• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can ex-president Trump be forced to testify or take the fifth at the second impeachment trial?

I think you're correct and the intention of the DCP all along was to get Kamelass in the presidency. Regardless, hopefully the republicants will have the backbone to impeach her if they regain control. At some point it will happen.
Don't hold your breath hoping the GOP will grow a spine. Republicans have always been abject cowards from day one, and that will never change.

I'm reminded of the time when Democrats took back control of the House in 1956 and used the House Un-American Activities Committee to question civilians and violate their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights.

The Democratic Party has always been, and continues to be, the greatest threat the US has ever faced in its entire history.
 
Don't hold your breath hoping the GOP will grow a spine. Republicans have always been abject cowards from day one, and that will never change.

I'm reminded of the time when Democrats took back control of the House in 1956 and used the House Un-American Activities Committee to question civilians and violate their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights.

The Democratic Party has always been, and continues to be, the greatest threat the US has ever faced in its entire history.
The Democrat Communist Party has taught people to believe that personal responsibility is government responsibility. The US has become weak and stupid. Hopefully I will die of natural causes before another armed revolution happens. I feel bad for my children and grand children.
 
Don't hold your breath hoping the GOP will grow a spine. Republicans have always been abject cowards from day one, and that will never change.

I'm reminded of the time when Democrats took back control of the House in 1956 and used the House Un-American Activities Committee to question civilians and violate their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights.

The Democratic Party has always been, and continues to be, the greatest threat the US has ever faced in its entire history.
McCarthy was a Democrat? Massive fail...
 
Nope, if you can cite your source I'd look at it...but you can't.
Tell what president has been convicted by the Senate after leaving office? Answer there are none. It's never happened because that would be clearly unconstitutional.


William A. Jacobson
Clinical Professor of Law
Cornell Law School

Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office
Posted by William A. Jacobson

At best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it’s complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution.
The question is, can the Senate hold an impeachment trial and convict a president after the president already has left office. I think the plain wording of the constitution says such post-departure impeachment is not permitted.


Former appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig writes in WaPo:

It appears that even if the House of Representatives impeaches President Trump this week, the Senate trial on that impeachment will not begin until after Trump has left office and President-Elect Biden has become president on Jan. 20. That Senate trial would be unconstitutional….
The Constitution itself answers this question clearly: No, he cannot be. Once Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him — even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment.
Therefore, if the House of Representatives were to impeach the president before he leaves office, the Senate could not thereafter convict the former president and disqualify him under the Constitution from future public office.
 
Tell what president has been convicted by the Senate after leaving office? Answer there are none. It's never happened because that would be clearly unconstitutional.


William A. Jacobson
Clinical Professor of Law
Cornell Law School

Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office
Posted by William A. Jacobson

At best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it’s complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution.
The question is, can the Senate hold an impeachment trial and convict a president after the president already has left office. I think the plain wording of the constitution says such post-departure impeachment is not permitted.


Former appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig writes in WaPo:
Tell me what President has ever been convicted. I'll take Laurence Tribe over WA Jacobsen 7 days a week and twice on Saturday.
 
SENATOR Joseph McCarthy was not a member of the House of Representatives. Get an education.
The quote I was referring to, "The Democratic Party has always been, and continues to be, the greatest threat the US has ever faced in its entire history."
Sen. McCarthy was in office during the specific time mentioned.

Already got one.
 
He didnt have to do either of those things. Do you know what the word 'incite' means?

Incite: to encourage someone to do or feel something unpleasant or violent:

And we have this:

18 U.S. Code § 2102.Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.​
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.​


The Donald incited a crowd of people to go and demand that Pence overturn the certification of the electoral college results. (A lie, since he knew that Pence had refused AND Pence didnt have the authority to do so). He asked the crowd to walk with him to the Capitol to do something illegal and unconstitutional. The crowd appears to have been stupid enough and violent enough to try...and he bears responsibility for telling them it was possible and they should do it.

He didnt have to request violence, that's not in the definition. He did say he would participate tho (altho that was a lie too). But he said he'd walk with the crowd to the Capitol. The crowd believed it.
You’re really not understanding that correctly.
 
Please explain it for me.
For simplicity's sake, let's say there were two groups of people at the rally. Group A who attended the rally and then marched to the Capitol whereafter they did not commit any crime. And then Group B who attended the rally and then marched to the Capitol and proceeded to commit various crimes. You're going to need to prove that Trump encouraged those people in Group B to commit a crime or crimes. Don't get me wrong, Trump's rhetoric about the election combined with a bunch of crazy morons who follow Qanon was obviously a dangerous combination, but that doesn't equate to incitement. Even if the Dems call the lead Q moron to testify that he was duped by Trump and Qanon, that doesn't equate to Trump encouraging that guy to go commit a crime. Of course this is all a pointless exercise since there is almost no chance of a conviction in the Senate. Honestly, based on what his extremely dangerous lies lead to I don't think Trump should be allowed anywhere near a public office again, but crimes require certain elements that haven't been met here.

Out of curiosity have any of you guys ever read Q posts and seen how crazy that crap is?
 
He did have to request violence and he didn't. He did say peacefully and patriotically. That is a far cry from violently. Trump never asked anyone to do anything illegal. I'm sorry that people are so delusional to believe something that didn't happen. He never even suggest that anyone break into the building. If individuals took it upon themselves then that is there own fault. Trump didn't say it or even imply it. Where is your outrage for DCP actors like Kamelass Hoass or Mad Maxine Waters that have done the same thing you accuse Trump of doing?
You must think that Trump is a blithering idiot.

After months of telling people their elections and country were being stolen from them. After months of telling people that the MSM and Congressional democrats are enemies of the people. After months of the FBI warning that alt-right militants were becoming more bold. After telling the Proud Boys (alt-right militants) to stand back and stand by on national television. After telling an angry crowd that they have to show strength, and if they don't fight like hell they won't have a country anymore. After all of that, if Trump honestly believed that his tiny, sailoquent whimper of the word "peacefully" meant that they would not get violent, then he's just stupid as hell.
 
You must think that Trump is a blithering idiot.

After months of telling people their elections and country were being stolen from them. After months of telling people that the MSM and Congressional democrats are enemies of the people. After months of the FBI warning that alt-right militants were becoming more bold. After telling the Proud Boys (alt-right militants) to stand back and stand by on national television. After telling an angry crowd that they have to show strength, and if they don't fight like hell they won't have a country anymore. After all of that, if Trump honestly believed that his tiny, sailoquent whimper of the word "peacefully" meant that they would not get violent, then he's just stupid as hell.
And all of that was said where did Trump call for rioting, violence or attacks of any sort?
 
And all of that was said where did Trump call for rioting, violence or attacks of any sort?
I would call the former Vice President and ask about Trump's demeanor during the riot and what Trump did to help with the problem. Also any white house staff who were around Trump while he watched it on TV. The gossip is he was cheering on the invaders and that is why many did not show up the next day and resigned.
 
The Constitution lays out only three requirements: The chief justice presides over the Senate trial of a president (but not the trial of any other official); each senator must be sworn (similar to the way jurors take an oath); and a two-thirds vote is required to convict on any article of impeachment.

There will never be a two-thirds vote for impeachment. And the Senate can not impeach a private citizen which Trump is now.

More wasted time cause by the idiot Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The Senate DOES NOT impeach anyone. The House does. The Senate tries impeachments. Trump was President when he was impeached. Jeez after all this time you’d think people would finally understand the process.
 
And all of that was said where did Trump call for rioting, violence or attacks of any sort?
If Trump didn't know that crowd might riot, he is an idiot. By asserting that he didn't mean to instigate a riot because said "peacefully" once, and ignoring all other relevant context, you have assumed he's an idiot. The rest of us too.
 
The Senate DOES NOT impeach anyone. The House does. The Senate tries impeachments. Trump was President when he was impeached. Jeez after all this time you’d think people would finally understand the process.
And what’s the penalty for conviction?
 
If Trump didn't know that crowd might riot, he is an idiot. By asserting that he didn't mean to instigate a riot because said "peacefully" once, and ignoring all other relevant context, you have assumed he's an idiot. The rest of us too.
Just because you are a good DCP disciple doesn't mean that I or anyone else follows your asinine train of thought. Your delusions are not reality.
 
I would call the former Vice President and ask about Trump's demeanor during the riot and what Trump did to help with the problem. Also any white house staff who were around Trump while he watched it on TV. The gossip is he was cheering on the invaders and that is why many did not show up the next day and resigned.
 
I would call the former Vice President and ask about Trump's demeanor during the riot and what Trump did to help with the problem. Also any white house staff who were around Trump while he watched it on TV. The gossip is he was cheering on the invaders and that is why many did not show up the next day and resigned.
Which would have no relevance in terms of incitement
 
And what’s the penalty for conviction?
Penalties for conviction are removal from office and being barred from holding office again.

And before you harp on “he’s already out of office so a trial is moot” that’s not the important point. The never being able to hold office again penalty is the penalty that matters and is suggestive that founders intended the Senate to try former officials.

Further the language in the Constitution “the Senate shall try all impeachments” indicates that the Senate doesn’t have a choice but must try anyone the House impeaches.
 
The Senate DOES NOT impeach anyone. The House does. The Senate tries impeachments. Trump was President when he was impeached. Jeez after all this time you’d think people would finally understand the process.
Trump was President when he was impeached. He was no longer president before the senate started the trial. At that time Trump is a private citizen. There is no constitutional authority for the senate to try a private citizen.
Jeez after all this time you’d think people would finally understand the process.
 
Trump was President when he was impeached. He was no longer president before the senate started the trial. At that time Trump is a private citizen. There is no constitutional authority for the senate to try a private citizen.
Jeez after all this time you’d think people would finally understand the process.
And you base that deduction on what? Does the Constitution limit the Senate to only trying sitting officials? The language of the Constitution is pretty clear that the Senate must try ALL impeachments.
 
Which would have no relevance in terms of incitement
There are few Republican Senators that could not convict if that is shown to the public. And yes demeanor and behavior are relevant and circumstantial evidence.
"An individual's behavior following a crime may constitute circumstantial evidence of a consciousness of his or her guilt of a crime."
 
Can you imagine the ratings if trump attends/testifies in his own impeachment trial.......YUGE!
 
Penalties for conviction are removal from office and being barred from holding office again.

And before you harp on “he’s already out of office so a trial is moot” that’s not the important point. The never being able to hold office again penalty is the penalty that matters and is suggestive that founders intended the Senate to try former officials.

Further the language in the Constitution “the Senate shall try all impeachments” indicates that the Senate doesn’t have a choice but must try anyone the House impeaches.
Where does the Constitution give the senate authority to try private citizens or former officials?
 
Back
Top Bottom