23 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Your interpretation? Thats gold.

I was attempting to emphasize that it pertained to the President, Vice President, and civil Officers...and not private citizens, or anyone not specifically mentioned in that sentence (thus my word ONLY) .  And I think you know full well that's what I meant.

American political farce at it's very best!

1 minute ago, WaveHunter said:

I was attempting to emphasize that it pertained to the President, Vice President, and civil Officers...and not private citizens (thus my word ONLY).  And I think you know that full well.

He was impeached whilst in office. And i think you know that full well.

25 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

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's 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.

Your interpretation of the events in Blount affair are not a binding precedent. 

 

While you think Congress should not make dealing with a violent insurrection a priority, I and others disagree.

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 ).

But you dont support trump anyway.

2 hours 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".

Mcconnell who said this you mean?

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that there was no question that former President Donald Trump was "practically and morally responsible" for provoking the January 6 US Capitol insurrection despite the Senate voting to acquit Trump for inciting the riot."

 

38 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Your interpretation of the events in Blount affair are not a binding precedent. 

 

While you think Congress should not make dealing with a violent insurrection a priority, I and others disagree.

 

The proper course of action for Congress in the face of the sedition and treason of Jan. 6 is to conduct one or more investigations either through standing committees or by passing a law authorizing a special investigator.  If that investigation discovers evidence that justifies prosecution of any person, then the Congress makes a referral to the Dept. of Justice to determine whether indictments are in order.  

 

In addition, the Congress could also consider what additional laws would be necessary to deal with the kind of threat posed by Jan. 6. 

 

To point out that the Constitution does not authorize the Senate to conduct an impeachment trial of any person who is not "the president, the vice president, or a civil officer of the United State" is by no means to suggest that responding to the attack on Congress is not a priority.  In fact, even had the impeachment trial succeeded the most it could have achieved is to prevent Trump from running again four years from now, which is hardly the most urgent priority.

Cowards & gutless wonders. As much as I detest Trump, he was right all those years ago when he said that Republicans were so easy to manipulate.

McConnell, Graham, and Grassley voted against Bill Clinton in his 1998 impeachment. They just acquitted Trump of inciting an insurrection

 

"Five current GOP senators who voted to remove Clinton just voted to acquit Trump."

 

The hypocrisy and treachery is strong in this group.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

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.

 

Actually, that it means exactly that impeachment and removal can only be carried out on the president, the vice president, and other civil officers, i.e. those who hold those offices.  You have made the truly bizarre claim that the class of persons subject to impeachment includes any class of person not specifically excluded.  That means in your reading no person at all is excluded.  So former civil officers can be impeached, but also schoolteachers, firemen, PhD candidates who are ABD, scoutmasters, and indeed everyone else.

 

Isn't the absurdity of such a claim apparent?

Now after over four years maybe congress will start doing the job they were elected to do. 

Here we go,  the re-emergence of trump world disinformation further poisoning US partisan politics. Republican senators need to hang their heads in shame.

 

Context is important, plus none were exhorting overthrow of government due to manifestly false claims of election fraud for national elections. Factual context for the remarks...

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/07/facebook-posts/quotes-4-democrats-twisted-make-it-look-they-endor/

I often wonder if 45's base has visas allowing them entry into Reality.

 

45 began his lie well before the election, claiming the only way he's lose is if there was fraud. Well, the people HE APPOINTED to lead the cyber security effort called 2020 'the freest and fairest election ever', so 45 fired him for telling the truth.

 

45 continued with his lies about 'stolen election', and as his base is willfully and genetically ignorant, all he needed was a 3 word catch phrase (stop the steal (sic)).  He riled his base, because they simply are incapable of understanding how the election system works, what the checks and cross checks are, and they are the most gullible people on Earth, so they buy into his endless lies.

 

There has been a protest scheduled for 22 or 23 January, but 45 changed it to 6 January. He set some of his own staff to arrange for the permits, which flies in the face of his claim, and the (R)s claim that it was 'spontaneous'. 45 also Tweeted about it, saying "It will be wild".

 

On 6 January he incited the mob, whom 45 could see were carrying baseball bats and other blunt objects, and sent them to 'fight for our country....you'll never get it back (sic) if you're weak', whatever the heck get it back means. "I'll be right there with you" (another lie...he ran back to his bunker).

 

Like many people, he watched the terrorist attack live on TV. He did nothing about it, even though he could have 1) called them off, and 2) sent in the National Guard. He received several calls from (R) congresspeople, one from Sen tuberville, who told him of VP Pence's position, after which 45 Tweeted that Pence had let him down, which them prompted the mob to chant, "Hang Mike Pence".  45 also got a call from House GOP leader mccarthy, who pleaded with 45 for help. 45 responded, "I guess they're more upset than you".

 

There is no defense of his words or behavior. He is lucky he is a member of the Party of cowards, save for a precious few. Honey Boo Boo could have won the case (win, as in preventing a supermajority of 67 Senators) as 43 (R) Senators were too weak and afraid to vote to convict.

 

The important thing is now 45 is gone, will now be tried for numerous crimes, may well be sued in a civil court by the 140 Capitol Police who suffered injury, and odds are good that 45 ends behind bars and ends his miserable existence behind bars.

7 minutes ago, rgraham said:

Now after over four years maybe congress will start doing the job they were elected to do. 

The GOP reps just proved that that's not gonna happen.

40 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Mcconnell who said this you mean?

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that there was no question that former President Donald Trump was "practically and morally responsible" for provoking the January 6 US Capitol insurrection despite the Senate voting to acquit Trump for inciting the riot."

 

 

Mitch McConnell also said...

 

"President Trump is still liable for everything he did while in office," he said. "He didn't get away with anything yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation."

 

https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcconnell-warns-trump-didnt-get-away-anything-can-still-criminally-prosecuted-1569159

8 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Actually, that it means exactly that impeachment and removal can only be carried out on the president, the vice president, and other civil officers, i.e. those who hold those offices.  You have made the truly bizarre claim that the class of persons subject to impeachment includes any class of person not specifically excluded.  That means in your reading no person at all is excluded.  So former civil officers can be impeached, but also schoolteachers, firemen, PhD candidates who are ABD, scoutmasters, and indeed everyone else.

 

Isn't the absurdity of such a claim apparent?

I'm reminded of a joke from when I was in uniform:

 

An Army officer thinks that anything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden.

 

An Air Force officer thinks that anything that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted.

 

A Navy officer thinks that anything that is explicitly forbidden is permitted.

 

It's a joke with some insight into the different cultures of the services.

 

You clearly exhibit the Army thinking:  The Constitution does not explicitly permit impeachment of someone out of office so it is clearly forbidden.

 

I am retired Air Force.  The Constitution does not explicitly forbid impeachment of someone out of office, so it is permitted.  As I explained earlier, since the Constitution was never meant to be a detailed instruction manual covering all eventualities, my interpretation is both more practical and in keeping with how law has developed in the US.  It's is also in keeping with recent history and the very limited and qualified precedents on the matter.

 

 

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

I just think you should save the title of absolute coward with no nuts for the others who voted to convict and then quietly left the chamber to keep Trump happy. I know he's the ultimate cynical politician and could have made it so Trump could have been convicted. But did you actually watch his speech? Took some nuts to say the things he said and it will have at least some consequences for how Trump is received in the future.

 

 

Watching the Mitch speak for 20 minutes I was reminded of the " Grand Old Party ".

I wonder if he did this before the vote how many more may have joined the 7

The republican firewall is likely to break, if one can try to discern mcconnell's intent with his post-vote comments.

 

The big money in politics comes from corporations, both for (R) and (D). That money is now drying up, as companies do not want to be associated with insurrectionists and violence. mcconnell has noticed.

 

There is an opening now for a decent conservative Party, not one prone to violence and conspiracy theories. People like Romney, Sasse, Kinzinger and traditional (R) pundits and consultants are likely to start a new Party to provide an island where true conservatives can take up space. Last week there was a Zoom gathering of more than a hundred old-style (i.e., sane) (R) Party types who discussed the formation of a new Party.

 

Clearly they know such a move is a long term thing, as the next few elections would just see the (R) vote split and (D)s would likely win the White House.

25 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Watching the Mitch speak for 20 minutes I was reminded of the " Grand Old Party ".

I wonder if he did this before the vote how many more may have joined the 7

If this, if that.  Let's face it, your team failed to convict Trump.  Get over it and move on to impeaching George Washington for owning slaves, or something.

34 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I'm reminded of a joke from when I was in uniform:

 

An Army officer thinks that anything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden.

 

An Air Force officer thinks that anything that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted.

 

A Navy officer thinks that anything that is explicitly forbidden is permitted.

 

It's a joke with some insight into the different cultures of the services.

 

You clearly exhibit the Army thinking:  The Constitution does not explicitly permit impeachment of someone out of office so it is clearly forbidden.

 

I am retired Air Force.  The Constitution does not explicitly forbid impeachment of someone out of office, so it is permitted.  As I explained earlier, since the Constitution was never meant to be a detailed instruction manual covering all eventualities, my interpretation is both more practical and in keeping with how law has developed in the US.  It's is also in keeping with recent history and the very limited and qualified precedents on the matter.

 

So, impeachment of schoolteachers is on then, right?  Because there is no basis for excluding them since the Constitution does not specifically forbid impeaching them?

5 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Well, you're kind of making my original point for me...the whole thing was a waste of time and resources, and worse, deflected focus from the issues that are currently of paramount importance: the pandemic and the economy, and the immediate crisis facing the American public.  All for the sake of playing an un-winnable and frivolous political game.

 

 

You seemed to be claiming that only 1 side of the Senate was biased and I was pointing out that the other side is equally biased but in the opposite direction.

 

What both sides were doing IMHO, was ignoring the people who put them into the Senate in the first place. They are called the voters and they have the power to get rid of both Congressmen and Senators in the same way that they got rid of Trump last year, simply by voting someone else into the position.

The proper verdict was delivered. . 

After all, it was another Witch Hunt a iong series of Witch Hunts beginning once Trump was elected in 2016. 

5 hours 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.

So why didn't ALL the Americans vote him back in November last year? That was the ideal time at the Presidential elections.

 

Trump LOST the popular vote by over 5 million votes and the Electoral College vote by 74 votes.

The impeachment process to hold an american president accountable needs to be eliminated, and some other process designed .

If this occurrence is not enough to convict a president, then I don;t know what would be. which further seems to undermine the checks and balance between to xo-equal branches of government.   I know it sounds dramatic, but IMO this senate trial , marks the beginning of  the end of American democracy. I know that it has started earlier than that but now is the time it becomes obvious. 

Don't think that all the other trump wannabees have not taken notice, of the inability of the system to hold them accountable.  

 

10 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What is the difference between a banana republic and the USA?

In a banana republic you don't get away with insurrection. 

The problem is that Trump and his Republican acolytes in the Senate have in many peoples minds rather reduced the USA to the status of a Banana Republic.

45 minutes ago, billd766 said:

You seemed to be claiming that only 1 side of the Senate was biased and I was pointing out that the other side is equally biased but in the opposite direction.

 

What both sides were doing IMHO, was ignoring the people who put them into the Senate in the first place. They are called the voters and they have the power to get rid of both Congressmen and Senators in the same way that they got rid of Trump last year, simply by voting someone else into the position.

 

True, there's at least one recall effort going on now but it looks like this will be difficult.

So, in about 3 years, the American voters get to decide...

 

Isn't that the way it should be?

 

9 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Try again.  Should he be kept from ever running for office again, that unfortunately is the 64K Dollar question.

 

From what we are told of his somewhat remarkable lifestyle, Messrs Mcdonalds, Burger King and KFC will probably achieve that!

27 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The impeachment process to hold an american president accountable needs to be eliminated, and some other process designed .

If this occurrence is not enough to convict a president, then I don;t know what would be. which further seems to undermine the checks and balance between to xo-equal branches of government.   I know it sounds dramatic, but IMO this senate trial , marks the beginning of  the end of American democracy. I know that it has started earlier than that but now is the time it becomes obvious. 

Don't think that all the other trump wannabees have not taken notice, of the inability of the system to hold them accountable.  

 

 

I suppose if you don't score your goal the next step is to move the posts. Third time lucky?

13 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

The problem is that Trump and his Republican acolytes in the Senate have in many peoples minds rather reduced the USA to the status of a Banana Republic.

People in a banana republic typically aren’t given a democratic choice. The American people have. They are below a banana republic. Zombie Nation.