Trump faces Tuesday deadline to deliver formal response to impeachment as trial looms

[onthedarkside]

Numerous posts have been removed for trolling, being off-topic, containing misinformation, etc etc..

 

[candide]

6 hours ago, J Town said:

This is 45's legal team's initial defense submittal. He really hires the best, doesn't he?

 

 

Priceless! 

A new dream team! ????????????????????

[Sujo]

And in his defence he never states why he should not be convicted. So no defence.

 

He foes say the election was rigged. It wasnt

 

He also says he cannot be convicted because he is out of office. That argument was already decided by congress who dismissed it and impeached him.

 

So that just leaves his defence which he will try to use freedom of speech. So he has no hope on that one.

 

I hope he gives evidence, that would be hilarious.

[Eric Loh]

As long as he keep saying that the election was fraudulent, it is a incendiary attempt to radicalize his supporters that lead to violence. He did that by tweets and rallies to incite and cause his supporters to adopt radical positions. If he accepted the election result after losing all the court cases and after all secretary of state have certified the election results, there will be no riot and deaths at the Capitol Hill. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by onthedarkside
quote of hidden post removed

[cmarshall]

In my opinion, the Senate cannot conduct an impeach trial for a private citizen, which is what Trump is now.  The Senate should have scheduled the trial while Trump was still in office, but Moscow Mitch cannily ran the clock out.  

 

The reason that this is true is that impeachment is not like a criminal trial the purpose of which is to determine if the defendant broke the law and, if so, to decide that punishment to impose.  The purpose of of the impeachment process, including the Senate trial, is to determine whether to remove the president (or other official) in order to protect the Republic.  This is clear from the wording of the Impeachment Clause in the Constitution:

 

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
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.

 

The Clause makes clear that the purpose of impeachment is just the removal of the president, etc.  

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 makes this even more clear that no other punishment beyond removal and disqualification can be imposed. 

 

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

So, impeachment is clearly neither a criminal nor a judicial procedure, but the president remains subject to criminal law, i.e. indictment, criminal trial, and punishment, if convicted.

 

I want to see Trump punished as much as anyone else, but there is nothing in the Constitution that provides the Senate jurisdiction to conduct and impeachment trial for a private citizen.  The two cases usually cited as precedents in this context, Blount and Belknap, are particularly poor precedents.  In my opinion the Democrats are making a mistake and should instead be conducting a criminal investigate of Trump in the DoJ instead.  But there is no one to stop them.  The Supreme Court has no appellate jurisdiction over a Senate impeachment trial.

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts and replies removed.  

 

[joecoolfrog]

21 hours ago, Chill27 said:

 

He called for a peaceful march. Here are his actual words that you will never see in the lying fake news media.

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech.

 

Game over. He clearly called for his supporters to march "peacefully".

That bridge is still for sale !

[johnnybangkok]

On 2/3/2021 at 12:42 AM, Chill27 said:

So show me the part of his speech where he said " I want you all to storm the Capital Building" ?

He cannot be held responsible if a few violent thugs, infiltrate a crowd numbering hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestors, and take actions that he neither called for or wanted.

I find it quite amazing that two sets of people seeing exactly the same events can have such radically different views of what happened.
Most people saw Trump gather a crowd, wind them up and point them at The Capitol but for the Trump devotees he did nothing wrong and is completely innocent of the henious actions thereafter.

Culpability seems to be in short supply in the US these days but surely there has to be some consequences for the individuals who instigate these things, after all DeRay Mckesson, the self-styled BLM leader was arrested in Baton Rouge for doing nothing more than attending a protest.

The hard-core Trump devotees are continually trying to insinuate that since he didn't actually say 'go invade Congress and stop democracy at work" and he was clever enough to insert a 'peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard' that he has no responsibility for what happened thereafter. But this simply does not stand scrutiny.

From gathering the crowd in the first place to insisting the election was stolen to asserting "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." there really can be no doubt he is responsible for much of the actions thereafter. He was never going to stand in front of these people and shout 'Riot! Loot! Intimidate!' but he might as well have done because it had exactly the same impact on the crowd to what he actually said.

Bury your head in the sand, stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'Lah, lah, lah, lah" as much as you want. It doesn't change the fact the Trump bears resonsibility for that day and I for one hope he gets everything he deserves.     

[johnnybangkok]

18 hours ago, cmarshall said:

In my opinion, the Senate cannot conduct an impeach trial for a private citizen, which is what Trump is now.  The Senate should have scheduled the trial while Trump was still in office, but Moscow Mitch cannily ran the clock out.  

 

The reason that this is true is that impeachment is not like a criminal trial the purpose of which is to determine if the defendant broke the law and, if so, to decide that punishment to impose.  The purpose of of the impeachment process, including the Senate trial, is to determine whether to remove the president (or other official) in order to protect the Republic.  This is clear from the wording of the Impeachment Clause in the Constitution:

 

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
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.

 

The Clause makes clear that the purpose of impeachment is just the removal of the president, etc.  

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 makes this even more clear that no other punishment beyond removal and disqualification can be imposed. 

 

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

So, impeachment is clearly neither a criminal nor a judicial procedure, but the president remains subject to criminal law, i.e. indictment, criminal trial, and punishment, if convicted.

 

I want to see Trump punished as much as anyone else, but there is nothing in the Constitution that provides the Senate jurisdiction to conduct and impeachment trial for a private citizen.  The two cases usually cited as precedents in this context, Blount and Belknap, are particularly poor precedents.  In my opinion the Democrats are making a mistake and should instead be conducting a criminal investigate of Trump in the DoJ instead.  But there is no one to stop them.  The Supreme Court has no appellate jurisdiction over a Senate impeachment trial.

You are probably quite right. Trump will get off on yet another technicality but I disagree the Dems are making a mistake. Something had to be done and since he was POTUS at the time, impeachment was their best (an only) option. It also sends a clear message that this sort of behavious will not be tolerated.
Also, a criminal investigation may still happen. But I guess that will join the end of a VERY long queue of other crimanal prosecutions he is likely to face once out of the POTUS safety armour.

Edited February 4, 2021 by johnnybangkok

[J Town]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

<snip>

It also sends a clear message that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated.

<snip>

On the contrary - it shows those MAGA sympathizers how to do it again cuz there are no consequences that stick.

[Pattaya Spotter]

If I was President Trump, I wouldn't dignify the impeachment trail by making any appearance or presenting any formal defense...just let the Senate take their vote and aquit him.

[Jeffr2]

35 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

If I was President Trump, I wouldn't dignify the impeachment trail by making any appearance or presenting any formal defense...just let the Senate take their vote and aquit him.

He's already impeached. First president in history to commit crimes that justified this 2 times.

 

So if Biden comics crimes, you'd be ok with the senate not prosecuting him?

[johnnybangkok]

4 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

If I was President Trump, I wouldn't dignify the impeachment trail by making any appearance or presenting any formal defense...just let the Senate take their vote and aquit him.

Former President Trump

[J Town]

3 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Former President Trump

Twice-impeached, disgraced traitorous former 45th president.

[xylophone]

18 minutes ago, J Town said:

Twice-impeached, disgraced traitorous former 45th president.

Twice-impeached, disgraced traitorous former 45th president and loser. Not to mention being a thief and a loser......oops did I say loser twice already!!

[rudi49jr]

46 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Twice-impeached, disgraced traitorous former 45th president and loser. Not to mention being a thief and a loser......oops did I say loser twice already!!

Loser being the operative word here, and the thing Trump hates most. That's why he's going through all those mental gymnastics, because he just can't process the fact that he lost (and bigly), which is totally unacceptable to a "winner" like Trump. His brain is trying to find alternatives and the only alternative it came up with, even months before the actual election already, is that the election was rigged, so therefore he didn't lose. Problem solved! What is completely beyond me is how millions and millions of his followers buy into his lies and to this day believe that Trump actually won. Not only that, but that certain (or all) democrats should be prosecuted, if not executed.

[Pattaya Spotter]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

Former President Trump

The general stylistic practice in the United States is to refer to both current and former presidents as "President Lastname." This includes both in writing and in verbal forms of address. I take it you are not American and therefore don't know this convention.

 

In strict interpretations of etiquette, former Presidents of the United States are no longer referred to as President Lastname...However, in the US, we commonly use a person’s highest past title as a courtesy title. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-still-call-Obama-“President-Obama”-I-dont-get-it-Hes-not-president-anymore-Why-can’t-people-just-call-him-Obama

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Pattaya Spotter

[Jingthing]

On 2/3/2021 at 5:36 PM, cmarshall said:

In my opinion, the Senate cannot conduct an impeach trial for a private citizen, which is what Trump is now.  The Senate should have scheduled the trial while Trump was still in office, but Moscow Mitch cannily ran the clock out.  

 

The reason that this is true is that impeachment is not like a criminal trial the purpose of which is to determine if the defendant broke the law and, if so, to decide that punishment to impose.  The purpose of of the impeachment process, including the Senate trial, is to determine whether to remove the president (or other official) in order to protect the Republic.  This is clear from the wording of the Impeachment Clause in the Constitution:

 

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
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.

 

The Clause makes clear that the purpose of impeachment is just the removal of the president, etc.  

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 makes this even more clear that no other punishment beyond removal and disqualification can be imposed. 

 

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

So, impeachment is clearly neither a criminal nor a judicial procedure, but the president remains subject to criminal law, i.e. indictment, criminal trial, and punishment, if convicted.

 

I want to see Trump punished as much as anyone else, but there is nothing in the Constitution that provides the Senate jurisdiction to conduct and impeachment trial for a private citizen.  The two cases usually cited as precedents in this context, Blount and Belknap, are particularly poor precedents.  In my opinion the Democrats are making a mistake and should instead be conducting a criminal investigate of Trump in the DoJ instead.  But there is no one to stop them.  The Supreme Court has no appellate jurisdiction over a Senate impeachment trial.

You're wrong.

There is already a precedent of an impeachment and failed trial for conviction that happened after the accused was out of office. In this case, the first phase, the impeachment happened while the disgraced Mr. trump was still in office. That precedent has never been challenge meaning it stands!

[J Town]

34 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The general stylistic practice in the United States is to refer to both current and former presidents as "President Lastname." This includes both in writing and in verbal forms of address. I take it you are not American and therefore don't know this convention.

<snip>

 

That's an assumption about the poster's heritage, and we all know about assumptions.

 

In the case of 45, a twice-impeached disgrace, it's perfectly acceptable, nay a good idea, to label him in infamy every given chance. Even better to ignore that loser-in-chief.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, J Town said:

That's an assumption about the poster's heritage, and we all know about assumptions.

 

In the case of 45, a twice-impeached disgrace, it's perfectly acceptable, nay a good idea, to label him in infamy every given chance. Even better to ignore that loser-in-chief.

He's just taking a cheap shot. Ignorance of American laws and traditions isn't confined to foreigners. Look how many Trump supporters thought that his legal appeals and congressional ploys had some actual basis in fact or in law? How many of them still believe, like Trump, that Mike Pence had the authority to reject the Electoral College vote count? That Trump's legal efforts had a sound basis in law? That allegations of fraud weren't looked at by the courts and rejected? I could go on but being an American is no protection against ignorance. Being a foreigner is no guarantee of it.

[Jingthing]

17 minutes ago, J Town said:

That's an assumption about the poster's heritage, and we all know about assumptions.

 

In the case of 45, a twice-impeached disgrace, it's perfectly acceptable, nay a good idea, to label him in infamy every given chance. Even better to ignore that loser-in-chief.

Yes. He's definitely a special case. I feel that he has so degraded the office of the presidency that any sort of respectful honorific granted to him is totally obscene. 

[Salerno]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

He still maintains that he won based on evidence that has basis in fact

 

Might want to edit that ^

[heybruce]

10 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

If I was President Trump, I wouldn't dignify the impeachment trail by making any appearance or presenting any formal defense...just let the Senate take their vote and aquit him.

Has Trump ever done anything dignified?  Has Trump ever passed on a chance to be in the spotlight simply because it would be undignified?

 

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Scott

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts and replies reported and removed.  I don't know how the leap from impeachment to a library was made, but it's best to leap back on the topic.

 

[impulse]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You're wrong.

There is already a precedent of an impeachment and failed trial for conviction that happened after the accused was out of office. In this case, the first phase, the impeachment happened while the disgraced Mr. trump was still in office. That precedent has never been challenge meaning it stands!

 

The reason it failed is because so many "jurors" claimed the trial was unconstitutional- that the senate had no jurisdiction..

 

In the end, a majority of senators voted to convict Belknap, but that was short of the two-thirds necessary. Nearly two dozen senators who voted to acquit cited their belief that the Senate lacked jurisdiction. Just three said their vote was because of the evidence.

 

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/29/961330810/there-is-precedent-for-trying-a-former-government-official-established-145-years

 

45 senators have said the same this time.  Remind me, how many do they need?

 

I'm not sure if it's been posted here yet, but here's Trumps actual response.

 

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2021/02/45th-Presidents-Answer-to-Article-of-Impeachment-Final.pdf

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by impulse

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

The reason it failed is because so many "jurors" claimed the trial was unconstitutional- that the senate had no jurisdiction..

 

In the end, a majority of senators voted to convict Belknap, but that was short of the two-thirds necessary. Nearly two dozen senators who voted to acquit cited their belief that the Senate lacked jurisdiction. Just three said their vote was because of the evidence.

 

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/29/961330810/there-is-precedent-for-trying-a-former-government-official-established-145-years

 

45 senators have said the same this time.  Remind me, how many do they need?

 

You know. 

It doesn't mean they were right.

That impeachment happened and the trial happened.

If they had convicted the conviction would been legit.

[Scott]

Troll post removed. 

 

[cmarshall]

18 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

You are probably quite right. Trump will get off on yet another technicality but I disagree the Dems are making a mistake. Something had to be done and since he was POTUS at the time, impeachment was their best (an only) option. It also sends a clear message that this sort of behavious will not be tolerated.
Also, a criminal investigation may still happen. But I guess that will join the end of a VERY long queue of other crimanal prosecutions he is likely to face once out of the POTUS safety armour.

 

I agree that the Dems had to impeach, even though they knew that it would be ineffective.  The take-home message here is that the Constitution is defective in this regard: presidential impeachment has never succeeded.  The reason is partisan politics which the Framers did not envision.

 

The DoJ should indeed prosecute Trump to the fullest extent possible, but we know that the Biden administration would rather not go down that path.  So, we just don't know at this point.  Merrick Garland knows, but he isn't talking.  I think the case of inciting insurrection is too difficult to prove in court, but there are a myriad of other charges that could be brought.

[cmarshall]

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You're wrong.

There is already a precedent of an impeachment and failed trial for conviction that happened after the accused was out of office. In this case, the first phase, the impeachment happened while the disgraced Mr. trump was still in office. That precedent has never been challenge meaning it stands!

 

Actually, the two impeachment cases that are often cited as precedents are quite weak.  Senator William Blount was impeached in 1797 after the Senate had already expelled him.  The Senate trial acquitted Blount and the Senate subsequently passed the following resolution:

 

The court [The Senate] is of opinion that the matter alleged in the plea of the defendant is sufficient in law to show that this court ought not to hold jurisdiction of the said impeachment, and that the said impeachment is dismissed.

 

Belknap resigned as Secretary of War in 1876 to avoid impeachment, but was impeached anyway.  The Senate trial acquitted him, because twenty-three senators voted against conviction on the basis that the Senate lacked jurisdiction, since Belknap no longer held office.  

 

"Precedents" in the Senate do not have the same weight that they would have in common law.  Since there is no way that the decision of a Senate impeachment trial could be "challenged," because the Suprement Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over a Senate "trial."  Therefore, there is no implication from the lack of such a challenge.

 

There is a diversity of opinion on the issue among legal scholars, which I find baffling, since the text of the Constitution is reasonably clear.

 

Redress for the crimes of now private citizen Trump can appropriately be sought via the criminal justice system.

Edited February 4, 2021 by cmarshall

[cmarshall]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You know. 

It doesn't mean they were right.

 

Correct.  The fact that the Senate refused to convict Belknap, because they lacked jurisdiction is not necessarily "right," but it does mean that Belknap is not much of a precedent.