So charge him in Civil court for civil rights violations.  

7 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

So charge him in Civil court for civil rights violations.  

He'll probably be involved in dozens of suits this year.  As you know, he's been involved in more lawsuits than any other president in history.  No reason for that to change.

Seems Sec 3 of 14th amendment should apply to many of current Republican Congress members:

"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."

That was an insurrection, they were attempting to topple the Congressional branch of the government. Don't minimize that glaring fact

Is anything preventing preventing private citizens, say from states that elected these insurrectionists,  from bringing suit to enforce this amendment?

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

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).

The fact that Chief Justice Roberts has refused to preside over the whole farce militates in favor of my interpretation of the constitutionality of the Senate's action.

31 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The fact that Chief Justice Roberts has refused to preside over the whole farce militates in favor of my interpretation of the constitutionality of the Senate's action.

Oops, still spreading untruths I see:

 

Quote

The Ruling

False.

Newsweek found no evidence that Roberts refused or was even asked to preside over the trial, nor does he have any legal obligation to do so.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-chief-justice-roberts-refuse-preside-over-trumps-impeachment-trial-1564300

28 minutes ago, Slip said:

Oops, still spreading untruths I see:

 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-chief-justice-roberts-refuse-preside-over-trumps-impeachment-trial-1564300

Newsweek...they're still around; what are they down to, a few bytes of server space somewhere on the internet? 

 

Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the chief justice shall preside over the Senate trial of an impeached president of the United States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#:~:text=duties to fulfill.-,Impeachment trials,president of the United States.

 

Note the determinative "shall" preside over the Senate trial of an impeached president. The Chief Justices declination to preside over the Senate's "trial" of a private citizen suggests he sees it as unconstitutional, or at the very least inappropriate. 

1 minute ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Newsweek...they're still around; what are they down to, a few bytes of server space somewhere on the internet? 

 

Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the chief justice shall preside over the Senate trial of an impeached president of the United States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#:~:text=duties to fulfill.-,Impeachment trials,president of the United States.

 

Note the determinative "shall" preside over the Senate trial of an impeached president. The Chief Justices declination to preside over the Senate's "trial" of a private citizen suggests he sees it as unconstitutional, or at the very least inappropriate. 

 

2 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Newsweek...they're still around; what are they down to, a few bytes of server space somewhere on the internet? 

 

Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the chief justice shall preside over the Senate trial of an impeached president of the United States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#:~:text=duties to fulfill.-,Impeachment trials,president of the United States.

 

Note the determinative "shall" preside over the Senate trial of an impeached president. The Chief Justices declination to preside over the Senate's "trial" of a private citizen suggests he sees it as unconstitutional, or at the very least inappropriate. 

Deny, deflect, ignore....

 

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chief-justice-roberts-wont-preside-in-impeachment-trial-what-does-the-constitution-say

 

A court spokeswoman did not say whether Roberts had declined the job. But Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York indicated in an interview that the chief justice didn’t want to preside, and he wasn’t constitutionally obligated to do so, CNN reports.

 

“It was up to John Roberts whether he wanted to preside with a president who’s no longer sitting,” Schumer said Monday in an interview with The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. “And he doesn’t want to do it.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-27/trump-trial-without-chief-justice-lets-gop-talk-optics-not-riot

 

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts’s refusal to preside over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial is giving Republicans an opportunity to focus on the Senate’s process rather than the specifics of the insurrection charge against the former president.

 

 

The Constitution calls for the Supreme Court’s top jurist to preside over impeachment trials of sitting presidents but is silent on what should happen for one who is no longer in office.

 

 

Roberts’s decision to skip the current trial without any public explanation leaves a Democrat already on the record as favoring conviction, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, overseeing the trial when it gets underway the week of Feb. 8. That opens it up to accusations of being a more partisan -- and less judicial -- process than in Trump’s 2020 impeachment.

1 hour ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The fact that Chief Justice Roberts has refused to preside over the whole farce militates in favor of my interpretation of the constitutionality of the Senate's action.

The constitution is silent on who presides on a former president trial. 

Yes the Republicans, or the GOP may not even be Opposition, if they keep trying to

support Trump.  Maybe there will be enough Americans who will form a new

party to Keep even Donny's new Patriot party from getting many votes.  I hope so

as even maybe Ted Cruz will have to say bye bye.

Geezer

49 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

The Constitution calls for the Supreme Court’s top jurist to preside over impeachment trials of sitting presidents but is silent on what should happen for one who is no longer in office.

Because they considered such an action unnecessary (out of power and no danger to the republic) and illegitimate. 

49 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Roberts’s decision to skip the current trial without any public explanation leaves a Democrat already on the record as favoring conviction, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, overseeing the trial when it gets underway the week of Feb. 8.

Nothing like having an impartial partial judge at one's trial...and that's assuming the 80 year old Leahy is still alive when it commences. The last I heard he was rushed to a local D.C. hospital with some undisclosed ailment. 

49 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

That opens it up to accusations of being a more partisan -- and less judicial -- process than in Trump’s 2020 impeachment.

Do you think?

An off-topic post has been removed.

 

The Republican Party has issued a formal rejection of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump...

 

[On] Wednesday, the Republican Party stated an official position against holding Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial. “Not only is this impeachment trial a distraction from the important issues Americans want Congress focused on, it is unconstitutional, and I join the vast majority of Senate Republicans in opposing it,” said Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman.

 

McConnell Was Done With Trump. His Party Said Not So Fast.

https://nyti.ms/2YjuYHQ

 

Ms. McDaniel's, and the GOP, agree with my position that the entire exercise is unconstitutional. 

3 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Because they considered such an action unnecessary (out of power and no danger to the republic) and illegitimate. 

 

You're posting misinformation again.  Stop doing this.

 

From my article:

Roberts’s decision to skip the current trial without any public explanation

21 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Republican Party has issued a formal rejection of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump...

 

[On] Wednesday, the Republican Party stated an official position against holding Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial. “Not only is this impeachment trial a distraction from the important issues Americans want Congress focused on, it is unconstitutional, and I join the vast majority of Senate Republicans in opposing it,” said Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman. McConnell Was Done With Trump. His Party Said Not So Fast. https://nyti.ms/2YjuYHQ

 

Ms. McDaniel's, and the GOP, agree with my position that the entire exercise is unconstitutional. 

Trump is being charged with "incitement of insurrection" over the storming of Congress.

I will go back to my previous post and ask, what part of the following do you not believe happened, even though you saw it with your own eyes?:-

 

1. That he organised the gathering.

2. The he and a host of speakers got the crowd riled up with talk of election fraud, 'stealing the election' and 'if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."

3. That he told them to march on the Capitol. 

 

It seems you are saying he didn't incite violence and of course he did say 'I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." so there is definately an argument to be had for whether he personally incited violence but surely that can only be clarified through a thorough investigation which in this case, takes the form of impeachment and senate trial.

Everything else you keep quoting is just an excuse to wriggle out of this through some sort of technicality or loophole or that it's 'unconstitutional' when you have seen plenty of people demonstrate there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

You quote people talking about 'healing the nation'. Surely the first step in that would be holding those responsible for the Capitol riots responsible OR aquited. Finding yet another loophole to not even have the case heard (as the Senate did with regard the 1st impeachment) just tells everyone there's one rule for you and another rule for the powerful. 

 

29 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Republican Party has issued a formal rejection of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump...

 

[On] Wednesday, the Republican Party stated an official position against holding Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial. “Not only is this impeachment trial a distraction from the important issues Americans want Congress focused on, it is unconstitutional, and I join the vast majority of Senate Republicans in opposing it,” said Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman. McConnell Was Done With Trump. His Party Said Not So Fast. https://nyti.ms/2YjuYHQ

 

Ms. McDaniel's, and the GOP, agree with my position that the entire exercise is unconstitutional. 

That's their opinion.  The dems have a completely different one as do many legal scholars.

 

I'd say McConnell is hardly a credible member of congress.  Stick with what the legal experts say.  The credible ones any way, no posts from Giuliani...please...

18 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Trump is being charged with "incitement of insurrection" over the storming of Congress.

I will go back to my previous post and ask, what part of the following do you not believe happened, even though you saw it with your own eyes?:-

1. That he organised the gathering.

2. The he and a host of speakers got the crowd riled up with talk of election fraud, 'stealing the election' and 'if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."

3. That he told them to march on the Capitol. 

What I saw was a mostly peaceful protest by people who likely had a myriad of reasons for suspecting the validity of the election result. I will not speculate on their exact motivations as I don't know them. As is the case at large political demonstrations, there is sometimes a fringe group of people who are violent and cause destruction and mayhem, as we all saw over the Summer during the mostly peaceful ANTIFA/BLM/George Floyd demonstrations over race that occurred throughout the country. It is my understanding that law enforcement authorities are investigating and charging those who may have engaged in such conduct at the Capitol.

Quote

You quote people talking about 'healing the nation'. Surely the first step in that would be holding those responsible for the Capitol riots responsible OR aquited.

I have never quoted anyone saying this or posted any such sentiments myself.

Just now, Pattaya Spotter said:

What I saw was a mostly peaceful protest by people who likely had myriad of reasons for suspecting the validity of the election result. I will not speculate on their specific motivations as I don't know them. At some large political demonstrations, there is sometimes a violent fringe who cause destruction and mayhem, as we all saw over the Summer during the mostly peaceful ANTIFA/BLM/George Floyd demonstrations over race that occurred throughout the country.

I have never quoted anyone saying this or posted any such sentiments myself.

It may have started 'mostly peaceful' but I think even you can agree it certainly didn't end up that way. That's the whole point of the impeachment; to determine whether the words and actions of Trump caused "incitement of insurrection". It either did or it didn't so what are you scared of? If you think your man didn't then let him have his day in court and stop arguing over silly technicalities that will prevent this.

And your previous post quoted McDaniel saying ' “Not only is this impeachment trial a distraction from the important issues Americans want Congress focused on........' which although not directly saying so, is certainly along the lines of give him a pass so we can get on with things, a lets 'heal the nation' sentiment common with much of the GOP since impeachment was announced.
 

7 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

And your previous post quoted McDaniel saying ' “Not only is this impeachment trial a distraction from the important issues Americans want Congress focused on........' which although not directly saying so, is certainly along the lines of give him a pass so we can get on with things, a lets 'heal the nation' sentiment common with much of the GOP since impeachment was announced.

I certainly don't read it that way...and if I was to guess, I doubt Ms. McDaniel meant it that way either. I think she means just what she says...there are important issues for Congress to address and it shouldn't waste its time on an unconstitutional impeachment exercise.

32 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

What I saw was a mostly peaceful protest by people who likely had a myriad of reasons for suspecting the validity of the election result. I will not speculate on their exact motivations as I don't know them. As is the case at large political demonstrations, there is sometimes a fringe group of people who are violent and cause destruction and mayhem, as we all saw over the Summer during the mostly peaceful ANTIFA/BLM/George Floyd demonstrations over race that occurred throughout the country. It is my understanding that law enforcement authorities are investigating and charging those who may have engaged in such conduct at the Capitol.

I have never quoted anyone saying this or posted any such sentiments myself.

Mostly peaceful? Come on. Stop posting misinformation. It gets boring.

44 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

I certainly don't read it that way...and if I was to guess, I doubt Ms. McDaniel meant it that way either. I think she means just what she says...there are important issues for Congress to address and it shouldn't waste its time on an unconstitutional impeachment exercise.

You are still dodging the important question; should there be a seperate rule for us V the powers that be?

Those that took part in the riots have been arrested and charged yet the person who (possibly) instigated it all doesn't even get his day in court? Tell me how that's fair or do you just not care that politicians can get away with such things on a technicality ?

Well that was quick...is it dawning on the Democrat Party and their Senate leadership that impeaching a private citizen is unconstitutional? 

 

Democrats consider one-week impeachment trial, censure resolution after GOP signals likely acquittal of Trump

 

Bracing for the prospect of a likely acquittal, Senate Democrats are eyeing a rapid-fire impeachment trial for former president Donald Trump...while also contemplating alternatives such as censure...in light of a test vote Tuesday that saw all but five Republican senators back Trump in a constitutional challenge to proceeding with the trial.

 

And when you have a weak case, just press rewind and play the inflammatory video highlights over and over ad nauseum; and don't present any actual witnesses or non-hearsay evidence.

 

In the two weeks since the House impeached Trump...Democrats have signaled they are likely to rely on...video record of the events...but not call witnesses or present revelatory new evidence...

 

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-consider-impeachment-alternatives-censure/2021/01/27/fdfd9b6c-60bd-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html

 

 

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

You are still dodging the important question; should there be a seperate rule for us V the powers that be?

Those that took part in the riots have been arrested and charged yet the person who (possibly) instigated it all doesn't even get his day in court? Tell me how that's fair or do you just not care that politicians can get away with such things on a technicality ?

President Trump will have his day "in court," as you put it, as the Senate has voted to hold an impeachment trial (though it does seem they are getting weak-knee'd about it). So I don't understand your question.

The fact that the Democrats in the Senate see, after the procedural vote, that not enough of their Republican colleagues are willing to hold Trump to account for inciting insurrection has ZERO to do with the constitutionality of the impeachment trial.

 

The majority weight of legal opinion, except among Trump sycophants, is that the Senate holding an impeachment trial of a former president, especially one who was impeached while still in office, is legal and constitutional.

 

But if the required 2/3rd vote in the Senate isn't going to happen because most Senate Republicans have decided to condone an attempted violent insurrection against their own country's government, then you make the best of that sorry situation that you can.

 

"Although many legal scholars take the view that a president can be tried by the Senate even when he is no longer president, they acknowledge there is enough ambiguity in the Constitution for Republicans to embrace as reason not to convict Trump at his trial set to begin Feb. 9.

 

Most who have studied the question think post-presidential impeachment, conviction and disqualification from holding future office is permitted, said Brian C. Kalt, a leading scholar on the subject. But it is far from unanimous because of ambiguous language in the Constitution."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/can-former-president-impeach/2021/01/27/d527979e-60d9-11eb-9430-e7c77b5b0297_story.html

 

And further:

 

"Senate Republicans wishing to duck their constitutional obligation and avoid giving offense to Trump and his loyal supporters would like nothing more than to engage in debates about process. That way they can avoid talking about the actual insurrection Trump incited and the damage and death it caused. But like so many legal arguments Trump intimidates GOP officials into making, the question isn’t a close one.

 

The Senate concluded long ago that it had jurisdiction to try a former officer, expressly voting on the question after the House of Representatives impeached former Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876."

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/01/28/trump-impeachment-house-decides-senate-just-holds-trials-column/4276565001/

 

And further:

 

"There is a debate among scholars over whether the Senate can hold a trial for Trump now that he has left office. Many experts have said “late impeachment” is constitutional, arguing that presidents who engage in misconduct late in their terms should not be immune from the very process set out in the Constitution for holding them accountable.

 

The Constitution makes clear that impeachment proceedings can result in disqualification from holding office in the future, so there is still an active issue for the Senate to resolve, those scholars have said."

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/trump-impeachment-trial-faces-constitutional-challenge-from-republican-senator-idUSKBN29V1UK

 

28 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The fact that the Democrats in the Senate see, after the procedural vote, that not enough of their Republican colleagues are willing to hold Trump to account for inciting insurrection has ZERO to do with the constitutionality of the impeachment trial.

 

The majority weight of legal opinion, except among Trump sycophants, is that the Senate holding an impeachment trial of a former president, especially one who was impeached while still in office, is legal and constitutional.

 

But if the required 2/3rd vote in the Senate isn't going to happen because most Senate Republicans have decided to condone an attempted violent insurrection against their own country's government, then you make the best of that sorry situation that you can.

 

"Although many legal scholars take the view that a president can be tried by the Senate even when he is no longer president, they acknowledge there is enough ambiguity in the Constitution for Republicans to embrace as reason not to convict Trump at his trial set to begin Feb. 9.

 

Most who have studied the question think post-presidential impeachment, conviction and disqualification from holding future office is permitted, said Brian C. Kalt, a leading scholar on the subject. But it is far from unanimous because of ambiguous language in the Constitution."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/can-former-president-impeach/2021/01/27/d527979e-60d9-11eb-9430-e7c77b5b0297_story.html

 

And further:

 

"Senate Republicans wishing to duck their constitutional obligation and avoid giving offense to Trump and his loyal supporters would like nothing more than to engage in debates about process. That way they can avoid talking about the actual insurrection Trump incited and the damage and death it caused. But like so many legal arguments Trump intimidates GOP officials into making, the question isn’t a close one.

 

The Senate concluded long ago that it had jurisdiction to try a former officer, expressly voting on the question after the House of Representatives impeached former Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876."

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/01/28/trump-impeachment-house-decides-senate-just-holds-trials-column/4276565001/

 

And further:

 

"There is a debate among scholars over whether the Senate can hold a trial for Trump now that he has left office. Many experts have said “late impeachment” is constitutional, arguing that presidents who engage in misconduct late in their terms should not be immune from the very process set out in the Constitution for holding them accountable.

 

The Constitution makes clear that impeachment proceedings can result in disqualification from holding office in the future, so there is still an active issue for the Senate to resolve, those scholars have said."

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/trump-impeachment-trial-faces-constitutional-challenge-from-republican-senator-idUSKBN29V1UK

 

The actual Washington Post headline (which you declined to quote) is much more equivocal on the subject:

 

Can a former president be subject to an impeachment trial? The Constitution is murky.

 

Something that's "murky" is cloudy or unclear...hardly the "majority weight of legal opinion" you suggest.

 

And what you choose to label the impeachment "process" is what lawyers call "due process," and is accorded to every defendant at any trial.

2 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Republican Party has issued a formal rejection of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump...

 

[On] Wednesday, the Republican Party stated an official position against holding Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial. “Not only is this impeachment trial a distraction from the important issues Americans want Congress focused on, it is unconstitutional, and I join the vast majority of Senate Republicans in opposing it,” said Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman. McConnell Was Done With Trump. His Party Said Not So Fast. https://nyti.ms/2YjuYHQ

 

Ms. McDaniel's, and the GOP, agree with my position that the entire exercise is unconstitutional. 

Now there's a shocker.

15 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The actual Washington Post headline (which you declined to quote) is much more equivocal on the subject:

 

Can a former president be subject to an impeachment trial? The Constitution is murky.

 

Something that's "murky" is cloudy or unclear...hardly the "majority weight of legal opinion" you suggest.

 

 

I think the article supports the opinion I expressed:

 

The opinion of the Senate's impeachment trial isn't going to be unanimous (nothing ever is). But among non-Trump partisans, the legal opinion of its constitutionality is the prevailing view:

 

From the WaPo article I linked above:

 

"Most who have studied the question think post-presidential impeachment, conviction and disqualification from holding future office is permitted, said Brian C. Kalt, a leading scholar on the subject. But it is far from unanimous because of ambiguous language in the Constitution."

 

There are also some people who think Trump really won the presidential election, who think COVID is spread by 5G wireless transmissions, who think the moon landing was fake, etc. etc.... But them claiming such doesn't make any of those things true.

 

2 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Republican Party has issued a formal rejection of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump...

 

[On] Wednesday, the Republican Party stated an official position against holding Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial. “Not only is this impeachment trial a distraction from the important issues Americans want Congress focused on, it is unconstitutional, and I join the vast majority of Senate Republicans in opposing it,” said Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman. McConnell Was Done With Trump. His Party Said Not So Fast. https://nyti.ms/2YjuYHQ

 

Ms. McDaniel's, and the GOP, agree with my position that the entire exercise is unconstitutional. 

That's the trick they found in order to avoid being caught making public statements supporting Trump's behavior. They will not say we vote against it because Trump is innocent, they will say we vote against it because we think It's unconstitutional.

The GOP is absolutely imploding over this. McCarthy just went to Florida to apply his lips to 45's glutes in an effort to make up for the bad words (aka TRUTH) he said about 45. Odds are we all live to see the GOP go into rigor mortis.

told you so guys, Trump is not going to get convicted ????

 

badge of honor, double impeachment, will mark his place in history ????

 

MAGA!!!