President Donald Trump Impeached For Second Time

U.S. House of Representatives

With the entry of the 217th vote, the House of Representatives have impeached President Donald Trump for a second time. As I have previously stated, my primary objection to this action is the use of a snap impeachment that dispenses with the traditional hearing or inquiry of impeachment. There was no opportunity to debate the language or the implications of the language. Indeed, the House gave the President a threshold challenge based on this process. With the addition of a possible trial after Trump leaves office, the rush to judgment could become a parade of constitutional horribles.  The use of impeachment to “remove” a president who has already left office is ripe for challenge on the Senate floor and even later in the federal courts.

On the merits, I do not fault those who view the President’s words as impeachable. I condemned both his words and his failure to denounce the violence immediately and unequivocally. However, the language of the article is sweeping and raises serious concerns of this standard for future presidents. There is a concern over presidents being removed for reckless rhetoric that leads to violence by supporters.  While I do not view the President’s words as amounting to criminal incitement, I did view them as inciteful, reckless, and wrong.

That is why I am more concerned with the use of a snap impeachment. I am hopeful that no president will ever engage in such inflammatory actions or words again. However, a House majority could use this as precedent for another circumvention of the traditional process in favor of a snap impeachment. This is what snap chat is to conversations. It reduces impeachment to a raw, brief, and partisan expression.

However, make no mistake about it: this ignoble moment was earned by the President.  While I have warned about the implications of impeaching a president for being obnoxious or narcissistic, this was obviously more than either of those character flaws. This was breathtakingly irresponsible conduct that has now resulted in a historic and ignoble distinction.

The question, however, is how costly it will prove for the Constitution. That is why I argued for condemnation by both house and both parties in a resolution of censure. I criticized this speech as it was being given and opposed the challenge to the election from the outset.  However, I remain deeply concerned over the implications of the process and language underlying this impeachment. Indeed, had the Democrats allowed for just a day of hearings to consider such concerns, the language of the article might have been drafted to achieve greater support.

In my view, the Senate should reject the impeachment if on the basis that an impeachment of a former president is unwarranted and likely unconstitutional. That is entirely separate from the use of a snap impeachment and the specific language used by the House.

181 thoughts on “President Donald Trump Impeached For Second Time”

  1. I may just be damned, but those “Invaders” into the US congress 1/6/2021 appear to be some of those antifa Fascist Commies & their Terrorist buddies Black Lives Matter.

    And here is just another of the thousands of videos coming in to Banned.Video & Infowars.

    Agitators Identified From January 6th Capitol Unrest

    30,100 views

    Jan 12, 2021

    https://banned.video/watch?id=5ffe526bd25d133e9e25492a

  2. Q’ANON’S ROLE IN CAPITOL SIEGE

    The siege on the U.S. Capitol played out as a QAnon fantasy made real: The faithful rose up in their thousands, summoned to Washington by their leader, President Trump. They seized the people’s house as politicians cowered under desks. Hordes wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the “Q” symbol and toting Trump flags closed in to deliver justice, armed with zip-tie handcuffs and rope and guns.

    The siege ended with police retaking the Capitol and Trump being rebuked and losing his Twitter account. But the failed insurrection marked a grim milestone in how the paranoid conspiracy theory QAnon has radicalized Americans, reshaped the Republican Party and gained a forceful grip on right-wing belief.

    The baseless conspiracy theory, which imagines Trump in a battle with a cabal of deep-state saboteurs who worship Satan and traffic children for sex, helped drive the day’s events and facilitate organized attacks. A pro-Trump mob overwhelmed Capitol Police officers, injuring dozens, and one officer later died as a result. One woman was fatally shot by police inside the Capitol. Three others in the crowd died of medical emergencies.

    QAnon devotees joined with extremist group members and white supremacists at the Capitol assault after finding one another on Internet sanctuaries: the conservative forums of TheDonald.win and Parler; the anonymous extremist channels of 8kun and Telegram; and the social media giants of Facebook and Twitter, which have scrambled in recent months to prevent devotees from organizing on their sites.

    QAnon didn’t fully account for the rampage, and the theory’s namesake — a top-secret government messenger of pro-Trump prophecies — has largely vanished, posting nothing in the past 35 days and only five times since Trump’s election loss.

    But QAnon’s prominence at the Capitol raid shows how powerful the conspiracy theory has become, and how quickly it has established a life of its own. On fringe right-wing platforms and encrypted messaging apps, believers are offering increasingly outlandish theories and sharing ideas for how they can further work to overturn the results of the Nov. 3 contest — with violence, if necessary.

    The QAnon movement’s evolution, from an Internet hodgepodge to a hallmark of pro-Trump violence, is a signal of the danger it poses to security this weekend and going into next week’s inauguration. It also presents long-term challenges for President-elect Joe Biden by fomenting resistance to democratic governance and to measures needed to corral the coronavirus pandemic, including mass vaccination.

    As much of the nation — including leading Republicans — expressed horror at last week’s events, a different narrative was playing out in the parallel online universe that has grown around Trump’s presidency and helped sustain it through perpetual upheaval. The siege was justified, described on Twitter by one QAnon devotee as “the least we can do.” Or it was staged as a false flag to discredit Trump supporters, with its participants as the true victims.

    “You all know the attack on the Capitol was done by [the far-left political movement] antifa,” Thomas McInerney, a retired lieutenant general in the Air Force, declared in remarks captured on video and peppered across Twitter by accounts participating in a frenzied effort to construct a different narrative of the Capitol riots.

    Edited from: “Q’Anon Reshaped Trump’s Party And Radicalized Believers”.

    Today’s Washington Post

  3. Once again I thank the wild-eyed radical Democrats in the House of Representatives….who have given the Republicans the ability to Snap impeach Harris for the last two years of her filling the seat after Biden is gone. Now, the Republicans can do exactly as the Democrats have done and whip out an Impeachment willy nilly for the most scant of reasons and do so with a very clear conscience. Just as when McConnell warned Pinky Reid about changing Senate Rules and how that would backfire on the Democrats when they were again in the Minority….the Democrats refuse to listen to wiser folks offering advice.

    The Democrats are not about healing….and they are not about defending democracy or the Constitution depsite having taken an Oath to do so re the Constitution.

    So hear we are….this time no sham hearings….no theatrical displays of political angst and sorrow….no evidence….no testimony however contrived….no anonymous sources…..just skinning knives out ready to pounce on a fallen prey.

    My warning to the Leftists….be careful what you wish for….you are going to get in later when you really wish you did not. Karma is not a rock band…..it is real and it always comes back to you.

    1. Ralph, in order for republicans to have a “snap impeachment” would require Harris to incite a riot or insurrection and spend months spewing inflammatory rhetoric. And it would also require…a Republican majority in both houses of congress and that doesn’t look like it’s going to happen given how republicans have been tacitly approving of last week’s insurrection in the Capitol.

      If republicans want to gain a majority again they have to rid themselves of Trump. Mitch McConnell is already pleased Trump was impeached. He has no reservations about convicting him either.

    1. Young, just yesterday the Acting U.S. Attorney for Georgia, Robert Christine, revealed that “there is just nothing” to Trump’s election claims regarding Georgia. What’s more, Christine, was thought to be hand-picked by Trump to uncover the alleged fraud. Christine’s revelation is the most under-reported story since The Capitol siege.

      1. US Attorneys rely heavily on the FBI for investigation. Does anyone have any trust in that agency after what they have been up to for the last decade or so?

        The FBI also said that there were no Antifa at the Capitol, but known members of Antifa were seen and photographed there. If the FBI says A is true, then probably B is true.

        Remember the ‘bombs’ planted at Republican and Democrat headquarters? Nothing came of it and I suspect they were nothing but harmless decoys. I remember Wray tried to pretend that the pipe full of sulfur that some screwball sent somewhere awhile back was a potential ‘bomb’. No, it wasn’t. It was revealed to be a tube of sulfur that would never explode. They are lying to us.

          1. The CBS report that the bombs were ‘viable’ is not as convincing as you think. They haven’t yet said that those things contained explosives and would have caused death or injury if detonated. ‘Viable’ is b.s. talk.

            Wray used the same or similar language describing a tube of sulfur in a pipe that some idiot mailed. It took awhile before it leaked out that it was only sulfur and never a danger to anyone.

            On the other hand, remember ‘clock boy’ who was hailed as a genius for wiring a clock the way he did?

            It would never have exploded on its own, but it certainly looked as if it could serve as a timer for a detonator. I bet any expert seeing it wouldn’t stop holding his breath until he was sure it wasn’t connected to anything dangerous.

            Nothing we hear in the media should be accepted without examination.

            1. Remember the Anthrax investigation? Meuller’s FBI framed up a guy who was totally innocent and smeared him. Eventually the perp killed himself and was nice enough to leave proof of work which exonerated the other guy.

              Meuller failed upwards many times

              Sal Sar

              1. There are never any repercussions for these guys. A case in point: the Church Committee hearings.

                They’ve ruined the lives of some good and innocent people (and continue to do so), but it’s all in a day’s work.

        1. Young, you can make up ‘anything’ to explain ‘anything’ and you’ve done just that.

          This reminds me of when I used to open mail at a Hollywood agency representing writers. A high percentage of letters were from writers pitching screenplays. And the most common story idea involved giant conspiracies regarding the FBI and CIA.

          They often went like this: “Businessman Kirk Webber visits a a small U.S. city where he happens to witness a horrific mass shooting. But when Kirk tries to tell police, they throw him in jail on trumped up charges. Kirk breaks out of jail and flees the country. But now the FBI is hunting down everyone Kirk knew. And the CIA is relentlessly hunting Kirk abroad”

          See what’s happening here, Young? The writer, a lazy hack, just keeps expanding the conspiracy to make it bigger and bigger. Which is exactly what you’re doing in the comment above.

        2. I think AUSAs trust FBI for garden variety investigations. I am not so sure when it comes to political cases.

          Sal Sar

      2. Adam Schiff has seen the “more than circumstantial evidence of Trump conspiring with Russia to steel the election in 2016.
        Nancy Pelosi is quoated to say the 2016 election was rigged.

      3. “. . . election claims regarding Georgia.”

        Good grief.

        Christine became acting U.S. attorney for Northern Georgia on January 5. The story you cite was published on January 12. That’s *5* work days.

        If that is a serious election investigation, then kicking the tires is a comprehensive car inspection.

        1. If that is a serious election investigation, then kicking the tires is a comprehensive car inspection.

          🙂 Well if your mechanic kicked the tires and said it’s all good, then of course it’s all good. I mean it’s your mechanic after all.

          1. “Well if your mechanic . . .”

            And they can’t even get the facts right about what “my mechanic” (Christine) did and said. He investigated the *2* minor election complaints that he inherited from the previous U.S. attorney, and dismissed them both. “Somehow,” that gets blown up into: “Your mechanic” did a comprehensive inspection.

    2. Young, the problem is the election was never stolen. This idea was seeded in Trump’s supporters minds months before the election.

      You were lied to in the most epic of ways and many people won’t be able to accept the idea that they were taken for a ride.

      All of Trump’s supporters alleging fraud, and deceit claim they knew crimes were committed, fraud on a massive scale was committed. But have no proof at all. Think about that. How do you know those things are true for sure? You would have hard evidence in the first place to know for sure it’s true. BUT nobody has been able to produce that very proof that makes everyone so sure is the reason they KNOW crimes and fraud on the scale claimed did happen.

      Even Lou Dobbs KNOWS crimes were committed, BUT he can’t find proof of said crimes he KNOWS were committed.

      It’s a conspiratorial circle of logic that just keeps one’s skepticism in a constant loop.

      The simplest explanation for all of it is that it is not true.

      1. You may be right. I for one think the election result is legitimate but I thought the 2016 results were fair too. It is rich to try to criminalize Trump for doing to Biden the same as was done to him.
        The difference with Trump’s bluster is that he was not tying up millions of taxpayer funds and risking a catastrophic breakdown of relations with a hostile nation to do it.

      2. And yet a woman in Texas who was caught by Project Veritas boasting of committing large-scale voter fraud has been arrested by Texas authorities and faces years in prison.

        https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/breaking-texas-election-fraudster-caught-project-veritas-undercover-sting-arrested-widespread-vote-harvesting-faces-20-years-prison/

        Ask yourself, why is it left to Project Veritas and Texas authorities to deal with this? Where is the federal involvement? They don’t care.

  4. Parler has sued Amazon for terminating its hosting services, presumably because Parler has violent content in its comments.

    According to the Parler COMPLAINT in District Court, Amazon has signed a multi-year deal to also provide services to Twitter, a competitor of Parler.

    Section 403 provides liability protection to tech companies who for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”.

    Two expressions to note about that statement: “good faith” and the absence of “political opinion”. The restriction must be in good faith and restricting political opinion is not protected.

    In an earlier post [apparently deleted] I linked to two articles showing that Twitter had far more posts endorsing violence than Parler did during the time in question. If Amazon is actually enforcing its ‘terms of service’ then we should see Twitter shut down by Amazon quite soon too.

    Parler should demand that Twitter be held to the same standards that resulted in their closure as a demonstration of “good faith” on the part of Amazon enforcement.

    47 USC Sec 230 states its purpose is to “offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”

    Now it appears that the tech giants are using this same law to shield them when a start-up attempts to further a ” true diversity of political discourse”.

    Glenn Greenwald, as usual, as an insightful take on these developments:

    https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic

  5. “I criticized this speech as it was being given and opposed the challenge to the election from the outset”

    Strike two, Jonathan.

    You failed to even attempt to state why you opposed the challenge to the election.

    Surely you’re intelligent enough to have a basic understanding of this data:

    https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/11/statistical_anomalies_in_the_2020_presidential_election.html

    Biden had a better chance of winning Megamillions that night, than winning the election. And this doesn’t address the massive amount of illegal in your face actions to prevent the poll watchers from doing their jobs.

    You would have made a really bad Deadhead.

    1. Rhodes, “ And this doesn’t address the massive amount of illegal in your face actions to prevent the poll watchers from doing their jobs.”

      Big problem with that claim. It wasn’t true. The evidence presented in court asserting the claim proved to be without merit. Plus, Trump’s own lawyers conceded in court that their claims were not really true one judges asked pointed questions about the claims. They didn’t have evidence to back them up.

  6. Jonathan, you wrote that you viewed his words “as inciteful, reckless, and wrong”, yet you never quote any of his words that you deem to be inciteful, reckless, or wrong.

    There was nothing he said that came across as being even remotely “inciteful”. And “reckless” and “wrong” are purely subjective descriptions of words that you failed to even cite.

    You’re dancing madly backwards on the head of a pin as if you’re scared of something.

    1. Rhodes………….I agree that Trump’s words were not reckless, and not meant to stir-up violence, but were meant to stir-up patriotism.
      Here is the image of Nancy Pelosi destroying the copy of the State of the Union address, an historic symbol of our government and our freedom. What was this reckless action meant to do if not incite and stir-up the Left?
      It was a “breathtakingly irresponsible” act of disrespect toward our government.

      1. That’s correct Cindy. It was uncongressional or unspeakerofthehouseable. And while that was acceptable to the Left, a President exercising his constitutional right to speak directly to the American people in the manner 74+ million approve, now that is deemed unpresidential and worthy of impeachment.

    1. Yep, indicting someone is always about how terrified you are of them and never about punishing them for their crime.

      1. What crime? Has there been a trial, or do we just punish them if we THINK (or want to think) they committed a crime. If that’s the case…YOU should be very afraid.

    2. “ On the merits, I do not fault those who view the President’s words as impeachable. I condemned both his words and his failure to denounce the violence immediately and unequivocally.”

      Turley leaves out the fact that there really is no set way in how to do an impeachment. Congress has full discretion on how they conduct an impeachment. This “snap impeachment” nonsense is simply a distraction.

      His fears are overblown simply because no other president in the near future will be as inept and blatant as Trump. It’s what necessitated the “snap impeachment”. Trump incited a mob to undermine our democratic process.

      Months of rhetoric and claims of fraud and criminal activity with no proof clearly expressed Trump’s motives. Impeachment was necessary and correct.

  7. When President Trump said the protesters “should not let up”. Was he inciting a riot?

    My bad, that was actually the incoming VP maybe she should be impeached as soon as she takes the oath.

  8. The Democrats don’t really care about the Constitution anymore. It’s their House, their Senate, and their President. Like California it is basically a Supermajority and they will do exactly what they want. Constitution be damned.

    1. The Dems aren’t a supermajority in either Chamber. The Senate is split 50-50. Impeachment is specified in the Constitution, so it’s strange to say “Constitution be damned.”

  9. Many of the root causes go back to 1865. Following the American Civil War, both Lincoln and Lee wanted to create a “unity-government” instead of executing and imposing long prison sentences on former Confederates.

    The deal was if the losers of the Civil War agreed to follow the U.S. Constitution (which included protections and equal rights for African-Americans) and take a constitutional oath to that constitution – the losers of the war could serve in the unity-government.

    To avoid execution and long imprisonment, former confederate took a constitutional oath of office that included the upholding 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in order to serve as police officers, mayors, governors, presidents, legislators or judges.

    Many (not all) of the losers of the Civil War essentially reneged on that deal and never joined the unity-government. Although they took an oath of office which includes defending against “domestic enemies to the Constitution”, they never actually embraced their contract required to hold authority in America.

    Martin Luther King, Jr was merely upholding the post-Civil War oath of office. His opponents reneged on that oath.

    1. Where are you getting your information? The facts are that most Confederates became responsible citizens and some served in government and the military. Remember that CONGRESS imposed segregation in government and the military. Lincoln and Lee didn’t agree on anything. It was Lee and Grant who negotiated the surrender of Lee’s army, not the Confederacy. Although historians gloss over the fact, the war didn’t actually end until a month after Appomattox when Sherman and General Joe Johnston negotiated the surrender of Johnston’s massive army – it was much larger than Lee’s – in North Carolina. Even then, other armies were still in the field. The last to surrender was General Stand Wattie, who commanded the Cherokee forces in the Confederacy.

      1. The oath of office includes the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. During Jim Crow local sheriffs and other officials denied those rights to African-Americans. Check out the true life film “Mississippi Burning” with Gene Hackman.

Leave a Reply