Trump makes history as the first president to be impeached twice. The sole Article of Impeachment is incite of insurrection and includes the prohibition that any such insurrectionist hold federal office. 10 republican senators voted w/dems to impeach.
McConnell's response that the Senate will take it up at its "first regular session" on 1/19 means he's not currently not calling them back for the trial.
I'm satisfied if impeachment is as far as it goes. The HR has done its job of legally indicting Trump for his role in inciting the riots, plundering, and killing that occurred last Wednesday.
It's sad a POTUS gets impeached a second time but based on all that has gone on for the last four years and especially since the election, it's deserved and most importantly, the system works. I hope Donald Trump gets convicted in the Senate and loses all the privileges that post presidency brings are denied him. The bottom line is I want what is best for the country going forward. Keep the faith.
There might still be time to impeach him a third time.
Trump's been impeached & his trial schedule remains to be seen.
In the meantime, 3 GOP HRs have been identified as Gosar & Biggs from AZ and Brooks of AL have been identified by Ali Alexander (not the most reliable guy) as participating in the planning of the incitement rally and other GOP Congressmen who have not been publicly name have been reported by Rep. Sherril of NJ to have conducted Stop The Steal reconnaissance missions of the Capitol on 1/5.
Each house of Congress has the authority to discipline their members, including expulsions, but all of these Congressmen's actions are under scrutiny by federal agencies and prosecutors. Seems loyalty to Trump went beyond objecting to the electoral votes.
If there’s evidence of collusion they should be expelled from the House and also face criminal prosecution.
We’re at the very beginning of this investigation and over the coming weeks and months I think the country will be shocked repeatedly at who not only played a role in the insurgency but what lengths they were willing to go to prevent a Biden presidency.
The 3 representatives are getting a lot of press so prosecutors are no doubt considering evidence; when the house returns they can decide whether to censure or expel these guys.
Do you really think it's to prevent a Biden presidency? I get the impression that the Congressional Trump loyalists act out of either the belief that they need his support for future runs I don't get an anti-Biden sense as much as pro-Trump. If so, they're mistaken. Trump cares about Trump.
The 3 representatives are getting a lot of press so prosecutors are no doubt considering evidence; when the house returns they can decide whether to censure or expel these guys.
Do you really think it's to prevent a Biden presidency? I get the impression that the Congressional Trump loyalists act out of either the belief that they need his support for future runs I don't get an anti-Biden sense as much as pro-Trump. If so, they're mistaken. Trump cares about Trump.
Definitely agree - much more about loyalty (or fear) of Trump than about JB.
I saw footage that day, and I believe Gosar may have been one of the opening acts to our favorite headliner, Trump - The Domestic Terrorist. Can't remember if it was Gosar or Mo Brooks. Anyone of those previously mentioned earlier in this thread should be expelled from Congress. They hate democracy and free elections as much as Trump.
I mean that generally speaking as many of the non politician insurgents were absolutely there to prevent a Biden presidency. As we learn more over the coming weeks I think we’ll see even evidence to support this....
I agree the politicians were there because they need and fear Trump along with his base...It was all about their political survival and the republic be damned!
Preventing a Biden or any one else's presidency was because the insurgents believe the election was stolen & wanted that righted. They were looking for people they believe to be Trump's enemies like Pence & Pelosi. I saw a few interviews where Trumpsters (not just on 1/6) said if they learned they'd been lied to about the stolen election, they'd stop. This is when state & local GOP leaders should step up & say to their constituents "There was no stolen election. It's been investigated by every state & there have been 60 court cases where no fraud or theft or other voting irregularity was found. We gave it a good try, but the majority voted for someone else." That's not going to have any effect on the hard-core insurrectionists/QAnon w/their conspiracy theories. That train has left the station.
Give credit to formerly red state Georgia. Their Republican leaders stood up to Trump many times. They performed several recounts & audits and wouldn't be pushed around by Trumps lies about votes. In spite of threats from several directions, they spoke truth to power and truth to perpetual lies.
In the end, Trump's lies f'ed the GOP by losing BOTH Senate seats in GA and lost the majority in the US Senate.
Yet the GOP masses continue to send $ to Trump, and polls indicate they are still behind him in spite of the blood on his hands of death & destruction from inciting a failed coup.
BTW - The lawyer for the Qanon freak with the headgear last night said this terroist client was innocent because he was just doing what Trump asked him to do. Great on him. Hope he enjoys his stay in prison & soap on a rope while Trump eats caviar at Mar A Lago.
Thank you, Donald for four great years of one failure after another.
He's already asked Trump for his pardon given that he was in DC because Trump asked him to be there.
I saw that. The chances of that happening are zilch. Bunch of these guys are now speaking up and saying they were just following Trump’s wishes. Question - Cyclone. Is that something that can standup in court for defendant in any level of consideration? Also, does that hurt Trump’s case should he face legal issues (not talking impeachment)?
I saw that. The chances of that happening are zilch. Bunch of these guys are now speaking up and saying they were just following Trump’s wishes. Question - Cyclone. Is that something that can standup in court for defendant in any level of consideration? Also, does that hurt Trump’s case should he face legal issues (not talking impeachment)?
Trump could easily pardon him. Trump has absolutely no remorse. Trump cares about Trump & he's most concerned w/self-pardon. He prizes loyalty & right now, Chansley has a better chance than Guiliani since Trump is so angry w/him he's stopped paying his fees. Trump had always planned a flurry of controversial pardons to be part of his final days.
When you say stand up in court I assume you mean admissible. I read the 18-page brief to the court on why Chansley shouldn't be released pending trial and that was included among more serious reasons like violent intent w/his spear weapon, vow to continue the fight on Inauguration Day, lack of job, and regular drug use. The judge ordered him to stay in jail.
I don't know what charges other than impeachment Trump would face where that's relevant. Evidence against Trump will be all his tweets post 11/6 encouraging reaction to the "stolen" election, including the ones that are overt - "come to DC on 1/6; will be WILD." Also, Trump's telephone calls during the insurrection will be relevant. The insurgents response is not really relevant in prosecuting Trump. His zillions of followers saw those tweets, but only the hardcore ones considered it a command, directive, or invitation. Hope that's what you meant.
I saw that. The chances of that happening are zilch. Bunch of these guys are now speaking up and saying they were just following Trump’s wishes. Question - Cyclone. Is that something that can standup in court for defendant in any level of consideration? Also, does that hurt Trump’s case should he face legal issues (not talking impeachment)?
Trump could easily pardon him. Trump has absolutely no remorse. Trump cares about Trump & he's most concerned w/self-pardon. He prizes loyalty & right now, Chansley has a better chance than Guiliani since Trump is so angry w/him he's stopped paying his fees. Trump had always planned a flurry of controversial pardons to be part of his final days.
When you say stand up in court I assume you mean admissible. I read the 18-page brief to the court on why Chansley shouldn't be released pending trial and that was included among more serious reasons like violent intent w/his spear weapon, vow to continue the fight on Inauguration Day, lack of job, and regular drug use. The judge ordered him to stay in jail.
I don't know what charges other than impeachment Trump would face where that's relevant. Evidence against Trump will be all his tweets post 11/6 encouraging reaction to the "stolen" election, including the ones that are overt - "come to DC on 1/6; will be WILD." Also, Trump's telephone calls during the insurrection will be relevant. The insurgents response is not really relevant in prosecuting Trump. His zillions of followers saw those tweets, but only the hardcore ones considered it a command, directive, or invitation. Hope that's what you meant.
Thx for response.
Yes, I realize Terrorist Don could pardon the Qanon Shaman, but my gut thinks he doesn't. In theory I guess Trump could pardon many of the domestic terrorists already rounded up from last week's trampling of the Capitol. Time will tell. I hope all of them spend significant time behind bars as opposed to fines and short duration.
My question re: stand up in court was more of asking if it's a valid argument (something that carries legal weight) as opposed to admissible.
Re: your third paragraph - my initial question was about whether the "follow the leader's words" could be used against Trump. As you mentioned there are plenty of other examples to be used against him should legal action be pursued against him.
As time is running short, we will learn of the list of pardons he gives in the next few days. I expected it last night, as Fridays are the time controversial actions take place many times. The the whopper of self pardon becomes the possibility. Then there will be much debate about that from political and legal angles.
Thx for response.
Yes, I realize Terrorist Don could pardon the Qanon Shaman, but my gut thinks he doesn't. In theory I guess Trump could pardon many of the domestic terrorists already rounded up from last week's trampling of the Capitol. Time will tell. I hope all of them spend significant time behind bars as opposed to fines and short duration.
My question re: stand up in court was more of asking if it's a valid argument (something that carries legal weight) as opposed to admissible.
Re: your third paragraph - my initial question was about whether the "follow the leader's words" could be used against Trump. As you mentioned there are plenty of other examples to be used against him should legal action be pursued against him.
As time is running short, we will learn of the list of pardons he gives in the next few days. I expected it last night, as Fridays are the time controversial actions take place many times. The the whopper of self pardon becomes the possibility. Then there will be much debate about that from political and legal angles.
Got it. Before something can carry legal weight, it has to be admissible. As I said, other than impeachment, I don't know what charges Trump would face. In a hypothetical federal prosecution of Trump for inciting an insurrection, the claims and actions of the insurrectionists would be hearsay against Trump unless it fell into one of the federal exceptions to hearsay to be admissible. Relevant evidence would be re Trump's intent not someone's reaction.
As happened last time, impeachment trials create their own rules & CJ Roberts does NOT rule on admissibility of evidence. McConnell basically hamstrung the prosecution in allowing no witnesses during that impeachment trial. Schumer hasn't indicated anything about how he would conduct the trial.
So far, Trump's schedule is to leave on Marine One from Andrews early Wed morning. I suspect his controversial pardons will come Tuesday night. Clinton made his most controversial pardons on Inauguration Day. Carter granted 2 pardons, including the controversial pardon of Peter Yarrow for what would now be called sexual assault of a 14 yr old girl 10 years earlier for which he served a 3 month sentence, on his last day in office.
ETA: To be clear, the assertion that they were acting at Trump's "invitation" is a defense for the insurrectionists at trial; it's not necessarily relevant to Trump's prosecution for "incitement" outside impeachment where the Senate makes the rules.
So, it's officially begun & the trial starts in 2 weeks. Weird trial given that all the jurors (senators) were also hostages in the insurrection, instigators Cruz & Hawley are going to be jurors unless disqualified, & CJ Roberts won't be presiding & will be replaced by Leahy who has a reputation for knowing the law. Should be a quick trial; can't imagine any defense that can be dreamed up. Gives the GOP a chance to really take their party back, ditch Trump (no one can say he has a big MAGA following now), and never see him in federal office again. To those who say what's the point - because you can't try to bring down the US government & get away w/it just because your term expired. The constitution allows for banning from holding office again because the framers knew how tyrants act.
Almost like it was a made for TV event for maximum exposure, cued up perfectly to begin coverage Monday upon the conclusion of the national evening news on the east coast.
@nebish haha the news had just ended, and before I could turn the TV off, whatever 7pm EST garbage show was being interrupted.
I was like, the news was just on, what could be happening?
Basically inter-office mail. I think the news networks are having post-partum depression.
Yes, there was the week of speculation as to when the article would be delivered, then the announcement of the trial start date, the name of Trump's attorney, & Leahy presiding, and then "they'll be delivered tonight." Now, we'll have 2 weeks of speculation of everything from whether there will be a Motion to Dismiss to kick off the trial to whether Cruz & Hawley will be allowed to vote.
What there should be no hesitation about is whether it should happen. Like, "oh that was 3 weeks ago that POTUS incited a coup" instead of "POTUS INCITED A COUP."
A complete waste of time. Biden said today that it looks clear not enough Republicans to convict. Also John Roberts refused to preside which is absolutely and clearly defined in the Constitution.
This will be thrown out at the Supreme Court.
This country is so fractured politically right now.
Put the Proud Boys and Antifa in the Nevada salt flats and let them fight it out before a civil war gets started.
As far as I'm concerned Antifa and the Proud Boys are a bunch of punks many of whom should be jailed. Dressed in black and turning over cars and smashing windows of downtown businesses in Portland just the other night. Is 911 out of order in Portland?
A complete waste of time. Biden said today that it looks clear not enough Republicans to convict. Also John Roberts refused to preside which is absolutely and clearly defined in the Constitution.
This will be thrown out at the Supreme Court.
This country is so fractured politically right now.
Whoa, a lot of misinformation there.
It's never a waste of time when a president sworn to uphold the constitution incites the overthrow of the government whether he has 3.5 years left in office or 3.5 minutes. The HR voted to impeach immediately after the insurrection according to the constitution. Had Mitch McConnell not refused to call the Senate in session, the trial would have taken place immediately & been over by now.
The Supreme Court Chief Justice only presides over the impeachment of a sitting president. Because Biden, not Trump, is president, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Leahy is constitutionally authorized to preside. The very fact that the rule exists means that the framers envisioned impeachment of someone who is not currently president - a former president.
For some unknown reason & complete waste of time, the Senate decided to take a vote on whether a trial would be constitutional. If you asked a 4th grade civics class which branch of the government decides what is constitutional or not, it would not be the legislative branch. The Senate doesn't have any authority over what's constitutional or not; the judiciary branch does. The vote failed because a majority of the Senate knows this. It has nothing to do w/the number of votes needed to convict AFTER a trial is held & evidence presented.
The Supreme Court has nothing to do w/impeachment. That is the function of the legislative branch.
I agree the country is fractured politically and part of the problem is that people don't know the basic functions of the US government - executive, legislative, & judiciary. If everyone bothered to re-read a civics book, there would be less confusion. Even some of the insurrectionists said if they had known that Pence was merely presiding over a ceremony & had absolutely no role in verifying votes, they wouldn't have shown up - in other words, if they actually knew what the 1/6 event was instead of what someone on TV told them it was, they wouldn't have come. Pay attention, people.
Inciting to violence, including insurrection and overtaking of the Capitol? Didn't they use to have firing squads for stuff like this?
Great post! Lots of good info & facts. Yes, facts do matter.
I'm afraid after all the evidence is presented the Retrumplicans will take the walk of shame and show fear on this. Their vote today on R Paul's motion with only 5 GOP senators siding with the Dems is a indication of what to expect. These senators will have evidence practically run them over like a freight train, and they were witnesses to the results of Trump's calling for insurrectrion, but they will hide under the table when they vote "no".
After that vote 33 of the 50 Republicans voted for some kind of pre-impeachment organization bill. 17 votes against were Blackburn, Cotton, Cruz, Daines, Hagerty, Hawley, Hyde-Smith, Johnson, Lee, Marshall, Paul, Risch, Rubio, Scott, Scott, Shelby, Tubberville.
So it might not be accurate to say the votes for/against constitutional grounds of post-office impeachment and conviction will be similar.
What evidence?? I found Trump's comments on the net which I never see on cable news and Trump said I know some of you are going to peacefully march to the Capitol and let your voices be heard. And now it's coming out that much of this was planned by some right wing group before Trump said a word. I'm a moderate slightly left of center Democrat who voted for Clinton and Obama. But I believe in being fair. The Charlottesville clash for example was not fair to Trump and several times Trump stated he was not referring to the Neo Nazis chanting the Jews will not control me but the people who want the Confederate statues untouched for historical and southern heritage reasons when he said their are good people on both sides.I saw his remarks live on CNN and that is how I understood Trump. The statue people not the Neo Nazis. I know a few guys like that. Want Lee's statue left alone but would never want to go back to segregation and separate rest rooms and lunch counters. Most of the medial would not allow Trump to say what Trump said. Then he starts that fake news BS.
Biden said he would like to take Trump behind the barn and beat the hell out of him. Maxine Waters said when you see these Republicans in a restaurant or supermarket or gas station, get in their faces and tell them to get out and that they are not welcome here. Hillary just recently said you can't be civil to a political party that opposes everything you believe in! And a guy on MSNBC said he wants to punch Trump in the face. I do like it when people on my side of the fence talk like that either. Maxine Waters should have zipped it. She and several other Democrats were yelling impeach 45 and Trump is not legitimate before he was sworn in. I like the way Trump dealt with China, helped us become energy independent and the lowest unemployment for blacks, Latinos and women. Then the virus struck. I dispised the tweets and his ego and bring so unpresidential. FDR and Reagan had to be spinning in their grave.
Also scholars are divided as to whether this is constitutional. "Only the Supreme Court can decide the question of whether the Congress can impeach a president who has already left office by loosing an election. It is highly unlikely the Supreme Court would yield to Congress's view held by the Democratic majority that it has the power to impeach a president who is no longer in office by loosing an election when the Constitution itself is so clear that Congress does not hold such power."
J. Michael Luttig who served as a judge on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit from 1991 to 2006.
It's time to move on. This trial is likely unconstitutional, will further divide an American that is getting closer and closer to a civil war and THE REPUBLICANS WILL NOT VOTE TO CONVICT!!!!!!
Time to move on.
And trying to bar Trump from being allowed to run again will just supercharge his cultic base that is said to be by Vox to be around 80 to 90 MILLION strong.
The civil way to keep Trump out of the White House is not to vote for him.
THIS IMPEACHMENT IS A WAIST OF TIME! Why? Because as Biden said the votes to convict are not there.
I don't think today's vote is indicative of anything except that all 100 Senators don't know that the issue of whether something is constitutional or not isn't a question for the legislative branch. The calculus of the trial "should we keep the bum out" vote is going to change hourly between now & then. I have zero plans to follow that.
The GOP has a chance to pull itself together now that many feel betrayed/conned by Trump & the evangelical Christians are looking for moderation. They can officially distance themselves from Trump to regain some respectability. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks a 78 yr old broke homeless Trump is going to do for anyone in 2024.
I don't see yesterday's first step as as a true reflection on constitutionality. I believe it to be another process or procedural move on the behalf of the GOP to sidestep to not pissing off Trump or dealing with him - no differently than the last 4 years. They are still in fear of him & his base.
I've done some reading on this and watched interviews by constitutional scholars such as Jonathan Turley & Lawrence Tribe as well as others. The two mentioned are on opposite sides of the issue with Tribe indicating and justifying this to be a valid move under the Constitution. I find the angles and interpretation to be interesting, but for the sake of brevity won't recap their beliefs here. They are on the record, and their beliefs are available.
Only 5 GOP Senators of 50 stepped up to the plate yesterday. My guess is that this might be the same number as the trial moves forward. Possibly a few more Retrumplicans will look at the evidence presented, Trump's own words, and follow the cause and effect. These are the same people whose own lives were in danger from the insurrection. However, I have no confidence that 17 Retrumplicans will find him guilty. They would rather hide behind the mirror than look at the mirror and vote their conscience.
It is laughable to hear the words of deplorables (give credit to HC) like Cruz, Rubio, and Graham to use words such as now is the time to reach for unity and not concentrate on this. These are walking / talking hypocrites. They all went from "Never Trumpers" to be his biggest lapdogs.
I believe Trump's control on the GOP is very strong. He is a dark cloud that hangs over the GOP. He is a negative force & will be so for some time. Unfortunately he is relevant.
He should be dealt with in a real sense via true accountability of what happened at the Capitol given the guidance of his own words over a period of weeks and especially on January 6.
Thoughtful as always. Constitutional scholars disagree because that's what they do & this is a somewhat novel issue. Tribe was one of my professors way back in law school & they're plenty more who are just as sharp who debate in legal forums every day. Actually, the question of whether one can impeach a former president sounds like a perfect law school exam question & probably will be this semester.
That said, Trump was impeached (indicted) before he left office & the trial could've have started before he left office had the Senate been in session so it's disingenuous to question whether impeachment of a former president is justified. If Congress lost its power to impeach during - pick a number - the last 6 months of a presidency, every president could act illegally during that time & get away w/it. The framers didn't give Congress a deadline to stop being a check on the president; it doesn't say the HR has the sole power of impeachment except for the last 6 months or 3 months or 3 weeks of the president's term.
If, before the trial starts and both sides have had time to prepare, Trump's defense team (not some random senator like Paul) can make a motion to dismiss with briefs on both sides presented & argued. I can't remember whether one was made in the 1st impeachment trial, but it's SOP.
As I've said ad nauseum, I read 2-3 US newspapers, 2-3 foreign newspapers, & legal journals so I'm out of the maintstream media loop. I'd gotten the impression immediately after the insurrection that some GOP were running as fast as they could away from Trump & worse, which I posted in another thread, BIG corporate funds to GOP candidates were withdrawn - some from individual candidates who objected during the 1/6 ceremony & some from the entire party. The extreme insurrectionists have been arrested, investigations continue, and far right groups like Proud Boys publicly expressed their disillusionment w/Trump. Evangelical Christian organizations denounced him. I believe you posted that GOP senators admitted they feared for their lives & those of their families during Impeachment #1. THAT IS NOT NORMAL.
It appeared that the GOP, including McConnell, had had enough of Trump and both McConnell & Pence worked w/the Biden transition team to assure an orderly transfer of power. Barr went running away as did other appointees, Pence & Trump weren't speaking, McConnell didn't speak to him after Trump started the whole "stop the steal" game, the GA AG refused to "find" some votes, & no one even went to see Trump off. There was talk of censure of Hawley & Cruz.
Did that 2 weeks of GOPers seeing the light evaporate? I agree Trump's whole sordid administration is a dark cloud over the GOP, but I had the impression that McConnell, at least, was going to seize the opportunity to take back the party. Removing any possibility that Trump could hold federal office again seemed to be positively catnip to McConnell. Certainly to Romney. It should be to any GOPer who wants freedom from the Trump era & access to major donors.
I've no idea what the vote will be. I now understand that his primary appeal was to closeted white supremacists of which there seem to be far more than I would've thought. I plan to watch the trial & not speculate about the vote.
I do have to say anyone who thinks a trial of incitement to insurrection is a waste of time due to some media prediction of the outcome misses the point of jurisprudence & accountability.
I guess my prior post has already shown my speculation about the vote. I hope I will be proven wrong. I think it's game, set, match.
I'm disappointed in MM's vote yesterday after his prior statements and assigning blame on Trump. I guess one can argue that he blames Trump but agrees on unconstitutionality. Watching and listening to MM over the years I doubt that. He's a master politician & strategist, and I suspect in the end he will vote "no" in spite of disliking Trump & knowing the damage Trump has done to the GOP & the country. But in the end, MM is an opportunist & a game player.
Very cool that you had a chance to study with Tribe. That should have been inspiring (if that is right choice of words).
I think Ted Cruz was also a student at one time of Tribe. I've read articles where in some of Cruz's statement's and interpretations that Tribe has taken Cruz to task.
