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

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Another sham. Dems will, one day, reap what they sow. Obviously Trump was wrong and he's gone but to try and cover up the incompetence of the security issues that allowed the mob to get inside the building? sack the security chief for a start!

 

What 'cover up' are you on about?

Addressing security issues/failures and investigating Trump's part in events are not mutually exclusive.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

What I remember Trump supporters' saying time after time is that the other side did not accept the election results. So far, you guys seem to be doing just this. With a vengeance.

Not sure what point you are making or how it relates to the quote.

[BobBKK]

Just now, Morch said:

 

What 'cover up' are you on about?

Addressing security issues/failures and investigating Trump's part in events are not mutually exclusive.

 

Deflection I meant. The security was pathetic and the mob should not have got within 1 kilometer. A disgrace!!!  

[Morch]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not sure what point you are making or how it relates to the quote.

 

Try and read the last line of your post again. Or don't. Whatever.

[Morch]

Just now, BobBKK said:

 

Deflection I meant. The security was pathetic and the mob should not have got within 1 kilometer. A disgrace!!!  

 

Yes, I get it that you tried to deflect, thanks.

Doesn't relate to the issue of Trump's part in events, or investigating it.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, I get it that you tried to deflect, thanks.

Doesn't relate to the issue of Trump's part in events, or investigating it.

Nope, you still didn't make it clear what you were talking about.

[Phoenix Rising]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I saw a group of Democrats on Al Jazira after the acquittal. Not sure who said it but they were blaming McConnell for the loss, as if! They obviously didn't bring enough to the trial to ever convince enough GOP senators to get a conviction, and enough GOP senators already said it was unconstitutional so doomed from the outset.

I'm guessing they will be still talking about this and how he should have been convicted if only, if only, if only, for ages. There was a woman after them absolutely ranting about it. How does the saying go that we heard all the time after Trump lost the election- oh yes  "they lost so get over it".

If someone raped your daughter what would you say to a person who said "get over it"?

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, J Town said:

Yet the senate voted it WAS legal to do so. The grim reaper essentially took the law in his own hands.

The vote is merely a political opinion and has no force of federal law.

Hopefully DOJ/FBI will investigate whether Now CITIZEN Trump broke any federal laws during and after the POTUS election.

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, vandeventer said:

You are 100% right! What a waste of money and time. The magnificent 7 Republicans who turned their backs on Trump should be watching theirs now. So remember Trump's last words [I'll be back]. It won't be long before all Americans want him back as the country is now circling the drain and hope for a better life is fading fast.

It is truly astonishing to me how deep into the cult so many of 45's base is.  "Hope for a better country is fading fast?"

 

483,000 are dead from Covid. The Fed said last week that real unemployment is over 10%, not the BLS claimed 6.4%, when one factors in people who have simply given up looking for work. The economy is smaller than it was two years ago, we had an insurrection driven by 45's lies that nearly resulted in the lynching of the Speaker and VP. 

 

As for 'waste of money', 45 cost the US Taxpayer, just for his 200+ rounds of golf, over $150,000,000. THAT is a waste. Also his kids' business trips required SS agents, and that cost bucket loads more.  Waste=45

 

Hope returned to the majority of Americans on 20 January, since the majority wanted 45 gone.

 

If President Biden can get the pandemic under control and also get the economy growing again, (R)s will be a generation out of power. Biden has the advantage in that he appointed competent people.

 

Oh, and here's some charts that show just how much of a failure 45 was (US Treasury and Bureau of Labor Statistics Data):

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Walker88

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The vote is merely a political opinion and has no force of federal law.

Hopefully DOJ/FBI will investigate whether Now CITIZEN Trump broke any federal laws during and after the POTUS election.

IMO the real reason for the impeachment was to stop Trump standing for POTUS again. So much for that. He'll be back ( if he ever goes away ).

[candide]

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Are you saying that no other politicians on the other side of the aisle have ever made incredibly inflammatory comments in the last year that were far more explicit and incited their followers to EXTREME violence?  C'mon! 

 

Shouldn't actions be taken against these politicians, especially since the violence that resulted was far more devastating in terms of burned buildings, destroyed businesses, and loss of life?

 

Here's a just a few examples I can remember, in case you had your rose-colored glasses on:

• Nancy Pelosi: “I just don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.”

• Maxine Waters: “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store… you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them.”

• Ayanna Pressley: “There needs to be unrest in the streets.”

 

That's a lame attempt at making false equivalencies! And as usual, it uses quotes taken out of context. Let's check the first one. In which context did Pelosi say that? Did she call for burning, destroying and killing, as you suggest in your second paragraph?

 

Let's look at the full original statement from a transcript by AP. It starts like this:

 

"Think of the stress of these children. They take a baby away from a nursing mother. They tell someone  we're going to give the baby a shower or a bath and then they take the baby, put them in a car seat and drive them away. This is not normal. In fact, it's barbaric. "

 

And now the quote you found: "I just don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.”

 

Wow, she's wondering why people don't protest when babies are separated from their mother! That's calling for a dangerous insurrection! ????????????????

http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/f90a1b4caae28384d140b44195095ed5

 

Edited: I just found out It's been debunked already. You should read real news, not memes on Facebook!

https://usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/15/fact-check-quotes-democratic-leaders-riots-out-context/6588222002/

Edited February 14, 2021 by candide

[J Town]

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

I wouldn't be surprised if you support Black lives matter and the casting of Bridgerton ???? 

You're saying you are AGAINST BLM? That would explain a lot! (and who gives a rip about that other thing?)

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the real reason for the impeachment was to stop Trump standing for POTUS again. So much for that. He'll be back ( if he ever goes away ).

 

Echoes of Jesse Jackson..."Keep hope alive!".

You've no idea if Trump will be in a position (for whatever reason) to try a comeback four years from now.

Whatever gets you through the night.

[Walker88]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the real reason for the impeachment was to stop Trump standing for POTUS again. So much for that. He'll be back ( if he ever goes away ).

 

I doubt he will ever be back. (R)s are all about money. 45's base are mostly poor, while traditionally (R)s have relied on corporate America to fund them.

 

Already donations have plummeted after 6 Jan, with many companies refusing to give to any (R) who voted against impeachment (House) or to acquit (Senate).  That was why McConnell made his thinly veiled plea to corporates by dissing 45.

 

If I was to bet, I would bet 45 passes in jail, likely before 2024. Georgia, New York, or Merrick Garland are going to take him down and make him pay for his activity.

[tilaceer]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the real reason for the impeachment was to stop Trump standing for POTUS again. So much for that. He'll be back ( if he ever goes away ).

Oh..He's going away...you can bet your MAGA hat on that

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the real reason for the impeachment was to stop Trump standing for POTUS again. So much for that. He'll be back ( if he ever goes away ).

Ya just can't quit that guy.

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Technically nothing in the Constitution precludes impeaching and trying a former President after he left office.  Since this President was impeached by the House while he was still in office and for his actions while he was in office, it was clearly legal.   At this time, nothing is more important for the US government than ensuring those responsible for the insurrection and riot at the Capitol on January 6 are held accountable.

The Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 reads that “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.” 

 

In other words, this pertains ONLY to the currently serving President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States. Trump at this point doesn't hold any office, he is a civilian, no longer a President or a civil officer in any capacity, therefore there is no case for impeachment.  If any proceedings are to occur after leaving office they could only be in the form of civil cases.

 

There is a precedent that supports the notion that removal from office on impeachment pertains only to currently acting civil Officers.  It is the 1799 impeachment proceedings of Senator William Blount.  You can review the case here:  https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/expulsion/Blount_expulsion.htm

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by WaveHunter

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

Another sham. Dems will, one day, reap what they sow. Obviously Trump was wrong and he's gone but to try and cover up the incompetence of the security issues that allowed the mob to get inside the building? sack the security chief for a start!

You think the security chief should be sacked for not planning such a massive assault on the Capitol, but the person who instigated the attack should get away with it?

 

If a bank is robbed do you think the bank manager should be blamed and not the ones who committed the crime?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

 

I did not say it was your claim.  What I said was that it is logically inescapable from what you did say, whether you realize that or not.  The Constitution does preclude impeachment and trial after the official has left office, because the Impeachment Clause specifically applies only to office-holders.  If you believe it applies to former office holders, because they are not excluded then what is the textual basis for deciding that it only includes officials whose have only just completed their terms of office, but not those who have been out of offices for years now.  And if disqualification is severed from removal, then where does it say that the private citizen must ever have been president, for example.

 

That is how the law works and what distinguishes a well-reasoned interpretation from wishful thinking, which is what I think characterizes those legal scholars who have been arguing lately that private citizens are now subject to impeachment.

My claim was:  "Technically nothing in the Constitution precludes impeaching and trying a former President after he left office."

 

The part of the Constitution you quoted was:  "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."

 

Those words make it clear if impeachment occurs while the office holder is still in office he shall be removed upon conviction.  It mandates actions that must be taken if the person is still in office when impeached and convicted, it does not preclude impeachment, trial and conviction after a person leaves office.

 

In other words, while the Constitution applies to to officials while in office, it does not apply only to officials while in office.

Edited February 14, 2021 by heybruce

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Didn't he resign already?

Agree about reaping what they sow.

They must be panicking now, IMO, that Trump will be back in 2024. Twice acquitted only makes him stronger and encourages his base.

Once he finds another social media platform he's going to be a thorn in Biden's side, IMO.

Right.  A person twice charged with robbing a band without being convicted is obviously the best person to run that bank.  ????

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

 

Deflection I meant. The security was pathetic and the mob should not have got within 1 kilometer. A disgrace!!!  

And Trump should not have told the mob to go to the Capitol building.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

 

Except that the Impeachment Clause clearly refers to office-holders with nothing to indicate that former office-holders are included:

 

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. 

 

Probably your claim will be that since disqualification from future office-holding could be applied to former office-holders then the scope of the Clause applies to them as well.  But think about what that would mean?  Could Obama and Bush now be impeached?  While it's true that Obama can not run for president against because of the Twenty-Second Amendment, he could be appointed to the Supreme Court or as an ambassador, if he wanted.  But if the Republicans were to get sufficient control of Congress again, it must follow from your view of the Constitution is that they could impeach and disqualify him.

 

If that's the case then what is to stop Mitt Romney from being impeached and disqualified from running for president?  By your logic since it is not a requirement that a person actually hold high office to be impeached and tried where in the Constitution does it say that he must have held high office?  

 

These reductios ad absurdum show that the reading you and others are giving the Impeachment Clause is unsustainable.  It is clear from the language that impeachment and removal are intended only for office-holders and that removal of such an office-holder can be extended by disqualification.  Any other reading is fanciful.

No thats wrong. Scholars and republicans also disagree. The senate on at least 2 ocassions determined otherwise.

 

The Senate has sole discretion on who shall be impeached. The supreme court that determines constitutional issues has refused to intervene.

 

Im not sure why you refuse to understand it is constitutional.

[heybruce]

14 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

The Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 reads that “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.” 

 

In other words, this pertains ONLY to the currently serving President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States. Trump at this point doesn't hold any office, he is a civilian, no longer a President or a civil officer in any capacity, therefore there is no case for impeachment.  If any proceedings are to occur after leaving office they could only be in the form of civil cases.

 

There is a precedent that supports the notion that removal from office on impeachment pertains only to currently acting civil Officers.  It is the 1799 impeachment proceedings of Senator William Blount.  You can review the case here:  https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/expulsion/Blount_expulsion.htm

 

The part of the Constitution you quoted doesn't include the word "only".

 

Did you read the source you reference?  Note that it states this:

 

"In a narrow vote, the Senate defeated a resolution that asserted William Blount was an impeachable officer. In this vote, the Senate failed to make clear whether its decision stemmed from a belief that no senator could be impeached or from the belief that someone who ceased to hold a "civil office" also ceased to be impeachable."

 

Not much of a precedent there.  Actually no precedent at all.

Edited February 14, 2021 by heybruce

[Phoenix Rising]

43 minutes ago, tilaceer said:

Oh..He's going away...you can bet your MAGA hat on that

Amen to that!

 

In Georgia, a New District Attorney Starts Circling Trump and His Allies

[WaveHunter]

23 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The part of the Constitution you quoted don't include the word "only".

 

Did you read your source?  Note that it states this:

 

"In a narrow vote, the Senate defeated a resolution that asserted William Blount was an impeachable officer. In this vote, the Senate failed to make clear whether its decision stemmed from a belief that no senator could be impeached or from the belief that someone who ceased to hold a "civil office" also ceased to be impeachable."

 

Not much of a precedent there.

I know that the word "only" was not in the constitution, and immediately after I posted it I edited it out since that was MY interpretation, which I then explained in the following paragraph, and supported with the precedent that was noted in the third paragraph concerning Senator Blount. 

 

While it's clear the Senate failed to make clear whether its decision stemmed from a belief that no senator could be impeached or from the belief that someone who ceased to hold a "civil office" also ceased to be impeachable, he was not impeached even though there was ample reason for him to be impeached.  So, draw your own conclusion, but I think the interpretation of what constitutes an impeachable officer was central to the decision.

 

The same holds for Trump as well.  I'm not saying Trump should or should not be held accountable for what happened in the Capitol.  I'm only saying, impeachment proceedings are not the proper venue.  It was a big waste of time and resources when the United States could least afford such an unproductive distraction from the real issues facing the nation right now; the pandemic and the economy!  Everyone knew what the outcome would be before it even started, so what was the sense of doing it in the first place! 

 

If Trump is to be tried, it needs to be in the form of a civil case or cases at this point.

Edited February 14, 2021 by WaveHunter

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No thats wrong. Scholars and republicans also disagree. The senate on at least 2 ocassions determined otherwise.

 

The Senate has sole discretion on who shall be impeached. The supreme court that determines constitutional issues has refused to intervene.

 

Im not sure why you refuse to understand it is constitutional.

 

I refuse to accept your interpretation, because that is not what the text says and it is not how the Constitution is read.  If the Senate has misread the Constitution in the past, that incorrect reading does not become a binding precedent.  For instance, when the Senate impeached Senator William Blount in 1797 after having expelled him, the Senate was committing several errors, one of which is that senators cannot be impeached.  Impeachment only applies to the executive and judicial branches.  So, the fact that the Congress violated the Constitution by impeaching Senator Blount did not mean that the Constitution became amended by that act and impeaching senators became constitutional.  You don't seem to understand that precedents in the Senate do not have the force of law as they do in the courts.  The Senate can change its mind and, as far as I know, never impeached a senator again.

 

Impeachments are made by the House, not the Senate, but the power of the House to impeach and the Senate to try an impeachment is restricted by the Constitution to the examples enumerated there, which make no mention of private citizens. 

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I know that, and immediately after I posted it I edited it out since it was my interpretation, which I then explained in the following paragraph, and supported with the precedent that was noted in the third paragraph concerning Senator Blount.

Your interpretation? Thats gold.

[cmarshall]

5 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Amen to that!

 

In Georgia, a New District Attorney Starts Circling Trump and His Allies

 

And here's an encouraging little factoid: Republican Governor Kemp of GA has no power to grant pardons.  The pardoning power in GA is held by the Board of Pardons and Parole.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the real reason for the impeachment was to stop Trump standing for POTUS again. So much for that. He'll be back ( if he ever goes away ).

There were at least three reasons for the second impeachment:

 

1. Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors.

2. The need to hold Trump to account for his high crimes and misdemeanors.

3. To place the Republicans in both houses on record of where they stand on holding Trump to account.

 

The ensuing prosecutions of Trump will keep him out of office.

 

In the meantime the GOP is going to have a hard time holding itself together.

 

 

 

 

[Phoenix Rising]

14 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

And here's an encouraging little factoid: Republican Governor Kemp of GA has no power to grant pardons.  The pardoning power in GA is held by the Board of Pardons and Parole.

Not entirely convinced he would have granted one even if he could.