The trial

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Feb 9, 2021.

  1. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    It's fairly obvious by his actions - or I should say, his inaction.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Turns out a paramilitary group that attacked the Capitol did not do so on their own initiative; they waited for Trump's instructions before they attacked.

    ===========================
    OHIO — In a court filing Thursday, prosecutors wrote an Oath Keepers leader from Ohio claimed she waiting for former President Donald Trump's direction before partaking in riots at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. The Oath Keepers are a "large and loosely-organized anti-government extremist group," according to the Anti-Defamation League.

    In the filing, Jessica Watkins, 38, told prosecutors she believed it was an "elaborate trap" at first and would only go to the Capitol if Trump told her to. "If Trump asks me to come, I will. Otherwise, I can't trust it," she said.
    ===========================

    https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando...er-from-ohio-says-she-waited-for-trump-s-word
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    My reasoning:
    The impeachment is considered a constitutional remedy to a constitutional problem and should be trialed in a court that deals with constitutional matters.
    The Supreme court is that body.
    Their judgement is based on sound legal argument and even though the judges personal political inclination may provide some bias they are still required to present legal argument.
    They are subjected to constant review and criticism by legal professionals through out the USA.
    For a supreme court judge to declare a political allegiance would disqualify that judge I would think.
    Regardless the supreme court would offer a much less political solution to this constitutional issue, than a Senate that can vote to acquit purely on party lines.

    Certainly Trumps behavior when seen in legal constitutional terms; failure to protect , defend etc the constitution, incite insurrection, threaten violence and intimidation on duly elected members of congress, if handled by an appropriate court and not politicians would provide a much more just conclusion than is currently available.

    "No one is above the law" needs to be demonstrated and not just postulated.

    The political acquittal of Trump would indicate a broken system and a broken constitution. IMO. and many relatively silent American patriots would be highly offended by the obvious injustice.
    Keeping in mind that only about 74 million citizens of a total of 239 million eligible voters (31%) bothered to vote for Trump in the 2020 election. The remaining 165 million patriots may have more to say about such an obvious flaw in the impeachment process.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2021
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Impeachment is by it's nature a political thing.
    Consider the impeachment of A Johnson. The congress(radical republicans) wanted harsher measures for the southerners than had Lincoln, and then Johnson. So they passed legislation which would usurp the independence of the executive. The thing was so egregiously political that several republican senators broke with their party and voted to acquit.
    20 years later, the supreme court found the law used to impeach Johnson to be unconstitutional.

    Consider Clinton
    the votes were almost exclusively along party lines.

    Impeachment is and was always political.
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    true...
    and this needs to be rectified IMO.
    The house needs to impeach (political) and the Supreme court (legal) needs to perform the trial.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2021
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Exceptions were Nixon and Trump. Those votes in the House had a significant number of the accused's party crossing party lines. Nixon was so at risk that Ford felt he had to pardon him to protect him.
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    That's nice.

    But that is not how it works. Something something about separation of powers applies here.. For reasons why, please refer to:


    And on a finer point..

    No.

    And you are now suggesting that they base their ruling on popular opinion. That is also not how it works.
     
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    What really would it mean if Trump were found in the wrong?

    Can he still be found guilty in lower courts?

    :EDIT:

    Held back from holding office again maybe...
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2021
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    ahem
    Nixon was not impeached!
    Had he not resigned, he most likely would have been.
     
  13. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promise_Keepers
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    The impeachment trial is not a criminal trial.
    Ergo double jeopardy does not apply----(one cannot be tried for the same crime twice)
    however
    The burden of proof is much higher in criminal proceedings.
     
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    there is no right or wrong
    just legal & illegal
    there appears to be no physical link to show any of his acts were physically illegal
    because the interpretation of his actions are not directly defining an illegal act
    so incitement rules will be question on terms/meanings
    incitement is probably a minor public order violation that can be waived if your rich & white

    conspiracy is what they might go for
    but they would need to obtain proof of wire taps & communication that showed collusion
    that's highly unlikely
    to me it looks like a terrible waste of time & poor working class money
    but it justifys the upper class elitists job validation as they continue to steal hundreds of millions of dollars off the working class
    and if it goes to the supreme court ?
    as no doubt it will ?
    then what ?
    its already decided in republican favour
    its not fair or even
    its biased
    everyone knows that

    so its all a big "let them eat cake" expose of the upper classes playing their elitist games
    trying to pretend they are busy protecting something that doesn't exist while stealing poor working class taxes

    while all the rich elitists politicians & government officials play the games they have lusted after their entire life.
    all the while taking poor working class cash, by the truck load
    paying themselves
    anything they feel like
    unabated
    while the psychopath serial killer mass murderers circle in their militia groups
    old western show with a cake trolly loaded with piles of poor working class tax as cash

    Roll Up
    Roll UP !
    pick a side
    who will win

    meanwhile . . . denying children hospital care & calling it democracy
    & fighting against universal health care
    & calling themselves morally family values orientated good christian people.

    LoL !
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2021
    sculptor likes this.
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Technically true. The House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment, but the full house had not yet voted on them when he resigned.
     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    It puts the onus on them and only a lie if they lose. Which they will because this is a POLITICAL process not a process to prove a person guilty of an event, for which he can be PUNISHED

    This process is going through the motions to REMOVE him from office. The process is designed to protect the status of the OFFICE, by removing the holder, should said holder be ABUSING the POWERS INHERENT IN THE OFFICE

    Since it is a moot point, as he is out of office, the next reason becomes, stop him from standing for public office again

    Correct. But it seems like with impeachment proceedings prosicuttion and defence take turns and it seems don't interrupt each other

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sculptor likes this.
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    I'm not really worried about him winning again. I'm worried about him losing again. This last loss cost several lives including a Capitol police officer. How many will die when he loses again?
     
  19. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    lol
    thats part of the mental illness
    the obsession in him winning or losing to define the need to be the need to stop him from doing something

    the consumer culture drives the want as a need to demand it have its own legal & moral value
    while ignoring the core legal framework

    the republican party was looking like a street walker wasted on the street corner unable to focus or think
    trump polarized them into a battle mode
    once he leaves they will be stumbling around again looking aimless & insecure & without real goals.

    like the drug addict, they dont want that to happen
    but they lack the internal ability to form themselves into a model to be able to cope without him.
    they have a taste of blood
    from the riots & death
    & the republican party leaders dont want to lose that feeling of power.

    so they are drowning themselves with the baby in their own bath water to avoid standing naked outside the bath
    no wonder the right wing militias are going nuts
    its like a acid party in a psyche ward

    ...
    nothing to panic about then

    World / Countries / United States
    Last updated: February 12, 2021, 00:49 GMT

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    United States
    Coronavirus Cases:
    27,997,685
    =============

    Deaths: 486,747
    =============

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2021
    sculptor likes this.
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    So guilty until proven innocent?

    OK

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sculptor likes this.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Nope

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    A lot of people here have trouble with the difference between "he did it" and "he is guilty of X." Not the same thing

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    As an example, ask yourself if OJ killed his wife. Then ask yourself if he is guilty of her murder

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    oath of office
    he has sworn legal duty to ...
    "do what" ?
    there is no actions he must carry out
    other than "to protect America from foreign or domestic attack" ?
    yet
    there is no actual dutys he must carry out
    so its an oath to perform a no duty function

    hilary was deemed guilty for benghazi
    but donald is deemed not liable to the same legal compliance of the ethics of the deed(legal oath) of office

    yall crazy mofo's fa sure !
    the alcoholics went on a bender & wrote your laws
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The entire process of impeachment is inherently a political matter. The trial is not about the law. Look at the current Trump senate trial. There have been many uses of the term "incitement to violence" and the like, but no references to specific statutes (apart from the Constitution itself).

    The Constitution enables the legislative branch of government to "try" the chief executive of the government for "high crimes and misdemeanors". The framers of the Constitution deliberately did not define exactly what that term would entail; they left it up to the elected representatives of the people to decide what would amount to high crimes.

    The Supreme Court's primary duty is to interpret the laws made by the Congress. But there is very little guidance in the law about what a high crime for a president would be. It is left to the Congress to define it, according to the specific times and circumstances they find themselves in.

    The President is directly elected by the people of the United States. So is the Congress. Supreme Court judges are not. The President must ultimately be answerable to the people. The mechanism that is provided for is that the people's elected representatives have the power to make the president answer to them, on the people's behalf.
     

Share This Page