an other aspect of the political adventure of Donald Trump that I don't appreciate.

And I was among the ones who were sure that he was going to win the Presidency in 2016 [since summer 2015, when no one gave him credit]. And if you take a look at my past contributions here, you will note that I supported him. I was expecting a different end, but reality is reality.

 

I guess you haven't got a special Court which judges the members of the executive [in Italy we've got a tribunal for the President and the ministers].

But at the end you're right ... it's politics ... so let's forget about great principles and other irrelevant details.

 

Well ... Usually elected representatives tend to think to how to be elected again and again [in Italy we say that they love their seat ... so much that they are glued to their seats!]. So ... since Trump seems to be planning to launch a TV network and since he can find a lot of money and since he has demonstrated to be able to collect a lot of votes ... I'm not sure that senators who doubt to be able to find a way to finance an other electoral campaign will vote against Trump.

I'm cynical about politics [I've got direct experience]. At the end it will depend on how much financial independence Republican senators can enjoy.

 

Impeachment is an act that congress may take. The House brings the charges (impeaches) and the Senate tries the case with House members being the prosecuors. If the president is found guilty the primary penalty is that the president is removed from office with the vice president becoming the president.

So, our court system isn't involved unless there is a constitutional issue.

Yes, that makes impeachment an extremely political course of action. But, the things for which a president may be impeached aren't limited to breaking specific laws. It can be limited to having a president who simply does a really bad job - which the courts can't rule on. I would guess it's a little like a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system. However if found guilty, the president no longer has any kind of position in government.

 

Insightful comments!! Congressmen who are members of Trump's party are clearly scared as hell of Trump's influence.

Reducing Trump's influence could be important for both parties. For Republicans, it would mean they would be more able to recast their own party. Today, I don't believe anyone has any idea what Republicans stand for after 4 years of the party standing for no more than whatever Trump wanted at the moment.

They need to fix that. And, I'm sure they can, but it will be harder if they have to keep deferring to Trump ideas.

I tend to doubt the "Trump TV" direction. He can do poliical events. He can do his highly scripted reality TV show. But, I do not believe he could hold a daily hour of TV programming. Plus, his funding is drying up. What company wants to be a sponsor of Trump? Even banks he has used for a long time are no longer interested in his business.

 

We've got the impeachment as well. But in Italy the President doesn't rule. Substantially when the Italians voted [in a referendum] to substitute the Monarchy with a Parliamentary Republic, the President of the Republic substituted the Crown. The President does [substantially] what the King did in the previous constitutional Monarchy. The Parliament can impeach the President [there was an attempt when Cossiga was President]. Here the impeachment procedure can be activated only for "high treason" and "attack to the Constitution".

 

you insist on playing these stupid games when you are trapped.

The lowlifes that attacked the capitol at the direction of their Dear Leader are in fact the very definition of domestic terrorists.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

Wearing the mark of the Orange one on their foreheads and following the lies of a false messiah they attempt to destroy the temple of democracy in order to save it, in all its Great Whiteness.
.

 

The one who will not support claim and define terms is the one playing games .. so quit projecting the failings of others onto me.

thank you for posting a definition however - as only now can we talk sensibly about the topic.

(5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B)appear to be intended—
(i)
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C)
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and

Not sure what the part missing is .. and what ? but .. we have something to work with here - note however that what ever comes after the "and" in your definition is required.


but on the basis of what we have so far - not so simple to say that the protest on the capital and subsequent riot qualifies.

A) as well as B) i) ii) and C) - could be applied to most any protest.

we are then left with (iii) to distinguish between protest - and "Terrorism" "Mass Destruction, Assassination, or Kidnapping"

Obviously the protest in general did not involve Assassination or Kidnapping "Mass Destruction" is ambiguous .. .. but you can ague away that this applies to this case

Once you have achieved that bar - you get to try and argue that this definition is legitimate.

The floor is yours. Make your case for domestic terrorism ..

 

The and was section 6 which defines acts of war. It seems you are not familiar with the statute but more than willing to determine its applicabilty. Interesting.



¨

I don't have to make any case. The DOJ will determine what charges will be applied and I will not be surprised if a few of them get charged with domestic terrorism, just like a few will be charged with felony murder and other serious felony charges.

But by all means attempt to focus on a laic argument predicated on interpretation of a legal statute to resolve if the crimes committed rise to the level of domestic terrorism. Dunning Kruger guarantees a useless exchange.

Now if you want to discuss to what extent these perpetrators perverted foundational American values in their outrageously unpatriot acts of trashing the capitol and to what extent that is to be stomped on, well then that's a debate I'd be willing to have.

 

That you do not understand what you are reading is not my fault - so do not project your failings onto me.

And what is laughable - is that I have assumed your position correct - that this is in fact a logical and legitimate definition .. so not sure what you are arguing against - other than yourself.

So then - if we go by your favorite definition - and the Protest and subsequent riot sets precedent for "Domestic Terrorism" - the actions qualifying as "Mass Destruction" - then it is what it is mate.

The bar for "mass destruction" is the amount of damage to the capital building - and thus any protest that ends up causing such damage - willful by all participants or not - those Participants in that Protest - and the leaders of such protest will be deemed "Terrorists"

So then ... BLM - throw all in jail on Domestic Terrorism Charges should we not ? -- Antifa - good grief .. Lock em UP..

4 dead in Ohio -- Good . the deserved it -- Domestic Terrorists they were.

Love it when true authoritarianism rears its ugly head.

 

What is the point in telling a group of naturally violent people that they have been cheated and your election was stolen, when you know perfectly well that this is a lie. Normally I am opposed to the death penalty but I might be willing to compromise my values in the case of Donald J. Trump.

 

IMO, "seditious conspiracy" would be the better charge and one currently being looked at by the FBI.
Title 18 U.S.C. Paragraph 2384. "If two or more persons...in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States...OR DELAY THE EXECUTION OF ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES...they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." I believe the stated purpose of the march on the Capitol was to prevent the joint session presided over by VP Pence, from counting the vote. Since Congress was in the process of executing the law, sedition seems the right charge.

 

You think Heir Donald should hang by the neck ! .. That's funny - first you label all protesters "Naturally violent People" by inference - or is it only the Protesters from the side you don't like that are "naturally violent" the others OK

And then you say the leaders of protests should hang by the neck.

We got some real Authoritarians in the crowd tonight "Get em up against the Wall" !!

 

I think "Seditious Conspiracy" is only mildly less horrible precedent than "Domestic Terrorism" - for the same reasons given.

I reject your suggestion has not very well thought out.

 

Traditionaly the left has been far more critical of the FBI than the right which has always supported the Agency bo matter how heavy handed their tactics. That probably changed when the Republican party became the party of criminality and treason. Nice job of dodging the what aboutism You always know it's coming when they start talking about the hypocrisy of the left.