The Trump Presidency

[JayUtah]

I get the impression that Trump has shown Republican members of Congress how strong his hold on Republican voters is, meaning his threat to start the Patriot Party has teeth.

You might be onto something.  Enough Republican voters might be of the Trump variety that allowing the conservative party to split would ensure that neither ever got enough votes to beat Democrat candidates.  But also, the departure of the far right from the Republican Party might make fit moderate enough that a few moderate Democrats jump ship.  But it's entirely possible that the Republican strategy is to contain the damage and try to gloss over it.  "Let's just forget about it and move on."  They're hoping the short attention spans of the American voter and media outlets will let the detestable faction of the Republican voter base slink back into the shadows.

It's interesting to contemplate how much influence he'll retain if he somehow ends up in jail.

Or whether some deplorable like Cruz, Graham, or Green is able to rush in and fill the vacuum.

[Jeff Raven]

Yes, and if I'm reading it right, Trump is going to keep hold of the Republican party, meaning the impeachment trial is likely to fail, but hopefully the ban on holding office in the future will take effect.

I get the impression that Trump has shown Republican members of Congress how strong his hold on Republican voters is, meaning his threat to start the Patriot Party has teeth. The Republican members of Congress consequently fold as they did during Trump's Presidency because they know he can end their political careers if they don't toe his line. I therefore suspect the trial vote in the Senate will be similar to the last impeachment.

So even if Trump can't be a Presidential candidate in the future, he'll have a lot of influence in choosing the 2024 candidate.

It's interesting to contemplate how much influence he'll retain if he somehow ends up in jail.

The Republican Party created its own monsters, first by not reining in the Tea Party candidates, and then allowing Trump to abuse the power of the office to run roughshod over Congress. They are far from the party of Reagan, and equally far from the ideals of the GOP. And the few that did stand up to him (e.g. Flake) were either cast aside or did so too late, such as when they were already heading out the door.

If Trump decides to create his own party, I think that can actually be a very good thing, assuming that the more reasonable members of the Republican Party use the opportunity to reorganize and get back to what they traditionally have believed in and done. They can show the radicals like Marjorie Taylor Greene to be the dangerous nutjobs they are, and start to bring some sanity back to that party.

That said, I also think that the Democrats have completely screwed things up in many ways, and have made it more likely for Trump to keep more power than he should. They should have waited a few months before delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate, and instead worked on a reasonable agenda to begin to bring things back toward the middle. By putting Trump on the sidelines while actual progress was made, he would be shown to be less important. Instead the trial has much less chance of succeeding, feels rushed to many, and will be trumpeted as a vindication by Trump and his supporters if it goes the way it seems likely to. If they had instead worked with those on the right, many who are afraid of the 'evil socialist agenda of the liberals' would be put at least somewhat at ease, and therefore they wouldn't automatically cling to Trump and his craziness.

I also think that President Biden should have, instead of flat-out canceling Keystone, put it on hold for a period of X days, while alternatives can be investigated. Even if the ultimate decision would then have been to cancel the project, the workers would have felt more heard, and he would have been seen as looking for reasonable solutions that can address everyone's concerns. Instead the decision can be seen as knee-jerk anti-oil and oil workers.

[raven]

For good or ill, just like FDR pioneered used radio to reach the masses and JFK used television, Trump definitely showed the terrible power of social media. Mostly ill in Trump's case, unfortunately.

[Obviousman]

So Trump escaped impeachment again, when it was clearly shown he was guilty. The majority of Republican senators have shown their true colours: votes before truth, the mark of a 'real' politician.

The Democrats now better use the 14th Amendment, otherwise like that senator said: "...we will have only ourselves to blame for the consequences". And you can be damned sure their will be consequences.

Personally, I think that statement will go down in history, along with such remarks as "...I sure hope nothing happens tomorrow, but if it does, I am not going to be the person to stand in front of a board of inquiry and explain why I gave you permission to fly my rocket boosters in an environment I knew they would never qualify to fly in".

[smartcooky]

43 GOP cowards!

[molesworth]

I'm puzzled (and a bit worried) as to what kind of hold Trump has over the Republican party.  This would have been an ideal opportunity to get rid of him after the damage he's done to their party over the last four years.  The election loss and Georgia run-offs should have been a big incentive to drastically reduce his influence within the party.  And the damage done to the USA, both internally and on the world stage, should have been good motivation as well.

Although he still faces other charges, the fact he's been acquitted of stirring up this riot opens the door to all sorts of future unacceptable behaviour from politicians at all levels.  And I fully expect Trump to run again (and quite possibly win again) in 2024.

[peter eldergill]

At this point the Americans should just get rid of the impeachment process all together. Because, seriously, what's the point?

[gillianren]

Several Republicans have openly admitted being afraid of their base.  As this proved they should be.  But caving in to them wasn't the correct solution.  I'm just hoping that the majority of voters--who support the process--realize that their leadership is unethical cowards and votes them out.

[JayUtah]

Indeed, impeachments are not criminal trials where statute and precedent apply.  An impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives as then constituted considers an impeachable offense.  The standard of proof on such offenses is whatever the Senate considers the standard of proof.  In each of these deliberations, the Houses can -- and ideally should -- rely on precedent set by other impeachments.  And now we see that if a President should use the power and influence of his office to invade the Capitol by force and wage armed battle against the Congress, that does rise to treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor.  If not that, then what?

Other impeachments have failed by closer votes for lesser offenses.  Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted by only a single vote for removing his Secretary of War in violation of an unconstitutional law.  That's purely administrative.  Nobody was about to storm the Capitol or place Congress in fear for their lives.

We're now looking at a bar under the 14th Amendment.  But as I wrote earlier, Congress cannot simply declare that the President is guilty of insurrection or rebellion as the text defines it.  That would amount to a bill of attainder, forbidden.  A determination under the 14th Amendment would require a finding following due process.  To be sure, a number of processes are... in process.  But a determination would have to wait for a guilty verdict in one of them.  And they are likely to take longer than the two years in which we can guarantee a Congress favorable to such a move.

[Jason Thompson]

Indeed, impeachments are not criminal trials where statute and precedent apply.

Or where little things like jurors actually turning up, not knowing the defendant, not meeting with the lawyers individually, and not themselves actually being involved in the actions that are on trial are important factors in the due process....

Clearly the framers of the constitution understood there had to be some mechanism for holding the President accountable to the House, the Senate and ultimately the people, but if the records of actual impeachments have shown anything it's that there are huge gaping issues with getting a meaningful outcome, not the least of which is the almost inevitable fact of partisan votes when it comes to deciding the verdict. If there has been any outcome at all from these impeachments of Trump they have empowered him further, because he's been acquitted twice so now he will believe, and be justified in doing so, that he can do whatever the hell he wants and no-one can touch him. We can now be pretty certain that, barring miraculous changes in the party, the whole Republican campaign in 2024 will be centred around reclaiming their 'rightful place' following the supposedly stolen 2020 election. This political car crash is not over by a long shot.

[gillianren]

To be fair, he's always believed he can do whatever the hell he wants and no one can touch him.  Historically, this is not the first nor second time he's pretty well gotten away with it.

[Jason Thompson]

To be fair, he's always believed he can do whatever the hell he wants and no one can touch him.  Historically, this is not the first nor second time he's pretty well gotten away with it.

True but the most galling thing about all of this is that it would seem he is right, and he effing-well shouldn’t be.

In theory no-one is above the law, but in practice there is evidently a threshold where yes, actually you are above the law, whether because the penalties are insignificant for some in their position or because the people making and enforcing the law... don’t.

[LunarOrbit]

I wonder if it would be better if impeachment trials were decided by a jury of citizens instead of Senators?

[VQ]

I wonder if it would be better if impeachment trials were decided by a jury of citizens instead of Senators?

Maybe a simple majority vote by both houses, with the punishment being not removal from office but removal of the immunity from normal prosecution?

[JayUtah]

Ostensibly impeachment is a checks-and-balances procedure.  While I think an ordinary federal jury would do a better job of dispensing justice, the overall purpose is for Congress to assert itself over the executive.  The Framers understood partisanship. I think they felt that today's hyperpartisanship would not arise.  Or if it did, the "lordly" decorum of the Senate would reign it in.