Trump's 2nd Senate Impeachment Trial Begins Tuesday

And, yet there they are...trying the former President for an impeachment begun when he was President. Wasn't it Hamilton that wrote the impeachment clauses were based on English law? I might agree that IF the January 6th riot had been AFTER he left office, the only recourse would have been a criminal prosecution, via DoJ and a Grand Jury (which I expect will come, regardless of the current trial). IMO, we can't hav a trial without an impeachment and we must have a trial when there is an impeachment.

 

This is such a colossal huge waste of time. Democrats can’t even get out of their own way without doing stupid ****!

 

The power of impeachment and trial extends beyond the President and Vice President and includes ALL civil offices. Roberts' absence reflects a literal reading of the Constitution (which is appropriate, IMO) in that it requires his presence ONLY in cases of the trial of a President. Obviously Trump is no longer President...ergo, he's not presiding. It says nothing about his opinion on the jurisdiction of the Senate. I'd be reasonably certain that he just wants to stay out of the debate.

 

That's very clear.... There wouldn't have been an impeachment if the speech/riot was after he left office, although the case was made earlier today by the HM (House Managers going forward) that if he did something specific while in office that the House feels led directly to the riot when he was out of office, the possibility of impeachment of a former office holder is still available..

But fortunately, we don't have to make that slightly harder argument here...

This guy has GOT to be at the end of their 2 hours, right?? I thought I saw 3:01 as the start time of this section...

 

Always.... and so do they, although the publicity in doing this might be a rare occurrence of being worth the time without the Tubmans... (Ha Ha)

 

"That the House feels", so now they're confessing that it's based on their feelings? What a farce indeed.

 

Ooops... it's vote time...

MSNBC has a nice counter up there...

Whoa... Cassidy Aye

 

Ah...the vote. Since it's a procedural vote, a simple majority will suffice for continuance. THEN...we get to the trial itself.

 

Exactly.

The Trial is 100% Constitutional.

And, anybody "arguing" anything to the contrary:
Not only has an egregious misunderstanding of The Constitution, but they might as well be "arguing" that "2+2=5".

 

Merely a Procedural Vote on whether the Trial is Constitutional (which obviously is).

 

Ask oj simpson about double jeopardy...

 

Thinking 56-44, with the addition of Cassidy... unless I misheard

This 4 hours convinced 1 person.... Nice!

 

The senate makes its own call, but history will make an entirely different call. The constitution is clear, but we've never abided by the constitution wholly so why start now? The framers wouldn't want this mock trial, but we're obviously getting it.

Hey, I'm just thankful I don't have to attend and waste my time there. There's no discernible difference between Ukraine farce and this farce.

 

56-44 the trial proceeds. I was hoping for at least a couple of more.

 

They added one (R), Cassidy of LA

 

Basically, the democratic arguments convinced...a single Republican to join their side. Note that you need 60 votes for impeachment and conviction, so there's four more Republicans to try and pluck off to give this farce some official meaning.

If they can't do that, this has been a total waste of time. And I doubt that they will.

 

Agree – money wasted. No reason for trial, this is not first time a mob broke into the Capitol Hill.
What terrible happen? – only 5 people died, not too much things stolen and our representatives successfully run away. Lets forget about it and let ex-President Trump to make another rally near Capitol Hill during the Impeachment process.

 

67 not 60

The trial remains a waste of time. It is not a neutral jury - they all know how they are voting. It would be as if a mafia boss was on trial and all the jurors knew that he had their names/home address

 

My bad, I went with 2/3rds majority, but it's 3/4ths majority. But yeah, this is plainly silly and well who am I to keep our government from looking stupid?

 

67 is 2/3 of 100

They won't get 60 either

 

It's 2/3rds for a conviction...that's 67. In total, that means 17 votes have to cross-over. Let's see how many more join the 6 after the presentation of evidence.

 

My math sucks, I'm just going to stop making math comments

 

Yup.

And, "the framers" probably "wouldn't want" Violent Video Games or Semi-Automatic Handguns (with double-digit clip capacity).

Obviously, the unique circumstance of Mistakenly-Electing an Inciter of Insurrection (like Donald Trump) has put the Senate in a unique position to interpret the Constitution.

And, by the way--Anybody who thinks (even for a moment) that the President of the United States Inciting a Violent Mob of Domestic Terrorists into a Deadly Act of Insurrection is even on the same planet as the "Ukraine farce", clearly needs to rethink their position.

There is NO "Equivalency" (whatsoever).

Trump's Incitement of Insurrection is (at least) a Thousand Times Worse (by orders of Magnitude) than the "Ukraine" thing.

They aren't even on the same planet.
Give me a break.

 

They do.... and their work address as well...

 

Everyone makes the occasional mistake...but knowing how to count is very important in politics.