From PZ Myers:
It went badly for the ol’ orange asshole, with the senate deciding that sure, they could go ahead and impeach him. That’s about it. Now the question is whether they’ll actually do it.
The Democrats are decisive (there’s a phrase I never thought I’d write): yes, they will.
The Republicans are in a dither. What they do is not going to depend on their conscience, or an objective assessment of the evidence, but entirely on the basis of the polling, because they’re all amoral conniving cowards. A substantial number of Republican voters are still in the Cult of Trump, so they’re afraid that voting to impeach will trigger an angry backlash against them…but at the same time, they’re concerned that the ongoing prosecution is going to make such a strong public case that they’ll get a backlash if they don’t vote to impeach. Squirm, you creeps, squirm. I hope they’re all sweating profusely right now.
As for Trump himself, the reports are mixed. The New York Times says he’s furious.
The impeachment trial is indeed unconstitutional, so says many of our nations greatest legal minds. (Some of them are even Democrats!)
The purpose of it is to remove a sitting president from office. Donald Trump is no longer in office and therefore is now a private citizen. Impeaching him now would be akin to impeaching our beloved private citizen Burr Deming. That does not preclude bringing up criminal charges against Trump if a legal case can be made in court, but the impeachment trial in the senate is nothing but political theater which does anything but unify the nation.
The fact that Justice Roberts refused to preside over the trial should be a strong indicator on the constitutionality of the senate trial. The fact that the honorable and obviously objective Senator Leahy is presiding over the trial instead simply gives proof to the fact that this is a farce perpetrated by the hypocritical Democrats.
Oh, hey, look. It’s another wrong person on the internet!
The fact is:
“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.”
The sitting President was impeached. The sitting President, however, is not being tried. So, per the Constitution, the Chief Justice doesn’t preside over the trial. I challenge you, Darrell, to find where John Roberts refused anything.
I’m surprised at you, Darrell. A proponent of an unconstitutional ‘January Exception’.
I’m wondering if Darrell believes Trump had anything to do with agitating his mob to insurrection. I’m betting he prefers to see Trump as the “real victim” of “political theater”.
Unlike Darrell, I will be quoting the US Constitution to support my case.
The impeachment trial is indeed constitutional, so says many of our nation’s greatest legal minds. (Some of them are even Republicans!)
ONE of the purposes of impeachment is to remove a sitting official. (Not limited to the president.) If that is the only purpose of impeachment, then a trial would indeed be moot. However, the other purpose of impeachment is to disqualify the offender from holding office again.
Trump was constitutionally impeached as a sitting president. The Constitution clearly says what happens next.
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
“All” means all. It does NOT allow for a “January Exception” for the time when a president is unimpeachable or not subject to trial. It applies to every day he is in power. No “January Exception”.
Judgment extends to not just removal, but to disqualification. Removal applies to the offender holding office. Disqualification applies for all time.
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Nowhere does the Constitution nullify or forbid an impeachment trial after the offender leaves office. “All impeachments” means all impeachments. Period.
Darrell’s opinion does not matter. Nobody’s opinion matters. The words are clear and unambiguous. All means all. But the Right does love to unilaterally define words, don’t they?
I’m sorry to say, impeachment would indeed apply to our gracious and kind host, if he served and abused his office as “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States”.
The Chief Justice is required to preside over the trial of the president only. Biden is president.
“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”
Roberts would have presided if McConnell held the trial.
There is no evidence that Roberts refused or was even asked to preside over the trial, nor does he have any legal obligation to do so.
Maybe I’m mistaken. I await correction by Darrell’s documented evidence and superior understanding of the Constitution.
With respect (always), you are incorrect.
The overwhelming majority of scholars disagree with your assessment of the Constitution and impeachment.
Here are 150, across the political spectrum, signing an open letter explaining that the plain meaning of the Constitution and of 150 years of interpretation say that impeachment after leaving office is completely within the scope of established Constitutional law.
See:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-2646-de27-a5f7-3fe714ac0000
On the other hand, you do have Alan Dershowitz, Fox News, OAN, and QAnon.
And this was all addressed Day 1 of the trial, so we know Darrell’s not actually watching the first hand account of history but rather consuming a filtered version of it. I wonder if it comes in Cherry flavor. Maybe he’s more of a Grape kind of guy?
Trey,
Darrell is more of a Prager U academic. Much of his “education” is provided there. I think FOX(R) isn’t pro-Trump enough for him.