House Democrats ask Trump to testify at his impeachment trial

[Pattaya Spotter]

10 minutes ago, Salerno said:

 

Only thing it says to me is they are keeping their powder dry until the impeachment is finalised. Double jeopardy is not in play.

Maybe learn the law before using it..."double jeopardy" isn't in play because Congressional impeachment isn't a federal criminal proceeding. It's a Congressional power to remove federal Constitutional officers from office.

[BritManToo]

8 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

..... Congressional impeachment isn't a federal criminal proceeding. It's a Congressional power to remove federal Constitutional officers from office.

I thought Trump had already left office?

[Salerno]

On 2/7/2021 at 10:05 AM, Pattaya Spotter said:

Maybe learn the law before using it..."double jeopardy" isn't in play because Congressional impeachment isn't a federal criminal proceeding.

 

Which is exactly what I said, and the reason I said it, surprisingly, is that I know impeachment isn't a federal criminal proceeding.

 

 They couldn't go after him while still POTUS and the impeachment process is yet to run it's course.

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by onthedarkside
flame comment removed

[cmarshall]

On 2/5/2021 at 1:04 PM, Walker88 said:

 

I guess the point is sane and rational people do not want to give a POTUS the ability to do whatever he wants in the last two weeks of his term without any possibility of punishment.

 

 

You misunderstand the nature of impeachment and removal from office.  Removal is not a punishment.  It is solely an action to protect the Republic.  That is why the Constitution makes clear that impeachment and removal do not preclude criminal prosecution:

 

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.

 

And that is the reason that the Senate has no jurisdiction to subject a private citizen to an impeachment trial, since the threat to the Republic has already been removed.

 

The Framers took care to make this point clear, because impeachment in the English Parliament could certainly include criminal punishment.  

 

A Senate impeachment "trial" is not a judicial trial, is not under the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, has no specific procedures or rules of evidence, and is not subject to procedural rulings by the presiding officer who is not a "judge" even if he happens also to be the the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  The attending senators are not "jurors," and are not subject to any kind of voir dire selection, but instead function as judges making an en banc decision.

 

Unfortunately, the Framers clouded the issue by using the word "trial" for the procedure to remove a "civil officer." 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by cmarshall

[Pattaya Spotter]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I thought Trump had already left office?

Exactly.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

You misunderstand the nature of impeachment and removal from office.  Removal is not a punishment.  It is an action to protect the Republic.  That is why the Constitution makes clear that impeachment and removal do not preclude criminal prosecution:

 

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.

 

And that is the reason that the Senate has no jurisdiction to subject a private citizen to an impeachment trial, since the threat to the Republic has already been removed.

 

The Framers took care to make this point clear, because impeachment in the English Parliament could certainly include criminal punishment.  

 

A Senate impeachment "trial" is not a judicial trial, is not under the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, has no specific procedures or rules of evidence, and is not subject to procedural rulings by the presiding officer who is not a "judge" even if he happens also to be the the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  The attending senators are not "jurors," and are not subject to any kind of voir dire selection, but instead function as judges making an en banc decision.

 

Unfortunately, the Framers clouded the issue by using the word "trial" for the procedure to remove a "civil officer." 

 

Disqualification from holding office can also be a result. They cannot do that without a conviction. The charges were laid whilst in office. So the senate trial, if convicted still has that punishment.

 

Otherwise Biden can now shoot trump. He cannot be indicted. So is impeached, he leaves office. Your interpretation is that the senate then cannot convict to have him permanently barred from office.

 

That goes against the constitution with putting him above the law.

[Pattaya Spotter]

On 2/7/2021 at 10:19 AM, Salerno said:

 

Which is exactly what I said, and the reason I said it, surprisingly, is that I know impeachment isn't a federal criminal proceeding.

 

They couldn't go after him while still POTUS and the impeachment process is yet to run it's course.

 

 

Donald Trump is no longer president (the reason Mueller said he couldn't indict him for whatever he was wasting taxpayer's money investigating). He is no longer president but a private citizen and there is nothing preventing a U.S. attorney from charging him with a federal crime. The Congressional impeachment has nothing to do with it and is a completely separate proceeding. Funny none have done so ???? 

[cmarshall]

17 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Disqualification from holding office can also be a result. They cannot do that without a conviction. The charges were laid whilst in office. So the senate trial, if convicted still has that punishment.

 

Otherwise Biden can now shoot trump. He cannot be indicted. So is impeached, he leaves office. Your interpretation is that the senate then cannot convict to have him permanently barred from office.

 

That goes against the constitution with putting him above the law.

 

Faulty reasoning on several levels.  Shooting Trump in most circumstances would be a state or local crime, not a federal one.  So, the DoJ policy against indicting a sitting president would not apply.  The Attorney General for D.C., who is not under the DoJ, would certainly indict President Biden.

 

It is a popular construction lately that while a former president is still subject to an impeachment trial, disqualification from future federal office-holding requires conviction.  But the Constitution doesn't say anything like that.  There is no requirement that removal from office precede future disqualification.  

 

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.

 

There is nothing there to proclude the Senate from convicting a sitting president, but refusing to remove him from office and instead only imposing the disqualification for holding office in the future.  If then, the jurisdiction of Senate impeachment decisions is extended to private citizens then there is nothing to stop the Senate from trying Mitt Romney under articles of impeachment from the House and disqualifying him from future office.  At that point you have reinvented the bill of attainder, elsewhere specifically forbidden by the Constitution.

 

There is actually nothing in the Constitution that forbids indicting a sitting president even by the DoJ, which, of course, did not exist in 1789.  The DoJ opinion to the contrary is nothing more than an opinion and one that has never been tested in court.  To say nothing of prosecution at the state or local level.  The Framers were intimately acquainted with the concept of sovereign immunity and could have written that into the Constitution had they wished, but they didn't.

Edited February 7, 2021 by cmarshall

[Salerno]

2 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

He is no longer president but a private citizen and there is nothing preventing a U.S. attorney from charging him with a federal crime. The Congressional impeachment has nothing to do with it and is a completely separate proceeding. Funny none have done so

 

I see no reason to charge him prior to the impeachment process concluding so no, I don't think it's "funny".

[placeholder]

52 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

No need for an audit, everyone knows hacking electronic voting machines and other computer networks is impossible...just ask the federal government.

 

US agencies hacked in monthslong global cyberspying campaign

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hackers broke into the networks of the Treasury and Commerce departments as part of a monthslong global cyberespionage campaign revealed Sunday, just days after the prominent cybersecurity firm FireEye said it had been breached in an attack... https://federalnewsnetwork.com/cybersecurity/2020/12/us-looking-into-possible-treasury-department-computer-hack/

 

Massive hack of US government launches search for answers as Russia named top suspect

 

(CNN) Days after several US agencies confirmed their networks were compromised in a massive data breach, federal officials are still struggling to understand the scope of the damage -- highlighting the sophistication and breadth of an ongoing hacking campaign

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/16/politics/us-government-agencies-hack-uncertainty/index.html

One thing everybody knows is that it's impossible to hack a machine via the Internet if it's not connected to the Internet. The voting machines were not connected to the Internet

[Pattaya Spotter]

9 minutes ago, Salerno said:

 

I see no reason to charge him prior to the impeachment process concluding so no, I don't think it's "funny".

Your "no reason" isn't controlling legal precedent (or "double jeopardy" as you incorrectly put it).

[cmarshall]

On 2/5/2021 at 11:52 AM, Jingthing said:

Senators have no power to rule on constitutionality. I assume you knew that already because its so basic.

 

Not actually true.  At least jurists of the stature of Jefferson and Lincoln didn't agree.  Jefferson was incensed at Chief Justice John Marshall's invention out of whole cloth of the power of judicial review in the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803.  Among Jefferson's written opinions on the subject:

 

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on
the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me
in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution
which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative
branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

 

"My construction of the Constitution is . . . that each department is truly
independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the
meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially
where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:214
 

But the theory of common law, that laws are effectively amended both by statute and case law, means that precedents may normally be expected to have the weight of law in judicial proceedings.  There is no such imputation to precedents in the Senate or the House.

Edited February 7, 2021 by cmarshall

[Pattaya Spotter]

30 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Not actually true.  At least jurists of the stature of Jefferson and Lincoln didn't agree.  Jefferson was incensed at Chief Justice John Marshall's invention out of whole cloth of the power of judicial review in the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803.  Among Jefferson's written opinions on the subject:

 

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on
the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me
in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution
which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative
branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

 

"My construction of the Constitution is . . . that each department is truly
independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the
meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially
where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:214
 

But the theory of common law, that laws are effectively amended both by statute and case law, means that precedents may normally be expected to have the weight of law in judicial proceedings.  There is no such imputation to precedents in the Senate or the House.

  Very true...the Supreme Court abrogated to itself the power to rule on the constitutionality of federal statues...nothing in the Constitution gives them this power. There are good arguments to be made that this is an error and that Congress decides on this when it passes laws (like Parliamentary suprememacy in the UK). There is also the argument to be made that any decision of the Supreme Court only applies to the federal district where the case first arose or only in the District of Columbia. 

[RJRS1301]

2 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

No need for an audit, everyone knows hacking electronic voting machines and other computer networks is impossible...just ask the federal government.

 

US agencies hacked in monthslong global cyberspying campaign

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hackers broke into the networks of the Treasury and Commerce departments as part of a monthslong global cyberespionage campaign revealed Sunday, just days after the prominent cybersecurity firm FireEye said it had been breached in an attack... https://federalnewsnetwork.com/cybersecurity/2020/12/us-looking-into-possible-treasury-department-computer-hack/

 

Massive hack of US government launches search for answers as Russia named top suspect

 

(CNN) Days after several US agencies confirmed their networks were compromised in a massive data breach, federal officials are still struggling to understand the scope of the damage -- highlighting the sophistication and breadth of an ongoing hacking campaign

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/16/politics/us-government-agencies-hack-uncertainty/index.html

 

 

 

 

For hacking to occur there has to be a connection to the internet,from the informstion I have found,  the machines were no connected to the inter, how did the hacking occur?

[RJRS1301]

3 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Any U.S. Attorney is empowered to investigate and prosecute violations of federal law, e.g., "insurrection." The fact that none have done so in this instance says volumes about the Democrat Party impeachment case.

How so? Perhaps they are awaiting due process, to see what occurs in the Senate then revisit to possibilty of pursuing him, unless you have further information from all the attorneys, you are speculating in hope, as am I

 

[RJRS1301]

11 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

  Very true...the Supreme Court abrogated to itself the power to rule on the constitutionality of federal statues...nothing in the Constitution gives them this power. There are good arguments to be made that this is an error and that Congress decides on this when it passes laws (like Parliamentary suprememacy in the UK). There is also the argument to be made that any decision of the Supreme Court only applies to the federal district where the case first arose or only in the District of Columbia. 

They did not abrogate, as they had no power to do so.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/abrogate

If someone in a position of authority abrogates something such as a law, agreement, or practice, they put an end to it.

[Pattaya Spotter]

10 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

For hacking to occur there has to be a connection to the internet,from the informstion I have found,  the machines were no connected to the inter, how did the hacking occur?

The election machines are certainly networked together...either using internet or computer to computer ethernet functionality. How do you think election officials provide up to the minute voting tallies from across their states almost instantaneously? As the hacking of even the NSA computer network shows, any network programed by humans can also be hacked into by humans...there is no such thing as a completely secure network. Media commentators and Democrat Party activists should stop making this argument. Even today's NYT has a front page story on how vulnerable to hacking all out computer networks are:

 

How the United States Lost to Hackers America’s biggest vulnerability in cyberwarfare is hubris.

 

Three decades ago, the United States spawned, then cornered, the market for hackers...But over the past decade, its lead has been slipping, and those same hacks have come boomeranging back on us....America remains the world’s most advanced cyber superpower, but the hard truth, the one intelligence officials do not want to discuss, is that it is also its most targeted and vulnerable. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/technology/cyber-hackers-usa.html

 

[RJRS1301]

On 2/7/2021 at 12:28 PM, Pattaya Spotter said:

As I wrote, any U.S. attorney is empowered to investigate and charge anyone (worldwide) for violations of federal law. What about that is unclear to you? They is no need to "see what occurs" in the Senate. The Congressional impeachment is one proceeding...a federal indictment by a U.S. prosecutor for violations of U.S. law is a completely separate one. Neither one depends on the other...comprende?

 

There is such a thing as "due process", as I said rather than conflaingt matters, as so many have a habit of doing, they COULD be awaiting outcomes from one process to end, before looking at their options.

 

I did not allude that one process depended on the other, I was writing an alternative view to yours, that is what a "forum" is about.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by onthedarkside
flame comment removed

[Pattaya Spotter]

19 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

How so? Perhaps they are awaiting due process, to see what occurs in the Senate then revisit to possibilty of pursuing him, unless you have further information from all the attorneys, you are speculating in hope, as am I

 

As I wrote, any U.S. attorney is empowered to investigate and charge anyone (worldwide) for violations of federal law. What about that is unclear to you? They is no need to "see what occurs" in the Senate. The Congressional impeachment is one proceeding...a federal indictment by a U.S. prosecutor for violations of U.S. law is a completely separate one. Neither one depends on the other.

 

This is further shown in that the maximum punishment for Congressional impeachment for "insurrection against the United States" is removal from office and barment from future federal office, whereas the statutory penalty for insurrection against the U.S. is a fine and up to 10 years in federal prison. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/rebellion-or-insurrection.html

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Pattaya Spotter

[Pattaya Spotter]

On 2/7/2021 at 12:33 PM, RJRS1301 said:

 

There is such a thing as "due process", as I said rather than conflaingt matters, as so many have a habit of doing, they COULD be awaiting outcomes from one process to end, before looking at their options.

I did not allude that one process depended on the other, I was writing an alternative view to yours, that is what a "forum" is about.

 

You said I was speculating...I was not. I was stating what the law is.

[RJRS1301]

13 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

You said I was speculating...I was not. I was stating what the law is.

You were speculating on "it says a lot" about the Dems, I asked "How so"?

[Pattaya Spotter]

On 2/7/2021 at 12:33 PM, RJRS1301 said:

 

There is such a thing as "due process", as I said rather than conflaingt matters, as so many have a habit of doing, they COULD be awaiting outcomes from one process to end, before looking at their options.

I did not allude that one process depended on the other, I was writing an alternative view to yours, that is what a "forum" is about.

 

 

 

If anyone, let alone a president, committed "insurrection" against the United States, do you think it's right for federal prosecutors to wait for the impeachment process to end to consider their options? Especially when the maximum punishment from the House impeachment and Senate trial would be removal from office [already happened] and a ban from future federal office. I mean during the interim, Donald Trump could be plotting another "insurrection" right...so wouldn't it prudent, if there was any case to be made, that federal prosecutors move with all speed and haste to arrest and charge Mr. Trump and therefore protect the country? The fact none has done so speaks volumes.

[RJRS1301]

11 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

If anyone, let alone a president, committed "insurrection" against the United States, do you think it's right for federal prosecutors to wait for the impeachment process to end to consider their options? Especially when the maximum punishment from the House impeachment and Senate trial would be removal from office [already happened] and a ban from future federal office. I mean during the interim, Donald Trump could be plotting another "insurrection" right...so wouldn't it prudent, if there was any case to be made, that federal prosecutors move with all speed and haste to arrest and charge Mr. Trump and therefore protect the country? The fact none has done so speaks volumes.

I am not a federal prosecutor, I am not privy to any of their consultations or briefings, so choose to not  speculate on what 45 may or may not do, but since his social media has been withdrawn, his appeal to those whose information rely on 140 characters to inform them has substantially diminished.

He would hardly call a press conference to again attempt to usurp the democratic process

I would also feel that the SS personel would be well versed in reporting his movements for the personal safety of him and his family. That include his f2f meetings, etc.

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by RJRS1301

[placeholder]

41 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The election machines are certainly networked together...either using internet or computer to computer ethernet functionality. How do you think election officials provide up to the minute voting tallies from across their states almost instantaneously? As the hacking of even the NSA computer network shows, any network programed by humans can also be hacked into by humans...there is no such thing as a completely secure network. Media commentators and Democrat Party activists should stop making this argument. Even today's NYT has a front page story on how vulnerable to hacking all out computer networks are:

 

How the United States Lost to Hackers America’s biggest vulnerability in cyberwarfare is hubris.

 

Three decades ago, the United States spawned, then cornered, the market for hackers...But over the past decade, its lead has been slipping, and those same hacks have come boomeranging back on us....America remains the world’s most advanced cyber superpower, but the hard truth, the one intelligence officials do not want to discuss, is that it is also its most targeted and vulnerable. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/technology/cyber-hackers-usa.html

 

 Nonsense. I don't know what you were doing on Election night but the election returns I saw showed that the results came in in dribs and drabs from Individual precincts over time. Nothing in the way the results were returned indicated any kind of networking. Stop making things up.

Edited February 7, 2021 by placeholder

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, cmarshall said:

 

Faulty reasoning on several levels.  Shooting Trump in most circumstances would be a state or local crime, not a federal one.  So, the DoJ policy against indicting a sitting president would not apply.  The Attorney General for D.C., who is not under the DoJ, would certainly indict President Biden.

 

It is a popular construction lately that while a former president is still subject to an impeachment trial, disqualification from future federal office-holding requires conviction.  But the Constitution doesn't say anything like that.  There is no requirement that removal from office precede future disqualification.  

 

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.

 

There is nothing there to proclude the Senate from convicting a sitting president, but refusing to remove him from office and instead only imposing the disqualification for holding office in the future.  If then, the jurisdiction of Senate impeachment decisions is extended to private citizens then there is nothing to stop the Senate from trying Mitt Romney under articles of impeachment from the House and disqualifying him from future office.  At that point you have reinvented the bill of attainder, elsewhere specifically forbidden by the Constitution.

 

There is actually nothing in the Constitution that forbids indicting a sitting president even by the DoJ, which, of course, did not exist in 1789.  The DoJ opinion to the contrary is nothing more than an opinion and one that has never been tested in court.  To say nothing of prosecution at the state or local level.  The Framers were intimately acquainted with the concept of sovereign immunity and could have written that into the Constitution had they wished, but they didn't.

Perhaps you should argue with a group of about 150 bipartisan constitutional experts.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/21/legal-scholars-federalist-society-trump-convict-461089

[Fat is a type of crazy]

3 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

If anyone, let alone a president, committed "insurrection" against the United States, do you think it's right for federal prosecutors to wait for the impeachment process to end to consider their options? Especially when the maximum punishment from the House impeachment and Senate trial would be removal from office [already happened] and a ban from future federal office. I mean during the interim, Donald Trump could be plotting another "insurrection" right...so wouldn't it prudent, if there was any case to be made, that federal prosecutors move with all speed and haste to arrest and charge Mr. Trump and therefore protect the country? The fact none has done so speaks volumes.

I won't argue the issues regarding the legality of impeachment but it is clear that by far the  majority of constitutional lawyers concur that the process is correct and legal. Sometimes it's better just to follow trusted experts. Or you can believe Rand Paul whose comments appear on your posts.

You imply here that the argument that this was an insurrection is not valid. Trump made inflammatory statements and then clearly egged on a large group of protesters to go to the Capitol  building on the day they were finalising the election results. Then he watched on as violence ensued. Putting impeachment aside do you concur that he acted appallingly and irresponsibly on that day and that Senators genuinely and reasonably felt their lives were threatened. 

Can you fully condemn his actions that lead to actual deaths. Even if you think impeachment is not required can you condemn his post election  lies resulting in this outcome.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

So I take it you don't consider Donald Trump a threat to the Republic (as appears to be the Democrat Party position) and will continue to feel this way after he is aquitted by the Senate. That is good to hear as it is my position as well. So we agree after all.

For all we know, there may well be a Federal investigation of Trump under way. Federal prosecutors take great care not to reveal such investigations while they are in process.

[RJRS1301]

5 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Im asking for you opinion...I assume your not a T-V Forum lurking federal prosecutor privy to their thinking as regards Donald J. Trump. So I take it you don't consider Donald Trump a threat to the Republic (as appears to be the Democrat Party position) and will continue to feel this way after he is aquitted by the Senate. That is good to hear as it is my position as well. So we agree after all.

No way do I agrre with you. Do not be so presumptuous

I was trained to follow due process and work on evidence based research

 

[Sujo]

18 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

I'm asking for your opinion...I assume your not a T-V Forum lurking federal prosecutor privy to their thinking as regards Donald J. Trump. So I take it you don't consider Donald Trump a threat to the Republic (as appears to be the Democrat Party position) and will continue to feel this way after he is aquitted by the Senate. That is good to hear as it is my position as well. So we agree after all.

He is a threat if he gets into office again. Him being n jail cannot stop that. Senate conviction can, thats why they have that option.

 

otherwise trump could resign 1 minute before senate trial then get back in with no issue. Federal crimes are a different standard and though he may meet the standard for conviction in the senate he may not in the court.

 

in any event, if convicted in the senate, no prosecutor would proceed in the court.

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

He is a threat if he gets into office again

I feel sick just thinking about that