With Republican firewall, U.S. Senate acquits Trump of inciting deadly Capitol riot

[J Town]

7 minutes ago, Psimbo said:

Even McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao  had the moral turpitude to resign her position as Secretary of Transportation following the events of 6 Jan. He and his ilk are an absolute disgrace. If I was an American I would do my level best to rid the Senate of these self-serving parasites whos only goal is to remain at the trough come the mid-terms.

 

Trump walks away from this with the blood of at least 5 people on his hands, notwithstanding the divisions and hatred he leaves in his wake.  

 

Trump will trumpet his acquittal and not give a toss about the deaths he was DIRECTLY responsible for. Shame on him and shame on the cowards in the Senate. Hopefully civil suits connected with the deaths will pursue him. He is pure toxicity.

What this previous administration has done is expose the worst of the worst. Yes, there is a very strong white supremacist vein running through America.

 

Fortunately, they're a dying breed. The US is soon to have the largest MINORITY being whites. Look at the makeup of (R) politicians then look at the makeup of (D) politicians and notice which represents the actual makeup of America.

 

It won't happen in our lifetimes, but when the day comes where you no longer have to check a box indicating your nationality on a form, we'll breathe easier. Unless we blow up the planet first.

 

P.S. Your avatar is fine!

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by J Town

[Neeranam]

Nice to see the witch hunt ending in justice. I hope Trump sues. 

[cmarshall]

34 minutes ago, mtraveler said:

I think I was misunderstood.  What upset me is that most standards used in normal courts of law are not used in impeachment trials, and that saddens me.  And that's why we ended up with an acquittal or not guilty, whatever they decided.  

 

I was once a juror in a criminal trial.  I certainly didn't behave like the "jurors" in this trial behaved.  I sat in my seat, and listened carefully to all the testimony. And I believe my trial was longer than this one. 

 

I read that up to 15 Republican "jurors" were absent during certain times in the trial. I also read that Cruz, Graham, and one other "juror" met with attorneys for Trump to strategize.  And that Hawley sat in the back with his feet up, reading some material.  That doesn't happen in a traditional trial. 

 

Also, it completely baffles me that day 1 was spent deciding whether this trial was constitutional or not.  And the determination was that it WAS constitutional.  And yet, when all was said and done, McConnell (and I'm sure many others) decided to vote not guilty because they believed it was unconstitutional.  

 

So, let me say again...  I'm deeply disturbed with the outcome of this case.  I think it's a travesty.  I think all facts point to Trump's guilt, and that he should have been found guilty in the impeachment trial.  My first post merely was trying to point out that the rules (or lack thereof) make a mockery of what a trial means.  Sorry if my intent was confusing.   

 

And I don't think the trial was a waste, in terms of getting the facts on record, and letting the American people hear the truth of what happened on January 6.  Though I'm sure those who support Trump will not be swayed in the least by any of the evidence.  

 

Although we do hear the commentators claim that the Senate decided that trying a private citizen who used to be president is constitutional, in fact, all that happened was that the Senate expressed that opinion.  Unlike a decision by a court, which establishes a binding precedent under the common law system, procedures adopted by the Senate may be called "precedents," but they are never binding precedents.  That means that any future Senate may decide that trying a private citizen is not constitutional.  Precedents in the Senate have only as much weight as the Senate at any given moment chooses to accord them.

 

Similarly, referring to the senators in an impeachment trial as "jurors" is very misleading.  They are much closer to judges in an en banc court (without a jury) who have the power not only to decide the case, but to rule on procedure as well.  

 

As I have pointed out in other posts the whole impeachment and removal process in the Constitution is ill-conceived and has never succeeded.  As to the fairness of the procedure, it is important to understand that removal from office is not a punishment, unlike the outcome of a criminal trial.  The purpose is to protect the Republic from dangerous abuse of power.  So, the same standards of fairness do not apply since, while a citizen has a right not to be unjustly convicted, he does not have a similar right to be president if he is endangering the Republic.  The model in the minds of the Framers was the trial by Parliament of Charles I with the difference that the Senate lacks the power to behead the president.

Edited February 14, 2021 by cmarshall

[J Town]

3 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Nice to see the witch hunt ending in justice. I hope Trump sues. 

You DO realize there are numerous prosecutors lining up to sue HIM (the former president) ?

[Walker88]

8 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Nice to see the witch hunt ending in justice. I hope Trump sues. 

 

More likely he is sued. He has zero grounds to sue anyone, and he would get hammered nine ways from Sunday in discovery. Defense would subpoena witnesses like mccarthy, meadows, tuberville, etc., who under oath and under punishment of perjury, would pretty much nail 45's backside to the wall.

 

The 140 injured Capitol and Metropolitan Police, however, can sue 45 in civil court. There's no chance of jail for that, but a chance for severe monetary damages to be levied against 45. The jurisdiction would be in DC, with a jury of his peers, and that district went only 5.4% for 45 in 2020.

 

Minority leader mcconell said in his poorly disguised backside-saving post acquittal speech that 45 could face criminal charges for his actions leading up to and on 6 January.

 

Certainly the (R)s got at best a Pyrrhic Victory. They laid bare their cowardice and their violation of the oath by which they ostensibly swore, and they set the precedent that any defeated POTUS has a free two weeks to do anything and everything to overturn a free and fair election, including inciting violence against Congress.

 

Footage of the putsch will likely figure prominently in campaigns of anyone who runs against a sitting (R) rep or senator, including in the primaries.

[tilaceer]

17 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Nice to see the witch hunt ending in justice. I hope Trump sues. 

Justice is served in the civil courts and hopefully will be delivered by Cyrus Vance, Letitia James, Fani Willis and
Karl Racine.

Will be interesting to see which legal teams would be willing to represent Trump in these matters.
Haven't seen anything much of Sekulow recently. One could assume that Trump is now considered toxic to most reputable law firms, who for some strange reason like to be paid.

He certainly wouldn't want Curly and Mo from the Impeachment case, and as for Rudy........

[WaveHunter]

What a waste of time and resources this impeachment has been!  Technically, it violated the terms of impeachment as set forth in the Constitution and was therefore un-winnable, irregardless of whether one believes Trump was guilty of inciting the riot or not.  There is no precedent for impeaching a President who is no longer in office!  It was a purely political and partisan maneuver, and all that it really achieved was to further divide the country, and to weaken the power of impeachment for the future.  There are FAR MORE IMPORTANT things that should be focused on right now in America than attacking an ex-President.

Edited February 14, 2021 by WaveHunter

[Walker88]

5 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

What a waste of time and resources this impeachment has been!  Technically, based on the US Constitution, it was meritless and un-winnable pursuit, irregardless of whether one believes Trump was guilty of inciting the riot or not.  There is no precedent for impeaching an President who is no longer in office!  It was a purely political maneuver, and all that it really achieved is to weaken the impeachment process for the future.  There are FAR MORE IMPORTANT things that should be focused on right now in America than attacking an ex-President.

 

Please get up to speed on the term 'impeachment'. Impeachment is the bringing of charges, and it is a function of the House. The House impeached (brought charges) while 45 was still POTUS.  The trial, which is separate from impeachment, is a Senate function, and was delayed because of mcconnell, who still was Maj Leader at the time.

 

The Constitution nowhere states that the trial must come before removal from office, and that with good reason. The Founders were not idiots. They knew that by mandating the Senate trial had to come before leaving office, the target of impeachment would be given a free ride toward the end of his or her term. The Founders tried to design a system where there was no free ride for anyone, including a POTUS. Remember that had they wished, the Founders could have simply copied the Magna Carta, where the monarch is above the law. They knew the dangers inherent in that, which is why they set up a system of three co-equal branches where NOBODY, even POTUS, is above the law.

 

it's pretty simple, really.

[tilaceer]

7 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

 There is no precedent for impeaching an President who is no longer in office! 

It is irrelevant that the subject in this case was a President.
The Constitution states that  any civil federal officer can be impeached.
Forget the position,  William Blount sets the precedence.

 

[Neeranam]

48 minutes ago, J Town said:

You DO realize there are numerous prosecutors lining up to sue HIM (the former president) ?

No, I don't know that. What are they suing him for?

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, tilaceer said:

Justice is served in the civil courts and hopefully will be delivered by Cyrus Vance, Letitia James, Fani Willis and
Karl Racine.

Will be interesting to see which legal teams would be willing to represent Trump in these matters.
Haven't seen anything much of Sekulow recently. One could assume that Trump is now considered toxic to most reputable law firms, who for some strange reason like to be paid.

He certainly wouldn't want Curly and Mo from the Impeachment case, and as for Rudy........

Actually, these officials are conducting investigations which could result in criminal charges.

[J Town]

Just now, Neeranam said:

No, I don't know that. What are they suing him for?

Are you being sarcastic? Election interference? Tax fraud? Breach of the emoluments clause? Here's more:

 

6 lawsuits Donald Trump is going to have to deal with when he leaves office - CNNPolitics

[tilaceer]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Actually, these officials are conducting investigations which could result in criminal charges.

Thats my point

[EVENKEEL]

I thought Trump was going to jail, what happened.

[WaveHunter]

18 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

 

Please get up to speed on the term 'impeachment'. Impeachment is the bringing of charges, and it is a function of the House. The House impeached (brought charges) while 45 was still POTUS.  The trial, which is separate from impeachment, is a Senate function, and was delayed because of mcconnell, who still was Maj Leader at the time.

 

The Constitution nowhere states that the trial must come before removal from office, and that with good reason. The Founders were not idiots. They knew that by mandating the Senate trial had to come before leaving office, the target of impeachment would be given a free ride toward the end of his or her term. The Founders tried to design a system where there was no free ride for anyone, including a POTUS. Remember that had they wished, the Founders could have simply copied the Magna Carta, where the monarch is above the law. They knew the dangers inherent in that, which is why they set up a system of three co-equal branches where NOBODY, even POTUS, is above the law.

 

it's pretty simple, really.

Yes...It is really pretty simple.  In this impeachment attempt, time and resources were sacrificed from dealing with the important and vital issues facing the country right now, in favor of a political, partisan and frivolous actions.  In the end, it achieved nothing positive for the country...nothing at all.  There are people right now in America who's lives literally hang in the balance, and depend on what their political leaders do RIGHT NOW with respect to the pandemic and the economy.  THAT is where 100% of the focus should be...not playing petty political games.

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by WaveHunter

[pmarlin]

Trump 2024 , Republicans take Congress 2022

[J Town]

12 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I thought Trump was going to jail, what happened.

Oh, hold on to your hat. It's just beginning.

 

6 lawsuits Donald Trump is going to have to deal with when he leaves office - CNNPolitics

[animalmagic]

3 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

This case should have never been prosecuted. We all knew Trump would be acquitted and it further divided the country contrary to what biden SAYS he wants.  Shame AGAIN on Nancy for bringing this meritless case.

Meritless?  57% of your democratically elected Senate disagree with you.

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

Nice to see the witch hunt ending in justice. I hope Trump sues. 

Life must be so terribly simple for a Trump supporter. Everything is so clearly black and white. There's only winning and losing and as long as your man is winning then to hell with the consequences.

Mitch McConnell clearly condemns Trump by saying 'There’s no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president.” but because your man gets off on what is essentially a technicality backed by a compliant Senate terrified of the consequences for themselves, that's enough to declare it's all about the winning.

This disgraceful episode in Amercan history is laid firmly at the feet of Trump. The entirely predictable result is almost inconsequential as the history books will record it for what it really was; a sitting President of the United States incited a mob in an attempt to overthrow the democratic choice of over 80 million Americans.
Justice was most certainly not served and although it doesn't matter to you and the many, many members of the Trump cult who only care about the winning, it does matter to the vast majority of sensible Americans who still believe in democracy and the rule of law.

The good news is it won't be forgotten and the GOP will rue the day they didn't grow a pair.

 

[placeholder]

n

10 minutes ago, pmarlin said:

Trump 2024 , Republicans take Congress 2022

Tell us, were you one of those many Trump supporters here  who thought a legitimate political argument consisted of "MAGA 2020!"?

[Sujo]

24 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Yes...It is really pretty simple.  In this impeachment attempt, time and resources were sacrificed from dealing with the important and vital issues facing the country right now, in favor of a political, partisan and frivolous actions.  In the end, it achieved nothing positive for the country...nothing at all.  There are people right now in America who's lives literally hang in the balance, and depend on what their political leaders do RIGHT NOW with respect to the pandemic and the economy.  THAT is where 100% of the focus should be...not playing petty political games.

 

All caused by trump. Fixed by biden, yes right now.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Sujo

[RJRS1301]

3 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

A bit harsh to call him an absolute coward. He stood up and said Trump is clearly guilty and he would have voted as such if not for the fact that you can't get a conviction for impeaching a former president. 

An easy way out maybe, and most disagree, but in his speech he supported the Republicans who voted to convict and noted that Trump can still be held to account outside the Senate.

Strong words, and add to that Senators from Republican strongholds such as  Louisiana and North Carolina voting to convict, and I think it's enough to take the wind out of the sails for a while for Trump supporters. 

He's still got his base but I think he's lost at least a decent share of thinking Republicans. 

They voted against it save their own sorry skins at the half terms , spineless pieces of human detritus.

The DJT (teflon) supporters will be emboldened by the verdict, they will equate "not guilty, with innocent"

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by RJRS1301

[tilaceer]

21 minutes ago, pmarlin said:

Trump 2024 , Republicans take Congress 2022

Now there is an original, erudite contribution to the topic presently being discussed.
What's next? MAGA ?

[RJRS1301]

2 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

Funny. Five years ago you were saying he was a clown and couldn't get elected. Nancy said the same.????

He remains a dangerous clown

[Orton Rd]

Trump -2 haters- 0 just can't keep a good man down !

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

Nice to see the witch hunt ending in justice. I hope Trump sues. 

Sue for what?

Loss of reputation? Unlikely, that went a long time ago?

Long before he became 45, if people had noted his business frauds and thefts and defaults

 

 

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

I thought Trump was going to jail, what happened.

You well knew that even if found guilty there was no jail possible, just the prospect of him not being able to be elected to dogcatcher role. OOps he has done that role

 

[Walker88]

48 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I thought Trump was going to jail, what happened.

The odds are not in his favor that he will avoid jail.

 

He faces a host of charges in New York. He is currently under investigation in Georgia for election interference and the crime carries a jail sentence plus a fine, and he may face Federal charges as the extent of his actions as POTUS come under scrutiny. He faces possible civil charges from all the Capitol Police injured during the putsch, both for inciting it and for dereliction of duty for not sending in National Guard troops, though civil penalties are monetary.

 

At his age and in his condition, the inside of a jail cell may be the last thing he ever sees. Jailing him sends a positive message, too, both domestically and internationally, that in the US NOBODY is above the law, just as the Founders intended.

 

His years of silly chants of 'lock her up' were impotent ramblings of a loser, but those words look set to come back to haunt him.

 

He wanted HRC jailed. Nope.

He wanted Comey jailed. Nope.

He wanted John Brennan jailed. Nope.

He even wanted Biden jailed. Nope.

 

Funnier still, he claimed to have taken away the TS/SCI clearances of Brennan, Clapper, Comey and McCabe. Nope. Nobody in his Administration knew how to do it. That's how incompetent they were.

 

OTOH, his clearance is gone. So is jared's and ivanka's and grenell's and ratcliffe's. They now have no more access than the Slurpy pourer at a 7-11 in Keokuk, Iowa.

[Mavideol]

4 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

A bit harsh to call him an absolute coward. He stood up and said Trump is clearly guilty and he would have voted as such if not for the fact that you can't get a conviction for impeaching a former president. 

An easy way out maybe, and most disagree, but in his speech he supported the Republicans who voted to convict and noted that Trump can still be held to account outside the Senate.

Strong words, and add to that Senators from Republican strongholds such as  Louisiana and North Carolina voting to convict, and I think it's enough to take the wind out of the sails for a while for Trump supporters. 

He's still got his base but I think he's lost at least a decent share of thinking Republicans. 

and yet he voted no....and sure the senate can convict an impeached former president, there was a vote and senate voted yes to go ahead.... McConnel is a disgrace on the same line as Cruz, Graham, Hawley

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

The Constitution nowhere states that the trial must come before removal from office, and that with good reason. The Founders were not idiots. They knew that by mandating the Senate trial had to come before leaving office, the target of impeachment would be given a free ride toward the end of his or her term. 

 

it's pretty simple, really.

 

The "free ride toward the end of his or her term" would only apply if removal from office were punishment for a crime, but it is isn't.  The purpose of impeachment and removal is to remove the threat to the Republic from abuse of power by the president.  That is why the Impeachment Clause begins

 

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of...

 

from which we can see that the entire process is about the removal of the president.  The Clause does not begin "If the President, Vice President, or other civil officer of the United States commits any of the following crimes..."   If that had been the wording then the impeachment trial would be for the purpose of punishing the president.  

 

And since the ending of the president's term of office is not an escape from punishment, but instead achieves the very protection against the abuse of power that is the point of the impeachment process, the Constitution takes pains to make clear that the former president is fully exposed to criminal indictment for crimes commited during his term of office.

 

I understand that there are numerous constitutional scholars who disagree with this interpretation.  All I can say is that they are wrong.  The Senate erred when it voted that Trump remained subject to an impeachment trial as a private citizen.  However, there is no body that can rule the Senate's decision unconstitutional since it does not fall under the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  

 

So, not simple at all.