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

[simple1]

4 hours ago, pedro01 said:

I think it's time for an overhaul of the impeachment process. 

 

The outcome of this process was known in advance. Both sides basically voted along party lines as expected. 

 

The Senate can't act as a jury, a jury is supposed to be impartial. I think impeachment should go to an actual jury, selected and assessed just like the jury at a criminal trial. 

 

Mind you, I can't see many politicians accepting that, it might make things a bit too real for them. 

 

So theatre it is. 

 

As suggested elsewhere how about voting in secret to enable votes of conscience, rather than along party lines.

[cmarshall]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Unless the school teachers are elected to federal office, no.

 

However to your overall point; yes, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent Congress from wasting time on pointless tasks.  As I've posted before, it is not a detailed instruction manual with rules covering every possible event.

 

But that doesn't make sense.  You believe that Congress can impeach a former president only because the Constitution doesn't specifically exclude impeaching a former president, but even though the Constitution doesn't specifically exclude schoolteachers you don't think they can impeach schoolteachers.  

 

So, your considered opinion is that the Constitution just means what you would like it to mean.  

[cmarshall]

Just now, simple1 said:

 

As suggested elsewhere how about voting in secret to enable votes of conscience, rather than along party lines.

 

Yes, that would be an improvement on a hopelessly defective process, but it would require amending the Constitution since Article includes:

 

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

 

But amending the Constitution is now impossible given the requirement that two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-fourths of states have to ratify it.  The last amendment to be ratified, the Twenty-Seventh, took 200 years to ratify and the substance of that amendment was entirely trivial.

[Scott]

39 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

But that doesn't make sense.  You believe that Congress can impeach a former president only because the Constitution doesn't specifically exclude impeaching a former president, but even though the Constitution doesn't specifically exclude schoolteachers you don't think they can impeach schoolteachers.  

 

So, your considered opinion is that the Constitution just means what you would like it to mean.  

This is what the Constitution says:

 

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,¹ Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

So, unless a school teacher is a federal civil officer, they can't be impeached.  They would be tried in the appropriate court, most likely civil or criminal court under the proper jurisdiction. 

 

 

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

This is what the Constitution says:

 

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,¹ Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

So, unless a school teacher is a federal civil officer, they can't be impeached.  They would be tried in the appropriate court, most likely civil or criminal court under the proper jurisdiction. 

 

You haven't followed my whole argument here.  Of course, a schoolteacher can't be impeached.  The other poster put out the theory that the Constitution permits impeachment of a private citizen, who had formerly been a "civil officer" of the United States, only because the Constitution does not specifically forbid impeaching such a person.  My response was to argue a reductio ad absurdum that if that were true then schoolteachers could be impeached, because the Constitution does not specifically forbid doing so.  Since that is obviously absurd, it follows that impeaching a private citizen is not permitted by the Constitution either.

[heybruce]

27 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

But that doesn't make sense.  You believe that Congress can impeach a former president only because the Constitution doesn't specifically exclude impeaching a former president, but even though the Constitution doesn't specifically exclude schoolteachers you don't think they can impeach schoolteachers.  

 

So, your considered opinion is that the Constitution just means what you would like it to mean.  

Now you are getting desperate.

 

The Constitution provides the structure and procedures for government and specifies some limits of power and areas of responsibility.  However, once again, it does not provide detailed instructions for all circumstances and was never intended to do so. 

 

There was a great deal of institution defining and precedent making in the early days of government after the Constitution was ratified.  Some of that is still going on.  The precedent has now been established that the Senate can hold an impeachment trial after a President has left office.

[heybruce]

34 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

As suggested elsewhere how about voting in secret to enable votes of conscience, rather than along party lines.

That is a tempting thought, especially under these circumstances.  However allowing Senators and Representatives to vote in secret would remove a great deal of accountability for these officials.

[cmarshall]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

Now you are getting desperate.

 

The Constitution provides the structure and procedures for government and specifies some limits of power and areas of responsibility.  However, once again, it does not provide detailed instructions for all circumstances and was never intended to do so. 

 

There was a great deal of institution defining and precedent making in the early days of government after the Constitution was ratified.  Some of that is still going on.  The precedent has now been established that the Senate can hold an impeachment trial after a President has left office.

 

I am not the desperate one, because I understand how to read the Constitution from having followed discussion by experts on the subject for many years.  You on the contrary cite as authority for your ... theories nothing more relevant than your experience in the military.

 

[heybruce]

17 minutes ago, Scott said:

This is what the Constitution says:

 

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,¹ Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

So, unless a school teacher is a federal civil officer, they can't be impeached.  They would be tried in the appropriate court, most likely civil or criminal court under the proper jurisdiction. 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

You haven't followed my whole argument here.  Of course, a schoolteacher can't be impeached.  The other poster put out the theory that the Constitution permits impeachment of a private citizen, who had formerly been a "civil officer" of the United States, only because the Constitution does not specifically forbid impeaching such a person.  My response was to argue a reductio ad absurdum that if that were true then schoolteachers could be impeached, because the Constitution does not specifically forbid doing so.  Since that is obviously absurd, it follows that impeaching a private citizen is not permitted by the Constitution either.

Most teachers do not hold and have never held a federal office, so they can not be impeached. 

 

If a teacher does hold a federal office, or held one and impeachment was begun before he/she left that office, the teacher could be tried and convicted in an impeachment trial by the Senate.  Whether impeachment can begin after the person left office is up for debate, to my knowledge that precedent has not been established one way of the other.  So, once again, there is nothing to prevent Congress from engaging in pointless impeachments.  The framers of the Constitution assumed those elected to Congress would act responsibly.

 

The Constitution does not dictate that impeachment  or impeachment trials only take place while the target is still in office.  You may think this should not happen, but the majority of the Senate obviously disagrees.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, cmarshall said:

 

I am not the desperate one, because I understand how to read the Constitution from having followed discussion by experts on the subject for many years.  You on the contrary cite as authority for your ... theories nothing more relevant than your experience in the military.

 

 

I offered a joke from my time in the Air Force as a convenient way to illustrate different perspectives on following rules.  If you do not understand that then how can you grasp the significance of the Constitutional discussions you claim to follow?

 

You follow discussions, I study history.  The majority of the Senate agrees with my history based assessment of how to interpret the Constitution.

[Jeffr2]

5 hours ago, meechai said:

Exactly "a farcical waste of time and money"

 

Sometimes you wonder if these "elected officials" should be docked pay when their cries of wolf as usual turn up hollow.

At the very least they should be repaying the court costs

The case against Trump was solid. McConnell even admitted it. He was spineless to go against his oath of office.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/us/politics/mcconnell-trump.html

 

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, said on Tuesday that the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 had been “provoked by the president and other powerful people,” stating publicly for the first time that he holds President Trump at least partly responsible for the assault.

 

“The mob was fed lies,” Mr. McConnell said, referring to attempts by Mr. Trump to overturn the election based on bogus claims of voter fraud. “They were provoked by the president and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like.”

[animalmagic]

I'm confused.  At the first impeachment the defence stated it was too close to the election and the people should decide if 45 is to be removed from office because of the perfect phone call.  The people decided and he wouldn't leave, but incited a mob to overturn the process by stopping the electoral college vote.  The Senate minority leader, who was the majority leader at the time of the mob attack, stated that 45 was guilty of the incitement but voted to acquit.

Leader of the free world?  Beacon of democracy? ????

[cmarshall]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

That is a tempting thought, especially under these circumstances.  However allowing Senators and Representatives to vote in secret would remove a great deal of accountability for these officials.

 

Except that the votes of juries in criminal and civil trials are not public.  We can't amend the Constitution, but if we could, the logical conclusion would be to require public votes when the members of Congress are fulfilling their duties as legislators, but secret votes when they are acting as a jury at an impeachment trial.  The National Assembly of South Korea votes in secret when it is deciding whether to impeach and then the Constitutional Court decides whether to convict or acquit.  Certainly a more effective method since the Koreans have removed at least two presidents from office that way.

[Orton Rd]

23 hours ago, Surelynot said:

He just lost the electoral college and the popular vote......did you not notice that?

But got more votes than in 2016, more than any sitting President and won more states than Biden. 

[Jeffr2]

21 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

But got more votes than in 2016, more than any sitting President and won more states than Biden. 

Not this time. He's a loser. Can't wait to see how the dozens of lawsuits against him turn out. Combined with the decline in his businesses, he's toast.

[WaveHunter]

16 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Watch the trial.  It's all there.

In regard to doctored evidence presented by the Dems...I totally Agree.  Anyone who objectively looks at the video "evidence" presented by the House Managers, and compares it to the UNEDITED video clips or tweets, can see gross selective omissions of parts of Trump's comments during his speech that supposedly led to Capitol riot.  The only people that genuinely believe that Trump's ACTUAL messages incited insurrection are just being too lazy to view the ORIGINAL, unedited video or tweets.  The same is true for his speech concerning Charlottesville.  

 

Furthermore, in listening to the evidence presented by the House Managers, the term "reportedly" was repeated over and over and over again to qualify the so-called evidence.  Anyone familiar with legal process knows that the term "reportedly" is just a euphemism for "I have no real evidence".   "Reportedly" is not the standard in any American setting in which any semblance of due process is afforded an accused.  Yet that term qualified almost all of the evidence presented by House Managers.

 

Never can I remember the left-leaning media and politicians being so manipulative with the facts, and many of the public being so gullible in believing their totally misleading narratives.  I don't care what side of the aisle you are on, being misled and lied to by those entrusted to inform us with the truth should concern every American citizen!

 

I'm not saying the twisting of facts doesn't occur on the Right as well, but it has been far more blatant on the Left since 2016, and so blatant that it insults the intelligence of every American, no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

[welovesundaysatspace]

9 hours ago, watthong said:

 

When you call "something-nation", that something ought to be the majority. I suggest you go back and refresh your basic math - and while you're at it, your English.

Though I wrote “half” which, according to “basic math”, isn’t “ought to be the majority”, I think it’s fair to call it a zombie nation when it elects Qanon nutters into congress and believes that gremlins eat little children in the basement of pizza shops. The last dour years have been a freak show, and with those cowards and opportunists in the Republican Party having acquitted the former so-called president again, I doubt it’ll be much less of a freak show anytime soon. 

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

In regard to doctored evidence presented by the Dems...I totally Agree.  Anyone who objectively looks at the video "evidence" presented by the House Managers, and compares it to the UNEDITED video clips or tweets, can see gross selective omissions of parts of Trump's comments during his speech that supposedly led to Capitol riot.  The only people that genuinely believe that Trump's ACTUAL messages incited insurrection are just being too lazy to view the ORIGINAL, unedited video or tweets.  The same is true for his speech concerning Charlottesville.  

 

Never can I remember the left-leaning media and politicians being so manipulative with the facts, and many of the public being so gullible in believing their totally misleading narratives.  I don't care what side of the aisle you are on, being misled and lied to by those entrusted to inform us with the truth should concern every American citizen!

 

I'm not saying the twisting of facts doesn't occur on the Right as well, but it has been far more blatant on the Left since 2016, and so blatant that it insults the intelligence of every American, no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

I see.  So you believe that hundreds if not thousands of Trump supporters spontaneously decided to storm the Capitol and attempt to kidnap or kill Congress members. 

 

What does that say about the unpatriotic anti-Americanism of Trump's base?

[Jeffr2]

15 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

In regard to doctored evidence presented by the Dems...I totally Agree.  Anyone who objectively looks at the video "evidence" presented by the House Managers, and compares it to the UNEDITED video clips or tweets, can see gross selective omissions of parts of Trump's comments during his speech that supposedly led to Capitol riot.  The only people that genuinely believe that Trump's ACTUAL messages incited insurrection are just being too lazy to view the ORIGINAL, unedited video or tweets.  The same is true for his speech concerning Charlottesville.  

 

Never can I remember the left-leaning media and politicians being so manipulative with the facts, and many of the public being so gullible in believing their totally misleading narratives.  I don't care what side of the aisle you are on, being misled and lied to by those entrusted to inform us with the truth should concern every American citizen!

 

I'm not saying the twisting of facts doesn't occur on the Right as well, but it has been far more blatant on the Left since 2016, and so blatant that it insults the intelligence of every American, no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

Come on. Many Republicans are openly blaming Trump for this. Including the 2 most powerful ones.

 

Perhaps you should find a different source for your news?

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, cmarshall said:

 

You haven't followed my whole argument here.  Of course, a schoolteacher can't be impeached.  The other poster put out the theory that the Constitution permits impeachment of a private citizen, who had formerly been a "civil officer" of the United States, only because the Constitution does not specifically forbid impeaching such a person.  My response was to argue a reductio ad absurdum that if that were true then schoolteachers could be impeached, because the Constitution does not specifically forbid doing so.  Since that is obviously absurd, it follows that impeaching a private citizen is not permitted by the Constitution either.

And your argument is wrong, as proved by the senate saying they can.  Not to mention the preponderance of eminent legal scholars that say they can.

[Jeffr2]

17 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

In regard to doctored evidence presented by the Dems...I totally Agree.  Anyone who objectively looks at the video "evidence" presented by the House Managers, and compares it to the UNEDITED video clips or tweets, can see gross selective omissions of parts of Trump's comments during his speech that supposedly led to Capitol riot.  The only people that genuinely believe that Trump's ACTUAL messages incited insurrection are just being too lazy to view the ORIGINAL, unedited video or tweets.  The same is true for his speech concerning Charlottesville.  

 

Never can I remember the left-leaning media and politicians being so manipulative with the facts, and many of the public being so gullible in believing their totally misleading narratives.  I don't care what side of the aisle you are on, being misled and lied to by those entrusted to inform us with the truth should concern every American citizen!

 

I'm not saying the twisting of facts doesn't occur on the Right as well, but it has been far more blatant on the Left since 2016, and so blatant that it insults the intelligence of every American, no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/11/politics/oath-keeper-justice-trump-capitol/index.html?utm_term=161335087976793688ffa6e1b&utm_source=cnn_What+Matters+for+February+14%2C+2021&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1613350879768&bt_ee=7uFz%2BaP2Wb%2FejGuHLMUvk8PC259A26dwVZalLqpTx%2FflBePgm3upWEQviQ1S7zcq&bt_ts=1613350879768

 

The Justice Department is now making clear that a leader among the Oath Keepers paramilitary group -- who planned and led others in the US Capitol siege to attempt to stop the Biden presidency -- believed she was responding to the call from then-President Donald Trump himself.

"As the inauguration grew nearer, [Jessica] Watkins indicated that she was awaiting direction from President Trump," prosecutors wrote in a filing Thursday morning.

 

[Surelynot]

53 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

But got more votes than in 2016, more than any sitting President and won more states than Biden. 

...and came last, was turfed out of office by some old guy who lived behind a mask in a basement somewhere....he is a now a former president.....555...bye bye.

[Surelynot]

13 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Perhaps you should find a different source for your news?

Never......FOX forever...Carlson is a god and only speaks the truth.

[WaveHunter]

16 hours 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.

Well,  I happen to agree with you that both sides of the aisle are guilty of bias.  No question, that's just politics as usual.  My real issue is that media coverage is so strongly biased to the left (or the right) that most people get a completely distorted and false view of ACTUAL facts and truths unless they take the time to do some real hard fact-checking on their own, which of course is incredibly difficult to do, and most people simply do not take the time to do it.

 

You're right; what it all boils down to is that We The People are not being served properly by politicians on both sides of the aisle, or (much more importantly) by the "fourth estate". 

 

The role of the Press as a watchdog over the 3 legislative branches of government in the United States used to be a very powerful and effective safeguard that ensured that the public was well informed with FACTUAL UNBIASED INFORMATION.  Unfortunately, that no longer exists today!  There is no such thing as unbiased journalism anymore, as in the day of genuine journalists like Walter Cronkite. 

 

All you have today is heavily biased "commentators" with an agenda to push.  They are almost all either entirely left-leaning (CNN, MSNBC) or right-leaning (Fox, OAN).  So, as a result, you have these heavily polarized political views by the public which are not based on fact but on intentionally stirred up emotion.  For a democratic republic, that's a very dangerous thing!

 

It's now really up to the individual citizen to do their own fact-finding as best they can, and obviously from the highly charged "Left vs Right" tone of this thread, very few are actually doing that.

 

[cmarshall]

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

And your argument is wrong, as proved by the senate saying they can.  Not to mention the preponderance of eminent legal scholars that say they can.

 

Not true at all.  The Senate's taking an unconstitutional action does not make that action constitutional even if there is no higher authority to which to appeal on the basis of unconstitutionality.  Because the Senate can act with impunity in this case does not amend the Constitution nor does it create a binding precedent for the Senate in the future.  

 

Here is a link to laws that the Senate passed which were subsequently declared in whole or in part unconstitutional, as a demonstration of how routinely the Senate may violate the Constitution.  In the case of laws, these actions are subject to review by the federal courts.

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/

 

I choose to consider opinions of experts on the Constitution by the quality of their arguments not the quantity of people who believe them.  So, here is the crux of the argument against the Senate's trying a private citizen for impeachment by Prof. Phillip Bobbitt of Columbia Law School.  I cite it for its clarity, not because Bobbitt's standing itself necessarily settles the matter:

 

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.

 

My point is quite straightforward: This language is the only text in the Constitution that sets forth who may be impeached and convicted, and on what grounds. It and only it inscribes the limits of those persons subject to the various impeachment clauses.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the language “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers” does not include former officials. They no more remain “civil officers” than I remain a Princeton undergraduate. Perhaps because I state this conclusion so definitely, Bowman charges me with claiming infallibility in my assessment of constitutional meaning. But the meaning of the constitutional text, as a matter of textual argument, isn’t up to me. It’s up to the ordinary English speaker. That is the nature of this modality of argument in U.S. constitutional construction. If anyone reading this text thinks, “[t]he President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States” means “all persons who once were or who now are the President, Vice President and all other current or former civil officers,” then there is not much I can say to resolve our disagreement. 

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitutionality-trying-former-president-impeachment–-reply-frank-bowman

 

[spidermike007]

McConnell at least showed some moral fiber by speaking the truth. Trump wanted Pence to be attacked. Some sense of loyalty, he demonstrated when he threw Pence under the bus.

Hitch your wagon to a charlatan, a liar, a psychopath. The future of the GOP is bleak. The GOP senate will do anything to avoid losing those potential 74 million votes. Integrity, honor, courage, grace, patriotism? All missing. Hedging their bets, over doing the right thing? 

 

[Neeranam]

16 hours ago, heybruce said:

And you will never tell us what you consider a reliable news source as well.  Right?

Wrong, I only watch RT news, which is unbiased with US news. 

I certainly can't think of one in the US. 

[Neeranam]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

Both sides edited videos to illustrate their narrative.

What is it with your side and the use of 'narrative'?

What exactly do you mean with this comment?

[Sujo]

16 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Not true at all.  The Senate's taking an unconstitutional action does not make that action constitutional even if there is no higher authority to which to appeal on the basis of unconstitutionality.  Because the Senate can act with impunity in this case does not amend the Constitution nor does it create a binding precedent for the Senate in the future.  

 

Here is a link to laws that the Senate passed which were subsequently declared in whole or in part unconstitutional, as a demonstration of how routinely the Senate may violate the Constitution.  In the case of laws, these actions are subject to review by the federal courts.

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/

 

I choose to consider opinions of experts on the Constitution by the quality of their arguments not the quantity of people who believe them.  So, here is the crux of the argument against the Senate's trying a private citizen for impeachment by Prof. Phillip Bobbitt of Columbia Law School.  I cite it for its clarity, not because Bobbitt's standing itself necessarily settles the matter:

 

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.

 

My point is quite straightforward: This language is the only text in the Constitution that sets forth who may be impeached and convicted, and on what grounds. It and only it inscribes the limits of those persons subject to the various impeachment clauses.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the language “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers” does not include former officials. They no more remain “civil officers” than I remain a Princeton undergraduate. Perhaps because I state this conclusion so definitely, Bowman charges me with claiming infallibility in my assessment of constitutional meaning. But the meaning of the constitutional text, as a matter of textual argument, isn’t up to me. It’s up to the ordinary English speaker. That is the nature of this modality of argument in U.S. constitutional construction. If anyone reading this text thinks, “[t]he President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States” means “all persons who once were or who now are the President, Vice President and all other current or former civil officers,” then there is not much I can say to resolve our disagreement. 

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitutionality-trying-former-president-impeachment–-reply-frank-bowman

 

And you are wrong. The senate determines who it can impeach, the senate alone. That makes it constitutional. Enough.

[Surelynot]

Trump with Sarah Green as VP....dream ticket....(for the Dem's)