@robertdee Screw impeachment! Just charge him with his crimes and put him out in front of a judge and jury. If a TV actress can get 6 months for trying to buy her kids way into a prestigious university, how much of a stay should Trump get for his antics that led to death and mayhem? Impeachment's a joke among lawyers and politicians anyway!
@robertdee Screw impeachment! Just charge him with his crimes and put him out in front of a judge and jury. If a TV actress can get 6 months for trying to buy her kid's way into a prestigious university, how much of a stay should Trump get for his antics that led to death and mayhem? Impeachment's a joke among lawyers and politicians anyway!
I agree. Criminally charge those who broke the law and allow that to be end game. Impeachment is politics. Now that he's gone I find it rather meaningless.
Just going to put this right here.
I had to google groyper.
Still wish police would've opened fire on those people.
It's too early for MM to show his hand. McConnell IS a political being which is why I never believe anything he says or find any meaning in his interim votes. All I've read in the last weeks was how he was working behind the scenes to get people on board w/impeachment while at the same time stalling Pelosi from delivering the Article of Impeachment - playing both sides so as to create this fake constitutional question.
I got the sense that the Trump party had fallen completely apart & this was an opportunity to shut Trump out forever & get the party back where McConnell could still easily raise funds & wouldn't have to deal w/the QAnon riff raff going forward.
Trump's other on/off again friend Lindsey Graham has coughed up 2 SC lawyers to take on Trump's defense. Three "anonymous but well known" trial attorneys said no because Trump wanted them to work pro bono. Working for a TV celebrity has lost its lustre.
Independent of the trial, what happens to Trump during the next 4 years will impact his ability to run again and/or influence voters. His political future - if he wants one - depends on whether he ends up in jail, flees to a no extradition country, & where he ultimately gets money to pay all his outstanding loans.
FWIW, John Quincy Adams believed himself to be impeachable for "everything I did while [president] as long as I have breath in my body" so there's an example of the generation after the framers believing impeachment included being held accountable even after he left office.
Cyclone is likely smarter than many of the Senators and certainly smarter than I am on these issues.
To my simple mind, I think the question of constitutionality is a valid question and the Senators having different of opinions on that is reasonable.
I think if you look at the vote on Rand Paul's constitutionality of the issue and then look at a procedural vote later on the impeachment rules it shows that a Republican can vote one way on the first issue and another way on the second issue. So I wouldn't prejudge who might vote to convict or not. I mean, sure, we know certain names will vote a certain way, but we don't know where a whole bunch of them will vote.
And as we shouldn't. The evidence and the arguments made should be the deciding factor. I honestly can't tell you right now if I think he should be convicted. I can't. I've probably seen just as much news coverage on it as anyone, but until I am tasked with coming up with that determination and after having heard the prosecution and defense, I am open to be persuaded.
Maybe that is a good thing about me and maybe it is a bad thing. I find that so many other people say things like "this has to be seen this way, this is the only way it can be interpreted" or somebody else says "if you don't think this is what it is then you are an idiot". Well, what if I just don't pretend to know all the facts and circumstantial evidence that might exist on either side. But everyone has their sides they have to get on.
Did the President incite an insurrection? I don't know. He didn't say or do much to discourage incitement one I'll say that.
I've been somewhat enlightened about McConnell by an article in today's NYT "McConnell Was Done With Trump. His Party Said Not So Fast." McConnell WAS ready to dump Trump, encouraged impeachment, & get the party back but the majority of senators who weren't quitting are sticking w/Trump. Never one to miss a political nuance, McConnell reversed his position & can't be counted on to do what he planned. So, you're right. The GOP is still under the Trump spell. So his vote on Tuesday probably was against his leanings, but w/the party. And that's the end of my thinking about any of them until the trial starts. Even then, it's competing w/a pared down Australian Open so tennis may win in my viewing.
You're the perfect juror - willing to listen to facts & arguments presented and vote as you see fit. You don't poll the other jurors as to whether there should even be a trial after you've been sworn in as a juror. There's a trial because the District Attorney presented a case to a Grand Jury who indicted the defendant & you aren't second-guessing the DA.
That's what Paul did. Anyone, including senators, can privately wonder about the constitutionality of impeachment, but the HR got legal advice about it (remember, their first choice was to get Pence to invoke the 25th amendment & let the Executive Branch handled its own mess, but he declined), got the green light, and impeached Trump. So, the Senate has to try him.
I don't intend to sound like a know-it-all. I respect everyone's opinions here. I do jump in when someone is spreading misinformation - there's enough of that going on in politics.
I thought of you when I was trying to resolve the puzzle of why the GOP is committing suicide by reversing their short enlightened opinion that Trump is a conman bent on self-enrichment & rushing back to his side (in my own mind. Normally, I don't care WHAT any party is doing internally, but Trump's appeal has always stumped New Yorkers).
Anyway, I listened to an NPR podcast w/Whit Ayers a GOP strategist on the party's future in the post-Trump era. The gist was that there's a split between what he called the "governing wing" - the realists - and the "populist wing" - those who believe in conspiracies & delusions. The governing wing has always dominated. When the host pressed him that 4 leading "governing" members were leaving & that could mean the party standing for overturning the government if you don't like the outcome of a free fair democratic election, Ayers said it would never happen. When asked why, Ayers said the governing wing would always dominate & never forsake its oath to the Constitution. The End.
So, Ayers just made a circular statement - the governing/rational wing is running away from Trump's GOP leaving it to the conspiracy theorists who think insurrection is the answer, but he's confident the rational wing will keep the GOP in line. That didn't seem to be what was going on 1/6 and now. Because you often mention npr as a source, I wondered if you'd heard that & been left with a dropped jaw like I was.
@cyclone
I do have NPR stored on my satellite radio favorites, but I believe it is Chain who offers us NPR links when he sees fit.
It is very fascinating what is happening in the Republican party so I must admit I have been listening and watching more conservative centered programming lately. They seem to be taking this impeachment as a personal affront on themselves, they seem to be taking the reaction and crackdown on right-wing beliefs from 1/6 personally. Even those who reject the actions of the rioters and condemn them, these people still feel under attack simply because they supported the President. Some of whom still support the President, which says something about them in and of itself while others are unhappy with the President but both groups feel personally attacked and marginalized by being lumped into the 1/6 riot crowd.
I think there was this pretty clear split on the right after 1/6, the ones who liked, defended or somehow rationalized the 1/6 events - and then the ones who were outraged, embarrassed and disgusted by them. But the ensuing reaction or some would say overreaction, the banning of people on social media, the push for certain TV/radio media to be removed, the broad brush of painting every Trump voter as a right wing extremist and racist has served to kind of galvanize many on the right since they all are being lumped together and feeling attacked by the media.
I was hopeful the party would fracture. I was hopeful Trump would make his own party. I would rather have both the Republicans and Democrats both break and morph into something different. Surprisingly, the party for the most part looks like it is staying pretty tight. Instead of the Trump supporters breaking off from the mainstream Republicans, it is more mainstream Republicans (the Romney types) breaking off from the Trump party - which was always the case. Only difference is maybe they are going to have a few more defections, but the Republican party is much more cohesive than I would've thought and, fueled by the typical right-wing talking heads in the media, they are stirring it up quite well to direct any political discontent and anger not within the Republican party, but project it instead onto the Democrats. That being their standard operating procedure, suppose I just didn't see it coming this time.
That was the clearest, most coherent description of what's going on that I've found anywhere. Thx. I, too, thought in the immediate aftermath of 1/6 that Trump would go off on his own taking his band of acolytes w/him if he retained any interest in politics at all & the Romneys & McConnells would go back to business as usual after they voted to ban Trump from ever holding office again. We also saw Melania practically skip away from AF1 to freedom in her $3700 Gucci FL orange slice dress. Now, Melania's "BeBest" is staffed & looking for office space & a chastened McCarthy is dashing down to meet w/Trump. Mind-bending.
That was the clearest, most coherent description of what's going on that I've found anywhere. Thx. I, too, thought in the immediate aftermath of 1/6 that Trump would go off on his own taking his band of acolytes w/him if he retained any interest in politics at all & the Romneys & McConnells would go back to business as usual after they voted to ban Trump from ever holding office again. We also saw Melania practically skip away from AF1 to freedom in her $3700 Gucci FL orange slice dress. Now, Melania's "BeBest" is staffed & looking for office space & a chastened McCarthy is dashing down to meet w/Trump. Mind-bending.
The cult lives, and I'm afraid just not for another day. And I suspect you've heard of the elevated concern by FBI about domestic terrorism. It has been pointed out that the Jan 6 run on the Capitol makes all of the white nationalist & far right groups feel emboldened. Many thanks, DJT.
After Kevin McCarthy (Minority Leader of HOR) spoke out on the 1/6 actions & responsibility of Trump, he slowly walked it back over a course of days. Each day was less and less attributed to Trump to where it morphed yesterday to all of our responsibility. What a weak & pathetic American this prick is. Today he was flying to meet Trump so he could kiss the golden ring. No doubt he will apologize for his initial statements and beg forgiveness all to jump back in to the good graces of the great one. You want Trump's ethical backing to MAGA.
As far as former FLOTUS - Maybe I start another charity challenge on the over / under of when she cashes in her prenup agreement.
Why in the hell is McCarthy going to Florida to talk to Trump?
Why in the hell is McCarthy going to Florida to talk to Trump?
To beg for the "endorsement that means more than any endorsement at any time" to win back the HR in 2022.
Why in the hell is McCarthy going to Florida to talk to Trump?
To beg for the "endorsement that means more than any endorsement at any time" to win back the HR in 2022.
Embracing Trump instead of charting their own course. They did well in the House 2020 elections, build on what you have - you don't need Trump. This sounds as much or more about Trump wanting to stay relevant than McCarthy actively seeking his input/help/endorsements. Story was that McCarthy was already going to be in Miami meeting with the Mayor and Trump invited him over.
5 people died, including a cop that was bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher.
I always believed that people should be held accountable for actions, including POTUS.
I'm sick of the hypocrites who say "it's time for unity" when after the election they were promoting disunity with their lies. I don't know how some of those members of the GOP who were there can look themselves in the mirror if they don't go into the trial with an open mind an hold the responsible people accountable.
Does anyone know the circumstances for the two police officers who committed suicide after 1/6? As in, was their guilt that maybe they acted inappropriately or what was any reasoning given?
Gotta love that Trump's legal team of 5 quit Sat night - days before briefs are due Tuesday. They weren't going to perjure themselves w/his "stolen election" defense plus not get paid. I'm sure he'll find some media hungry lawyer somewhere to represent him. It's an easy job if the outcome is pre-determined. They don't even have to mount a defense.
Gotta love that Trump's legal team of 5 quit Sat night - days before briefs are due Tuesday. They weren't going to perjure themselves w/his "stolen election" defense plus not get paid. I'm sure he'll find some media hungry lawyer somewhere to represent him. It's an easy job if the outcome is pre-determined. They don't even have to mount a defense.
It doesn't matter. Trump could have ordered a nuclear strike on San Francisco and the Republicans in the senate wouldn't convict him. They are all in with anything he does. Some lawmakers in Ohio want the state to have Donald Trump Day. The cult is firmly in charge of the Republican party.
He doesn't get that. He wants to make a big show of his "stolen election" defense. Since all of his nonsense has been exposed as lies, any lawyer who makes that argument is in danger of being sanctioned by their state court or disbarred for lying to court (in this case, the Senate is the court).
He'd better off w/someone who can convince him not to present a defense at all given the predicted outcome & just say "No witnesses" and "The Defense rests."
Instead, he's now got 2 questionable guys from PA & he's still insisting they use his fraud defense. The media wants a constitutional defense re trial of a president out of office - also risky because the impeachment occurred while he was still in office.
What's most interesting is that no one is talking about an actual defense to the charge of incitement - how he didn't incite. Guess they figure that's a loser in anything but a rigged court.
... What's most interesting is that no one is talking about an actual defense to the charge of incitement - how he didn't incite. Guess they figure that's a loser in anything but a rigged court.
Forget that he's former POTUS for a second. How does ANYBODY get a pass on this stuff? Only the biggest fool in the world could argue or accept the argument that he DID NOT incite a a mob into action that included over-running the Capitol building, interrupting proceedings, endangering the lives of elected officials and ultimately resulting in (multiple) deaths! For Christ sake, he should have been arrested for this by now! Personally, I feel that impeachment is joke of a formality - some sort of pageantry or something. What does that even mean? What are the consequences? So, he can't be President again? Big whoop! I think he should have to stand trial and face sentencing for this - same as any other citizen would have to!
During the period of incitement (I think the case includes everything he said, did, litigated, threatened - like the GA AG to "find votes"), he was POTUS. Conduct of the POTUS is checked by Congress & their mechanism is impeachment. Getting him out of office, away from the nuclear codes, military orders, martial law, & pardons, was the action that needed to be taken ASAP. So, he was impeached. That's a benefit of being president - impeachment instead of arrest.
To prove incitement, there has to be an act (plenty of those) & an intent or conscious disregard that an insurrection would ensue. The way to defend an average person charged w/the crime, they would have to argue that the defendant's words didn't cause an insurrection (they did) and the defendant didn't intend for it to happen or consciously disregarded the possibility it could happen (he did). An average citizen (say, Guiliani & Jr) stood in front of an armed, spear-carrying, banner waving, noose-holding mob steps away from the Capitol while Congress was in session and said "we have have to go to combat" to "stop the steal now" "or else we'll come after you" - Jr's words -should've been arrested. Especially since Guiliani is an attorney & knew every legal challenge to the vote had been rejected by the court & that the acceptance by the HR over which Pence was presiding was purely ceremonial & no one in Congress or Pence could change the vote.
A defendant who was 3000 miles away in CA & said one time to one other person who wasn't in DC that the mob should storm the Capitol wouldn't be guilty of incitement. He wasn't actually talking to anyone that could do anything & probably was among those who believed Trump & didn't have a clue that the HR was just having a traditional ceremony.
So, Trump is standing the only trial a POTUS would have and would've been removed from office (to quell the danger he presented) & prevented from ever being in a position of federal authority again. It's the Senate who doesn't have the guts to hold him accountable.
Guiliani & Jr probably will be indicted/arrested & they just may have secret pardons from Trump.
@cyclone88 Boil it down a little further for me - are you saying that because he was the President - he can't be charged for criminal activity? Is freedom to commit treason and anarchy deemed a "privilege" of office?
No, he's not free to do so, but Congress is supposed to wrangle POTUS. After all, the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. Who's going to arrest him?
That's why - despite what the Rand Pauls would have us believe - impeachment IS the way to call him to account. The framers were from England & had escaped despots. They knew the harm one guy could do so they made him accountable to one specific branch of government. It's McConnell who obstructed him having a trial as soon as Trump was impeached. He could've been convicted, thrown out of office, & banished from the political scene weeks ago.
It's theoretically possible that he could be charged now, but no one has the stomach for it - not Biden who's trying to move forward leaving Congress to handle Trump & not the GOP who'd call it retaliation or persecution or some such BS.
During the period of incitement (I think the case includes everything he said, did, litigated, threatened - like the GA AG to "find votes"), he was POTUS. Conduct of the POTUS is checked by Congress & their mechanism is impeachment. Getting him out of office, away from the nuclear codes, military orders, martial law, & pardons, was the action that needed to be taken ASAP. So, he was impeached. That's a benefit of being president - impeachment instead of arrest.
To prove incitement, there has to be an act (plenty of those) & an intent or conscious disregard that an insurrection would ensue. The way to defend an average person charged w/the crime, they would have to argue that the defendant's words didn't cause an insurrection (they did) and the defendant didn't intend for it to happen or consciously disregarded the possibility it could happen (he did). An average citizen (say, Guiliani & Jr) stood in front of an armed, spear-carrying, banner waving, noose-holding mob steps away from the Capitol while Congress was in session and said "we have have to go to combat" to "stop the steal now" "or else we'll come after you" - Jr's words -should've been arrested. Especially since Guiliani is an attorney & knew every legal challenge to the vote had been rejected by the court & that the acceptance by the HR over which Pence was presiding was purely ceremonial & no one in Congress or Pence could change the vote.
A defendant who was 3000 miles away in CA & said one time to one other person who wasn't in DC that the mob should storm the Capitol wouldn't be guilty of incitement. He wasn't actually talking to anyone that could do anything & probably was among those who believed Trump & didn't have a clue that the HR was just having a traditional ceremony.
So, Trump is standing the only trial a POTUS would have and would've been removed from office (to quell the danger he presented) & prevented from ever being in a position of federal authority again. It's the Senate who doesn't have the guts to hold him accountable.
Guiliani & Jr probably will be indicted/arrested & they just may have secret pardons from Trump.
The thing about charging Rudi and Jr is that it is unlikely they could find an impartial jury of 12 without at least 1 member of the cult sneaking in.
Trump is clearly going to be charged of crimes in NY, but once again, 30% of the country worship at his feet. Can an impartial jury be seated?
I doubt 12 impartial jurors could be found in Manhattan for any federal crimes v. Trump. He is despised by 100%.
I don't know where Guiliani (former NYC mayor) & Jr would be tried for incitement other than where it took place - DC. John Hinckley was tried there for Reagan's attempted assassination. Jr isn't so much of a celebrity that jurors couldn't be found. I don't know that a DC jury couldn't be found for Guiliani.
Trump has had plenty of New York State & New Jersey State cases against him so being tried for state crimes against him wouldn't be insurmountable. He's lost cases re his university & foundation recently. His sex related crimes are in various states, including NY. If he's worried, he can ask for a bench trial (the judge acts as jury).
The prosecution just lost me in inviting Trump to testify unless it was a mere courtesy for a defendant to be offered the chance to speak. The invitation letter doesn't read that way, though, w/a reminder that he can be subpoenaed. The entire country has had enough of hearing Trump's stolen election claims w/o a rehash that will turn into a circus. Do the prosecutors really think Trump is going to be controlled or intimidated by some HR lawyers?
The outcome may or may not be pre-determined - kind of like Liz Cheney's.
No question the prosecution laid out an almost airtight case in its 88-page brief whereas the defense team did a sloppy cut/paste job from previous cases in its brief. No one expects this to be decided on evidence - a fact litigators forget in real life - but why on earth bring in a roaring Trump after presenting such a well-reasoned, history-laden narrative? The only answer I can think of is when he refuses, they'll be able to point & say "he had his chance & turned it down." Wasted Words...
The Washington Post has a story “Biden Says Trump Should Not Be Included In Briefings” - no surprise, & can’t say I blame Pres. Biden, why open up a whole new can of worms
esp when another story, by Newsweek, says that “Osama Bin Laden’s Neice Says US Election Result Will Be Overturned”
I give this story no credence, but the point of it is the innuendo - “he’s linked w/the Taliban Al Quaida - we told you he was a terrorist!!!” blah blah - it’s nothing new
I say make it the battle of the nieces, OBLaden’s vs Mary Trump
wattaworld
The prosecution just lost me in inviting Trump to testify unless it was a mere courtesy for a defendant to be offered the chance to speak. The invitation letter doesn't read that way, though, w/a reminder that he can be subpoenaed. The entire country has had enough of hearing Trump's stolen election claims w/o a rehash that will turn into a circus. Do the prosecutors really think Trump is going to be controlled or intimidated by some HR lawyers?
The outcome may or may not be pre-determined - kind of like Liz Cheney's.
No question the prosecution laid out an almost airtight case in its 88-page brief whereas the defense team did a sloppy cut/paste job from previous cases in its brief. No one expects this to be decided on evidence - a fact litigators forget in real life - but why on earth bring in a roaring Trump after presenting such a well-reasoned, history-laden narrative? The only answer I can think of is when he refuses, they'll be able to point & say "he had his chance & turned it down." Wasted Words...
I think the only reason they would want Trump to testify is so he perjure himself, which he would no doubt do. That said, I think most Americans don't want Congress to keep focusing on Trump for the next 4 years. Finish the trial, then let Congress get down to business and let the NY courts deal with Trump.
I know I'm the only one who cares about this & don't expect the outcome to change, but I was heartened by the fact that the constitutionality question has been resolved. It IS constitutional & GOP senators voted along w/dems. So, that irritating last gasp of Trumpaholics has been silenced.
