Mitt Romney: Trump Impeachment Trial Important For 'Unity,' 'Accountability'

Look, you can believe that the senate can determine constitutionality of something, but you’re wrong. The Supreme Court determines constitutionality.

 

If you say so.

 

Moving on, now there is a discussion about witnesses.... What possible witnesses would the prosecution call? How about the defense?

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/...o-senate-launching-trumps-second-trial-462408

Obviously, I'm all for witnesses to the events at issue, although I cannot see how any of the House OR Senate members are actual witnesses (unless they were at the T**** Anti America rally). We all know a riot occurred, the issue is was it incited.

Also, will we FINALLY get to hear from witness Hunter Biden??

 

Looks like everybody is tight lipped. Can't say I blame them. The way some democrats have been talking, re not giving out strategy, I'm wondering if they have some surprises in store.

 

Well, I assume much of their strategy is going to be showing videos showing the mob being riled up. As I posted yesterday, I can only watch so many of those before I get a tad sick to my stomach, realizing that people like that were able to get that close to elected lawmakers at their place of work...

I know it's confusing, but I wonder how much time they're going to spend on the Georgia phone call as well.... From an impeachability standpoint, I found that phone call much more disturbing than most of what he did at his rally...

 

And thus, Democrats support using the constitution to punish their political enemies.

 

A trial is meaningful - even if he is not impeached - as at least the evidence gets presented - and specific basis for impeachment stated.

What we are getting is a bunch of hyperbolic partisan political rhetoric .. "Domestic Terrorism"

 

Probably the same group that doesn't like George Washington, because he warned us about such factions.

If what they listed out of context in their article did constitute a crime, and they aren't hypocrites, Maxine Waters would be wearing an orange jump suit or maybe stripes and eating hog slop behind bars right along with millions of other people.

 

Well, it was domestic terrorism, but that is beside the point.

 

Yes... it IS:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-1-1/ALDE_00000282/
The House of Representatives can, by simple majority vote for "Impeachment" which is the political phrase for indictment or charging procedure. The Senate then TRIES the case and votes to acquit or to R E M O V E the "PRESIDENT".
I'm not sure what is so difficult to grasp. Impeachment is entirely political and is in no way a legal proceeding. The outcome is acquittal or REMOVAL. Trump is a private citizen now. By all means, donate money, gather support online, hell, make voodoo dolls to try to torment him. But you're delusional if you believe he's going to be convicted by 17 Republicans.

 

You SURE you really wanna ride that train? Seriously, no snark intended. Do you believe that people who stand in support of Trump should be investigated and punished for being terrorists?

 

Why - because you say so ? 130 different ACLU groups disagree - but - OK state how this protest turned riot meets the definition of Terrorism. Twirling around crying "Terrorism Terrorism" - like all the Blue pundits have been doing - is not an argument for much.

 

I never said he'd be removed. The argument was constitutionality.

 

Absolutely sure. It's the only ride in town.

Foreign terrorists:



Domestic terrorists:



Foreign terrorists:



Domestic terrorists:



Foreign terrorists:



Domestic terrorists:



Foreign terrorist:



Domestic terrorist:

 

OK - so your definition of terrorism is if during a protest - someone get squeezed by the protesters.

Don't you not think that bar is a little low ?

 

Kaine is past tree stump stupid.

They won't get conviction/disqualification, Rand Paul just proved that. So now they are scrambling, some trying to work a bipartisan censure, which they want 10 GOP votes to ensure it survives filibuster, and if instead of a trial, they will likely get it - 15 GOP wouldn't be unlikely, but, they seem to want it if they lose on conviction, at which point the GOP will have no incentive at all to vote for it, they will be lucky to get five votes.

Not the brightest.
​

So now Dumb Dumb Kaine wants to pursue a disqualification bill based on the 14th Amendment bar on office for anyone who took part in an insurrection or sedition, This is not his brightest idea. They claim that this could pass the Senate with only 60 votes compared with impeachments two-thirds requirement. That means that if every Democrat voted for it they would only need 10 Senate Republicans.

Except for one little problem.

A Bill of Attainder is when the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms of Due Process. A Bill of Attainder is an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions. Such Legislative bills are strictly prohibited by the Constitution which Kaine and the other idiots pushing this would know if they weren't ignorant spiteful morons. In Cummings v. Missouri and United States v. Brown the Court was quite clear that this clause prohibits all legislative acts, “no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .”

In United States v. Lovett, the Court applied the clause dynamically in three cases where acts of Congress were struck down for violating it. In Ex parte Garland the Court struck down a statute that required attorneys to take an oath that they had taken no part in the Confederate rebellion against the United States before they could practice in federal courts. The statute, and a state constitutional amendment requiring a similar oath of persons before they could practice certain professions,Cummings v. Missouri were struck down as legislative acts inflicting punishment on a specific group the members of which had taken part in the rebellion and therefore could not truthfully take the oath. Later the Court struck down a rider to an appropriations bill forbidding the use of money appropriated in the bill to pay the salaries of three named persons whom the House of Representatives wished discharged because they were deemed to be “subversive.”United States v. Lovett.

In United States v. Brown,381 U.S. 437 the Court held void as a bill of attainder a statute making it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or as an employee of a labor union. Congress could under its commerce power, protect the economy from harm by enacting a prohibition generally applicable to any person who commits certain acts or possesses certain characteristics making him likely in Congress’s view to initiate political strikes or other harmful deeds and leaving it to the courts to determine whether a particular person committed the specified acts or possessed the specified characteristics. It was impermissible, however, for Congress to designate a class of persons—members of the Communist Party—as being forbidden to hold union office

The clause protects individual persons and groups who are vulnerable to nonjudicial determinations of guilt.

The Constitution’s explicit bar on bills of attainder flat-out rejects this kind of maneuver by the Senate. It’s precisely why the founders wrote the provision, after watching Parliament attaint people of treason without any sort of judicial process involved. An attempt to pass such a bill would be every inch the kind of abuse of power and institutional degradation that Democrats accuse Trump of committing.

I've always thought that Kaine looked petty dumb, but, he is plumbing depths of stupidity that I didn't realize he possessed. The Dems were foolish for pursuing this highly questionable course of action and as it blows up on them, their every reaction just makes them look worse. They are doing their damndest to actually badly misuse their authority in the process of pursuing their highly questionable claim that Trump misused his!

 

I read an article last week that Democrats were already talking "14th Amendment" if Senate trial fails. What a bunch of ridonkulous donkeys.

Read today that Susan Collins (R) is partnering with Kaine on this.

 

She is on the censure as an alternative to a Senate trial, but hopefully not on the unconstitutional bill of attainder.

 

Thanks for that clarification. I didn't read much on the details of the Collins - Kaine deal. Just saw the headline in passing.

 

I dug in, but honestly I couldn't tell for sure. Hopefully she isn't as dumb as Kaine and the others, but who knows?

 

***The Senate Trial is Constitutional
***Trump WILL be Acquitted
***The Censure Resolution Won't have any real teeth

Conclusion--Have The Trial

 

I see only two reasons to have impeached and to proceed. The Democratic majority wanted it due to Trump's obvious involvement in the January 6th insurrection attempt and secondly to force Republicans to vote, for impeachment in the House and for conviction in the Senate trial, with the supposition that additional evidence, sufficient for a subsequent criminal trial and conviction will follow, thus making the Congressional Republicans vote look pretty stupid.

 

Agreed.

It is IMPERATIVE to get Every Member of the Senate on record (as supporting Trump's Incitement of Domestic Terrorism, if they vote to acquit).

 

I know that's not all you got from the post, so I'll just let it go. You get the idea.