Guess who supports impeachment
Mitch, baby!! I mean, it's ambiguous as of now but he likely supports it.
Are there any legal scholars here who can comment on whether Trump should actually be removed?
I'm not a legal scholar, but here's my view. Trump never told or even implied for them to break into the place or commit any violence, even saying "peacefully, patriotically make your voices heard." This has to be the most absurd thing I've ever seen in my life. They accuse him of something he never did, and then silence him so he can't wreck their stupid claim. This is some crazy shit...
Thoughts?
Legal scholars on WSO?
There are only two ways to remove a sitting POTUS:
1. Impeachment in the House followed by conviction in the Senate
2. Invoking the 25th amendment
Neither of the above are going to happen
Some here made the transition from law to finance or work in finance in a law based function
There is a difference between a lawyer and a legal scholar.
I’m ambivalent about Trump, but it probably won’t be a difficult case to prove that Trump’s constant attacks on the integrity of the election and urging his voters to “stop the steal”, combined with his incendiary speech in January 6th, was a large motivator for his supporters attacking the Capitol building. Multiple sources are reporting that he was refusing to speak out to stop the violence because he was busy watching it unfold on TV, and he had to be pushed into tweeting them to eventually stop (and apparently it took extra effort from his aides to convince him to use the words “peacefully”). The cause and effect of Trump’s messaging and his supporters’ march in the Capitol are fairly apparent, and prosecutors wouldn’t need him to literally say “I order you to attack the Capitol” in order to find him responsible for incitement. Essentially, but for Trump’s constant claims about election fraud and forcing Congress and electors to “stop the steal”, it’s very, very unlikely his supporters would have stormed the Capitol.
Also, impeachment is largely a political exercise, so if he’s lost the faith of the Republican establishment, he’s done.
But Trump has every right to contest the election and do so publicly right? Any violence acts that Trump's supporters commit in the name of his cause is their responsibility, not Trump's.
And what happens when rioters are questioned in a court of law and say Trump's language inspired them?
There’s a limit to what is reasonable, and making numerous false claims of election fraud even after repeated failed court challenges and the inability to produce any evidence would very likely be considered unreasonable. Trump’s language and actions very quickly shifted into unreasonable territory and if you fail to grasp how his influential position and repeated announcements about election fraud could have reasonably incited his supporters to attack the Capitol building, you’re being intentionally obtuse, and I’m saying that as someone who thinks Trump overall isn’t that bad of a guy.
It’s not a court of law, he’s not on trial and there’s no burden of reasonable doubt. No legal scholar needed.
Of course he should be removed. He incited an insurrection. Even McConnell and possibly McCarthy have had enough.
After January 20th, I think there is a good case to be made for prosecution. Prosecutors will piece together a mosaic of the facts such as
1. inflammatory language
2. Giuliani's comments regarding combat
3. Trump's delay in providing federal assistance when the event was happening
4. Trump's endorsement of the attack on the Capitol.
Of course he is, Cocaine Mitch will do anything to try to salvage the optics after being branded as the guy who stopped everyone’s $2k stimulus checks. He’s disliked by many in both parties right now.
The president will probably be impeached but I doubt convicted. While the “events” of that day were unthinkably stupid (and even fatal; absolutely zero reason anyone should have lost their life, and the rioters caught must face charges), calling it a “coup” or “insurrection” when a few hundred LARPing conspiracy nuts vandalize/trespass the Capitol is just the MSM fear machine at work. And boy does it work.
Oh well. Cuomo is already saying NY must open up and the “Biden Boom” hype is starting to be previewed. On to the next narrative.
There are so many reasons aside from inciting a riot, as to why he should be convicted.
He failed to act to defend the Capitol in a timely manner.
He endorsed the attack on the Capitol.
He tried to intimidate officials of states as well as the vice president into over turning the results of the election.
He put into question the legitimacy of our election system despite the failure of 60 court cases.
He failed to encourage a peaceful and cooperative transfer of power.
For the good of the country, the house and senate should send a message that this shit can't happen in the USA.
However, I highly doubt the senate will convict him.
Actually, he doesnt. Don’t start shit won’t be shit: McConnell Won’t Agree to Early Start for Trump Impeachment Trial https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-13/mcconnell-won-t-agre…
Yeah but that means the trial will take place after Trump leaves office. I’m not sure that’s good for Trump.
I think McConnel is going to use the impeachment as a way to occupy the senate and keep the Dem majority from focusing on ramming legislation through.
Omnis vero impedit autem dolore totam. Sunt et ea maiores consectetur qui sint sed quibusdam. Et quam quo odio consequuntur enim.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...