(Thread) Over the Cliff Notes: Impeachment #2

Let’s start with the Article of Impeachment itself: https://t.co/KRiPGstRwi

The charge: Incitement of Insurrection.

Spoiler: This is a slam-dunk in the impeach-and-convict department, and will create a moment of truth for the GOP.

1/ The basics:

🔹Impeachment requires a majority vote in the House. 

🔹Impeachment is followed by a Senate Trial.

🔹Conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate.

After conviction, preventing Trump from holding office again requires a simple majority vote.
2/ This is not a criminal trial.

The Constitution specifically says that a criminal trial may be appropriate AFTER impeachment and removal.

Defendants in a criminal trial have special protections because they stand to lose their liberty, property, or even their life.
3/ An impeached president stands to lose his job and the ability to hold the job again.

Therefore certain requirements for a criminal trial, such as the requirement that allegations be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, do not apply.
4/ In addition to charging Incitement of Insurrection, the Article invokes the 14th Amendment (sec 3) and Trump’s duty to faithfully execute the oath of office. 

Notice the 14th Amendment doesn’t give the procedure for determining when Section 3 applies.
5/ Another part of the 14th Amendment — Section 5 — empowers Congress to enforce the entire amendment “by appropriate legislation.” But that would require the president to sign off on it, and might violate the ban on a Bill of Attainer.

In other words, it gets complicated.
6/ One judge has said a simple majority is all that is needed to remove under section 3 but that may have been incorrect, for reasons Chicago law prof. Daniel Hemel explains here: https://t.co/hx09waw3B5
7/ Under the impeachment clause, after conviction (2/3 of the Senate) a simple majority can remove Trump’s ability to run again for office.

Now, for a close look at the charge of Incitement of Insurrection.
8/ Note: The statement of facts don't have to be complete.

Additional facts can come out at the trial, which is sort of what trials are for.

This is particularly true when a crime was actually televised and members of the Senate conducting the trial were witnesses.
9/ Facts given in the Article of Impeachment:

On January 6, Congress and the VP were carrying out the duties given in the 12th Amendment.
10/ During the proceeding months, Trump repeatedly lied and said the election results shouldn’t be accepted because they were the result of widespread fraud. 

Just before the insurrection, Trump addressed a crowd and, among other things, said the following:
11/ After being incited by Trump, the crowd did the following⤵️

Trump's conduct followed his efforts on Jan. 2 when he “urged” Georgia SOS Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn GA’s presidential election results and “threatened” Raffensperger if he failed to do so.
12/ The part about the repeated lies explains why Trump’s enablers are trying so hard to derail Impeachment, despite the seriousness of the crime.

They don't want the truth to come out.

They don't want to acknowledge their complicity or discredit their own propaganda machine.
13/ Flashback to Impeachment #1 when the GOP essentially put Trump above the law by ignoring the fact that Trump was strong-arming the Ukrainian president to open an investigation that would help Trump politically.

Who is getting strong-armed now?
https://t.co/48Y3SLnvZf
14/ Nah.

He was president when the Article was drafted. One requested remedy is that he can't hold office again.

The idea that a president can commit a heinous act during the final days of his presidency and thus escape accountability makes no sense.
https://t.co/61q0aUL53T
15/ What I meant in the first tweet by "slam dunk" and "moment of truth" is that when the facts are this clear, the party defines itself by how it responds.

More from Teri Kanefield

This is what he wants to do.

No matter how this trial plays out, the US will remain divided between those who choose truth, Democracy, and rule of law and the millions who reject these things.

1/


The question is how to move forward.

My mantra is that there are no magic bullets and these people will always be with us.

Except for state legislatures, they have less power now than they have for a while.

2/

The only real and lasting solutions are political ones. Get Democrats into local offices. Get people who want democracy to survive to the polls at every election, at every level.

It’s a constant battle.

3/

Maybe I should tell you all about Thurgood Marshall’s life to illustrate how hard the task is and how there will be backlash after each step of progress.

4/

Precisely. That's why Thurgood Marshall's life came to mind.

We are still riding the backlash that started after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

That's why I keep saying there are no easy
Reading recommendation: Rand Corp, "The Russian Firehose of Falsehoods Propaganda Model," includes advice on how to counter a rapid and continuous stream of lies.
https://t.co/1Jg5CvgrJC

1/

The liar has a “shameless willingness” to tell outrageous lies that lots of people know are lies.

The liar doesn’t care about consistency.
He doesn’t care if it’s obvious he’s lying.
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT
In fact, that's the whole point.

Putin perfected the method.

2/

It seems to come naturally to Trump.

@TimothyDSnyder tells how reporters were often so astonished by Putin's outrageous lies, that they focused on the lies instead of Putin's latest atrocities.

The lies became the news.
The actual news gets pushed off the stage.

3/

The goal is the “disruption of truthful reporting and messaging.”
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT

That's why Trump really wants an actual trial, and why he was so annoyed with the Supreme Court (and other courts) refusing to hear the case.

He wants a stage for the lies.

4/

From the Rand study: The Firehose of Falsehood technique “entertains, confuses and overwhelms the audience.”

I think the "entertainment" part applies to the GOP leadership who know Trump is lying but cheer the lies because they are so destructive.

5/
January 6th will be a freak show. Biden will become president because the only way to stop it would be for the House to agree, and that won't happen.

Going forward, the GOP becomes even more dangerous and radicalized.


A few hopeful points:

The GOP could very well lose control of the Senate.

Because these GOP Senators will force a vote, the GOP may fracture, with moderates forced out. While this radicalizes the party, they lose


A few reasons. As @ProfBrianKalt points out, refusing to seat them because they say the election wasn't valid gives credence to the lie that the election wasn't valid.

Moreover, there's no authority to refuse to seat an elected rep for telling lies. .


. . . which is what refusing to seat them would amount to.

The Democrats say, "You are doing really bad things so we won't seat you."

See the problem with that?

(1) It's illegal. The House doesn't get to decide who is seated. The states send their own reps.

moreover . . .

(2) If you say, "The House gets to refuse to seat a person who tells a lie about the election," where does that lead?

If things continue this direction, the political divide will not longer be liberal v. conservative.

The divide will be pro- democracy v. anti-democracy. . .

More from Politics

What does "patriots in control" mean?
What would that "look like" in reality?


So a massive adult film star in all his glory is included in an official FBI government filing


Hunter Biden's book is categorized as "Chinese


TIME admits to "conspiracy" to "not rig, rather


A "pillow guy" has military-grade intercepts detailing the IP addresses and device MAC IDs of EVERY incursion into every county in the
"3 million people are estimated not to have official photo ID, with ethnic minorities more at risk". They will "have to contact their council to confirm their ID if they want to vote"

This is shameful legislation, that does nothing to tackle the problems with UK elections.THREAD


There is no evidence in-person voter fraud is a problem, and it wd be near-impossible to organise on an effective scale. Campaign finance violations, digital disinformation & manipulation of postal voting are bigger issues, but these are crimes of the powerful, not the powerless.

In a democracy, anything that makes it harder to vote - in particular, anything that disadvantages one group of voters - should face an extremely high bar. Compulsory voter ID takes a hammer to 3 million legitimate voters (disproportionately poor & BAME) to crack an imaginary nut

If the government is concerned about the purity of elections, it should reflect on its own conduct. In 2019 it circulated doctored news footage of an opponent, disguised its twitter feed as a fake fact-checking site, and ran adverts so dishonest that even Facebook took them down.

Britain's electoral law largely predates the internet. There is little serious regulation of online campaigning or the cash that pays for it. That allows unscrupulous campaigners to ignore much of the legal framework erected since the C19th to guard against electoral misconduct.

You May Also Like