Roberts cannot preside over an unconstitutional proceeding. The constitution is clear. If there wasn't so much at stake I would like to see Senate members not show up. The problem is that that would prolong the whole thing and there would have to be more proceedings. I feel somewhat comfortable that the Senate will not convict and will not bar him running again.....but it's different today. Who will preside is a question which I do not know the answer.
Makes sense. But our side has to show up. Constitution says 2/3 of Senate PRESENT. Not just 2/3 of Senate. If Reps do not show the could get 100% of Senate PRESENT. I do not believe they will get to 2/3. But they certainly have a better chance this time around than last.
Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy (Dem-VT) will preside. This is who would normally preside in impeachment cases other than President.
It's perfectly Constitutional, officials have been impeached and tried post departure from office before - just not a President. Insurrection and sedition are capital crimes, they can't just drop it. It's highly unlikely that the death penalty will be sought, but this demented megalomaniac must absolutely be prevented from seeking elected office again. Lock him up.
Trump. Is. Not. President. He is EX-President, there's no precedent for this but no President has ever formented insurrection and civil war before. Other officials have been tried after leaving office, mostly judges for accepting bribes.
And because the OFFICE he held at the time of the supposed impeachable offense was PRESIDENT. And Constitutional specifically says for a President the Chief Justice will preside over the trial. Senate has not right to put a citizen on trial only a PRESIDENT (or similar office holder).
The Constitution says, "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside." And Roberts did that when Trump was tried last year. This time, however, the chief justice let it be known he did not want to preside now that Trump is no longer president. On Monday, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said Roberts would have no comment.
Yep. I think could be dismissal grounds right off the bat. Though I am not sure Trump wants it dismissed immediately. I think his lawyers may use it as a chance to present evidence to the people of the election fraud.
“Donald John Trump engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting violence against the government of the United States." How will election fraud factor into this unless his attorneys are claiming he incited insurrection because of election fraud in which case, he would be admitting he's guilty of inciting an insurrection?
This post was edited by SpunkySenior at January 25, 2021 7:57 PM MST
I was just thinking to help prove Trump incited violence they should show some photos of him talking to the crowd before they rioted - his face was full of anger and hate and the crowd fed on it. Cheers!
Yeah, yeah, that what the left all keeps saying. However, what is missing is anyone providing a single quote of Trump calling for violence. I can and have provided quite a few quotes of Democrats calling for violence. In fact, in 2011, when union protestors stormed the Wisconsin state capitol, Nancy Pelosi tweeted her support of THAT act. She said that that was a great show of democracy in action. No, the left doesn't care about incitement of insurrection. Only care about whatever excuse can be dreamed up to attack Trump.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nancy-pelosi-praised-unionists-wisconsin-state-capitol
This post was edited by my2cents at January 27, 2021 6:32 AM MST
Fight does not always mean physical fight. It simply means to oppose in some manner.
In this case it means fight in court, fight by opposing the fraudulent results. By letting the Reps know their opinion about it.....BY PEACEFULLY AND PATRIOTICALLY MARCHING AND CHEERING...
This post was edited by my2cents at January 26, 2021 7:56 AM MST
As My2Cents points out, "fight" does not necessarily mean mean physically. However, in the midst of violent protests last summer, Kamala Harris said that the protest would not and should not stop before election day. She also gave money to pay the legal bills of those arrested in these violent protests. So, not only is that a prettier clear endorsement of the violence, but it is providing aid and comfort to the insurrectionists. Additionally, as I pointed out in my comment to which you replied, but obviously ignored, Nancy Pelosi called those who stormed the Wisconsin state capitol building examples of democracy in action. So, why was it okay for union protesters to storm a state capitol building but not okay for alleged Trump supporters to storm the US Capitol building?
The fact of the matter is that neither of these is okay. The difference here is that Trump clearly called for peaceful protests in his speech while the Democrats have openly supported violent protesters. Yet, it is trump who is being accused of supporting insurrection while the Democrats are being give a pass for actions and words that much more blatantly support such action.
This post was edited by Glenn_Blaylock at January 26, 2021 8:05 AM MST
Not all who stormed the capital were Trump supporters. Some where BLM activists and Antifa dressed as Trump supporters. (Anyone can buy a Trump hat). This man is a BLM leader his name is John Sullivan he has called for the death of then President Trump....he was there in the capitol...he filmed himself. Even said on film..."look at this reality. WE DID it." The woman with him says "You were right.." John: "i know I wanted to tell you more but I could not. You just gonna have to watch my show."
Truthfully, just about everyone saw and heard the words Donald Trump said that precipitated that riot. Many people in that crowd came loaded for bear and all they needed was the least little encouragement from Trump to storm the Capitol.
As I understand it continuing to oppose the results. And not conceding for the "good of the country." If they go that route, election fraud evidence will be presented finally. Dispite courts who refuses to allow it to be shown.
If they are allowed to present evidence, then they could do that. Trump's lawyers could also present much more blatant examples of Democrats inciting violence as part of the defense. The Democrats would not like that either.
However, that assumes that they even allows evidence to be presented. The House did not in their impeachment proceedings. They just declared him guilty without actually allowing any witnesses or evidence to be presented. Now that the Democrats control the Senate, they could do the same thing and just allow a little bit of debate and then just push for the vote.
Thriftymaid 