Are there logical, ethical reasons for Senators to not impeach?

[Revoltingest]

I'm sincerely interested in a few examples from today..



I think the question is still very pertinent. Will the 43 senators who voted to acquit be vilified in history, or are there some good reasons (as I'm saying logical AND ethical), to cut these acquitters some slack?

I don't know any given reasons.
But one could be belief in the unconstitutionality
of impeaching someone no longer in office.
Another could be belief that Trump's behavior
was reckless, & led to the sedition, but wasn't
his intention.

 

[Kenny]

t seems pretty clear that trump will not be voted "guilty" by the senate. It appears to me that he's clearly guilty, and that the reason he'll be acquitted is because of party politics.

Guilty of what?

But one could be belief in the unconstitutionality
of impeaching someone no longer in office.

 

[icehorse]

Guilty of what?

ummm, inciting an insurrection?

 

[Kenny]

ummm, inciting an insurrection?

He didn't as the FBI determined that it was the Proud Boys that had planned it before and it wasn't the President urging it. (Unless someone can provide more proof that what the FBI determined)

Feds: Evidence shows well-laid plan by some Capitol insurrectionists

 

[icehorse]

 

[Revoltingest]

...the reason he'll be acquitted is because of party politics.

This has always been the case. The trial in the Senate isn't
the same as a criminal court. The process is initiated by
politicians regarding a politician, & tried by politicians based
upon political concerns. So Trump had allies enuf to win.
Twas the same with Clinton. Of course it's not right. It just is.

 

[icehorse]

This has always been the case. The trial in the Senate isn't
the same as a criminal court. The process is initiated by
politicians regarding a politician, & tried by politicians based
upon political concerns. So Trump had allies enuf to win.
Twas the same with Clinton. Of course it's not right. It just is.

First off, seems odd to compare Clinton's missteps with trumps ?!

Second, I agree with what you're saying here, which - getting back to the OP - means they have no ethical legs to stand on.

 

[Revoltingest]

First off, seems odd to compare Clinton's missteps with trumps ?!

I limited their comparability to a narrow aspect, ie,
that guilt of crimes wasn't the basis for the verdict.
Politics was.
I am not comparing the gravity of wrongdoing.
Is it now clear that the point is how verdicts are
determined? Politics of the Senate.

Second, I agree with what you're saying here, which - getting back to the OP - means they have no ethical legs to stand on.

The ethical considerations are just different in the
Senate & criminal court. The former is much less
concerned with being guilty of a crime.

 

[icehorse]

The ethical considerations are just different in the
Senate & criminal court. The former is much less
concerned with being guilty of a crime.

So what ARE the ethical considerations being used in the senate?

 

[Revoltingest]

So what ARE the ethical considerations being used in the senate?

I can only speculate on some possible views by some....
- Political power for the party (which serves a greater good).
- Punishing a politician for wrongdoing.
- Defending a friend.
- Preserving one's career (which serves a greater good).

 

[Watchmen]

Wish I could participate, but I’ll keep my mouth shut. To say anything will only lead to harassment.

 

[Heyo]

So what ARE the ethical considerations being used in the senate?

Defending free speech - to a point that makes it legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
I guess that can be constructed this way. We obviously don't agree and I think that would be a contrived explanation but I see the possibility.
A court usually publishes an explanation, the Supreme Court also often publishes dissenting opinions. It would be nice to get explanations from the Senate and the Senators.

 

[icehorse]

Wish I could participate, but I’ll keep my mouth shut. To say anything will only lead to harassment.

If you think you can name any logical and ethical reasons for senators to acquit trump, I would sincerely like to hear them.

I find mcconnell's after-the-fact speech to be very interesting, and surprisingly heartening. While I found his reasons for acquitting to be weak, I thought it was quite meaningful that he thinks trump is a criminal and ought to be prosecuted (my summary).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you think you can name any logical and ethical reasons for senators to acquit trump, I would sincerely like to hear them.

I find mcconnell's after-the-fact speech to be very interesting, and surprisingly heartening. While I found his reasons for acquitting to be weak, I thought it was quite meaningful that he thinks trump is a criminal and ought to be prosecuted (my summary).

The voters had removed Trump, so there is no need for a trial. It is a continuation argument from the first impeachment.
We leave it to do voters to deal with Trump and they have done so.

 

[icehorse]

The voters had removed Trump, so there is no need for a trial. It is a continuation argument from the first impeachment.
We leave it to do voters to deal with Trump and they have done so.

It was not a continuation. trump did new illegal stuff this time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It was not a continuation. trump did new illegal stuff this time.

No, the continuation is that you leave it to the voters. And they have answered once. 2020 and can do so in 2024 again, if relevant.

 

[icehorse]

No, the continuation is that you leave it to the voters. And they have answered once. 2020 and can do so in 2024 again, if relevant.

doing illegal stuff while in office is not up to the voters. re-elections are different than criminal activities

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

doing illegal stuff while in office is not up to the voters. re-elections are different than criminal activities

That is the argument some Republicans have used. Now since you haven't qualified ethics, I will use the following moral claim. It is better to let the voters decide on the fate of a politician, therefore it follows that you shouldn't use impeachment, but leave it to the voters.

 

[icehorse]

That is the argument some Republicans have used. Now since you haven't qualified ethics, I will use the following moral claim. It is better to let the voters decide on the fate of a politician, therefore it follows that you shouldn't use impeachment, but leave it to the voters.

if a president does criminal stuff while in office, that's what impeachments are for. if a president does a bad job in office, that's what elections are for, no?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

if a president does criminal stuff while in office, that's what impeachments are for. if a president does a bad job in office, that's what elections are for, no?

In an ideal world, yes. But impeachment is not a criminal process. It is a political one.