Trump Impeachment 2.0

[Backintheday544]

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

It also paints Republican Senators who vote to acquit him as condoning the riots.  The more video and images they show the worse it's going to look.

That’s why I think today will be really interesting.

 

One of the right wing bots here said Americans don’t care about impeachment. I can see that for the first one. In terms of what drives ratings a phone call with Ukraine isn’t really a winner.

 

But now we have the January 6th insurrection. Everyone was glued to their TVs, it was all over social media, who here in the US doesn’t know about the QAnon Shaman?

 

Id guess this impeachment trial will be watched much more by every day citizens. 
 

The Dems just need to paint this for the horrific act it was and Americans will watch. It could put some people in hard positions 2 years from now having to defend that vote.

 

Thats why it’s interesting we got a Republican flip on a procedural vote. No one will face an attack add over a procedural vote and the vote yesterday will be forgotten soon enough. The same won’t be said for the conviction vote.

[oldmanfan]

Let the process continue.  The arguments yesterday as to constitutionality were overwhelming; the key thing being that the former president was in fact impeached during his term.  The Senate then refused to start the trial during his term.  You can't do that and then claim you can't continue because now he's a former president.  That argument is absurd on its face.

[daz28]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Let the process continue.  The arguments yesterday as to constitutionality were overwhelming; the key thing being that the former president was in fact impeached during his term.  The Senate then refused to start the trial during his term.  You can't do that and then claim you can't continue because now he's a former president.  That argument is absurd on its face.

What's absurd is that if they aren't that absurd, their nutbar constituents will vote them out.  Really, that's not absurd, but rather frightful that people do not want facts and truths.    

[All_Pro_Bills]

16 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Let the process continue.  The arguments yesterday as to constitutionality were overwhelming; the key thing being that the former president was in fact impeached during his term.  The Senate then refused to start the trial during his term.  You can't do that and then claim you can't continue because now he's a former president.  That argument is absurd on its face.

If I recall the House delivered the charges to the Senate floor after the Biden inauguration.  But reality is this:   

 

This is simply all politics using the Capitol riot event as a justification.  We're going to hear about a weeks worth of testimony and "evidence".  I think we already know plus or minus a vote or two on how every member of the Senate chamber is going to vote when it comes to an end.  It doesn't matter today or next week how good or bad the House manager's case is or how good or bad of an argument the defense attorney's provide.  Something like 55-45 for the impeachment plus or minus a vote or two for or against.  With 67 votes needed for a conviction the vote will fall short.  So Trump will be acquitted once again and he'll have another talking point to rally his forces around.  Along with a couple weeks of outrage from his political enemies and media activists about how the Republicans voting to sustain did a disservice to their country.  Like any of them were going to cast a vote in favor of any those Senators in 2022 Senate races anyway.

 

My preference was to see this all play out in Federal Court.  I believe that would be the most objective and logical place for a trail of a "former" President to take place.  Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts appears to agree with me.  He made a very unusual decision to recuse himself and decline to preside over the Impeachment trial in the Senate.  What that signals is its likely the court's majority opinion is this Impeachment trial in the Senate is unconstitutional as Trump is no longer the sitting President and they want no part of any Senate show trial.  The Senate voting that their procedure is constitutional is no surprise.  If they didn't think that they wouldn't hold the trial in the first place.  The highest court might have a different view.   

 

In Federal Court the case would be heard by a jury of 12 vs. a Senate chamber completely immersed in political conflict.  A prosecutor that would present evidence that passes the legal threshold and legitimacy tests that are ignored in the Senate chamber and the House indictment.  The defense would need to present its case purely on the law without the aid of politics and the cover provided in the Senate.  This to me would be the best and most legitimate place to pass judgment on Trump's guilt or innocence.   

 

Agree or disagree with some or all or none of what I say but other than interrupting a lot of daytime TV this Senate trial is DOA and is going to result in an acquittal and maybe next week we can close the book on Trump and move on. 

[snafu]

2 hours ago, daz28 said:

This is pure gold.  If you can't see how stupid this is, then well you're really stupid.

 

The Senate didn’t receive the Article of Impeachment until January 25. Here’s a NYT article from 1/19 that says Pelosi was holding the Article to build a case.   The issue yesterday was whether the Senate should hold a trial after the President left office. It isn’t that stupid.  The Senate couldn’t hear anything or do anything until the Article was put into their hands. There’s arguments to be made both ways. Seems that Justice Roberts might agree, or he at least thinks it is a bit closer case than you make it out to be. In any event, the vote is over and the trial is proceeding.

 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

If I recall the House delivered the charges to the Senate floor after the Biden inauguration.  But reality is this:   

 

This is simply all politics using the Capitol riot event as a justification.  We're going to hear about a weeks worth of testimony and "evidence".  I think we already know plus or minus a vote or two on how every member of the Senate chamber is going to vote when it comes to an end.  It doesn't matter today or next week how good or bad the House manager's case is or how good or bad of an argument the defense attorney's provide.  Something like 55-45 for the impeachment plus or minus a vote or two for or against.  With 67 votes needed for a conviction the vote will fall short.  So Trump will be acquitted once again and he'll have another talking point to rally his forces around.  Along with a couple weeks of outrage from his political enemies and media activists about how the Republicans voting to sustain did a disservice to their country.  Like any of them were going to cast a vote in favor of any those Senators in 2022 Senate races anyway.

 

My preference was to see this all play out in Federal Court.  I believe that would be the most objective and logical place for a trail of a "former" President to take place.  Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts appears to agree with me.  He made a very unusual decision to recuse himself and decline to preside over the Impeachment trial in the Senate.  What that signals is its likely the court's majority opinion is this Impeachment trial in the Senate is unconstitutional as Trump is no longer the sitting President and they want no part of any Senate show trial.  The Senate voting that their procedure is constitutional is no surprise.  If they didn't think that they wouldn't hold the trial in the first place.  The highest court might have a different view.   

 

In Federal Court the case would be heard by a jury of 12 vs. a Senate chamber completely immersed in political conflict.  A prosecutor that would present evidence that passes the legal threshold and legitimacy tests that are ignored in the Senate chamber and the House indictment.  The defense would need to present its case purely on the law without the aid of politics and the cover provided in the Senate.  This to me would be the best and most legitimate place to pass judgment on Trump's guilt or innocence.   

 

Agree or disagree with some or all or none of what I say but other than interrupting a lot of daytime TV this Senate trial is DOA and is going to result in an acquittal and maybe next week we can close the book on Trump and move on. 

Some good points here.  I disagree with the Chief Justice idea; the Constitution declares he presides over the trial of the president, and we can only have one president.  But there is historical evidence that a trial can occur after someone is impeached and then leaves office.

 

It may very well be that the best way to deal with this is to arrest Trump and then try him in federal court.  of course, you know the argument then would be that you can't arrest the former president and that the remedy would have been impeachment.  

[SoCal Deek]

I believe the core argument is whether the high crime/misdemeanor was committed while the President was still in office...not really when charges were filed.

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

The Senate didn’t receive the Article of Impeachment until January 25. Here’s a NYT article from 1/19 that says Pelosi was holding the Article to build a case.   The issue yesterday was whether the Senate should hold a trial after the President left office. It isn’t that stupid.  The Senate couldn’t hear anything or do anything until the Article was put into their hands. There’s arguments to be made both ways. Seems that Justice Roberts might agree, or he at least thinks it is a bit closer case than you make it out to be. In any event, the vote is over and the trial is proceeding.

 

Wasn't part of this that McConnel indicated that the Senate would not reconvene until the day before inauguration and that they would not have time for a trial, and based on that he and Pelosi came to the arrangement that was sued?  what should have been done is the House should have marched the articles over to the Senate as soon as they were done, and the Senate should have immediately been brought into session.

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

I believe the core argument is whether the high crime/misdemeanor was committed while the President was still in office...not really when charges were filed.

Correct.  That is the thrust of the January argument put forth yesterday.

[Backintheday544]

12 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

If I recall the House delivered the charges to the Senate floor after the Biden inauguration.  But reality is this:   

 

This is simply all politics using the Capitol riot event as a justification.  We're going to hear about a weeks worth of testimony and "evidence".  I think we already know plus or minus a vote or two on how every member of the Senate chamber is going to vote when it comes to an end.  It doesn't matter today or next week how good or bad the House manager's case is or how good or bad of an argument the defense attorney's provide.  Something like 55-45 for the impeachment plus or minus a vote or two for or against.  With 67 votes needed for a conviction the vote will fall short.  So Trump will be acquitted once again and he'll have another talking point to rally his forces around.  Along with a couple weeks of outrage from his political enemies and media activists about how the Republicans voting to sustain did a disservice to their country.  Like any of them were going to cast a vote in favor of any those Senators in 2022 Senate races anyway.

 

My preference was to see this all play out in Federal Court.  I believe that would be the most objective and logical place for a trail of a "former" President to take place.  Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts appears to agree with me.  He made a very unusual decision to recuse himself and decline to preside over the Impeachment trial in the Senate.  What that signals is its likely the court's majority opinion is this Impeachment trial in the Senate is unconstitutional as Trump is no longer the sitting President and they want no part of any Senate show trial.  The Senate voting that their procedure is constitutional is no surprise.  If they didn't think that they wouldn't hold the trial in the first place.  The highest court might have a different view.   

 

In Federal Court the case would be heard by a jury of 12 vs. a Senate chamber completely immersed in political conflict.  A prosecutor that would present evidence that passes the legal threshold and legitimacy tests that are ignored in the Senate chamber and the House indictment.  The defense would need to present its case purely on the law without the aid of politics and the cover provided in the Senate.  This to me would be the best and most legitimate place to pass judgment on Trump's guilt or innocence.   

 

Agree or disagree with some or all or none of what I say but other than interrupting a lot of daytime TV this Senate trial is DOA and is going to result in an acquittal and maybe next week we can close the book on Trump and move on. 

Roberts isn’t presiding because Trump isn’t President: 

 

“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”

 

The President isn’t being tried therefore the Chief Justice doesn’t have to preside.

[Tiberius]

14 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Not that it matters - Trump won't be convicted - but... you do get what you pay for:

 

 

And just remember:

 

 

 

And a threat to the Republic. Trump tried having our election nullified and Republicans just don't care at all. Screwing with the Post Office, calling an Attorney General to have him "find" votes so he could win and then sending those scum bags out to attack the National Legislature as it was certifying the election. I sure hope the voters don't forget that, because Republicans sure want them to 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

And a threat to the Republic. Trump tried having our election nullified and Republicans just don't care at all. Screwing with the Post Office, calling an Attorney General to have him "find" votes so he could win and then sending those scum bags out to attack the National Legislature as it was certifying the election. I sure hope the voters don't forget that, because Republicans sure want them to 

Or could it be that a large group of American citizens perceived that they’d been disenfranchised and wanted their elected representatives to simply listen to their grievances? Or does that only work when people of color say it?

[Scraps]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Or could it be that a large group of American citizens perceived that they’d been disenfranchised and wanted their elected representatives to simply listen to their grievances? Or does that only work when people of color say it?

Based on what?  How were they disenfranchised?  Is it necessary to storm the capital to let your grievances known?

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Scraps

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Or could it be that a large group of American citizens perceived that they’d been disenfranchised and wanted their elected representatives to simply listen to their grievances? Or does that only work when people of color say it?

You are not conceding that Trump did something wrong when he called the GA Att General to find votes are you? You don't think that was a crime, right? Obviously you think Trump did nothing wrong inciting the mob, you are fine with that. 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Scraps said:

Based on what?  How were they disenfranchised?  Is it necessary to storm the capital to let your grievances known?

 

No it’s not...but those citizens were not trying to overthrow their government. They simply wanted someone to listen to them. 

[Scraps]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

No it’s not...but those citizens were not trying to overthrow their government. They simply wanted someone to listen to them. 

The people who wanted to "hang Mike Pence" simply wanted someone to listen to them?

 

[Backintheday544]

6 minutes ago, Scraps said:

The people who wanted to "hang Mike Pence" simply wanted someone to listen to them?

 

Not just Pence, they had the next 3 levels of succession after Trump in that building at the time of the insurrection.

[snafu]

19 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Wasn't part of this that McConnel indicated that the Senate would not reconvene until the day before inauguration and that they would not have time for a trial, and based on that he and Pelosi came to the arrangement that was sued?  what should have been done is the House should have marched the articles over to the Senate as soon as they were done, and the Senate should have immediately been brought into session.

Correct.  That is the thrust of the January argument put forth yesterday.

 

The President is usually afforded time to make a defense. The only good argument made by his counsel yesterday was the fact that the House impeached him in 8 hours and didn’t have much debate, and didn’t afford the President an opportunity to participate. That’s the usual (due) process.  If the House Managers are allowed to argue that “there’s precedent for this” then they can’t get away with how the process didn’t follow precedent up to this point. 

 

Impeachment is a political matter, but the accused needs at least a modicum of due diligence, otherwise everyone is left with a show trial. The ultimate political penalty was already laid on the President by his losing the election.  On January 21 Trump became a private citizen — and there’s a Judicial branch to handle the matter at that point. 

 

I was was impressed by our checks and balances for the past 4 years when keeping the President in check.  Now, checks and balances seem to be blurring and that’s not a good thing. Try him in court.  If he’s a convicted felon, he can’t be President anyway. Is Congress afraid they can’t overcome the presumption of innocence and beyond reasonable doubt thresholds?

 

15 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You are not conceding that Trump did something wrong when he called the GA Att General to find votes are you? You don't think that was a crime, right? Obviously you think Trump did nothing wrong inciting the mob, you are fine with that. 

 

 

 

Trump has done a ***** ton of things wrong.  He’s his own worst enemy.  That’s why he’s in this position now. Perhaps a court of law would like to hear about it.

 

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

No it’s not...but those citizens were not trying to overthrow their government. They simply wanted someone to listen to them. 

Here's the basic issue with all this.  We have gone from a time where elected representatives were leaders to where they are now supplicants.  I think we can all agree, or at least should agree, that this election was not stolen.  There is absolutely no objective evidence to support that.  Those who have been trusted with duties as an elected representative had the obligation to be straight with voters in their districts and states, to tell them in no uncertain terms that Trump was wrong and that they need to step back from the ledge and stop the nonsense.

 

There was a time when Senators and Congressmen actually cared about the country and doing what was right for the country, regardless in it cost them some votes.  McCain during his presidential run stood up to that woman claiming Obama was an Arab.   It hasn't completely disappeared; even though I am independent I was very proud and very impressed by Senator Sasse and Representative Cheney these past days standing up to their state parties.  Sadly these are very much the exception; watching the Senate ignore what happened to our Capitol, seeming Senator Lee say Trump should get a mulligan.  I would argue we have never had in our history congressional leaders who are as craven and sickening as we have right now.  

3 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

The President is usually afforded time to make a defense. The only good argument made by his counsel yesterday was the fact that the House impeached him in 8 hours and didn’t have much debate, and didn’t afford the President an opportunity to participate. That’s the usual (due) process.  If the House Managers are allowed to argue that “there’s precedent for this” then they can’t get away with how the process didn’t follow precedent up to this point. 

 

Impeachment is a political matter, but the accused needs at least a modicum of due diligence, otherwise everyone is left with a show trial. The ultimate political penalty was already laid on the President by his losing the election.  On January 21 Trump became a private citizen — and there’s a Judicial branch to handle the matter at that point. 

 

I was was impressed by our checks and balances for the past 4 years when keeping the President in check.  Now, checks and balances seem to be blurring and that’s not a good thing. Try him in court.  If he’s a convicted felon, he can’t be President anyway. Is Congress afraid they can’t overcome the presumption of innocence and beyond reasonable doubt thresholds?

 

 

Trump has done a ***** ton of things wrong.  He’s his own worst enemy.  That’s why he’s in this position now. Perhaps a court of law would like to hear about it.

 

Good points.  I do agree he should be tried in federal court.  I think a case for sedition can be made.

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, Scraps said:

The people who wanted to "hang Mike Pence" simply wanted someone to listen to them?

 

Those people are being prosecuted. Do you believe the people who looted the Best Buy just needed to be heard? Come on people! This works both ways. On the one hand, they painted a street and congressional representatives knelt down in the rotunda. And on the other hand....

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Trump has done a ***** ton of things wrong.  He’s his own worst enemy.  That’s why he’s in this position now. Perhaps a court of law would like to hear about it.

 

Here's hoping!