Split Thread A second impeachment

[acbytesla]

Paul's objection is a paradox anyways.

Asking the Senate to determine if the Senate has a certain power means it does have that power. Even if they said no today, a future Senate might say yes. Rules written down and invoked by the chair can be overturned by majority at any time.

If he believes the body doesn't have this authority, SCOTUS is the venue to request an injunction.

This is right. But SCOTUS is not going to infringe on the Senate's jurisdiction and such an injunction would do just that. What if the US Senate told SCOTUS to pound sand and butt out?

 

[Stacyhs]

I understand your argument. It is political games unfortunately.

The question of Constitutionality isn't really an honest argument. This isn't like other laws where precedence and stare decisis rule the day. The Constitution says the trial is performed by the Senate and not much else. So the Senate decides how that trial is run. Period.The GOP is pumping this "Constitutional narrative because it works for them, not because it is true.

I understand the disingenuousness of the GOP Senate game, believe me. If this had been Obama or Biden, or any Democrat president, they'd have been screaming "IMPEACH!" at the top of their lungs and presenting it as a case of accepting responsibility for his actions. Pure hypocrisy. So what's new?

 

[Stacyhs]

This is right. But SCOTUS is not going to infringe on the Senate's jurisdiction and such an injunction would do just that. What if the US Senate told SCOTUS to pound sand and butt out?

There is a way to handle this: a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

This is right. But SCOTUS is not going to infringe on the Senate's jurisdiction and such an injunction would do just that. What if the US Senate told SCOTUS to pound sand and butt out?

I didn't mean to suggest SCOTUS would grant the injunction (or even hear the case).

 

[acbytesla]

There is a way to handle this: a Constitutional amendment.

Go right ahead. In the meantime.

 

[acbytesla]

I didn't mean to suggest SCOTUS would grant the injunction (or even hear the case).

I get it. I can't imagine them doing either. But I've been wrong before.

 

[Craig4]

I didn't mean to suggest SCOTUS would grant the injunction (or even hear the case).

I think especially from this court. The steady drumbeat from Roberts has been, "Don't ask us to do Congress's job". He made that crystal clear in oral arguments in the ACA case in November.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I think Paul does raise a good point that the trial not being presided over by the Chief Justice indicates that it is a trail of a private citizen not permitted by the Constitution.

The Constitution allows for the impeachment of the "President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States". And that "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside". It isn't clear why Chef Justice Roberts is not presiding. Leahy argued that “The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents."

I think this is a trail of the impeachment of the President. He was impeached when he was President. This is the trial resulting from that impeachment of the President. The Chief Justice should preside.

Leahy is arguing that he is not the President when it comes to the requirement that the Chief Justice presides but is the President when it comes to who is eligible for a judgment of disbarment from federal office. That seems to be contradictory.

But then I don't know why the Constitution requires that the Chief Justice preside over a trial of the President but not other offices. Perhaps there is some valid argument in there somewhere. But Leahy didn't make that argument.

 

[dirtywick]

What more could they possibly need? Trump is ON RECORD inciting the insurrection.

well if they go in there and just say "hey, you guys saw it happen" they'll lose.

i think what i would do is maybe bring some of those trump supporters they arrested at the capital and have them testify if trump told them to do it or not, and then i'd like the republicans defending him call them liars. have them explain the georgia call, and have them address the stolen election narrative.

if they're going to acquit, make it painful for them.

 

[dirtywick]

I think Paul does raise a good point that the trial not being presided over by the Chief Justice indicates that it is a trail of a private citizen not permitted by the Constitution.

The Constitution allows for the impeachment of the "President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States". And that "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside". It isn't clear why Chef Justice Roberts is not presiding. Leahy argued that “The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents."

I think this is a trail of the impeachment of the President. He was impeached when he was President. This is the trial resulting from that impeachment of the President. The Chief Justice should preside.

Leahy is arguing that he is not the President when it comes to the requirement that the Chief Justice presides but is the President when it comes to who is eligible for a judgment of disbarment from federal office. That seems to be contradictory.

But then I don't know why the Constitution requires that the Chief Justice preside over a trial of the President but not other offices. Perhaps there is some valid argument in there somewhere. But Leahy didn't make that argument.

i think having a chief justice presiding adds a lot of legitimacy, which is important when you're fighting a political revenge narrative.

 

[Stacyhs]

Go right ahead. In the meantime.

Sure. I'll get right on that.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I think Paul does raise a good point that the trial not being presided over by the Chief Justice indicates that it is a trail of a private citizen not permitted by the Constitution.

The Constitution allows for the impeachment of the "President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States". And that "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside". It isn't clear why Chef Justice Roberts is not presiding. Leahy argued that “The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents."

I think this is a trail of the impeachment of the President. He was impeached when he was President. This is the trial resulting from that impeachment of the President. The Chief Justice should preside.

Leahy is arguing that he is not the President when it comes to the requirement that the Chief Justice presides but is the President when it comes to who is eligible for a judgment of disbarment from federal office. That seems to be contradictory.

But then I don't know why the Constitution requires that the Chief Justice preside over a trial of the President but not other offices. Perhaps there is some valid argument in there somewhere. But Leahy didn't make that argument.

Re presiding judge, as written, it seems to say that ONLY the Chief Justice can preside when trying the President. Otherwise it can be either the Chief Justice or the Pro Tempore presiding.

About the only constitutional sticking point I can discern is if the immediate past president is a "civil officer of the United States". If he is, let the game begin. Given that past presidents still receive government pensions and largess and receive security briefings, it may be argued they are "government officials", which would appear to meet that criteria.

 

[Paul2]

The motion to table was from Schumer. Paul raise a point of order that the trial proceedings violate the Constitution and are not in order.

The Chair submitted the question to the Senate: Is the point of order well taken?

Schumer then moved to table the point of order. Schumer's motion to table was agreed to and Paul's point of order was not sustained.

Paul's point of order was to kill the impeachment trial.

Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell led with the idea that the vote on the motion to table was merely a question of when to discuss the point of order that the trial violate the Constitution. They did not vote on whether the trial was constitutional.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell led with the idea that the vote on the motion to table was merely a question of when to discuss the point of order that the trial violate the Constitution. They did not vote on whether the trial was constitutional.

Well, that's technically true, sort of. They voted on the motion to table, not the point of order.

If they had voted on the point of order and sustained, that be a determination that the trial is unconstitutional and would have killed the trial. If they had voted on the point of order and not sustained, that be a determination that the trial is constitutional.

Instead they voted to table. That means they voted not to vote on the point of order. That basically means they agreed to ignore the point of order as if it had not been raised.

Schumer argued against the point of order, but also said this was not the appropriate time to raise the issue and that the issue of constitutionality could be raised during the trial.

The motion to table kills the attempt to stop the trial, but leaves the question of constitutionality unanswered. That issue can be raised again during the trial.

 

[Paul2]

Well, that's technically true, sort of. They voted on the motion to table, not the point of order.

If they had voted on the point of order and sustained, that be a determination that the trial is unconstitutional and would have killed the trial. If they had voted on the point of order and not sustained, that be a determination that the trial is constitutional.

Instead they voted to table. That means they voted not to vote on the point of order. That basically means they agreed to ignore the point of order as if it had not been raised.

Schumer argued against the point of order, but also said this was not the appropriate time to raise the issue and that the issue of constitutionality could be raised during the trial.

The motion to table kills the attempt to stop the trial, but leaves the question of constitutionality unanswered. That issue can be raised again during the trial.

Agreed. The larger point about all this parliamentary detail was one or a few posters calling for expulsion or Some Bad Thing to happen to those Senators who voted against the motion to table, as enemies of democracy. This procedural vote falls well short of such extreme reactions.

 

[bruto]

I suspect that if the trial goes on and the Republicans muster enough votes to avoid conviction, they'll suddenly decide en masse that the whole process was as Constitutional as can be.

 

[Craig4]

I suspect that if the trial goes on and the Republicans muster enough votes to avoid conviction, they'll suddenly decide en masse that the whole process was as Constitutional as can be.

As Tom Freedman said on GPS two Sundays ago, the Republican party is in a fight with itself like, "two scorpions in a bottle". The point of the impeachment by the Democrats is to put the bottle over a Bunsen burner. The Dems know they won't get a conviction but the fight will cripple the Republican party.

Now, the USAs, states' attorneys and Dominion's legal team need to get on the ball and go for some blood on Trump. The Dems forcing the Republicans to be the party of Trump only works as a strategy if he's indicted, convicted and sued into oblivion. Trump can rise from the ashes if he's not convicted in the Senate and isn't in serious legal jeopardy around the time of the mid-term elections.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Marco Rubio tweets

@marcorubio
Scientists warn the U.S. is in a “race against time” with new coronavirus variants

But first the Democrats who run the Senate would like to spend several days seeking vengeance in a farcical impeachment trial of a President who is no longer in office

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can we please figure out an effective counter to "Complete lack of either shame or self awareness" and soon?

 

[turingtest]

Can we please figure out an effective counter to "Complete lack of either shame or self awareness" and soon?

No ****. Donald Trump took the handoff from Obama with an economy running well, pretty fully recovered from the mess he was handed in 2009, and Trump managed to not screw it up for three years, until a predictable (and predicted) pandemic threw a monkey wrench into the works; then he spent a year downplaying and politicizing a situation he admitted he knew was serious and should have known was no time for politics, and the last two months of that year ignoring the crisis in favor of bitching about and trying to overturn an election he lost...

...and it's the Democrats who are being "farcical" because they haven't dropped everything and immediately fixed what the GOP ****** up.

I remember Romney running against Obama in 2012, and the GOP's slogan then was "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" I remember thinking at the time, "you mean before the recession that happened under a Republican presidency?" (Yes, I know the economy isn't such a simple thing that a recession can be blamed just on whoever was President at the time, but since the GOP's slogan implied that the "slowness" of the recovery from it was the fault of the one since, I felt no obligation to absolve them of their own simplicism) I would bet that, in 2022 and 2024, the GOP will run on something similar- any further damage from the pandemic, either in human or economic terms, will be laid at the feet of Democrats, and Trump/GOP responsibility will be memory-holed, probably successfully, for a voting public with the attentions span of a goldfish- "are you tired of this mess? Elect us over the Democrats who couldn't fix it right away!"- the mess the Republicans created and have been presiding over until they handed it off to get fixed.