The Trump Presidency - an analysis

[onetrack]

I'm waiting for someone to produce a re-worked video of the Capitol rioters - whereby they're all recoloured with dark skins, and the signs changed to "Biden". I wonder what the reaction would be, then??

 

Of course, there'd be massive right-wing outrage, trying to compare passionate Trump supporters, just trying to get correct voting results by gatescrashing, smashing, breaking and stealing - against those disgusting Democratic-supporting blacks, who riot and smash and break and steal, when things don't go their way!

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by onetrack

[Jerry_Atrick]

The democrats didn't stuff it up again. Although, it would have been the cherry on the cake if he was convicted.

 

However, quite the opposite to failing, it was probably seen as a victory, as everyone, including the democrats expected DT to be cleared.. However, it gave a chance to consolidate all of his despotic vitriol in one place and show it to the country. The vote fell 10 short, but 7 republicans crossed the floor - 2 or 3 who would be standing for re-election, and all having been castigated by their branches. It also exposed the fractures in the republican party, which, even Cheney is working to hold together rather than start a break-away party...  Also, I think beforehand, 5 were expected to cross the flor, so although it was only 2 more, it was a 40% increase;... clutching at straws for a victory, but some solace

 

Unfortunately, democracy that has crystalised into party politics has showed its toxic side, as it shows the majority of the Republican party as condoning such violence and action to achienve it's own political ends. It also shows that those elected are cowards to stand up to their own political extremes in deference of the people who elected them. It may have changed the minds of those on the fence or who, like my son, were virtually adamant that it couldn't be proven that DT had the mens rea (guilty mind) to start the insurrection on the Capitol, until that was the only conclusion that could be drawn by seeing it all in one place.

 

There are some people who's mind one cannot change - on DT, racism, and many different things.. this video embodies the reasoning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhTbtqOJA08.

 

Did it convict DT? No.. as expected... Did it achieve it's goal? Only time will tell...

 

 

 

[octave]

The case hinged on whether it is possible to successfully impeach a president after they are no longer president.   This is not the same as exonerating Trump from any responsibility for the event.    Mitch McConnell former Senate Majority leader voted not to impeach but nevertheless made his feelings quite clear.   This clip is very interesting (but maybe a little long for most people)   The fascinating thing is that near the end he says that Trump didn't get away with anything....YET.   He seemed to be suggesting that the the better setting for this would be in the courts.

 

 

See what Mitch McConnell said after Trump's acquittal

[Jerry_Atrick]

The first question to the senate was whether they had the authority to hear the case given the president was now an ex-president. The house found they did as the accusations concerned actions taken while he was the president. An ex-president in the 1800's was quoted as saying it would be proposterous if he couldn't be impeached for actions he committed when he was president. This has as much, if not more weight than an ex-justice opining in an academic sense, as both are academic.  So, Mitch McConnell has admitted he thought DT was guilty from a pressure-valve perspective, but did not exercise his constitutional duty because, in his mind, the time had passed.

 

His interpretation of Article 2, section 4, and then concluding for the senate to continue to to impeachment would somehow give them power to impeach any member of the public from holding public office in the future also seemed a leap too far. He cited it limited the officers that can be impeached to the president, VP, and civil officers; and that it covered the crimes of treason, something else I can't remember and other misdemeanours. His view was, as the president is not the president any more, and as the crime was not in the list (although, the insurrection could be treasonous, I guess), that the senate is acting ultra-vires, and that someone this would translate to being able to impeach anyone at anytime... Quite a strange intepretation.. The impeachment concerns an ex-president's very recent actions, and a crime that would surely come under the term, other midemeanours.. in fact, unlike McConnell's assertion, it is a non-exchaustive.

 

As far as his reliance on the justice's opinion that a former president can be prosecuted, it is a thin possibility. The constitution is silent on the matter, but in United States v Nixon (or Nixon v Fletcher) in the '70s, the bare majority of the US Suopreme Court held that an ex-president is immune from prosecution for his actions as president - though it is a strong presumation - it did not go into rebuttals to the presumption. So technically, yes, the president can be tried; in theory, very difficult. And, if the SC bench hearing the question of whether or not there is sufficient rebuttal to the presumption of immunity to prosecution has enough republican-leaning judges, there may be a hair-splitting fact the denies the rebuttal. If the presumption was the other way, I wold be more sympathetic to McConnel;'s diatribe.

 

His point about impeachment being a pressure valve is a good one, but he relies on the immediacy of removal from office upon conviction as key to why he thinks it is nolonger the jurisdiction of the senate impeachment process. After all, how can one mandatorily remove someone from office who is not in office, right? Well, as usual, it will be for a court (or in this case, the senate) to interpret the law where it is silent or only considers certain circumatances. Jurisprudence in all different types of jurisdictions have this as a facet.. they understand that framwers of laws cannotpossibly conceive every situation.. What he fails to mention is that it is then open to barring the convicted from every taking federal public office again.. and surely, given the full and frank blame he lays at the president for the insurrection, it would qualify as being open to impeachment and conviction to prevent a corrupt despot from ever running for office again...

 

So, I took that whole speech as for him to cleanse his own cowardly soul by admitting what he should have throughout the Trump term, and then hiding behind some half-baked self-assessment of his denial and his dereliction of duty to the constitution...

 

Also, I don't know the law of incitement in whatever jurisdiction that would apply toi a court hearing, but on the evidence, there is a prima facie case of incitement as I know here and in NSW.

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[octave]

26 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

So, I took that whole speech as for him to cleanse his own cowardly soul by admitting what he should have throughout the Trump term, and then hiding behind some half-baked self-assessment of his denial and his dereliction of duty to the constitution...

Yep, I would agree with that.  It is useful though when faced with folks who believe that Trumps colleagues all think he bears no responsibility but it seems that a number of republicans believe he is responsible but  they don't think the remedy is impeachment.   I think it would be more accurate to assume some voted against impeachment because they fear Trump and his followers and are concerned with their future careers and even perhaps safety.    McConnell said a few days ago that Senators should vote their conscience but I note that some of the 7 republicans who voted to impeach are being censured by their state branches of the GOP

Edited February 14, 2021 by octave

[willedoo]

There was speculation that Trump's case could set a precedent to allow Hillary Clinton to be impeached. The difference there is that proceedings against Trump were started while he was still in office, whereas Clinton is long gone from office.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Hillary Clinton was neither the President, Vice President, nor a civic officer. So, under Art 2(4), she can't be impeached. McConnell's leap to outside those three classes of people is pure chicken-poop.

Art 2(4): 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.

 

It has since been beld in the Supreme Court Art 2(4) resrticts who can be impeached.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[willedoo]

41 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Hillary Clinton was neither the President, Vice President, nor a civic officer. So, under Art 2(4), she can't be impeached.

So a Secretary of War was impeached but a Secretary of State can't be impeached. Both are cabinet members. A Secretary of the Treasury has had impeachment charges laid, but the committee decided not to pursue it.

Edited February 14, 2021 by willedoo

[Jerry_Atrick]

Ooops.. It escaped my mind that HC was secretary of state - I was only thinking in terms of the first lady... So yes, that makes her a civil officer and she can be impeached retrospectively. And, unlike the president, she can face criminal trial for her actions in office.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Going back to the timing of DT's impeachment... Interesting take on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkck8Z1PvxI

 

 

[nomadpete]

Jerry, Octave, Will,

I enjoy reading all of your thought provoking, logical exploration of the recent US impeachment.

 

However, I tend to think that as far as the general US public is concerned, few really care about the 'details'. To them DT has just been proven to be in the clear

 

So, by their logic, the DT brethren believe the 'steal' was proven to be true. Along with a plethora of lies and conspiracies. Frighteningly that appears to be half of the US population.

 

Equally frighteningly, the other half of the US believes that this outcome proves their fear that ddemocracy and justice is now broken

 

To me it indicates that the divide runs much deeper and broader than the usual party policy disagreements that normally only influence election outcomes.

 

I expect the US to start showing a more 'middle eastern' turn of events to start showing up in our news.

[willedoo]

3 hours ago, nomadpete said:

To me it indicates that the divide runs much deeper and broader than the usual party policy disagreements that normally only influence election outcomes.

Totally agree, Pete. The U.S. is on shaky ground. As the divide grows, the danger and risk of meltdown increases. What now makes the situation worse is that the stolen election narrative looks like becoming entrenched and consequently normalized. They've just had four years of Clinton and the Democrats crying that the Russians stole her Presidency and now they are looking at an endless repeat from the Trump camp. It's set a precedent of denial. Trump is the worst offender, but I blame both parties for the divide.

[pmccarthy]

It is possible to believe that the election was not stolen, that Trump was culpable in handling Covid, that he is a psychological mess, but still believe (as I do) that the Dems are dishonest, maniacal and more scary than Trump in the medium term. I don't know where that leaves the US voter.

[octave]

I cant see anything the Dems have done in the past to rival mishandlings of covid and the situation we have where a sizable group of supporters feel that they are so badly done by that they must storm the capitol and attempt to subvert the election process as well as threatening to hang a vice president and murder the media.    This is (to me at least) for concerning than the last 8 years of Dem presidency.  It is one thing to disagree with a governments policies and quite another to attempt to overthrow the electoral process.    I am sure Dems do lie but Trump lies all the time and doesn't even try to conceal it. 

 

A leader who says "if we can get bleach into the body somehow or powerful light" is for more frightening to me than expanding universal healthcare.

[Old Koreelah]

The “Party of Lincoln” has been taken over by the master con-man whose secret to success is “Give the baying mob what they want”.

[Yenn]

A madman believed to be god like by half the population, who also has the power to stand over any of his fellow party members and make them fear for their jobs or even their lives. Holding down the highest political post in the world. Is that comedy or just a horror story? Whoever wrote the screen play certainly did a wonderful job.

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

The “Party of Lincoln” has been taken over by the master con-man whose secret to success is “Give the baying mob what they want”.

Actually I think DT only gave the baying mob what they want TO HEAR.

I'm not sure the baying mob got very much that they wouldn't have got if DT wasn't involved.

 

Further, the simple fact is that democracy is broken because both parties are corrupt and self serving instead of serving the masses, including baying mobs.

 

And our democracy is no better in that regard. Is there any way to change this without revolution? I don't recall other countries solving the problem by revolutions (Russia springs to mind as an example)

[Marty_d]

7 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

It is possible to believe that the election was not stolen, that Trump was culpable in handling Covid, that he is a psychological mess, but still believe (as I do) that the Dems are dishonest, maniacal and more scary than Trump in the medium term. I don't know where that leaves the US voter.

After seeing the GOP's total dishonesty in cynically propping up this tyrant because they're afraid of being targetted in 2022 by his supporters, you can sit there and honestly say you think the Democrats are "dishonest, maniacal and more scary"?  

Jeez, which part of their maniacal and scary plan has you worried - gun control, health care for people who can't afford it, getting Covid under control, or taking action on climate change?

 

As for the US voter, if they're Republican leaning then they've been screwed over by their own party - which let in and continues to support a total sociopath with delusions of adequacy.  If there were 10 more honest people in the senate they wouldn't have to worry about their beloved GOP being the Cult of Trump, but as it is, they're stuffed.

[onetrack]

Just wait until this vitriolic, vengeful bastard, starts unloading on the "traitors" in his Party who voted to have him impeached. As the old showman says, "You ain't seen nuthin' yet!"

[Yenn]

Don't mention revolution. We don't want OME to bring up the problems of centrifugal force in politics. Sorry OME I couldn't resist.

We are seeing the same thing all around the world. Dictators overthrowing election results. Trumps problem was that he was not as good at it as the little blokes and generals.

Look at our own pollies if you want to see incompetence and rorting.

[onetrack]

Well, here we go - we didn't have to wait long. Trump has unleashed a vicious, bitter, and vengeful tirade on Mitch McConnell, roasting him like a spit pig.

The experts predicted Trump would divide the Republicans into 2 camps - the Trump camp and the anti-Trump camp - and it looks like that is exactly what is going to happen.

Trump is going to end up being the worst thing that the Republicans ever backed, they will end up in two camps fighting each other, and the Dems will love it.

 

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/political-hack-donald-trump-launches-attack-on-republican-leader-mitch-mcconnell/news-story/d1437f585983b0a250374a8cde38068d

[old man emu]

Seems the Republican Party is like a wounded snake

[Marty_d]

9 hours ago, onetrack said:

Well, here we go - we didn't have to wait long. Trump has unleashed a vicious, bitter, and vengeful tirade on Mitch McConnell, roasting him like a spit pig.

The experts predicted Trump would divide the Republicans into 2 camps - the Trump camp and the anti-Trump camp - and it looks like that is exactly what is going to happen.

Trump is going to end up being the worst thing that the Republicans ever backed, they will end up in two camps fighting each other, and the Dems will love it.

 

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/political-hack-donald-trump-launches-attack-on-republican-leader-mitch-mcconnell/news-story/d1437f585983b0a250374a8cde38068d

I can't understand why McConnell thought he could have it both ways.  Firstly he gives a fairly strong criticism of Trump's actions in the rabble attack, then he votes NOT to impeach, then he warns that there could be other legal action.

So he painted a Trump target on himself but didn't follow through and impeach.  If he'd done that at least another 9 would have followed him and Trump would never be allowed to run for public office.

 

Can wiser minds explain his actions to me?

[Old Koreelah]

23 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

...Can wiser minds explain his actions to me?

Lack of moral fiber?

[onetrack]

A devious prick who has backed Trump all along, and who is permanently intent on deflecting any damaging political moves against Trump, is all I can put it down to.

 

He claims he couldn't convict Trump because he's no longer President. What a load of BS. Trump was President when he was impeached. McConnell is trying to slip Trump the jailhouse key.

 

McConnell claims there are many civil charges Trump could possibly face - but he's leaving that up to law enforcement. In other words, he's handballed any Trump criminality charges to the FBI - knowing full well that by doing so, he's taking the blowtorch off himself, and has now turned any heat onto the law enforcement agencies.

 

McConnell is a real sleazebag, and of course, he's now taking heat from many Trump supporters. He's trying to make out that Trump could possibly be convicted of something in the courts - but he knows darn well, it will never happen.