All Things Trump: the story continues...

[rainbow]

Impeachment is a mistake.
Whatever the outcome the losing side will say it was a political vote, which is correct.

Trump should've been charged with treason and incitement to murder.

...a jury should decide, not the Senate.

[JimC]

Impeachment is a mistake.
Whatever the outcome the losing side will say it was a political vote, which is correct.

Trump should've been charged with treason and incitement to murder.

...a jury should decide, not the Senate.

I think that US presidents can only be charged via impeachment. L'emmy would know for sure...

[rainbow]

Impeachment is a mistake.
Whatever the outcome the losing side will say it was a political vote, which is correct.

Trump should've been charged with treason and incitement to murder.

...a jury should decide, not the Senate.

I think that US presidents can only be charged via impeachment. L'emmy would know for sure...

He ain't no Prezident, no more.

[L'Emmerdeur]

While somebody is president, the only recourse is impeachment by the US House of Representatives and conviction by the US Senate. A senate impeachment trial isn't a criminal trial per se, in that conviction can only result in expulsion from office and possibly a lifetime ban on holding public office in the US government. When the House impeached Trump for the second time he was still in office, so it was the only option available for holding him accountable.

It's conceivable that now Trump could be charged as a private individual by the US Department of Justice for his part in the sacking of the US Capitol, but it seems unlikely, what with the 'unity' thing. I think the real calculation is whether bringing Trump to account is worth radicalizing even more of his supporters.

Part of the defense in such a case would probably be a claim that Trump was acting in his capacity as president, and therefore was and is immune to prosecution (Bill Barr used that one already). It's a bullshit claim in my opinion but courts would certainly consider it, and if they got the right judge the ruling could go in Trump's favor.

Damn. I was avoiding posting in this thread, but now I've blown it.

[rainbow]

It's conceivable that now Trump could be charged as a private individual by the US Department of Justice for his part in the sacking of the US Capitol, but it seems unlikely, what with the 'unity' thing. I think the real calculation is whether bringing Trump to account is worth radicalizing even more of his supporters.

If you bend over in the name of unity, I suggest lots of lube.

...sort of the lesson gained from clemency after the Munich Beer Hall Putsch: https://www.britannica.com/event/Beer-Hall-Putsch

[NineBerry]

March 4
This is the QAnon date for Trump inauguration.
The Biden inauguration was fake.
5000 national guard troops standing by till March

Must be because the motto of the January 6th riot was "March 4 Trump".

[Brian Peacock]

I wonder if congressional Republicans are weighing up whether supporting the impeachment procrss might be a way to rid themselves of Trump. This wouldn't necessarily involve a congressional conviction of wrong doing - merely some kind of official censure for getting (rather than doing) something wrong. A sanction that barred him from standing for public office might not have the weight or significance of a guilty verdict on incitement or treason charges etc, but it could certainly reduce Trump's influence as a political force on the future if the Republican party. A slap on the wrist could also be framed by Republicans as an act of clemency on their part given the fact of the riot and the seriousness of the charges that have followed. What do the constitutional scholars here think? Will the Republican House and Senate go for a strongly worded letter and a barring from future office rather than trying to dismiss the impeachment or being seen to argue on Trump's behalf and therefore on behalf of the rioters?

[Tero]

McConnel voted to stop the impeachment. Trying to use the "unconstitutional" figleaf. But it is unlikely that very many republicans will change from siding with the party to voting to impeach later. So far it was 5. They need 17. So we may even get 10 and it means nothing.
video
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... -politics/

[Tero]

They better get on with this impeachment because assorted criminal and civil cases against Trump are waiting for it to be over.

[Tero]

impeach cruz.jpg (17.45 KiB) Viewed 7019 times

"Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

Since 1789 the Senate has expelled only 15 members. Of that number, 14 were expelled during the Civil War for supporting the Confederacy. In several other cases, the Senate considered expulsion but either dropped those proceedings or failed to act before the member left office. In those cases, corruption was the primary cause of complaint."

1797 William Blount (R-TN) Anti-Spanish conspiracy; treason Expelled
many more resigned
1862 James F. Simmons (R-RI) Corruption Resigned 4
1873 James W. Patterson (R-NH) Corruption Term Expired 5
1893 William N. Roach (D-ND) Embezzlement Not Expelled 6
1906 Joseph R. Burton (R-KS) Corruption Resigned 7
1907 Reed Smoot (R-UT) Mormonism Not Expelled 8
1919 Robert M. La Follette (R-WI) Disloyalty Not Expelled 9
1922 Truman H. Newberry (R-MI) Election fraud Resigned 10
1995 Robert W. Packwood (R-OR) Sexual misconduct and abuse of power Resigned 16

[L'Emmerdeur]

I wonder if congressional Republicans are weighing up whether supporting the impeachment procrss might be a way to rid themselves of Trump. This wouldn't necessarily involve a congressional conviction of wrong doing - merely some kind of official censure for getting (rather than doing) something wrong. A sanction that barred him from standing for public office might not have the weight or significance of a guilty verdict on incitement or treason charges etc, but it could certainly reduce Trump's influence as a political force on the future if the Republican party. A slap on the wrist could also be framed by Republicans as an act of clemency on their part given the fact of the riot and the seriousness of the charges that have followed. What do the constitutional scholars here think? Will the Republican House and Senate go for a strongly worded letter and a barring from future office rather than trying to dismiss the impeachment or being seen to argue on Trump's behalf and therefore on behalf of the rioters?

They were shocked and appalled by Trump's goons breaking into their place of work with murderous intent, only to crap on the floor. But you know, it's Dear Leader. He still has a firm grip on literally millions of Republican voters, and those voters will do as he ordains.

The Republican congresscritters are coming around, falling into lockstep behind the banner of incipient authoritarianism. Now that some time has passed since they were cowering in the bowels of the palace, they appear to be willing to accommodate the latest poke in the eye. There are a few outliers, and they know they'll pay for their temerity. They'll face a Trumpist candidate in the next Republican primary vote, and the result: Almost all of them will be looking for work in the private sector. Pour encourager les autres.

'The GOP's answer to its post-Trump blues: More Trump'

For a moment, it looked like Donald Trump might be losing his iron grip on the GOP. In the wake of the deadly Capitol riot, 10 House Republicans joined Democrats in their vote to impeach him. Several other Republicans openly suggested at least censuring the president.

Not anymore.

Local and state Republican parties are censuring Republicans for disloyalty in states across the country. The lawmakers who broke with him are weathering a storm of criticism from Trump-adoring constituents at home, with punitive primary challenges already taking shape. In Washington, party leaders who once suggested Trump bore some responsibility for the Jan. 6 violence are backtracking.

On Tuesday, 45 Republican senators -- all but five members of the GOP conference -- voted that putting a former president on trial for impeachment is unconstitutional, all but guaranteeing the Senate won’t convict him. If the Republican Party seemed to be at a crossroads about its post-Trump future, it now appears to have concluded in which direction to travel.

[Tero]

They did not vote for that. All they voted for was WHEN the constitutionality was to be debated. Now it will be part if the main trial. All 45 can debate that again.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I don't know. Rand Paul's point of order was specifically regarding the constitutionality of the impeachment trial. Of course the 'it's unconstitutional!' argument will be raised in the trial, but I think that vote would have stopped the trial if the yeas had won. Video at link, and the first minute and a half or so have Rand Paul's point of order and the president-pro-tem of the Senate's acknowledgement.

'Senate Votes Down Senator Rand Paul's Point of Order on Impeachment Trial Constitutionality'

[rainbow]

They did not vote for that. All they voted for was WHEN the constitutionality was to be debated. Now it will be part if the main trial. All 45 can debate that again.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents Trump from being tried, convicted and executed.

Fannying about with Impeachment, just gives Trump the opportunity to claim that he's innocent by way of there not being a 2/3 majority in the Senate.

[Tero]

Trump meeting with Kevin McCarthy of the House. That is as close as he got to influencing his trial.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/27/politics ... index.html