House impeaches Trump after U.S. Capitol siege; his fate in Senate hands

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, Walker88 said:

Historically both the economy and the stock market perform better under Democrats than republicans.

 

There has never been a repub POTUS under whom a Recession did not begin. Not a single one going back all the way to Lincoln. None.

 

repubs have also been much worse for the national Debt.  Under 45, incidentally, it soared from $19.4 trillion to $27.8 trillion, which means the National Debt jumped 43% in just a single term, and 45 presided over 30.2% of all the US National Debt in its 245 year history.

 

Toss in 2 impeachments, a pandemic that has now killed over 380,000, an insurrection he incited against the very democracy he was supposed to protect, and the tumbling of the US' reputation in the world, and 45 leaves with a record of abject failure that will likely never be beaten.

 

History most surely will judge him the worst POTUS ever, and that by a wide margin.

 

And yet, for hundreds of years, republicans still get elected. 

[cmarshall]

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

If I read this correctly, even if the impeachment proceeds are successfully challenged in court, it still leaves trump subject to  charges and prosecution for inserection in the legal system   after he leaves office. 

"Trump Could Face Prosecution for Inciting Capitol Riot After Leaving Office, D.C. AG Suggests "

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-could-face-prosecution-inciting-capitol-riot-after-leaving-office-dc-ag-suggests-1560628

if that is the case he can be removed under the provisions of the 14th amendment , section 3

"

Section 3

 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

"

 

Trump is certainly liable for prosecution for incitement to insurrection, however he would have to be convicted.  If you listen carefully to his incitement speech it is not quite so definitely incriminating as it sounded at first, even though his intent is clear enough to those of us not inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt.  I think it would be difficult to convict him based on the content of that speech.

 

However, Trump would be safe from federal prosecution if Pence were to pardon him.  That doesn't look so likely at the moment, but I will nevertheless breathe a sigh of relief if it hasn't happened by Jan. 20.  A self-pardon won't protect him.

Edited January 14, 2021 by cmarshall

[ExpatOK]

The anti Trump crowd in DC has become totally unhinged and the American people see it.  An over emotional reaction to a speech where Trump said he wanted a peaceful protest.  A long trial in the Senate will only help Trump and hurt Nancy and gang. More facts will come out. Pelosi, operating on emotion only, has guaranteed Trump's exoneration and reelection in 2024.

[Walker88]

3 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

And yet, for hundreds of years, republicans still get elected. 

And yet, republicans by the tens of millions believe in QAnon.

 

There is no IQ test for voting in the US.  Perhaps that should be changed.

 

45 barks incessantly about 'greatest economy ever' when that is a bald faced lie. Some of his followers believe it, because they are ignorant of reality and facts.

 

Even before Covid, fully 70% of all quarters since the end of WWII showed GDP growth superior to 45's average. After Covid, that number jumps to around 78%.

 

Only fools would believe being in the bottom 22% somehow constitutes 'best ever'.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Walker88

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Mama Noodle said:

Unfortunately, Democrats won what they were trying to win. It was a horrible slugfest as predicted from the very beginning, and they narrowly squeaked out their goal. Right or wrong, they got it. 

 

Only thing left to do is allow them to govern, impeach, go after political rivals, and do what they always do, and in a few years there will be another republican government. 

 

It wasn’t narrow and it wasn’t ‘right or wrong’.

 

It’s what the majority voted for.

 

FBI have already charged 70 people and Biden isn’t in office, they are going after people who broke the law. 

 

How foes it go?

 

Lock them up!

 

 

[mtraveler]

12 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

I still dont "accept" that it was fair, or right, or that the playing field was in any way level. 

 

And it was a very narrow win in the presidency. Only a few 100k votes spread across 3 states and it took a huge, 4 year long campaign of attacks, a pandemic, government shutdowns without aid, a tech monopoly influencing readers, legacy media picking sides, and changing voting rules at the last minute just to squeak out this narrow win. (Nobody cares about popular vote) 

 

They got their very narrow senate majority, but they won't pass anything substantial because its so narrow. Plenty of red state dems careers on the line.  

 

My prediction going forward is that its only going to get worse. 

Sorry you don't accept it.  If there are facts that prove there was fraud or misdeeds in the election, please let them be brought forward.  Obviously there weren't, since 60 court cases were dismissed.  And every time a judge would ask about fraud, the attorneys (knowing better, and knowing they would be disbarred for lying), said "Oh, no, Judge, we're not asserting any fraud", while simultaneously screaming about fraud outside the walls of the courtrooms.  

 

I'm happy to see election reform.  There have been disenfranchised groups throughout our history who would like nothing more than a level playing field.  I think you saw the results of that in Georgia, with the work of Stacy Abrams.  Let's address that in Congress, and make voting fair for all.  At this point, the US lags far behind other countries in how they hold national elections.  I know part of it is the strange uniqueness of individual states, and their rights.  But it needs addressing.  But with all that said, I don't think there was any more fraud in this election than in any of the past 10, which was minimal and did not affect the outcome.  

 

As to the narrow win in the presidency, did you say the same thing when Trump was elected 4 years ago?  When he was running around saying his was the greatest landslide in the history of US Presidential elections?   The US is divided.  How much more of a win would you expect in these times, when the country is so polarized?

 

Unless you have some real proof, maybe it's time to accept Biden's win.  And start this healing I'm hearing so much about from the Republicans.  

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

The anti Trump crowd in DC has become totally unhinged and the American people see it.  An over emotional reaction to a speech where Trump said he wanted a peaceful protest.  A long trial in the Senate will only help Trump and hurt Nancy and gang. More facts will come out. Pelosi, operating on emotion only, has guaranteed Trump's exoneration and reelection in 2024.

Unhinged as in fermenting a terrorist attack on the Capitol?

 

Or is this you flipping reality again?!

[mtls2005]

Low-energy, teleprompter trump's response...

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Trump is certainly liable for prosecution for incitement to insurrection, however he would have to be convicted.  If you listen carefully to his incitement speech it is not quite so definitely incriminating as it sounded at first, even though his intent is clear enough to those of us not inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt.  I think it would be difficult to convict him based on the content of that speech.

 

However, Trump would be safe from federal prosecution if Pence were to pardon him.  That doesn't look so likely at the moment, but I will nevertheless breathe a sigh of relief if it hasn't happened by Jan. 20.  A self-pardon won't protect him.

Listen carefully to that single speech as you like, it’s not the only piece of evidence.

 

His speeches, tweets, statements to people, calls to people and actions/inactions are the evidence.

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

Unfortunately, trying the President for impeachment after he has left office is probably unconstitutional.  If McConnell were serious about getting rid of Trump he and Schumer would have called the Senate back into emergency session to conduct the trial before Trump leaves office.  

 

The Impeachment Clause, Article II, Section 4 states:

 

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

It seems pretty clear that the point of impeachment is removal from office.  A former president cannot be removed from office and is therefore not subject to impeachment.

 

Therefore, if the Senate goes ahead and tries Trump after Jan. 20 and if, big "If," they can muster a two thirds vote in the Senate to convict, I expect a court will subsequently overturn the conviction.

 

I understand the case that is being made for the opposite view, but I think it is weak.

It is actually a smart move not to call the Senate back and delay the trail as much as possible. 

Imagine if the called the Senate back and didn't get the 2/3 majority vote. 

That would be a big win for Trump and all hell would break out on the inauguration day on January 20th.

Edited January 14, 2021 by ExpatOilWorker

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Listen carefully to that single speech as you like, it’s not the only piece of evidence.

 

His speeches, tweets, statements to people, calls to people and actions/inactions are the evidence.

 

I understand that.  Nevertheless, getting a conviction on incitement of insurrection is not going to be a slam dunk.

[Chomper Higgot]

Four impeached Presidents in the history of the USA, and Trump is two of them.

 

All this winning, so much winning, I’m getting sick of winning.

[cmarshall]

4 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

It is actually a smart move not to call the Senate back and delay the trail as much as possible. 

Imagine if the called the Senate back and didn't get the 2/3 majority vote. 

That would be a big win for Trump and all hell would break out on the inauguration day on January 20th.

 

I don't think it is a smart move in the sense you intend.  In any case, the chances of getting a conviction now or later are vanishingly low.  If McConnell had decided he wanted Trump removed and disqualified it would be done before the 20th.  He clearly has not decided any such thing, which means it almost certainly won't happen.  So, let the Dems spin their wheels.  

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

I understand that.  Nevertheless, getting a conviction on incitement of insurrection is not going to be a slam dunk.

That of course depends upon the evidence/testimony and it’s for the future.

 

Right now Trump is once again impeached and those amongst his followers who attacked the Capitol are being arrested and charged.

 

Words have consequences and we’ve now arrived at the ‘serous consequences’

part.

[Walker88]

40 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

The anti Trump crowd in DC has become totally unhinged and the American people see it.  An over emotional reaction to a speech where Trump said he wanted a peaceful protest.  A long trial in the Senate will only help Trump and hurt Nancy and gang. More facts will come out. Pelosi, operating on emotion only, has guaranteed Trump's exoneration and reelection in 2024.

I will remind you that 45 lost the election. Badly. It was the worst loss by an incumbent repub ever.

 

Faced with an embarrassing landslide rejection, 45 then began lying incessantly about 'fraud', yet produced a sum total of zero evidence. He and his minions lost in courts 69 times, in cases led by judges appointed by Dems and repubs, even by 45. It was a series of impotent flailing aginst reality, yet 45 continued to spout and foment conspiracy theories that resonated with a base that has scant grasp on reality.

 

The base , fed a constant stream of lies by 45 and repubs, got angry. 45 fomented that anger and told his followers to come to DC and protest. It "will be wild" he said.

 

Then he met them along with others who spread false conspiracy theories, and together they incited the mob to storm the Capitol. 45 claimed "I'll march with you", which of course he did not do, instead retreated to his bunker.

 

When the terrorists stormed the Capitol, even chanting "Hang Mike Pence !" (after 45 Tweeted that Pence let you all down...since deleted by Twitter), 45 issued a video where he called them "very special people" and "we love you". The terrorists claimed "my POTUS told me to do this", which he did.

 

There is no indication whatsoever that 45 wanted a 'peaceful protest', and every indication he wanted exactly what he got. Sources inside the WH claim he was enjoying the terrorist attack and was puzzled that others around him did not seem to be enjoying it.

 

He incited terrorism. His followers were actively hunting Democrat Congresspeople. he failed to call in back-up for six hours, despite phone calls even from repubs holed up in the Capitol and fearing for their lives. 45 ignored their pleas. Back-up only came after VP Pence ordered it.

 

The Democrats did not overreact. 45 was impeached for inciting insurrection. He will face trial in the Senate. He is also likely to face civil suits by people who suffered.

 

In my opinion, which is shared by many, he is a traitor to the US. Seditious conspiracy, which the new AG may charge him with, is a felony that could land 45 in jail for up to 20 years.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Walker88

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, mtraveler said:

A meltdown on voter fraud?  I think not.  Just laying out the facts.  I just assumed from what you wrote that you were asserting there was voter fraud, as it's all I've heard the last 2 months.

 

There was voter fraud, but not enough to sway the election. What YOU heard has no bearing on what IM saying. 

 

1 minute ago, mtraveler said:

Perhaps I should have asked you what you meant by your words:  "I still don't accept that it was fair or right...".  Sorry if I assumed that you were referring to voter fraud.  Since it's not that, what did you think was unfair or not right about the election?  

 

I literally gave 5-6 reasons in the post, Im not going to do it again. Maybe just read them again and carefully. 

[mr mr]

i blame trump.

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Trump is certainly liable for prosecution for incitement to insurrection, however he would have to be convicted.  If you listen carefully to his incitement speech it is not quite so definitely incriminating as it sounded at first, even though his intent is clear enough to those of us not inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt.  I think it would be difficult to convict him based on the content of that speech.

 

However, Trump would be safe from federal prosecution if Pence were to pardon him.  That doesn't look so likely at the moment, but I will nevertheless breathe a sigh of relief if it hasn't happened by Jan. 20.  A self-pardon won't protect him.

I really don't know, it is a gray area, and I am no legal scholar or any other  scholar  by any stretch of the imagination. but consider the following . If  trump resigned (a big if) and if Pence offered him a pardon, (another big if) trump does not have to accept it, but if he does it implies  admission of guilt, and as such liable under 14th amendment section 3. There seems to be president in  "Decision. The Supreme Court ruled in Burdick that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt, acceptance a confession of it "  . 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#:~:text=until he complied.-,Decision,acceptance a confession of it".

of course I have also read argument that the above only applied in limiter cases.

It would be interesting to see.  

 

[cmarshall]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That of course depends upon the evidence/testimony and it’s for the future.

 

Right now Trump is once again impeached and those amongst his followers who attacked the Capitol are being arrested and charged.

 

Words have consequences and we’ve now arrived at the ‘serous consequences’

part.

Trump can only be convicted of incitement to insurrection based on his public utterances which are already known.  Conviction on an incitement charge is inherently difficult and Trump took care to include some injunctions against violence so that convicting him on that charge is unlikely, in my opinion.

 

There are any number of other federal crimes for which his conviction would be much more likely and I hope and expect the new DoJ to pursue those charges aggressively.  Always with the caveat that Pence hasn't pardoned him.

[cmarshall]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I really don't know, it is a gray area, and I am no legal scholar or any other  scholar  by any stretch of the imagination. but consider the following . If  trump resigned (a big if) and if Pence offered him a pardon, (another big if) trump does not have to accept it, but if he does it implies  admission of guilt, and as such liable under 14th amendment section 3. There seems to be president in  "Decision. The Supreme Court ruled in Burdick that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt, acceptance a confession of it "  . 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#:~:text=until he complied.-,Decision,acceptance a confession of it".

of course I have also read argument that the above only applied in limiter cases.

It would be interesting to see.  

 

 

Clearly Trump would accept a pardon from Pence, since any implication of guilt that would attach to such a pardon would attach equally to a self-pardon about which he shows no shyness whatever.

[Jeffr2]

35 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

The anti Trump crowd in DC has become totally unhinged and the American people see it.  An over emotional reaction to a speech where Trump said he wanted a peaceful protest.  A long trial in the Senate will only help Trump and hurt Nancy and gang. More facts will come out. Pelosi, operating on emotion only, has guaranteed Trump's exoneration and reelection in 2024.

Right...it was all anti Trump people who broke into the capitol building and caused 6 deaths.

 

You really need a better source for your news.  Right now, you're just trolling.

 

Pelosi did what?  If the senate verifies this impeachment, Trump can never run for office again.  Never.  Something Mitch seems to want.  If so, Trump's toast.

[Captain Monday]

23 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

I will remind you that 45 lost the election. Badly. It was the worst loss by an incumbent repub ever.

 

Faced with an embarrassing landslide rejection, 45 then began lying incessantly about 'fraud', yet produced a sum total of zero evidence. He and his minions lost in courts 69 times, in cases led by judges appointed by Dems and repubs, even by 45. It was a series of impotent flailing aginst reality, yet 45 continued to spout and foment conspiracy theories that resonated with a base that has scant grasp on reality.

 

The base , fed a constant stream of lies by 45 and repubs, got angry. 45 fomented that anger and told his followers to come to DC and protest. It "will be wild" he said.

 

Then he met them along with others who spread false conspiracy theories, and together they incited the mob to storm the Capitol. 45 claimed "I'll march with you", which of course he did not do, instead retreated to his bunker.

 

When the terrorists stormed the Capitol, even chanting "Hang Mike Pence !" (after 45 Tweeted that Pence let you all down...since deleted by Twitter), 45 issued a video where he called them "very special people" and "we love you". The terrorists claimed "my POTUS told me to do this", which he did.

 

There is no indication whatsoever that 45 wanted a 'peaceful protest', and every indication he wanted exactly what he got. Sources inside the WH claim he was enjoying the terrorist attack and was puzzled that others around him did not seem to be enjoying it.

 

He incited terrorism. His followers were actively hunting Democrat Congresspeople. he failed to call in back-up for six hours, despite phone calls even from repubs holed up in the Capitol and fearing for their lives. 45 ignored their pleas. Back-up only came after VP Pence ordered it.

 

The Democrats did not overreact. 45 was impeached for inciting insurrection. He will face trial in the Senate. He is also likely to face civil suits by people who suffered.

 

In my opinion, which is shared by many, he is a traitor to the US. Seditious conspiracy, which the new AG may charge him with, is a felony that could land 45 in jail for  20 years.

One point. He actually has been talking about fraud since 2016 when he was expecting to lose, For all of 2020 "If I lose the election was rigged" 

"

[Walker88]

19 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

There was voter fraud, but not enough to sway the election. What YOU heard has no bearing on what IM saying. 

 

 

I literally gave 5-6 reasons in the post, Im not going to do it again. Maybe just read them again and carefully. 

Yes, there was evidence of voter fraud. A man in PA cast the ballot of his dead mother. He voted for 45.

 

Of course that wasn't enough to sway the elction in 45's favor, but it was fraud.

 

One should be careful if one asserts that somehow the Dominion machines were involved in fraud, as already Dominion has filed a $1.3 billion lawsuit against sidney powell, who made up the farcical story about Dominion and dead Venezuelan leader hugo chavez, plus servers in Germany captured by a commando team, etc.

 

45 lost. Badly. Worst ever by a repub incumbent. An absolute slaughter in the popular vote. He cannot handle losing, so he lied and people died as a result.

[Jeffr2]

2 hours ago, polpott said:

This isn't a given. First the Senate must uphold the impeachment by 2/3rds majority, then an application to the Senate can be made to bar him from holding Federal office for life which requires a simple majority to pass, which would almost certainly pass now the Democrats hold the Senate.

 

McConnell is privately advocating this as it would wash that man right out of their hair, essential if the currently fractured Republican Party is to reunite and move forward as one.

 

It would also serve to remove any hopes of his base that their glorious leader will make a comeback. The Trump cult is a personality cult, remove the leader and the cult dies.

 

 

If Mitch goes along with this, Trump's toast.  Mitch has already said he wants the GOP to be rid of Trump.  Makes sense.

 

Fingers crossed, Mitch will get the votes he needs and rid the party of this garbage.

[Dumbastheycome]

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

If Mitch goes along with this, Trump's toast.  Mitch has already said he wants the GOP to be rid of Trump.  Makes sense.

 

Fingers crossed, Mitch will get the votes he needs and rid the party of this garbage.

At the same  time is it not sad that the same man who has enabled  so much  for Trump and used his power of position in the Senate continues  to wield power although in a  reversed  sense ?

[HAPPYNUFF]

I assume  the U.S. of A  has  the equivalent of  a  Mental Health Act, similar to in my country.

Why not just  declare him insane, as he obviously is, and incarcerate him, forever, in a mental institution??

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Clearly Trump would accept a pardon from Pence, since any implication of guilt that would attach to such a pardon would attach equally to a self-pardon about which he shows no shyness whatever.

I am sure he would, but then it might invalidate his ability to pursue future federal office under amendment 14 chapter 3 , and remove Damocles sword from over the head of potential challengers for leadership of the Republican party. 

 and it would certainly open him to certain legal challenges when he applies for candidate status. Furthermore ,  if he was to self pardone, as soon as he leaves office in a week, he will be indicted for the crimes of the pardon simply to challenge the validity of the self pardon. You don't think prosecutors will just let a self pardon fly with out challenge? It would be the end of American democracy and the beginning of the imperial presidency. 

IMO he will not self pardon because of the above reason, and will not resign because his personality pathology will not allow him to do so.

But who knows , I could be wrong, it's not like I have never been wrong before. LOL

 IMO trump is screwed and he knows it,  which is why had done anything he can to stay in power another four years . Maintain executive privilege and run down the clock on the statute of limitations for previous crimes that are waiting for him to leave office. 

[pacovl46]

2 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Unfortunately, trying the President for impeachment after he has left office is probably unconstitutional.  If McConnell were serious about getting rid of Trump he and Schumer would have called the Senate back into emergency session to conduct the trial before Trump leaves office.  

 

The Impeachment Clause, Article II, Section 4 states:

 

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

It seems pretty clear that the point of impeachment is removal from office.  A former president cannot be removed from office and is therefore not subject to impeachment.

 

Therefore, if the Senate goes ahead and tries Trump after Jan. 20 and if, big "If," they can muster a two thirds vote in the Senate to convict, I expect a court will subsequently overturn the conviction.

 

I understand the case that is being made for the opposite view, but I think it is weak.

Someone told me today if they were to impeach him he’d be stripped of the wage he’d get after getting out of office and he wouldn’t be provided with security until the end of his days. Don’t know if it’s true, though.

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

At the same  time is it not sad that the same man who has enabled  so much  for Trump and used his power of position in the Senate continues  to wield power although in a  reversed  sense ?

McConnell presided over the worst performing senate in 100 years.  They accomplished very litte.  He's a horrible politician and should resign.  This cements the need for term limits.  2 terms and you're out.

[CrunchWrapSupreme]

1 hour ago, PatOngo said:

The Trump fanboys have been very quiet of late or disappeared altogether, I miss there comments!

Agree with the first, though don't miss the comments at all. A group of colleagues at my school were all Trump supporters. None of them are American, though they share many of his attributes, big egos, talking a big game, etc.

 

They were quite vocal right after the election, convinced there had been a "steal" and ready to start marching, I guess on the US Embassy. Then as the court cases were thrown out, and that evidence failed to materialize, they got quieter and quieter, until now that those honorary Americans speak nothing of that country.