President Trump, Lincoln, Eric discussed on The Von Haessler Doctrine
The senior senator from Vermont. Patrick Leahy is going to be the impartial judge. The whole concept is to see whether or not we can find enough evidence to remove this man from office who has Well, he's been removed from office. He's not in office anymore. The whole thing is is is absurd. And you know, there's I feel well, No. Because the secretary of war in 18 60, the suddenly everybody's talking about it is that they ever heard of this guy before. Oh, obviously, you know you're talking about Secretary of War was in the secretary of war anymore. Back in 18 60 something and they impeached him. This is a question that I think this is the reason John Roberts is not there because I think John Roberts doesn't believe his constitutional hypothetically. Just think of this if you can impeach somebody who's already left office. What's the time frame? Can we impeach Bush? Come if we find some stuff, can we? Can we impeach and and go to trial? What about what if we find out something we don't like about? I don't know. Jimmy Carter. He only had one term. Or did Chester Arthur? Whatever His name is one of those guys. I mean, you need to get rid of him. It's ridiculous because the whole concept is what we know. It's not real. He's not gonna leave. But history has to know. So my question is, Is there a time frame here? Can we impeach and have a trial for a president who's been dead for 50 years? Eric? That's ridiculous. Well, this is the way the law goes. It's based on precedent. What I want to know is if we can if we can have a trial and impeachment trial for a president, Remember, an impeachment trial exists for one thing, and one thing only. Decide whether or not we're going to remove this president. This person from office. They're not in office. So if you can impeach and have a trial to see if you can remove somebody from office, it was already been removed from office. It is not ridiculous to ask the question. For how long? Oh, it's just common sense, Eric. It would obviously just be the last president. I don't Is it common sense Is that how the law works? Is that how constitutional law works? I thought it was based on precedent. Things that have happened before now. And if you can, If it's constitutional to have an impeachment trial to remove from office, somebody who has already been removed from office. It is not ridiculous or absurd to ask the next question. For how long? Can you go back to presidents, Five Presidents, 10 presidents. The reason you go on these journeys intellectually is because quite often, if you if you play things out in your mind, and you ride them, and you find out that it quickly becomes absurd. It might be a red flag that what you're engaging in in this moment. Is actually absurd, and that's why it's worth doing. The answer is obviously if you can impeach a president if you could have a try align impeachment trial to remove a president who's already been removed. The answer to the question is obvious. Yes. You could impeach and put on trial any president from any more time in history. You know, there's a story out there. San Francisco Always, you know, famously liberal. They're changing like 44. School names to get rid of, You know the crimes of the past. Jefferson's on there in Washington's on there, and I could make arguments like these air. Also founders So you probably wouldn't have your freedom of speech without these characters, but they were slave owners. So that's a different discussion that removing Lincoln He didn't do enough. Lincoln is one of the names is being removed from the elementary schools. What I would say is, if your standard Says that Lincoln wasn't good enough. But as you look at this horrible past the United States of America, you toss Lincoln and with everybody else. Lincoln's not good enough for you. Means so if we could go back and say that we've decided in our modern eyes, Lincoln didn't do enough and he wasn't good enough. We're gonna remove his name and were in the habit of holding impeachment trial impeachments and impeachment trials for Residents who aren't in power. Well, why don't we go back? If you want to know if the feeling gets hot enough that it's more important to society that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves than everything they did to found the nation? Well, why couldn't we go impeaching them and put them on trial? Oh, Eric, that's ridiculous. No, you're not thinking. You're not in the habit of thinking things through to their logical ends. It's a worthwhile habit to get into because if you get to the logical end, and the logical end proves itself to be absurd. That's your red flag. That what you're engaged in it This moment could Vouches. Favorite word could be absurd. He could write good. A doctor Fauci. Do you think maybe Martians could land and have a some sort of covert 19 cure? They could. They could also land with a completely different strain of covert, which would mean we need to move. Where about 28,000 masks each Pull down your pants. We have a new swab for you. I love that one That's really gonna make the Trump received. Haven't heard the word. See that quite some time. So, of course it's absurd. I'm sorry and again, I have to say, I think that what the president did revving that crowd up and pointing them to the Capitol building. Woz In my mind unimpeachable a fence. But it wasn't necessary because the American people had already kicked him out of office. Now, when it happened we had When we have 12 days or 14 days we had to deal with that's right after it happened. And if he was supposed to be in there another two months or six months or year. I would be saying there should be impeachment.