What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[celedhring]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/11/impeachment-wont-keep-trump-running-again-heres-better-way/

The text details how to keep Trump from running again, the sure way, without an impeachment trial that could/would likely still see him acquitted by the GOP, since it requires 2/3 of the Senate.

Cliff notes?

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Congress can, according to the authors, simply pass a resolution by simple majority stating that Trump has engaged in insurrection (or given aid and comfort to the insurrectionists), which bars him from further office.

I know I wouldn't be very comfortable with Congress being able to declare anyone they (don't) like as being guilty of rebellion or insurrection by a simple majority vote.  There is a significant political danger in setting that kind of precedent.

Yeah, I'm of the same opinion too. It's a thinly disguised bill of attainder.

[Tonitrus]

It would also face an inevitable court challenge, with near certainty of going to the SCOTUS.  And a likely 90-100% chance of handing Trump a massive SC victory...and thus a propaganda victory...a few months down the line.  So even as a naked political move, there is very little upside.

[viper37]

I know I wouldn't be very comfortable with Congress being able to declare anyone they (don't) like as being guilty of rebellion or insurrection by a simple majority vote.  There is a significant political danger in setting that kind of precedent.

the accused as a right to appeal the decision in court as the author says.

However, in the case of Trump, he would have to testify under oath on his behalf and be subject to cross-examination by State prosecutors.  Given his tendancy to... state alternate facts, this could be problematic for him.

It's like any accusation.  There is nothing that prevents a crooked da from making up charges about anyone.  That persons has a right to defend itself in court and expose the truth.

As for precedent, since this amendment has been used against Southerners who participated in the civil war.  Even if nowhere near the scale, and while the Southerners only seek to seperate themselves from the Union, where as Trump specifically asked his supporters to march on the Capitol and make them overturn the vote, without being a lawyer, I do think it amounts to inciting insurection, or providing aid to the insurectionists by encouraging them.

And I think that GOP members of the House and Senate who participated in Trump's folly of overturning the vote should be barred from Congress as well.  Those who tweeted or poster on Parler during the insurection or just before to fan the flames of hatred should also be disqualified of holding office.

[viper37]

It would also face an inevitable court challenge, with near certainty of going to the SCOTUS.  And a likely 90-100% chance of handing Trump a massive SC victory 9...and thus a propaganda victory...a few months down the line.  So even as a naked political move, there is very little upside.

since the SC slapped Trump in the face by refusing to hear him on his delusions of voting conspiracy, I think in this case, they would also refuse to hear him.

Trump has outlived his usefulness to the GOP, and that includes the judges on the SC.

[Jacob]

Capitol Police has suspended officers pending investigations into their actions during the attack on the Capitol

The Department also has been actively reviewing video and other open source materials of some USCP officers and officials that appear to be in violation of Department regulations and policies.  Our Office of Professional Responsibility will investigate these behaviors for disciplinary action, up to, and including, termination.  Several USCP officers have already been suspended pending the outcome of their investigations.

https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/statement-acting-chief-yogananda-pittman

[Sheilbh]

I read that amid the general deployment of US military and National Guard for the inauguration that they're also doing background checks on personnel for domestic terrorist sympathies.

[Jacob]

I read that amid the general deployment of US military and National Guard for the inauguration that they're also doing background checks on personnel for domestic terrorist sympathies.

That seems sensible.

[The Brain]

I read that amid the general deployment of US military and National Guard for the inauguration that they're also doing background checks on personnel for domestic terrorist sympathies.

That's not SOP?

[The Minsky Moment]

I know I wouldn't be very comfortable with Congress being able to declare anyone they (don't) like as being guilty of rebellion or insurrection by a simple majority vote.  There is a significant political danger in setting that kind of precedent.

Also agreed.

Ackerman's piece asserts that Congress can declare this by majority vote but that text does not state that, it is ambiguous on that question - perhaps because at the time there wasn't much ambiguity about who was covered by the clause.

I am not aware of precedent for that and it is not discussed in the article.  The only time I am aware this clause has been invoked since the Civil War era was the decision to bar the socialist Victor Berger from assuming his seat in Congress (Berger had been convicted under the Espionage Act for voicing his opposition to US involvement in WW1, Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis, presiding - a conviction that was later overturned - the quip about Landis leading the league in reversals had some merit).  The vote against Berger was 333 to 1 so it is not precedent for invoking the rebellion clause on a mere majority vote.  It is also is illustrative how the clause can be easily abused.

[Sheilbh]

I read that amid the general deployment of US military and National Guard for the inauguration that they're also doing background checks on personnel for domestic terrorist sympathies.

That's not SOP?

I imagine so, but more of a risk now given Proud Boys and their ilk.

[alfred russel]

A real benefit to the impeach now but "let a potential senate trial just hang out there" after Trump leaves office is that it does exert a measure of control on Trump in his last days and then as a private citizen. He likely does want the pension and perks of being a former president, and may want to run again. It may serve as a check to keep him in line.

[Savonarola]

Of all the headlines of the past week, I think this may be the most shocking:

Trump acknowledged he bears some blame for Capitol riot in conversation with McCarthy: sources



(Admittedly this is also a third hand anonymous source, as neither Trump nor Kevin McCarthy have said this publicly.)

Indeed, and even if McCarthy said it, that doesn't mean it's true.  McCarthy ahs powerful reasons to make Trump sound more reasonable than he is.

And even if Trump had said it, it looks like he quickly had a change of heart:  Capitol riots: Trump says his speech was totally appropriate

[Habbaku]

This is how low we've fallen: plucky, little Luxembourg isn't returning our calls:

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29H2MM

Exclusive: Luxembourg, EU snub Pompeo in final Europe trip, diplomats say

BRUSSELS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cancelled his Europe trip at the last minute on Tuesday after Luxembourg's foreign minister and top European Union officials declined to meet him, European diplomats and other people familiar with the matter said.

The Europeans snubbed Washington's top envoy days after the storming of the U.S. Capitol by thousands of supporters of President Donald Trump, an unprecedented attack on American democracy that stunned many world leaders and U.S. allies.

Pompeo, a close ally of Trump, had sought to meet Jean Asselborn in Luxembourg, a small but wealthy NATO ally, before meeting EU leaders and the bloc's top diplomat in Brussels, three people close to the planning told Reuters.

Pompeo had originally planned to go to Luxembourg, but that leg of the trip was scrapped, one diplomatic source said, after officials there showed reluctance to grant him appointments. The Brussels leg was still on until the last minute.

But Pompeo's final visit schedule in Brussels was not going to involve any meetings with the EU or any public events at NATO. A third diplomatic source said allies were "embarrassed" by Pompeo after the violence in Washington last Wednesday.

Trump encouraged his supporters at a rally to march on the building that houses the Senate and the House of Representatives while lawmakers were certifying Democrat President-elect Joe Biden's Nov. 3 election victory. Republican Trump claims, without providing evidence, that the election was stolen from him.

Pompeo condemned the violence but made no reference to the role Trump's baseless claims played in galvanizing the march on the Capitol.

Appalled by the violence, Luxembourg's Asselborn had called Trump a "criminal" and a "political pyromaniac" on RTL Radio the next day.

Luxembourg's foreign ministry confirmed the previously planned stop there was cancelled, but declined to give further details. The EU declined to comment.

The U.S. State Department, in a statement, attributed the cancellation to transition work before Biden takes office on Jan. 20, even if until recently Pompeo had been reluctant to unequivocally recognise Biden's win. The State Department declined further comment on European officials' rejection of meetings with Pompeo.

In Brussels, Pompeo was due to have a private dinner with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Wednesday evening at Stoltenberg's private residence, before meeting Belgian Foreign Minister Sophie Wilmes, whose country is a NATO ally.

The cold shoulder was a contrast with Pompeo's previous visits to Brussels, which is home to NATO and EU headquarters, over the past three years, where he has given key-note speeches on U.S. policy and met the EU's chief executive, even as Europe balked at Trump's foreign policy.

In 2018, Pompeo said in Brussels that Trump's 'America First' policy was reshaping the post-World War Two system on the basis of sovereign states, not institutions such as the EU.

EU officials, who say they were exhausted by Trump's unpredictability, are eager to build fresh ties with Biden.

It was not immediately clear why Pompeo sought to go to Brussels so near to the end of Trump's term.

One source, while explaining why Pompeo chose to remain in Washington, cited his eagerness to roll out planned foreign policy tasks until the end of the term and help keep the continuity of government.

For nearly three years, Pompeo, an evangelical Christian, proved a loyal executor of Trump's unconventional style.

His tenure did not include obvious successes in such long-standing U.S. foreign policy challenges as reining in the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, ending the U.S. war in Afghanistan or containing an increasingly assertive China.

Nevertheless on Jan. 1, Pompeo kicked off a daily Twitter thread, saying the United States was "much safer" today than four years ago thanks to what he saw as the foreign policy accomplishments of the Trump administration.

He said he would showcase the results. "Over the coming days, I'm going to lay out the mission set, the huge wins, personal stories, and a lot more. Just me, Mike," he said.

The tweets have been largely seen as part of his bid to lay the groundwork for his much-anticipated 2024 run for the Republican nomination for president. So have been some of his foreign visits.

[Sheilbh]

This is how low we've fallen: plucky, little Luxembourg isn't returning our calls:

"....And consequently this country is at war with Luxembourg."

It slightly reminds me of the fact that the President of the United States has been banned from Pinterest

[garbon]

I see NYT has that McConnell reportedly is happy Dems pursuing impeachment as will be easier to boot Trump from the party.