New answers tagged

7

That is the Great Seal of the United States, which is governed by Public Law 91-651, Title 18 of the United States Code. Under that law, it prohibits usage that may be "reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency". The seal is used for President ...


6

As I said in a comment and phoog's answer also emphasized, (in the US unlike in some European countries) there's no accepted method by which the legislative body can "pre-inquire" the (supreme) judiciary as to the constitutionality of anything the legislative does. In fact The United States Supreme Court has determined that the case or controversy ...


15

@divibisan but this question isn't about reviewing impeachments. It's about whether impeaching a former president is constitutional. @divibisan I do not understand your question. OP asks why it is the Senate voting on the question as opposed to the Supreme Court. The supreme court never rules on the constitutionality of anything unless that question has a ...


27

Because the US Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule on whether an impeachment is constitutional. That power lies solely with the US Senate, as part Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. It is worth remembering that the President is not the only position that is subject to ...


2

Questions of constitutionality are determined by the Supreme Court, not Congress or the President. Why, then, is the Senate voting on the question? Because Rand Paul wanted to make a point – that's all. The Senate has no power to rule on whether the impeachment is constitutional and even if it passed, Paul's motion would have no effect. What it does do is ...


7

As a disclaimer, this is just speculation on my part. But when politics are involved, every action should be looked at as a power play - either to gain power for the actor and their allies, or to take power from their enemies. As such, one possibility of the issuing of a "no appointees allowed to lobby" order could be to prevent appointees who ...


1

Oddly enough... I found another source which somewhat contradicts what Panda says. Following the aforementioned October event: Effective immediately, National Security Council staff are required to wear masks in all White House common areas and any place social distancing is not possible, additionally staffers are requested not to visit the West Wing unless ...


1

"We are requiring everyone who enters the West Wing to wear a mask or facial covering," the White House Management Office wrote in a Monday email to staffers. It appears to be an email sent to staffers in May 2020. The email does not appear to be publicly available, but the New York Times had obtained a copy of it. In an internal email obtained ...


32

There was no official explanation given by the Trump administration in the new executive order that he signed to revoke the ethics executive order (13770), as noted by Politico. However, the Clinton administration had issued an executive order (13184) close to the end of his term revoking a similar ethics executive order (12834). There also did not appear to ...


5

The normal impeachment procedure still applies. The Senate will hold a trial after the House sends the articles of impeachment over to the Senate. At the moment, it appears the articles will be sent to the Senate at the end of this week, with the trial being carried out the following week. From ABC News: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to send the ...


3

Pre-election support numbers for Trump in the military at large are somewhat easier to get and they seemed to be on par with the rest of the population. That doesn't mean all these Trump supporters in the military would support a coup. If it's any reasssurance to you in that regard, the armed forces leadership has explictly condemned the riots: "The ...


6

While the speech itself is certainly full of material that expresses Trump's anger about the election, it hardly ever directly addresses the crowd. There are a few places where he does talk to and about the crowd though. One is near the beginning: Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After this, we’re going to walk ...


3

I'm often not a fan of metaphors but this came immediately to my mind: In a country all major roads are toll roads owned by two or three large corporations. People depend on these roads to go places. Obviously they must obey the traffic rules of the state when they use these roads. The issue at hand is that the companies impose additional rules at will by ...


8

The senate can certainly subpoena witnesses if they chose to do so in such a trial. They may or may not choose to. Trump could claim to be exempt from answering particular questions on the ground of Executive Privilege (EP). The exact limits of EP are not well established, but they do not seem to extend to any and every question that might be asked. A claim ...


10

Context is important, but if you limit the scope to just this speech it probably does not rise to the level of calling for insurrection and violence, or "inciting a riot". Back in 2016 Trump was accused of inciting a riot at one of his campaign rallies. Some protesters also attended the rally and interrupted several times. Trump then told the crowd ...


8

She insists that limitations on free speech may only be based on law, not arbitrary decisions by companies. Unfortunately, there is no original speech from her, only her spokesperson (Seibert). The CNBC article is heavily distorting, as if she was supporting Trump (she isn't). In fact, many German authorities and mainstream media have strongly demanded and ...


33

There's an international dimension here. While US commentators largely see this in a US domestic context (an American company deciding what to do about American problems), Merkel will be looking at it in an international context; the idea of an American company making decisions about what a European head of state can and can't say is much more worrying. (We ...


4

They can disqualify Trump from standing again with a simple majority, but only after he has been convicted, and a conviction requires a two-thirds vote.


13

As has been said, we cannot read minds. I would like to think that this was a personal conviction based on a famous saying, I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it However, Merkel is a politician and politicians above all do what is expedient. In reality, this probably has more to do with decrying the untrammelled ...


21

Trump's speech, tweets and pattern of communication can also be seen as an example of "dog whistle politics" - a message that is clearly or likely to be interpreted in a specific way by allies and those it is directed to, while seeming to be innocent or deniable to others. If a president, with highly emotional followers, spends months laying the ...


14

If nothing else, Trump's subsequent behaviour is enough of an indication of what he intended. During the riots he said and did nothing to stop them, and seemingly refused to take even basic expected actions to secure the safety of the legislators at the Capitol. His only statements, long after he could have taken actions included telling the terrorists "...


8

Is it true that US Big Techs are trying to convey a message to US legislators and congress? No, they are trying to convey a message to companies that purchase advertisements from them. Yes, that message is also to everyone else. If it is true, what is their (most pertinent) rationale as well as motives behind these actions? They don't want to be party to ...


131

While Germany does promote free speech, same as the USA does, their free speech means something different: False information is not an object worthy of protection from the viewpoint of freedom of opinion (54 BVerfGE 208, 219). The deliberate assertion of untrue facts is not protected by article 5, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law; Merkel did not say Trump ...


51

We can not read Angela Merkel's mind, so her true motives are pure speculation. However, the original article by Reuters which is named as a source in the CNBC article linked in the question expands more on her stated rationale for her position: German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reservations about the way President Donald Trump’s Twitter account was ...


79

The Way a Mob Boss Orders a Hit A mob boss doesn't need to say: "Tony, go murder that meddlesome shop owner Johnson. He never paid his protection money." Instead, he can make his desires clear with rhetoric: "Look at that fat, good-for-nothing Johnson, sitting over there in his deli all smug-like. He knows what is due us. Are we gonna just ...


30

For a different perspective, see how Trump's supporters interpreted the speech. But now Trump’s more emphatic response, belated as it is, has been greeted with incredulity in some of the darker corners of the web. Users of the conspiracy-laden site 4Chan, as well as the more mainstream site Parler, were full of anger at Trump over his apparent climbdown. ...


61

The speech: relevant as circumstantial evidence How did Trump's speech call for insurrection and violence? I don't think the speech alone is the problem here. For example, the article of impeachment references the phone call on January 2, and the repeated false accusations of election fraud as well. That said, the article of impeachment should really be ...


102

tl,dr: The Articles of impeachment do not accuse Trump of openly calling for violence in his speech. "Incitement" is not the same as "openly calling for". Impeachment is not required to use the legal definition of incitement, which is a very high bar to meet (video link), and does use the dictionary definition instead: Incitement - the ...


33

The Washington Post's annotation of Trump's speech scrutinised some of the lines in his speech. They concluded that while there was "no overt calls for his supporters to actually enter the Capitol or resort to violent means", some allusions in his speech may have been perceived as controversial. Trump’s culpability for the violence is the topic of ...


111

The article of impeachment introduced by Democrats in the House on January 11th specifically mentions parts of President Trump's January 6th speech (emphasis mine): Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, DC. There, he reiterated false claims that "we won this election, and we won it ...


4

As mentioned in @JoeW's answer, there are no states that Trump won over 75% of the vote share. However, there are some counties where Trump did win over 75% of the vote share (FWIW since county-level results can be misleading due to the varying sizes of counties). Nevertheless, they can still be an interesting reference. The New York Times has a map that ...


8

There are no states that voted that way in 2020. The closest would be Wyoming with 69.94% of the vote for trump. There are areas in states that did get over 75% of the vote for Trump such as Nebraska's third district with 75.36% of the vote but the entire state didn't follow that as Biden did win a district in Nebraska. Check out wiki for the breakdown by ...


0

Yes, assuming that the impeachment conviction occurs prior to the end of Trump and Pence's term in office. If Trump is impeached and convicted after he leaves office the conviction is largely symbolic, as he cannot be removed from an office he no longer holds - but the Senate (which will be controlled by the Democrats after Jan. 20) can then vote to bar him ...


28

Would Vice President Pence take over and become president (in lists of presidents and numbered 46th president) for one week/less than a week? Yes Impeachment and conviction of the President would remove the President. Section 1 of the 25th Amendment states that: "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the ...


12

If President Trump is removed from office for any reason before his term ends, Mike Pence becomes the 46th President of the United States for the remainder of Trump's term, whether that be five months or five hours. Joe Biden would then be the 47th President of the United States. There would be an inauguration, in the sense that he would take the Oath of ...


12

There was a violent riot in Washington, DC on January 6, 2021. The BBC reports, Trump supporters converged on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to express their rage over Joe Biden's victory in the election, wreaking havoc in Congress. Rioters were pictured vandalising congressional offices, and an aide to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Washington's top ...


2

Yes, but difficult. The Constitution puts no time restrictions on an impeachment. It will be hard though because there will likely be a lot of debate and disagreement from Republicans and probably won’t just be Nancy Pelosi saying he should be impeached and them doing it as they may want time to gage how their constituents view it.


3

No Assuming that Trump has not been barred from office (as by an impeachment and conviction, or a conviction for a crime which imposes a ban on holding office) then the party as an organization cannot prevent him from filing as a candidate. It can decline to endorse or support him. But should he win sufficient primary elections, he would be the party nominee....


4

Impeachment (and removal) needs only a vote in the House of Representatives followed by a vote in the Senate. The length is in persuading a majority of Representatives and a supermajority of Senators that impeachment is warranted.


6

One point that hasn't been mentioned in other answers is that removing Trump from office before the end of his term, even if it's just a few days, would be a very serious black mark on his record and would most likely severely impact his chances of being elected again in 2024 if he decides to run, which seems likely at the moment. If he was to be impeached ...


13

I want to know why there would be any political advantage to this The advantage would be that they would present themselves as being opposed to an attempted coup. Depending on their constituency, that could help them in future elections. why would they not let Trump leave office with the recent event a real black mark on his record instead of causing new ...


2

They're afraid Trump will manage to actually stay president. This may sound stupid and absurd to you, but it doesn't sound stupid at all to many. This is how regime changes happen and they're never recognized by most until after the new regime is fully settled. I am not saying it's currently a certainty that if Trump is not removed immediately, he will ...


9

Many of the calls to invoke the 25th Amendment appear to do so as a matter of national security, not as one of political advantage. For instance, the Washington Post wrote in an editorial: The president is unfit to remain in office for the next 14 days. Every second he retains the vast powers of the presidency is a threat to public order and national ...


21

Why invoke the 25th (or impeachment) so close to the end of term? to prevent the incumbent president from causing any further harm (in the eyes of those calling for it) to make a point that the incumbent president's behavior has (again? finally?) crossed a (another?) line (in the eyes of those calling for it) in the hope that future presidents and those ...


7

I'm thinking either it came from lessons learned after the disproportionate police response to BLM so things are toned down It appears that this is one reason for the muted response to the storming of the US Capitol. A Washington Post article describes how "Pentagon leaders were still smarting from criticism of their role in the Trump administration’s ...


24

Trump has been claiming the election would be fraudulent since at least April of last year. He also claimed that the 2016 election was fraudulent, even though he won. At no point has he or any of his supporters provided any evidence of the widespread fraud he has been claiming. Everything necessary to confirm the results has been done, but Trump refuses to ...


30

All of Donald Trump's deleted tweets and retweets can be found here on factba.se, which is a site that tracks what Trump and other political figures say or tweet. You can see screenshots of the original tweets on that site. Here are the transcripts of the regular tweets: Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our ...


6

No. 15 USC § 261 gives the Department of Transport the ability to define the boundaries between time zones, but it sets in law how far behind UTC the time zones themselves are.


15

Assuming Pelosi is Speaker, how would it affect the January 6th count if she refused to seat the Reps who plan on objecting to the electoral votes? There would be no effect, because Speaker Pelosi cannot refuse to seat a duly-elected candidate. When Can Congress Refuse to Seat a Duly-Elected Candidate? Never. In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ...


5

Let me begin by saying your read of the situation is correct, and there is no plausible way that repealing Section 230 would lead to an increase in free speech on the Internet. Other answers have given good explanations of why that is, but your explanation is basically correct: increasing liability for user content will lead Internet companies to censor more ...


Top 50 recent answers are included