U.S. Senate blocks constitutional challenge to Trump impeachment trial

[Jeffr2]

28 minutes ago, pmarlin said:

The real story is that 45 senators voted for this measure which means Trump will not be convicted with they have the trail.  Sorry trump haters just another waste of money and time. Trumps wins again and this will make him more popular. 

Sad times when supposedly intelligent people side with a criminal who committed sedition.  Insane.

 

Don't forget, Trump was impeached again.  So yes, he did win.  Only president to be impeached twice.

[alanrchase]

I thought the Supreme Court decided what is and is not constitutional? Are senators now deciding that with a vote?

[Pattaya Spotter]

‘Dead on arrival’: Trump conviction unlikely after GOP votes to nix trial

 

Nearly every Senate Republican declared Tuesday that putting a former president on trial for impeachment is unconstitutional, indicating that the House’s case against Donald Trump is almost certain to fail. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/26/rand-paul-impeachment-462655

 

You gotta give the Dems an "A" for effort...but in their impeachments, nothing fails like success.

[onthedarkside]

A post with an unsourced quote has been removed.

[Eric Loh]

39 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

‘Dead on arrival’: Trump conviction unlikely after GOP votes to nix trial

 

Nearly every Senate Republican declared Tuesday that putting a former president on trial for impeachment is unconstitutional, indicating that the House’s case against Donald Trump is almost certain to fail. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/26/rand-paul-impeachment-462655

 

You gotta give the Dems an "A" for effort...but in their impeachments, nothing fails like success.

The "A" effort is to protect the country, uphold their responsibility to the people and their duty to the constitution for checks and balances and hold Trump accountable for incitement of an insurrection. What's on your mind.  

[Sujo]

56 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

‘Dead on arrival’: Trump conviction unlikely after GOP votes to nix trial

 

Nearly every Senate Republican declared Tuesday that putting a former president on trial for impeachment is unconstitutional, indicating that the House’s case against Donald Trump is almost certain to fail. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/26/rand-paul-impeachment-462655

 

You gotta give the Dems an "A" for effort...but in their impeachments, nothing fails like success.

He was impeached.

 

Now up to the senate to do their job. Strange how you dont want them to, law and order and all that.

[Pattaya Spotter]

“Private citizens don’t get impeached,” Mr. Paul had said a short time earlier, calling the trial “deranged” and vindictive. “Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office.”  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/us/politics/republicans-impeachment-trump.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

[Pattaya Spotter]

22 minutes ago, Sujo said:

He was impeached.

Articles of Impeachment are like an indictment in a criminal case...nothing but a series of unproven allegations and therefore essentially meaningless. That is why there is a trial in the Senate and it looks like President Trump will be acquitted...again!

Edited January 27, 2021 by Pattaya Spotter

[Jeffr2]

19 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

“Private citizens don’t get impeached,” Mr. Paul had said a short time earlier, calling the trial “deranged” and vindictive. “Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office.”  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/us/politics/republicans-impeachment-trump.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

You're missing the point entirely.  It's about enforcing our laws.  Ones Trump has broken.  Repeatedly.

 

Sad many in the GOP are OK with this.  Actually, some are just as guilty.

[Berkshire]

3 hours ago, Virt said:

What is most worrying is that Trump will most likely showcase this as a huge victory. 

Yes, Trump minions would see this as a victory....but it won't have the same impact as the first acquittal.  Mainly because he's already out of office.  And he can't boast about it on Twitter and attack the opposition.  Most importantly, he'll be in the same precarious legal position vis a vis his criminality in NY.  But if he's foolish enough to go on Fox and rave about how he was unjustly prosecuted, he may just dare the Biden DOJ to come after him.  If all these other insurrectionists are going to jail, it stands to reason that the guy who incited the whole thing and who's "order they followed" would have to be held to account.    

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

47 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

“Private citizens don’t get impeached,” Mr. Paul had said a short time earlier, calling the trial “deranged” and vindictive. “Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office.”  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/us/politics/republicans-impeachment-trump.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

 

Then of course, there's the subsequent sentences of the same article that you chose not to include:

 

"Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, quickly moved to shut down the request.

 

“The theory that the impeachment of a former official is unconstitutional is flat-out wrong by every frame of analysis,” Mr. Schumer said. “It has been completely debunked by constitutional scholars from all across the political spectrum.”

 

The Senate has clearly taken that position in the past."

 

And the article goes on to explain why...

 

In truth, it's just a false legal argument the Senate Republicans are clutching onto in an attempt to avoid having to publicly defend Trump's incitement to insurrection...by trying to claim there's no legal basis for the Senate's trial, even though history clearly shows otherwise.

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Pattaya Spotter]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Then of course, there's the subsequent sentences of the same article that you chose not to include:

 

"Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, quickly moved to shut down the request.

 

“The theory that the impeachment of a former official is unconstitutional is flat-out wrong by every frame of analysis,” Mr. Schumer said. “It has been completely debunked by constitutional scholars from all across the political spectrum.”

 

The Senate has clearly taken that position in the past."

 

And the article goes on to explain why...

 

In truth, it's just a false legal argument the Senate Republicans are clutching onto in an attempt to avoid having to publicly defend Trump's incitement to insurrection...by trying to claim there's no legal basis for the Senate's trial, even though history clearly shows otherwise.

 

The Forum rules only permit the direct quotation of headlines and the first few sentences of a copyrighted news source or a few sentences from the body of the article. I quoted the sentences that make my point. You're of course free to quote ones that make your's. You do seem a bit defensive though...seeing President Trump being exonerated again maybe?

Edited January 27, 2021 by Pattaya Spotter

[spidermike007]

It sure would have been great for civilization to have the knowledge that Trump could never run again. I believe he will become less and less relevant as time goes by. His brand is beyond toxic. 

 

Looks like the GOP wants to play both sides for awhile, and see what happens. Cowards. The entire lot, except for the 10 or so who spoke out. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by spidermike007

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

It sure would have been great for civilization to have the knowledge that Trump could never run again. I believe he will become less and less relevant as time goes by. His brand is beyond toxic. 

 

Looks like the GOP wants to play both sides for awhile, and see what happens. Cowards. The entire lot, except for the 10 or so who spoke out. 

Now that he is a private citizen he is banned from many social media.

 

He will ride off into the sunset like john wayne, without the horse, or the bag of gold.

[Rimmer]

Troll post and replies removed

[placeholder]

 

5 hours ago, alanrchase said:

I thought the Supreme Court decided what is and is not constitutional? Are senators now deciding that with a vote?

Judicial review is meant for laws enacted by Congress. When it comes to impeachment, which is a power solely delegated to Congress, the Supreme Court has always held that it has no power to interfere in the process.

[bunnydrops]

6 hours ago, alanrchase said:

I thought the Supreme Court decided what is and is not constitutional? Are senators now deciding that with a vote?

The Senate had already decided back in 1876 in the Belknap impeachment. Belknap quit his post before he was impeached.

 

 

"In Belknap’s case, his defense team specifically sought to argue to the Senate that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he no longer held office, said Keith E. Whittington, a Princeton University political scientist. But that motion "was rejected by the Senate, which held that it had the constitutional authority to proceed to trial and verdict," Whittington said.

In at least one way, Kalt said, the argument for trying Trump may be stronger than the one for trying Belknap. That’s because Trump was impeached by the House while he was still in office, whereas Belknap was not."

 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/26/can-congress-impeach-president-whos-left-office-lo/

[johnnybangkok]

7 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

‘Dead on arrival’: Trump conviction unlikely after GOP votes to nix trial

 

Nearly every Senate Republican declared Tuesday that putting a former president on trial for impeachment is unconstitutional, indicating that the House’s case against Donald Trump is almost certain to fail. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/26/rand-paul-impeachment-462655

 

You gotta give the Dems an "A" for effort...but in their impeachments, nothing fails like success.

What always perplexes me about your argument is you seem super happy that he will get off through a 'technicality'.

There's little argument about accountability. justice or whats right. It's all about the admiration of someone who plays the system, finds the loophole or bullies their way out of justice.

It's like cheering for the mafia when they kill a key witness.  

[stevenl]

6 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Forum rules only permit the direct quotation of headlines and the first few sentences of a copyrighted news source or a few sentences from the body of the article. I quoted the sentences that make my point. You're of course free to quote ones that make your's. You do seem a bit defensive though...seeing President Trump being exonerated again maybe?

Forum rules permit 3 sentences. You choose only 1 since the next 2 debunked your opinion.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, webfact said:

the trial will be overseen by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy instead of U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts.

Hardly an impartial oversee er then. Just by that alone 75 million Americans will consider the trial "rigged" IMO.

I must have misheard when I thought Biden was talking about unity, and being president for ALL Americans.

Edited January 27, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[bendejo]

21 hours ago, onebir said:

Maybe they're scared of the 'Trump constituency', rather than Trump himself?

 

Yes.  Death threats, for themselves and their family members.

Quote

[...] was arrested in Northern California after reportedly sending menacing text messages about the 2020 presidential election to the congressman’s brother and sister-in-law, according to a federal criminal complaint filed in New York.  “Your brother is putting your entire family at risk with his lies and other words. We are armed and nearby your house,” one of the messages [...]  "We are not far from his either. Your words have consequences. Stop telling lies; Biden did not win, he will not be president.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/26/hakeem-jeffries-family-threat-462920

 

GOP members are getting similar messages, but will only speak of them under anonymity.

 

This just in:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dhs-issues-national-terrorism-alert-for-domestic-extremists-11611770893

 

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by bendejo

[Pattaya Spotter]

6 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

What always perplexes me about your argument is you seem super happy that he will get off through a 'technicality'.

There's little argument about accountability. justice or whats right. It's all about the admiration of someone who plays the system, finds the loophole or bullies their way out of justice.

It's like cheering for the mafia when they kill a key witness.  

It's quite simple, I don't accept the underlying premise of the Democrat Party , and a few rump Republicans, that President Trump committed any impeachable offense in relation to the Capitol Hill demonstration (or any offense) so of course I'm pleased that the Senate appears ready and willing to not convict him on the House charges.

[Pattaya Spotter]

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Forum rules permit 3 sentences. You choose only 1 since the next 2 debunked your opinion.

Do they say you must quote three? I quoted Senator Paul's opinion on the House impeachment and it's applicability to a former president. Its my post so I am responsible for it and decide what to put in it. Senator Schumer has a different opinion, which I don't agree with and therefore am under no obligation to quote in my post. Any member who agrees with what the Democrat Party is attempting to do is free to enlighten us with their views, and quote from sources supporting them.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hardly an impartial oversee er then. Just by that alone 75 million Americans will consider the trial "rigged" IMO.

I must have misheard when I thought Biden was talking about unity, and being president for ALL Americans.

Do you understand that the President has no Constitutional role in impeachment?

[Jeffr2]

3 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Do they say you must quote three? I quoted Senator Paul's opinion on the House impeachment and it's applicability to a former president. Its my post so I am responsible for it and decide what to put in it. Senator Schumer has a different opinion, which I don't agree with and therefore am under no obligation to quote in my post. Any member who agrees with what the Democrat Party is attempting to do is free to enlighten us with their views, and quote from sources supporting them.

Rand Paul?  A true nutter and liar in the same class as Trump.  Definitely not a reliable source.

 

You are aware many of us who support Biden, and were against Trump, are not dems.  We're critical of both parties, but listen to both sides, unlike Trump's supporters.

[johnnybangkok]

5 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

It's quite simple, I don't accept the underlying premise of the Democrat Party , and a few rump Republicans, that President Trump committed any impeachable offense in relation to the Capitol Hill demonstration (or any offense) so of course I'm pleased that the Senate appears ready and willing to not convict him on the House charges.

That's not what your posts are saying. You are saying he shouldn't be tried as he is no longer a sitting POTUS; in other words a technicality (one that's been debunked through presidents set from previous similar circumstances). If you truly believe he is innocent then let him have his day in 'court'. Surely that's the only way this can be cleared up.
I don't think there's any denying he gathered a large crowd on the day of the presidential confirmation, got them all riled up and pointed them in the direction of the Capitol. Whether there was intention for the violence that then ensued is up for bebate but surely you can't deny he gathered a crowd, riled them up and set them off. 

Or are you not going to admit what you can actually see with your own eyes? 

Edited January 28, 2021 by johnnybangkok

[Jeffr2]

4 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

That's not what your posts are saying. You are saying he shouldn't be tried as he is no longer a sitting POTUS; in other words a technicality (one that's been debunked through presidents set from previous similar circumstances). If you truly believe he is innocent then let him have his day in 'court'. Surely that's the only way this can be cleared up.
I'll not get into the facts that he gathered a large crowd on the day of the presidential confirmation, got them all riled up and pointed them in the direction of the Capitol. You obviously don't believe what was recorded and covered by many, many different media on the day.

It's very hard to convince someone who doesn't believe what they can actually see with their own eyes. 

Yeah, it's bizarre (but typical) to see Trump's sycophants scream for investigations into voter fraud to make sure things are OK, but to give him a pass on sedition.  As you say, let him have his day in court. Easy peasy.

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Do they say you must quote three? I quoted Senator Paul's opinion on the House impeachment and it's applicability to a former president. Its my post so I am responsible for it and decide what to put in it. Senator Schumer has a different opinion, which I don't agree with and therefore am under no obligation to quote in my post. Any member who agrees with what the Democrat Party is attempting to do is free to enlighten us with their views, and quote from sources supporting them.

I am saying that by leaving out text, text you were allowed to quote but wrongfully claimed you were not allowed, you wrongfully used that quote to support your opinion even though the link doesn't support that position at all.

Edited January 28, 2021 by stevenl

[Sujo]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hardly an impartial oversee er then. Just by that alone 75 million Americans will consider the trial "rigged" IMO.

I must have misheard when I thought Biden was talking about unity, and being president for ALL Americans.

Law and order, or would you prefer no trial.

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

It's quite simple, I don't accept the underlying premise of the Democrat Party , and a few rump Republicans, that President Trump committed any impeachable offense in relation to the Capitol Hill demonstration (or any offense) so of course I'm pleased that the Senate appears ready and willing to not convict him on the House charges.

And you conclude this without hearing any evidence? You dont want the senate to do the job they swore an oath to do?