• 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!

In a surprise move, Senate votes to call witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial

Conservative said:
TR

TRUMP ACQUITTED BY SENATE!!!
Click to expand...

We never debated this. We debated the constitutionality of the trial and if you want to accept Senate's decision regardig the aquittal then you need to be consistent and also accept its decision that it had jurisdiction to try a former president! And you also need to accept that although Trump was acquitted politically, he still lost in he eyes of the pubic opinion because the majority of senators found him guilty.
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, in this country there is due process which didn't happen. Justice Robert's not preciding also speaks volumes. No witnesses were called thus Trump couldn't question his accusers so as you stated purely political witch hunt that carries no weight. Civil action is available
Click to expand...
Wrong again! The Constitution states that the Chief Justice will preside over the impeachment trial of a sitting president which Trump was not hence that's why. The entire procedure was legit including the not guilty verdict. You really don't understand the Constitution yet you always scold others telling them they need civics lesson. Take your own advice! You clearly do not understand what happened.

Maybe you need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh...oh wait! He's gone so where will you get your conspiracy theories now? It's pretty amazing how often you're wrong on the facts. To use your logic it seems statistically impossible for someone to be so wrong so often. The numbers don't make sense
 
Conservative said:
Due process means more than just having representation and this is political only. McConnell gave his opinion. Seems foolish to me to try and keep a private citizen from running for office again based upon what?
Click to expand...
You don't know the answer to your own question? Interesting! Did you miss the insurrection and run up to it by Trump with months of lie after lie after lie about the election results that spurred his lemmings to attack the Capitol? I think even Fox News and NewsMax and OANN covered the insurrection.

Based upon what you asked? WOW! So out of touch with reality.
 
Conservative said:
Interesting how your state is trying to recall your Democratic Governor and how NY has criminal action potential against theirs. You must be so proud
Click to expand...
Correction! NJ does not and is not trying to recall their Governor.

BTW - If Cuomo is legally culpable for anything he did re NY nursing homes he should be held responsible for whatever is proven. Unlike you I don't mindlessly defend anyone who violates the laws and I'm not so blinded by my wanderlust for someone that I would stick my head into the sand and pretend it never happened. You, dear friend, are the opposite. You have consistently refused to acknowledge anything that Trump did that was wrong (and what a long list that is - the longest ever).

There are online classes for adult education anyone can sign-up for to learn civics BTW.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Wrong, in this country there is due process which didn't happen. Justice Robert's not preciding also speaks volumes. No witnesses were called thus Trump couldn't question his accusers so as you stated purely political witch hunt that carries no weight. Civil action is available
Click to expand...

And criminal Federal prosecutor could file charges for Incitement of insurrection. Could of done so the day after the incident. But in a criminal trial you have to convince ALL the jurors to convict. They haven't done so because there was no actual incitement of violence by Trump.
 
pamak said:
We never debated this. We debated the constitutionality of the trial and if you want to accept Senate's decision regardig the aquittal then you need to be consistent and also accept its decision that it had jurisdiction to try a former president! And you also need to accept that although Trump was acquitted politically, he still lost in he eyes of the pubic opinion because the majority of senators found him guilty.
Click to expand...
You're correct! Impeachment trials are political trials. This particular one was the most bi-partisan ever both in the House an the Senate.

I do love how the GQP here say that the trial was "unconstitutional" which has proven countless times to be constitutional in this and many other threads yet they also stick out their bloated chests and say Trump was "not guilty." So childish, so dumb, so uneducated!
 
jakiejakester said:
Civics lesson for you again...I'm going to start charging you! NY state does not have a law that allows for the recall of an elected official.

Laws governing recall in New York

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
ballotpedia.org ballotpedia.org

Recall of elected officials is not permitted in New York.

BTW - If Cuomo is legally culpable for anything he did re NY nursing homes he should be held responsible for whatever is proven. ……….
Click to expand...

Law doesn't hold government responsible for damages like death caused by even their gross negligence. If it is as his aid has stated, hes guilty of obstruction of justice.
 
Moot point, Trump acqui
pamak said:
We never debated this. We debated the constitutionality of the trial and if you want to accept Senate's decision regardig the aquittal then you need to be consistent and also accept its decision that it had jurisdiction to try a former president! And you also need to accept that although Trump was acquitted politically, he still lost in he eyes of the pubic opinion because the majority of senators found him guilty.
Click to expand...

Moot point

TRUMP AQUITTED!! He is a private citizen
 
dixon01767 said:
And criminal Federal prosecutor could file charges for Incitement of insurrection. Could of done so the day after the incident. But in a criminal trial you have to convince ALL the jurors to convict. They haven't done so because there was no actual incitement of violence by Trump.
Click to expand...

We'll have to wait for the trial then. No one can predict if it will happen and if it does what the verdict will be. There certainly seems to be mountains of evidence that Trump DID incite the riot and he is now being sued in civil court for precisely that.

www.chicagotribune.com

Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson sues Donald Trump, accusing him of inciting riot at US Capitol, conspiring with extremists

The lawsuit from Mississippi’s Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is part of an expected wave of litigation over the Jan. 6 riot.
www.chicagotribune.com www.chicagotribune.com

The House Homeland Security chairman accused Donald Trump in a federal lawsuit Tuesday of inciting the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and conspiring with his lawyer and extremist groups to try to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the presidential election he lost to Joe Biden.
The lawsuit from Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson is part of an expected wave of litigation over the Jan. 6 riot and is believed to be the first filed by a member of Congress.
Click to expand...
 
jakiejakester said:
…..I do love how the GQP here say that the trial was "unconstitutional" which has proven countless times to be constitutional in this and many other threads yet they also stick out their bloated chests and say Trump was "not guilty." So childish, so dumb, so uneducated!
Click to expand...

There is no conflict between the two.
 
Conservative said:
Moot point, Trump acqui


Moot point

TRUMP AQUITTED!! He is a private citizen
Click to expand...

Apparently you call "moot point"every point that you cannot refute!

It is RELEVANT point that the same senate whose decision you use to claim that Trump was aquitted, also voted that it could try a former president and it is relevant pont that the Constitution EXPLICITLY gives the Senate the sole authority on impeachment trials. Likewise, it is very relevant that the SCOTUS has already ruled in previous cases that it would be inappropriate for the udicial branch to make any decisions related to impeachment It is also veryyy relevant that we have historical examples of the senate trying an official who resigned and was a private citizen durign the trial.

You lose at every possible level!
 
dixon01767 said:
And criminal Federal prosecutor could file charges for Incitement of insurrection. Could of done so the day after the incident. But in a criminal trial you have to convince ALL the jurors to convict. They haven't done so because there was no actual incitement of violence by Trump.
Click to expand...

That would have been another controversial issue if pursued because there's nothing in the Constitution stating that's the recourse which can be taken for a sitting president. Impeachment has been the designed method to charge a sitting president, so if they would have taken the path you mentioned, it's likely that would have been difficult to initiate. Technically, the Senate trial could have been held while Trump was still in office, but McConnell opted to push it past Trump's tenure. If we look back to Nixon's impeachment, the Justice Department at the time decided a sitting president could not be indicted. Surely that would have been a likely tactic had your premise been carried through.

The result of any civil cases will be a good bellwether of how viable the case against Trump actually is from a legal perspective. These types of cases are pretty tough to prove without solid statements directly instructing someone to act in a particular fashion. I do think the house managers made a pretty compelling case in that the crowd was reacting to a narrative driven by the Trump campaign, and one which essentially pitched them against anyone who was going to certify the election. McConnell's speech after the acquittal made it pretty clear he felt there was certainly culpability there, so we'll see how that plays out in the courts.
 
pamak said:
Apparently you call "moot point"every point that you cannot refute!

It is RELEVANT point that the same senate whose decision you use to claim that Trump was aquitted, also voted that it could try a former president and it is relevant pont that the Constitution EXPLICITLY gives the Senate the sole authority on impeachment trials. Likewise, it is very relevant that the SCOTUS has already ruled in previous cases that it would be inappropriate for the udicial branch to make any decisions related to impeachment It is also veryyy relevant that we have historical examples of the senate trying an official who resigned and was a private citizen durign the trial.

You lose at every possible level!
Click to expand...

And I will remind you that the SC is the arbitrator of the Constitution, not the House or the Senate. Roberts the CJ did not preside, this was purely political and as it turned out Trump was a private citizen being tried by the senate. Show me where that is Constitutional?
 
Conservative said:
And I will remind you that the SC is the arbitrator of the Constitution, not the House or the Senate. Roberts the CJ did not preside, this was purely political and as it turned out Trump was a private citizen being tried by the senate. Show me where that is Constitutional?
Click to expand...
Civics lessons from me are pricey. I'm granting you a free course but I will grade you on your comprehension!

"The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" ( Article I, section 2 ) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"

More?

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present."

Since Trump was no longer President the trial did NOT require the CJ to preside hence it fell to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate (a VP cannot preside).
 
jakiejakester said:
Civics lessons from me are pricey. I'm granting you a free course but I will grade you on your comprehension!

"The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" ( Article I, section 2 ) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"

More?

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present."

Since Trump was no longer President the trial did NOT require the CJ to preside hence it fell to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate (a VP cannot preside).
Click to expand...

I believe that is exactly what I have been teaching you, the House impeaches the Senate Tries the case, where is the precedence or Constitutional authority to try and convict a private citizen in the Senate? Do you know what the SC does? Where was John Roberts in this case? He knew it wasn't Constitutional but people like you seeking revenge show total ignorance on this issue
 
ElChupacabra said:
That would have been another controversial issue if pursued because there's nothing in the Constitution stating that's the recourse which can be taken for a sitting president. Impeachment has been the designed method to charge a sitting president, so if they would have taken the path you mentioned, it's likely that would have been difficult to initiate. Technically, the Senate trial could have been held while Trump was still in office, but McConnell opted to push it past Trump's tenure. If we look back to Nixon's impeachment, the Justice Department at the time decided a sitting president could not be indicted. Surely that would have been a likely tactic had your premise been carried through.

The result of any civil cases will be a good bellwether of how viable the case against Trump actually is from a legal perspective. These types of cases are pretty tough to prove without solid statements directly instructing someone to act in a particular fashion. I do think the house managers made a pretty compelling case in that the crowd was reacting to a narrative driven by the Trump campaign, and one which essentially pitched them against anyone who was going to certify the election. McConnell's speech after the acquittal made it pretty clear he felt there was certainly culpability there, so we'll see how that plays out in the courts.
Click to expand...

I bet we wont. Criminal or civil.
 
Last edited:
ElChupacabra said:
Is he still celebrating Monday's day off on Thursday?

Oh, and I hope you and your family are doing well given the power issues in your region.
Click to expand...

Thank you, been a difficult week with power and water issues, Houston isn't prepared for this kind of weather. We are doing fine though, thankfully we have a gas fireplace and gas stove for cooking plus plenty of batteries as well as a ATT Mobile Hotspot for Internet.
 
Conservative said:
Thank you, been a difficult week with power and water issues, Houston isn't prepared for this kind of weather. We are doing fine though, thankfully we have a gas fireplace and gas stove for cooking plus plenty of batteries as well as a ATT Mobile Hotspot for Internet.
Click to expand...
Delighted that you're not shivering in the cold because of the blackouts but that's the price Texas paid for not being subject to federal regulations.
 
dixon01767 said:
Very imaginative. Civil Suit under the Klu Klux Klan act. Not sure of what damages they would allege from a 3 or 4 hour delay of the certification.
Click to expand...
"In the lawsuit, Mr. Thompson said he was forced to wear a gas mask and hide on the floor of the House gallery for three hours while hearing “threats of physical violence against any member who attempted to proceed to approve the Electoral College ballot count.” Mr. Thompson also heard a gunshot, according to the suit, which he did not learn until later had killed Ashli Babbitt, one of the rioters in the Capitol lobby.

Mr. Thompson is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in the lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in Washington. The suit does not include a specific financial amount.

Mr. Thompson, 72, claims he was put at an increased health risk by later being required to shelter in place in a cramped area that did not allow for social distancing. The lawsuit notes that Mr. Thompson shared confined space with two members of Congress who tested positive for the coronavirus shortly after the attack at the Capitol."
www.nytimes.com

N.A.A.C.P. Sues Trump and Giuliani Over Election Fight and Jan. 6 Riot

The civil rights group brought the suit on behalf of Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, with other Democrats in Congress expected to join as plaintiffs.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Conservative said:
In the meantime, Happy President's Day President Trump

www.dailymail.co.uk

Hero's welcome for Trump as supporters line his route home from golf

Trump was acquitted at his second Senate impeachment trial over the weekend. He was pictured for the first time since then in West Palm Beach, Florida on Monday.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
That parade was phony too. Trump's people said it was spontaneous but the truth is that Fox News promoted it and asked people to be there. It's also 100% meaningless. Trump is more likely to be in the "BIG HOUSE" in 4 years than the White House.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom