Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2021 Impeachment, Trial and Acquittal of Donald John Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    I find it neither attractive nor likely at all. The "protestors" that are found guilty will go proceed through the justice system without any sort of reprieve or pardon from Joe Biden, you can count on that. I can't predict what future Republican presidents will do for the insurrectionists of course.

    .
    Well we definitely both agree on it being unlikely.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by tantalus View Post
      I was more in the thinking that the impeachment could do them a great favour, not bidens victory but ofcourse both can be true
      Also yes, conviction of Trump, which could lead to him being barred from office, would be a gift to the GOP.
      Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

      Comment


      • #33
        Prominent Senate Republican warns Trump trial could spark more impeachments

        WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A prominent U.S. Senate Republican warned on Saturday that former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial could lead to the prosecution of former Democratic presidents if Republicans retake the chamber in two years.

        “If it is a good idea to impeach and try former Presidents, what about former Democratic Presidents when Republicans get the majority in 2022? Think about it and let’s do what is best for the country,” Senator John Cornyn, a 19-year veteran of the Senate, said in a Twitter post directed at Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

        Trump this month became the first U.S. president to be impeached twice after the Democratic-controlled House, with the support of 10 Republicans, voted to charge him with incitement of insurrection for a fiery Jan. 6 speech to his followers before they launched a deadly assault on the Capitol.

        After a brief moment of bipartisan sentiment in which members from both parties condemned the unprecedented attack on Congress as it met to formalize President Joe Biden’s victory, a number of Senate Republicans are opposing Trump’s trial, which could lead to a vote blocking him from future office.

        Democrats hold narrow majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate, and it is common for the incumbent president’s party to lose seats in the mid-term elections two years after a presidential contest.

        Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has said the mob was “provoked” by Trump. But other Senate Republicans say that trying Trump while out of office would be unconstitutional and further divide the country.

        The Kentucky Republican Party’s state central committee rejected a resolution on Saturday that urged McConnell to fully support Trump and condemn his impeachment, the Louisville Courier Journal reported. The committee voted 134-49 to uphold a ruling that the resolution was out of order, the paper said.

        The party’s spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

        There are concerns on both sides of the aisle that the trial could distract from Biden’s legislative agenda.

        Schumer, who became Senate majority leader this week, said on Friday the impeachment trial would start the week of Feb. 8. That will give both sides time to prepare while the Senate works to confirm Biden’s Cabinet and enact a new COVID-19 relief package, he said.
        ____________

        Somebody sounds a tad reluctant to hold Donald Trump accountable for inciting an insurrection against the United States.

        Cult45 still has the GOP in their thrall. How pathetic
        Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

        Comment


        • #34
          1. If someone is found to have done anything worthy of Impeachment, regardless of party, impeach them.

          2. Just does Cornyn have in mind?

          3. And I wonder if the delay to 8 FEB is so this can be considered as a further article for impeachment....

          https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/u...-election.html
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #35
            While I think it is probably constitutional to put Trump on trial since he was impeached, while in office, which seems to go over the minds of Republicans, I don't think it it constitutional to impeach a former President, long out of office, at all like Republicans are throwing out there. However, it would be their chance to finally get back at FDR.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
              However, it would be their chance to finally get back at FDR.
              I want Coolidge's hide!

              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
              Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

                I want Coolidge's hide!
                I was hoping we could pose some hard questions to Jimmy Garfield. He was certainly involved in some seriously shady shit.
                Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                Comment


                • #38
                  Leahy, not Roberts, to preside over impeachment trial

                  Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over former President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, which is scheduled to begin in earnest on Feb. 8.

                  Instead, Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy (Vt.), the most senior member of the Senate Democratic Conference, will preside over the trial.

                  A Senate source said Leahy, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is expected to preside at the trial.

                  A spokesman for Leahy said the decision on presiding over the trial is up to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

                  “Leaders have been negotiating all process issues about the trial, and all along we have deferred to them for any announcements about this and all other process matters,” the aide said.

                  Republican critics say this creates a conflict of interest because Leahy voted in February to convict Trump on two articles of impeachment.

                  Some have also argued the Senate should not be impeaching a former president, and that only Roberts should be presiding.

                  “There’s only one constitutional process for impeachment and it is of the president, not a president,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). “It requires the chief justice to preside.”

                  Hawley joined House Republicans in challenging the Electoral College vote tally in Pennsylvania and Arizona. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also joined House Republicans in challenging the results in those states.

                  The debate in the House and Senate over those challenges was interrupted when a mob overwhelmed Capitol Police and ransacked the Capitol.

                  The House voted to impeach Trump a week later, deciding he had incited the rioters.

                  Trump repeatedly and falsely said widespread fraud had taken place and that an election win had been stolen from him. He also spoke to a crowd gathered near the White House a short time before police were overwhelmed at the Capitol.

                  Hawley has also come under criticism for his decision to challenge the Electoral College results, with a number of Democrats blaming him in part for the riot.

                  Other Republicans say Roberts’s absence undermines the legitimacy of the trial.

                  “The Constitution requires that the chief justice preside over the impeachment trial of a president but that’s not what we’re doing. To me that’s indicative of the fact that we’re in uncharted waters,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

                  “I just think it looks very petty and vindictive and I understand there are a lot of people who are mad but the process itself already looks like a railroad job,” he added.

                  Cornyn said having a Democrat preside over the trial “really undermines the legitimacy.”

                  Other GOP senators echoed that criticism.

                  “If the chief justice doesn’t preside, I think it’s an illegitimate hearing and really goes to show that it’s not really constitutional to impeach someone who’s not president,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

                  Several Democrats pressed last week for Roberts to preside over the trial.

                  “That is his constitutional duty. I can’t imagine why a Supreme Court justice would not do his duty,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

                  Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Judiciary panel, said Roberts should preside.
                  “I think he should because it will be a straightforward, simple trial. I would think that the chief justice lends the dignity and seriousness it requires,” he said.

                  But Blumenthal acknowledged Roberts “is not required by law to do it.”
                  _____________

                  You gutless sack of shit....
                  Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    If Roberts does not want to perform the duty that he should perform, perhaps it may be time for two impeachments, first Justice Roberts, then Trump.

                    From brief FAQ at a SCOTUS website:

                    (Q:) How long is the term of a Supreme Court Justice?

                    (A:) The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment.

                    Last edited by JRT; 25 Jan 21,, 22:24.
                    .
                    .
                    .

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by JRT View Post
                      If Roberts does not want to perform the duty that he should perform, perhaps it may be time for two impeachments, first Justice Roberts, then Trump.

                      From brief FAQ at a SCOTUS website:

                      (Q:) How long is the term of a Supreme Court Justice?

                      (A:) The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment.
                      Roberts knows that this time there's a decent chance of conviction, and he doesn't want to preside over the first conviction of an impeached (Republican) President.

                      He needn't worry too much, it looks like even the nominally pro-conviction Republican Senators are starting to lose whatever anger they had over January 6th.

                      The flipside of that coin is yet another Republican Senator has announced their retirement, Rob Johnson, could very well move from the "Waiting on McConnell" to "Almost certain to convict" category, now that he only has to worry about his legacy and not his reelection.
                      Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

                        I was hoping we could pose some hard questions to Jimmy Garfield. He was certainly involved in some seriously shady shit.
                        Does this mean Dems can finally get some payback on Hayes for stealing the election in 1876?
                        sigpic

                        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

                          Does this mean Dems can finally get some payback on Hayes for stealing the election in 1876?
                          Whoa, let's not get ridiculous here. Try to stay within the bounds of reality...







                          Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Trump's second impeachment trial launches with questions over witnesses
                            Democrats are split on whether to hear new testimony on a deadly riot they lived through.

                            For the first time in its 232-year history, the Senate is putting a former president on trial for impeachment charges — and no one is quite certain exactly how it will play out. Democrats haven't even decided among themselves whether they want to hear any witnesses.

                            The House’s impeachment managers delivered an article of impeachment to the Senate on Monday charging Donald Trump with inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, making it official that a trial will be held. But Senate leaders have already agreed to delay the trial for two weeks, while the former president’s legal team prepares its defense and senators work to set up the parameters, with much to be determined.

                            Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell must still haggle over the basic structure of the trial, including length of arguments, motions to call witnesses, and a possible motion to dismiss the trial at its outset. The procedures — outlined in an organizing resolution — will foreshadow the likelihood, or not, of convicting Trump, which will require the support of at least 17 GOP senators.
                            “We’ll hopefully negotiate something with McConnell on the trial. We’ll see what happens,” Schumer told reporters. “We don’t know what the requests are on either side yet, the managers or the defense.”

                            Perhaps no procedure is more complicated than the question of witness testimony, with Democrats divided over whether witnesses are even necessary to prosecute the case against Trump, whose alleged conduct occurred mostly in public view. Senators from both parties also want the trial to be even swifter than Trump’s first trial, which lasted three weeks.

                            Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) acknowledged that Democrats are split on the issue, with many asserting that senators themselves were witnesses to the insurrection while others contend that senators, who are jurors in the trial, should not deprive either side of the ability to use witness testimony.

                            “It’s a sham trial if you say in advance that there will be no witnesses or documents,” Kaine said, noting that it’s up to the House managers and Trump’s defense team if they want to call witnesses. “I’m more into the principle of this. Impeachment is a very serious thing. … If either the managers or the defense want to put up witnesses and documents, they should be able to.”

                            It’s unclear how many senators from either party will support calling in witnesses. In Trump’s first impeachment trial, Democrats unanimously supported bringing in witnesses, arguing they were key to a fair trial. Senate Republicans, then in the majority, shut them down last year.

                            But in interviews Monday, several Democrats said this time is different because senators themselves are first-hand witnesses and don’t need to hear from others; they also argued that the Senate shouldn’t be bogged down with a trial when there’s urgent work to be done on the coronavirus pandemic, among other matters.

                            “The most powerful evidence is Donald Trump’s own words,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “I really feel the core centerpiece is Donald Trump’s own highly incriminating incitement.”

                            The House managers could push for witness testimony if they believe there are enough Republicans who could be persuaded to convict Trump; many in the GOP have lodged procedural arguments focused on providing due process to the former president. The managers have been having daily, members-only planning calls but have been told not to discuss their strategy publicly.

                            “The Senate sets the rules, so we’re waiting to see what the rules are. So we’re ready either way,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), one of the impeachment managers.

                            Still, senators expect that the organizing resolution will mostly mirror last year’s, with a few notable exceptions.

                            One key difference is that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the president pro tempore, is expected to preside over the proceedings, according to Senate sources. The Constitution states that the Supreme Court’s chief justice must preside over a presidential impeachment trial, but Trump is no longer in office, so John Roberts is off the hook.

                            Leahy’s role could give Republicans an opening to further portray the proceedings as partisan in nature. Already, Republicans are contending that putting a former president on trial is unconstitutional.

                            “I like Sen. Leahy, but it’s a conflict of interest,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. “He’s a juror. He shouldn’t be sitting as a judge.”

                            Leahy defended his role, saying it amounts to ensuring that the rules are followed.

                            “I’ve presided over hundreds of hours in my time in the Senate. I don’t think anybody has ever suggested I was anything but impartial in those hundreds of hours,” Leahy said.

                            Republicans’ focus on procedural arguments is intended to let them avoid taking a position on whether Trump’s conduct is impeachable, Democrats say. So far, few Republicans have commented on the merits of the House’s impeachment charges. That is likely to change soon, when the Senate moves on to oral arguments.

                            “Given the fact that the Democrats have the majority in the Senate, the process argument will ultimately fail and we will go onto the merits,” said Sen. Mitt Romney, who has criticized Trump’s conduct and has hinted that he would vote to convict Trump. The Utah Republican was the only GOP senator to vote to convict Trump in last year’s impeachment trial.

                            Indeed, Republicans are channeling their opposition to a trial into new momentum for a motion to dismiss the trial at its outset. The organizing resolution could detail the process for seeking such a motion, and the trial will likely present an opportunity for any senator to ask for an up-or-down vote to dismiss it.

                            “There seems to be some hope that Republicans could oppose the former president’s impeachment on process grounds, rather than grappling with his actual awful conduct,” Schumer said. “Let me be very clear: this is not going to fly.”

                            If talks between Schumer and McConnell are fruitless, Democrats could craft an organizing resolution that could pass the Senate with just Democratic votes with Vice President Kamala Harris serving as the tie-breaker. When Republicans were in charge last year, the Senate voted on party lines to approve McConnell’s proposed parameters.

                            Absent witness testimony, the House managers could be buoyed by the slow drip of information about the run-up to the Jan. 6 insurrection. Last week, for example, the New York Times reported that Trump schemed with a top Justice Department official to oust the acting attorney general over the president’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

                            The House managers are certain to reference these reports to buttress their argument that Trump laid the foundation for the riots at the Capitol and improperly used his perch to overturn the will of the voters.

                            Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said earlier this month that he feared he might regret his vote against impeaching Trump in the House due in part to additional pieces of information that portray Trump unfavorably. Democrats will try to use statements like that to their advantage.

                            Under an agreement reached Friday between Schumer and McConnell, the president’s team will have until Feb. 2 to respond to the impeachment article and the House managers will have until Feb. 8 to submit their pre-trial brief. The House will submit its pre-trial brief Feb. 2 and its pre-trial rebuttal Feb. 9, officially kicking off the trial.
                            _______________

                            Hoooo boy this is gonna be a doozy...

                            At the heart of it though, Donald Trump and his fellow thugs exhorted a crowd of his cult members to go "fight like hell". What the hell else was that supposed to mean other than "trial by combat", as Mayor Lunatic said?
                            Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                            Comment


                            • #44

                              Trump sends a message to Senate Republicans ahead of his trial
                              The ex-president could seek vengeance on GOP senators if they break with him on impeachment and vote to convict.

                              A top political aide to former President Donald Trump spent the weekend quietly reassuring Republican senators that the former president has no plans to start a third party — and instead will keep his imprint on the GOP.

                              The message from Brian Jack, Trump’s former political director at the White House, is the latest sign that Republicans considering an impeachment conviction will do so knowing that Trump may come after them in upcoming primaries if they vote to convict him for “incitement of insurrection.”

                              Jack did not mention impeachment in his calls. But he wanted the word to get around that Trump is still a Republican — and for many, still the leader of his party.
                              “The president wanted me to know, as well as a handful of others, that the president is a Republican, he is not starting a third party and that anything he would do politically in the future would be as a Republican,” recounted Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). “The Republican Party is still overwhelmingly supportive of this president.”


                              On Monday evening, Trump’s second impeachment trial began unfolding — and Republicans started deliberating in earnest over how, or even whether, to defend the president.

                              The trial will test how loyal Republican senators will remain to the former president following his departure from the White House and what kind of grip he still maintains on the GOP conference. While most Senate Republicans are not expected to vote to convict Trump, almost no one has defended his rhetoric after a riot that left five dead and the Capitol ransacked.

                              Trump has already threatened his critics in the Senate GOP with primary challengers, and conviction votes would only bring more attacks from the former president. On Monday, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) announced his retirement, allowing him to take in the trial without thinking about his reelection campaign next year. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who is also retiring next year, has conceded that Trump committed impeachable offenses. He declined to talk about the trial on Monday evening.

                              Trump “has the potential to continue to have a major influence on the party,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who was the sole GOP senator to vote to convict Trump last year and who has excoriated Trump’s role in inciting the Jan. 6 riot.

                              Trump’s influence “was significantly diminished by his perpetuation of the 'Big Lie.' That he won the election and that it was stolen from him. I don’t think the facts have borne that out,” Romney added. “Clinging to the lie will diminish his influence over time.”

                              Though Trump has absorbed more criticism from Senate Republicans over the last three weeks than at any time since he won the 2016 election, few are willing to be as vocal as Romney on the eve of the trial.

                              These days Republicans are leaning on an argument that the impeachment trial is unconstitutional, which might only be tested if Trump is convicted and the result goes to the Supreme Court.

                              On Tuesday, Senate Republicans will hear that argument at a party meeting from Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal scholar who says the impeachment is “at odds” with the Constitution, according to two sources. Others on the right, including at the Federalist Society, have said it's constitutional to hold an impeachment trial for an ex-president.

                              Even some of the president’s closest allies have used strong words to condemn Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 invasion of the Capitol by pro-Trump supporters. It’s a stunning turn from Trump’s first impeachment trial, when only a handful of senators conceded that Trump acted irresponsibly in pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.

                              “The ex-president's rhetoric on the day was inflammatory. I think it was irresponsible. I think it was wrong,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who helped lead objections to the certification of President Joe Biden’s win in the Senate. “This impeachment effort is, I think, blatantly unconstitutional. It's a really, really, really dangerous precedent.”

                              Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) were among the senators who quickly rushed to the cameras last January to defend Trump. On Monday they attacked the constitutionality of convicting Trump but indicated they have no plans to reprise their role as Trump’s rhetorical bulldogs.

                              “No, I don’t,” said Braun.

                              And unlike during last year’s impeachment trial, when Senate GOP leadership was pushing the caucus to vote against hearing from witnesses, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his team are taking a more hands-off approach. After closely coordinating Trump’s defense with the White House a year ago, McConnell has said he would listen to both sides’ arguments before deciding how to vote.

                              “It’s just a different, entirely, dynamic than what we had,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.). “This is an issue where nobody’s being whipped, everybody’s going to do what’s in their best interest for their constituencies and their conscience and people are being asked to vote their conscience.”

                              Still, the appearance by Turley at a party meeting indicates that GOP leaders are strongly considering joining the constitutional arguments against impeachment. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), a member of leadership, said on Monday night that "President Trump exhibited poor leadership and holds some responsibility for the anarchy," but added she was concerned impeaching a former president sets a "dangerous standard."

                              Several Senate Republicans are citing their status as jurors when asked if they’ll stick up for the former president. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a Trump ally who has ripped Democrats for impeaching the ex-president, said he has faith in Trump’s lawyers and that Trump needs to “trust them.” A fellow South Carolinian, Butch Bowers, will lead Trump’s impeachment defense.

                              It’s become a common adage within the Senate GOP that if the trial had occurred on Jan. 7, Trump might have seen a flood of Republicans looking to make a clean break with him. But now the final vote might not take place until late February — and the number of GOP senators truly weighing whether to convict the president is likely short of the 17 needed to join all 50 Democrats.

                              “A lot of people made strong statements, and I put myself in the category, of what the president’s role was, particularly right after Jan. 6 happened. And the disappointment and shock,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). “And I suppose as time goes on the political considerations begin to weigh in.”

                              But she added that something more vivid is on many senators’ minds.

                              “It’s more a function of being seated on the Senate floor as an insurrection is rising behind you,” she said. “You can hear it and watch the vice president be whisked out.”
                              ____________

                              Something something youfuckingidiotscreatedyourveryownfrankensteinsmon sterwhatthehelldidyouthinkwasgoingtohappen....
                              Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

                                Whoa, let's not get ridiculous here. Try to stay within the bounds of reality...






                                Maybe do a deal to reintroduce Federal Troops to Southern States until they stop suppressing black votes and finish the business of Reconstruction. Republicans like that whole 'Party of Lincoln' stuff and keep telling us that Democrats are the racist ones, so that shouldn't be a problem....right.
                                sigpic

                                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X