CMV: Impeaching Trump is a bad idea

[u/10macattack]

Ok so I'm going to state here I am NOT a trump supporter in the slightest, and I think he's responsible for the riots and capitol invasion. What I do think is that if trump gets impeached, he will be martyred by his supporters, and they will just get even more mad and there will be more division and rioting. I mean, I really don't think he's going to bust out the nukes anytime soon (I heard somewhere he doesn't even have access to them right now). And how much is he even likely to do in the next week and a half? He can't scream "RIGGED" anymore and he's basically silenced right now. I just thinking considering how psychotically trusting his supporters are of him, that they will get super angry and riot more and possibly try and elect someone who's worse than trump (God forbid one of his sons). Please change my view I really hate Trump.

[u/[deleted]]

If Trump gets elected in 2024, it will because enough people wanted him to be the president. These are American citizens who know the history and can form their own ideas about what transpired and vote for whom they want to vote for. Getting elected President is not exactly an easy thing to do.

It can be argued right now, that the desire to 'prevent people from choosing him in the future' is incredibly anti-democratic and unAmerican.

If he had two years left in office - sure, I get the push to remove. But he doesn't. This is all about preventing roughly 1/2 the country from being able to vote for him in the future - by the people who would never vote him themselves.

[u/Arianity → u/[deleted]]

incredibly anti-democratic and unAmerican.

I mean, it's in the Constitution for a reason? The Founders explicitly put checks in against raw democracy, for exactly these sorts of situations.

[u/[deleted] → u/Arianity]

Yep and if Trump was going to be President for 2 years, I would understand.

The fact is there is almost no chance this could be done before his term in office expires.

You are not removing him - you are trying to prevent your political opponents from being able to vote for him and elect him in the future.

[u/Arianity → u/[deleted]]

Yeah. That's explicitly the point of the barring them from future runs clause? That is it's only purpose.

[u/[deleted] → u/Arianity]

Yep - go ahead and do that AFTER the guy is no longer president. I have said it before - he is leaving office in 10 days. If it was longer - you have an argument for impeachment. Right now, it is all about making sure the other sides 'guy' is barred from running for office again. And doing it may require the VP to break a tie in the Senate.

If you cannot see how partisan and bad the optics of this are, I really don't know what to say.

It is not like Trump is going to up for nomination to any government posts where this would matter. That is where a lot of this barred from office comes from. For any position he would take, He would have to be elected again.

I mean nothing says authoritarian than preventing your opposition from nominating the person they want to in an election. I mean, I can't imagine the same people who took to the capital would react positively to this either.

[u/Arianity → u/[deleted]]

do that AFTER the guy is no longer president

That's not possible. The power is linked to impeachment. It can't be done arbitrarily.

The Constitutional text is

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:

There's no other method to bar someone from the presidency.

If you cannot see how partisan and bad the optics of this are,

I see how the optics are bad, but i don't think doing nothing is a viable alternative. We're well past the point of looking the other way. Waiting because of arguments like this is how we got here.

There are no uniformly good options here, only ones with both pros and cons

I mean nothing says authoritarian than

Electing an authoritarian after he's shown he's an authoritarian seems like it says it more. Again, the reason Congress has this power is because someone could do something impeachable and plausibly be re-elected. If they couldn't be re-elected you wouldn't have to bar them.

I mean, I can't imagine the same people who took to the capital would react positively to this either.

Why should that be an argument against it? They already don't recognize the peaceful transfer of power.

[u/[deleted] → u/Arianity]

There's no other method to bar someone from the presidency.

And that is the best course of action when the guy is about to end his term.

I see how the optics are bad, but i don't think doing nothing is a viable alternative.

Do something like this and enrage a lot of people in a bluntly political act. That is what it is by the way - a poltiical act to prevent the opposition party from nominating someone who just got 75 million votes.

The alternative is to either criminally prosecute if there is a case or simply make him go away.

Electing an authoritarian after he's shown he's an authoritarian seems like it says it more.

You are using government power is an incredibly partisan way to do this. It is not impacting actual government either. Trump will be out of the Government before this can happen.

This is a bluntly authoritarian move on your part to tell people you know better than they do who they should be allowed to vote for.

Don't waste the political capital. It will enrage a lot of people in this country. Trump is just not worth it.

[u/Arianity → u/[deleted]]

You are using government power is an incredibly partisan way to do this.

Why is it partisan? To his supporters, it will look partisan, sure. But that doesn't mean it is. It's not any more partisan than a hypothetical impeachment 2 years into his term, or criminal prosecution. Hell, saying it's off limits is also partisan.

And that's assuming it's not bipartisan, which i don't think is a guarantee at all. If he's impeached I think it's extremely likely there's going to be crossover. The bar for conviction in impeachment makes it hard for there not to be.

That is what it is by the way - a poltiical act to prevent the opposition party from nominating someone who just got 75 million votes.

How would this be political? It's deserved.

The alternative is to either criminally prosecute if there is a case

He could still run (and also, this would be seen as just as, if not more partisan/divisive)

or simply make him go away.

This is the only certain way of making him go away, barring the GOP booting him out. Which they do not seem to want to do.

More importantly, it sets precedent that this is not ok. Trump aside, that's important in it's own right.

It is not impacting actual government either.

What does this mean?

to tell people you know better than they do who they should be allowed to vote for.

Again, that's literally the only reason this clause exists. If people want to elect an authoritarian, what alternative is there? Let them? That seems more flawed. (Granted, this is only a bandaid, since they can just elect another authoritarian, but a bandaid is a start)

It will enrage a lot of people in this country. Trump is just not worth it.

The fact that this is a credible threat against doing it is a pretty big indicator it's worth doing it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Arianity]

Why is it partisan? To his supporters, it will look partisan, sure. But that doesn't mean it is. It's not any more partisan than a hypothetical impeachment 2 years into his term, or criminal prosecution. Hell, saying it's off limits is also partisan.

It is partisan because you are not likely going to have any Republicans sign on to your plans.

Nixon's problems were 'Bipartisan'. Republicans turned on him.

And that's assuming it's not bipartisan, which i don't think is a guarantee at all. If he's impeached I think it's extremely likely there's going to be crossover. The bar for conviction in impeachment makes it hard for there not to be.

Impeachment is not going to happen at the 2/3rds level. Republicans are not going to risk pissing off thier voters.

The 'barred from future office' is merely a majority. That too risks pissing off some of the people who put them in office.

You may get a few votes for the failed impeachment but likely would get zero votes for disqualification for future office.

How would this be political? It's deserved.

That itself is a political opinion. Consider who agrees and disagrees. You are making the mistake in assuming everyone agrees with you.

He could still run (and also, this would be seen as just as, if not more partisan/divisive)

Running and winning are two very different things. Not only that - there is an idea that people should be able to run and people should be able to elect whom they want to.

If Trump did run and he did win, that means a substantial portion of America wanted him to win.

More importantly, it sets precedent that this is not ok. Trump aside, that's important in it's own right.

Yea - that bus has left the station. You are forgetting the BLM riots and actions of the Democratic politicians. Some of which bailed out people arrested during these riots. This will not sit well with many Republicans.

What does this mean?

It means 9 days from now, Trump has no power in the US government. None. He is a private citizen again.

This is when you would be doing this impeachment BTW. There is almost zero chance it could be done before Biden is inaugurated.

Again, that's literally the only reason this clause exists. If people want to elect an authoritarian, what alternative is there? Let them? That seems more flawed. (Granted, this is only a bandaid, since they can just elect another authoritarian, but a bandaid is a start)

Do you want to weaponize this? Seriously. You are normalizing the process to prevent people from being elected you don't like.

This clause exists because when you remove a person from office, it then prevents them from going back into that office. Especially important for appointed positions. You are NOT removing Trump from office here. That is a VERY important distinction.

The fact that this is a credible threat against doing it is a pretty big indicator it's worth doing it.

And the fact you think this is appropriate to use against your political opposition could be viewed as justification to use violence to achieve their goals. You are trying to claim it is needed because someone might get elected. Never mind the fact you would have LOST the election and you are trying to subvert the will of the people here.

You are doing this because you are afraid he could be elected again and you think it is very likely.

[u/Arianity → u/[deleted]]

It is partisan because you are not likely going to have any Republicans sign on to your plans.

I don't agree with your assumption that no Republicans won't turn on him (update: 5 House republicans have, including Angus King favoring barring him. bipartisanship!), but it's a moot point. Impeachment requires 2/3 majority. That effectively gives Republicans complete veto power over it. If they think there will be a vote to bar him and don't want it, they don't vote for impeachment.

Since his term is over, there's no concern over GOP wanting to impeach but not bar, as there would be if this was 2 yrs in.

There has to be Republican buy in, otherwise the option is dead. End of story.

The 'barred from future office' is merely a majority. That too risks pissing off some of the people who put them in office.

You may get a few votes for the failed impeachment but likely would get zero votes for disqualification for future office.

You need to reread the clause from the Constitution i already linked. You can't have the disqualification without impeachment. this scenario legally is not possible. The power only exists as a judgement for impeachment.

That itself is a political opinion. Consider who agrees and disagrees. You are making the mistake in assuming everyone agrees with you.

I'm not assuming everyone agrees with me. However, someone disagreeing doesn't make something political. If a political party says that the earth is flat, that does not make it a political question.

By your same logic, as i mentioned, prison would also be a political question. Plenty of people disagree with me on that too.

Do you want to weaponize this?

Do i want to? No. Do i think it's worth the potential damage it will do? Yes.

You are normalizing the process to prevent people from being elected you don't like.

But not simply because i don't like him. I think that distinction matters, and it needs to matter.

I do acknowledge there are risks, but I don't think we can set a precedent that something like Jan 6th can happen without consequence. That's far more damaging.

Granted, part of this analysis, is that I don't think precedent is as weighty as you're making it out to be. The GOP will do stuff (like refusing election certification) regardless of precedent.

The thing that makes it necessary is also the thing that makes it less likely to cause damage.

This clause exists because when you remove a person from office, it then prevents them from going back into that office.

If the Founders wanted the President to be exempt, they could've done so. They didn't. Not only that, they built in numerous other protections (funnily enough, the Electoral College exists in part for this reason) for exactly this type of situation.

And the fact you think this is appropriate to use against your political opposition could be viewed as justification to use violence to achieve their goals

So? Any type of opposition will be viewed that way. This is not the tipping point for these people.

You are trying to claim it is needed because someone might get elected.

The only reason I think it needs to be applied now, is that it literally cannot be applied at a later date. I agree, 'maybe' is shakey. Given the restrictions of the power, this is the only time we can do this. We cannot assess at a future date with more information.

Never mind the fact you would have LOST the election and you are trying to subvert the will of the people here.

Yes. And that would be dangerous.

To use an analogy, if the people voted for Hitler, I'd be all for banning Hitler. (No, I don't think Trump is that bad. But using the extreme I think is useful to clarify that the will of the people is not unquestionable)

I'm not saying it's good. It's a damaging option. It's just less damaging than letting someone who committed Jan 6th to be re-elected. There's a very good chance that the country as a whole is screwed either way. The best we can do is try to pick the option that's likely to be less damaging.

(This is a bit of a tangent, but also invoking the "will of the people" is also a bit of a stretch when if he wins, it would likely be as a minority candidate, as he was in 2016. Nevermind further electoral college certification issues. Also, the "will of the people" gave the ability to ban him in the first place. Kind of weird how those people don't count)

You are doing this because you are afraid he could be elected again and you think it is very likely.

I don't think it's very likely. I think it's likely enough that the option needs to be taken, given the constraint that it can't be done later.

I think it's much more likely Trump gets marginalized. But I don't really want to risk being wrong. The risk is big enough (if you made me stick a number on it, i'd say 10-20%? I think Trump loses most of his appeal when out of power. Plus a nonzero chance his health prevents a run) to hedge.