Liberal law professor warns of the damage Democrats would do to Constitution if they impeach Trump a

[Revmitchell]

"The author Franz Kafka once wrote, "My guiding principle is this. Guilt is never to be doubted." Democrats suddenly appear close to adopting that standard into the Constitution as they prepare for a second impeachment of President Trump. With seeking his removal for incitement, Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before his term ends.Democrats are seeking to remove Trump on the basis of his remarks to supporters before the rioting at the Capitol. Like others, I condemned those remarks as he gave them, calling them reckless and wrong. I also opposed the challenges to electoral votes in Congress. But his address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court."

Liberal law professor warns of the damage Democrats would do to Constitution if they impeach Trump again

 

[Use of Time]

I think the damage of letting his rhetoric go unpunished sets a worse precedent.

 

[JonC]

There are two issues- impeaching a President for political rhetoric with a trial after the President has left office and condemning the rhetoric (more precisely the timing of the rhetoric as both sides spread propaganda to their base.

I agree with @Revmitchell that this would set a dangerous course. The worst thing Trump told the crowd was to march to the Capital and peacefully protest. This does not warrant impeachment. He did continue advocating conspiracy theories and propaganda (mixed with genuine issues) but so did Biden.

But @Use of Time is right that his rhetoric needs to be addressed for future transfers. Trump had a responsibility to tone down the flame and instead turned the heat up.

Censure is appropriate. Impeachment is overstepping.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

This guy has a clever way of minimizing the advocacy he knows Trump deserves.

He first says backhandedly, "Trump never actually called for violence or riots," then has to admit Trump explicitly said to protest "peacefully and patriotically." In other words, Trump called for the exact opposite of violence or riots. Throughout the piece, his arguments along this line should have been voiced much more strongly in Trump's favor.

He also greatly hyperbolizes at the expense of those who broke into the Capitol. "[L]eave it in tatters"? Ridiculous.

While unquestionably wrong, the damage to the Capitol itself was rather minimal. What the Dems have been doing to the Constitution for decades is far, far worse. What they have been doing the past four years and especially this election would be more appropriately termed leaving "it in tatters." The Dems are now on the verge of torching it. So much for unity.

 

[robustheologian]

I think the damage of letting his rhetoric go unpunished sets a worse precedent.

And man is it getting punished...and rightfully so. It needs not to stop with Trump though.