The second impeachment of Donald Trump thread

[laylalex 7,300]

3 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Isn't politics simply a matter of opinion with respect to the voting public?  At this point, Trump is a private citizen, so any actual action by the Senate will most likely be challenged and quite possibly found unconstitutional.  If the Senate is able to get away with doing anything, what would stop them in the future of doing this to any other private citizens that happened to at one time hold a public office?

 

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

This has been covered already in this forum, it is not clear that you must be "sitting" to be tried, a Secretary of war sat trial after the civil. So it does not seem pretty clear.

 

Removal from office is not the only remedy that impeachment gives, so why would you need to be in office?

This is what I understand, that there is precedent for not only impeachment after leaving office but also a trial. 

[Dashinka 24,736]

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

This has been covered already in this forum, it is not clear that you must be "sitting" to be tried, a Secretary of war sat trial after the civil. So it does not seem pretty clear.

 

Removal from office is not the only remedy that impeachment gives, so why would you need to be in office?

 

 

Not certain that is a relevant example at this point, and was never actually tested as to its Constitutionality (the Belknap impeachment and acquittal), so no, not so clear.  I am still wondering what would even compel Trump to put up a defense, and who would pay for that defense (I believe the impeachment farce 11 months ago was paid for by the taxpayers).  Regardless, it could set an interesting precedent that if it does result in a Senate conviction would almost be certainly challenged.  If, hypothetically, Trump is convicted by the Senate, removal is not a concern at this point, but if they then proceed to bar him from any future office, what would bar the House from impeaching any federal official who has returned to private life for the sole purpose of political revenge?

[Dashinka 24,736]

23 minutes ago, laylalex said:

 

This is what I understand, that there is precedent for not only impeachment after leaving office but also a trial. 

A precedent that was very questionable at that time, and was never tested due to the fact that the Senate trial ended in an acquittal.  Still waiting though for an answer to what would compel a private citizen such as Trump to even respond to a Senate removal trial?

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Still waiting though for an answer to what would compel a private citizen such as Trump to even respond to a Senate removal trial?

If you mean "compel" as in interest him into going along with the trial... legacy, pride, wanting to run for office in the future would certainly be compelling for Trump. And he's lawyered up, so he seems to feel that compulsion.

 

If you mean compel him to show up in a legal sense, I have no idea. But whether congress can force him to sit the trial or not, one way or the other he will be tried.

[Dashinka 24,736]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

If you mean "compel" as in interest him into going along with the trial... legacy, pride, wanting to run for office in the future would certainly be compelling for Trump. And he's lawyered up, so he seems to feel that compulsion.

 

If you mean compel him to show up in a legal sense, I have no idea. But whether congress can force him to sit the trial or not, one way or the other he will be tried.

That is my point, if I were Trump, I would let the Senate do what they will do with the Dems running the show, and simply stay back and let his lawyers work on a challenge in SCOTUS.  It would look like a kangaroo court especially if Kamala or Leahy are the presiding officers.

[moxy 1,051]

3 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

That is my point, if I were Trump, I would let the Senate do what they will do with the Dems running the show, and simply stay back and let his lawyers work on a challenge in SCOTUS.  It would look like a kangaroo court especially if Kamala or Leahy are the presiding officers.

Yeah, I don't know what role Trump is required to play, if any. Maybe someone who's more well read than me knows.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

33 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Not certain that is a relevant example at this point, and was never actually tested as to its Constitutionality (the Belknap impeachment and acquittal), so no, not so clear. 

I agree not clear, even after I hear almost every constitutional scholar speak to it.

Quote

 

I am still wondering what would even compel Trump to put up a defense, and who would pay for that defense (I believe the impeachment farce 11 months ago was paid for by the taxpayers). 

Trump is famous for not paying his bills, so we are probably stuck with it, who will take him on?

 

Quote

 

Regardless, it could set an interesting precedent that if it does result in a Senate conviction would almost be certainly challenged.  If, hypothetically, Trump is convicted by the Senate, removal is not a concern at this point, but if they then proceed to bar him from any future office, what would bar the House from impeaching any federal official who has returned to private life for the sole purpose of political revenge?

At this point, I don't care if it is overturned. I want the truth to be revealed.

 

If there is a clear connection between Trump and the conspirators that is documented, he will be convicted. Based on just his words from the dias :

 

" Stop the steal"

"We'll lose everything"

"That's treason"

"Protect the constitution"

"This is our country"

"You will never take back our country with weakness"

Probably not enough to convict, he has been using that language for years and he can play the "take my words figuratively" card

 

The words "walk down to the Capitol (and I will be with you) " just proves what a coward and a bully the man is, no debate, his personal flaws are well documented.

 

I have no doubt personally that if Trump had not spoke those words on that day, there would have not been a riot that breached Capitol security and terrorized Congress. The conspirators would not have the crowd as a cover.

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by CanAm1980

[Steeleballz 7,550]

39 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

A precedent that was very questionable at that time, and was never tested due to the fact that the Senate trial ended in an acquittal.  Still waiting though for an answer to what would compel a private citizen such as Trump to even respond to a Senate removal trial?

 

    Is his attendance required for them to reach a decision? Seems like they could arrive at an outcome with or without his input. 

[Dashinka 24,736]

13 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

I agree not clear, even after I hear almost every constitutional scholar speak to it.

Trump is famous for not paying his bills, so we are probably stuck with it, who will take him on?

 

At this point, I don't care if it is overturned. I want the truth to be revealed.

 

If there is a clear connection between Trump and the conspirators that is documented, he will be convicted. Based on just his words from the dias :

 

" Stop the steal"

"We'll lose everything"

"That's treason"

"Protect the constitution"

"This is our country"

"You will never take back our country with weakness"

Probably not enough to convict, he has been using that language for years and he can play the "take my words figuratively" card

 

The words "walk down to the Capitol (and I will be with you) " just proves what a coward and a bully the man is, no debate, his personal flaws are well documented.

 

I have no doubt personally that if Trump had not spoke those words on that day, there would have not been a riot that breached Capitol security and terrorized Congress. The conspirators would not have the crowd as a cover.

 

Not really sure there would be an "truth" revealed, considering the bias of the "prosecution".

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Is his attendance required for them to reach a decision? Seems like they could arrive at an outcome with or without his input. 

I guess I wasn't referring to his actual physical presence, but whether he was actually compelled to put up any defense.

 

[Boiler 45,947]

This is a Show Trial. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

9 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Not really sure there would be an "truth" revealed, considering the bias of the "prosecution".

I guess I wasn't referring to his actual physical presence, but whether he was actually compelled to put up any defense.

 

 

  I don't think there would be, although it may be in his favor to do so. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

I agree not clear, even after I hear almost every constitutional scholar speak to it.

Trump is famous for not paying his bills, so we are probably stuck with it, who will take him on?

 

At this point, I don't care if it is overturned. I want the truth to be revealed.

 

If there is a clear connection between Trump and the conspirators that is documented, he will be convicted. Based on just his words from the dias :

 

" Stop the steal"

"We'll lose everything"

"That's treason"

"Protect the constitution"

"This is our country"

"You will never take back our country with weakness"

Probably not enough to convict, he has been using that language for years and he can play the "take my words figuratively" card

 

The words "walk down to the Capitol (and I will be with you) " just proves what a coward and a bully the man is, no debate, his personal flaws are well documented.

 

I have no doubt personally that if Trump had not spoke those words on that day, there would have not been a riot that breached Capitol security and terrorized Congress. The conspirators would not have the crowd as a cover.

 

You forgot peaceful protest 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

38 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

You forgot peaceful protest 

So did the rioters

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

This is a Show Trial. 

Will it prevent another terrorist attack of the Capitol? 

Edited January 25, 2021 by CanAm1980

[Boiler 45,947]

Did not stop Antifa ( as supported by Kamla) in Tacoma last night.