world

Trump trial gets go-ahead after emotional, graphic first day

71 Comments
By LISA MASCARO, ERIC TUCKER, MARY CLARE JALONICK and JILL COLVIN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


71 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Jarring video of the drive they Trump ordered and republicans failed to condemn in a timely manner.

16 ( +23 / -7 )

All over a manufactured lie by Trump and the GOP.

21 ( +27 / -6 )

The whole thing is illegitimate. The constitution says only the Chief Justice shall preside over an impeachment trial of a president. Not a democratic senator. Next, the constitution says only a sitting president can be impeached. Democrats have no trouble shredding the constitution. That’s why it was extra poignant when Trump’s lower closed with the insight that the founding fathers framed the constitution with a fear of thuggery at forefront. Thuggery was their way of saying democracy. Mob rule. Unprincipled votes. Trying to overthrow a president from day one because you don’t like him. Power stuff there. Can’t wait from Trump’s team to show the storming of the federal building in Portland. The siege of square blocks in Seattle by anarchist, supported by the governor who called it the summer of love. Maxine Waters inciting violence against political opponents. All this shows clearly what Trump’s lawyer said: the dems are trying to disenfranchise 74 million votes, and moving to ensure another dissident presidential candidate never makes it out in f the gates ever again.

-35 ( +10 / -45 )

graphic video of the deadly Jan 6 attack

Watch Trump's far right supporters claim 'media hit job', claim it was a peaceful protest, revise the events in their attempts to cover up their Trump and his fellow R's roles in the deadly attack.

Trump's lawyers are insisting that he is not guilty of the sole charge of “incitement of insurrection,”

That the Republicans in the senate are unwilling to be held accountable for Trump and his fellow Republicans feeding the angry mobs that attacked the capital in a failed attempt to steal the election shows how little the Republicans care about the country and the rule of law.

Historically it’s been feared democracies could result in a ‘tyranny of the majority’. The US is seeing its opposite, a tyranny of the minority.

The senate is evenly split: 50 Republicans, 50 Democrats. The states Democrats represent have 40,000,000 more Americans than those represented by Republicans.

Biden got 7,000,000,000 more votes than Trump. A clear majority of Americans voted to elect the Democratic candidate.

The Republican Party continues its efforts to weaken voting rights and elections in general. When the R’s lose they call fraud/hoax/rigged, words their base parrotsThe aim of the Republican Party is to weaken the democratic principles the country has been built on. 

That the Republican Party cannot succeed in winning the White House through the popular votes without allowing the country’s most extreme groups like Qanon, the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and the dozens of other violent-prone ultra-right white nationalist groups into its ‘tent’ shows how low the Republican Party is willing to go.

15 ( +23 / -8 )

Next, the constitution says only a sitting president can be impeached. 

Since you’re such an originalist, show me where in the constitution the general right to privacy is stated. I’ll wait. But, since I’m a nice guy, I’ll give you a hint: Check the penumbras and emanations.

15 ( +20 / -5 )

Donald Trump was the worst President that ever crawled all over the White House. He is going down. He is going to be Impeached and I have my bag of popcorn watching this Reality TV President's End Time. Fun! Amazing time for we Americans. Go! Go! Go! ; ^ )

9 ( +17 / -8 )

The orange man will be acquitted cos it’s a political circus. Russian collusion, bla bla bla

Dems should be focusing on real stuff instead of hating. Their hate will turn to anyone who doesn’t agree with them next, not very democratic in my opinion

-18 ( +7 / -25 )

The whole thing is illegitimate. The constitution says only ...

Another constitutional expert! Where were you for the past four years when Trump was using the constitution as toilet paper to wipe his ass! This impeachment is only about Trumps role in sending the mob on his behalf to do violence and overthrow the legitimate election results! He surely did so! Now he should face the consequences of his traitorous actions...but he won’t because of the majority of GOP senators who will turn a blind eye!

By the way just to remind you that BIDEN WON AND TRUMP LOST... no amount of your whining will change this fact!

12 ( +22 / -10 )

By the way just to remind you that BIDEN WON AND TRUMP LOST... no amount of your whining will change this fact!

That's right but that doesn't change the fact that you are still talking about Trump 3 weeks after leaving office.

-15 ( +8 / -23 )

Mr. Noidall: The constitution says only the Chief Justice shall preside over an impeachment trial of a president.

Trump isn't President anymore. Chief Justice Roberts himself said his participation is not required. Take it up with him.

Next, the constitution says only a sitting president can be impeached.

He was impeached by the House while he was a sitting President.

Can’t wait from Trump’s team to show the storming of the federal building in Portland.

Still deflecting?

12 ( +20 / -8 )

The constitution says only the Chief Justice shall preside over an impeachment trial of a president.

Trump if the former president, so the presence of the Chief Justice is not required. Former president Trump will be presided by the Senate president "Pro Tempore", exactly like in 2010, when former federal judge Thomas Porteous was impeached.

Next, the constitution says only a sitting president can be impeached.

The constitution doesn't say a former president can not be impeached.

Otherwise, you are advocating that during the lame duck last year of his presidency, a president ipso facto becomes unimpeachable and therefore absolutely above all laws. That would be crazy.

Thuggery was their way of saying democracy. Mob rule. Unprincipled votes.

Storming the Capitol building with the intent of hanging the vice-president, yes, exactly! You're finally getting it.

Trying to overthrow a president from day one because you don’t like him. Power stuff there. Can’t wait from Trump’s team to show the storming of the federal building in Portland. The siege of square blocks in Seattle by anarchist, supported by the governor who called it the summer of love. Maxine Waters inciting violence against political opponents. All this shows clearly

...that you watch Fox News.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

Trump isn't President anymore.

Then this isn’t an impeachment trial then. The senate has no jurisdiction here. If there are crimes Trump has committed, then they need to be taken up in lower courts. Impeachment is to remove a sitting president. In order to bar Trump from running again, he first has to be removed from office. Which, as you stated, is impossible since he’s no longer president.

-11 ( +8 / -19 )

 Next, the constitution says only a sitting president can be impeached. 

If the representatives voted now to impeach, you would be right.

The fact is, a sitting president was impeached.

Dems should be focusing on real stuff instead of hating. 

It is about accountability and slowing down others from trying to circumvent a legitimate election.

One mistake of the impeachment is to focus on the "incitement to riot" on Jan. 6th. There are a long list of actions that should be enough to impeach Trump. "Find me 11,780 votes...." asking everyone to include the VP to illegally circumvent the vote. This was completely grotesque.

I never faulted Trump with bringing legal cases, but the courts didn't accept conspiracies and rejected the cases based on the evidence.

Even if he is not convicted, the public will see that these kinds of seditious acts should not be allowed to go unchecked.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

Then this isn’t an impeachment trial then. 

Yes it is. Trump was impeached during the final week of his presidency, and will stand trial as a former president. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp, unless you are only arguing in bad faith.

Otherwise, again, you would be advocating presidents are above all laws in their final year. That would be insane.

In order to bar Trump from running again, he first has to be removed from office.

That is simply not true, so no need to debate it.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

Mr. NoidallToday  08:30 am JST

If there are crimes Trump has committed, then they need to be taken up in lower courts. 

Sounds like a good idea. I wonder how he would get on with impartial jurors who don't have to be scared of losing their jobs if they antagonise his base.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

I'm certainly no fan of Trump but I find the arguments against the constitutionality of impeachment to be convincing.

The word 'President' in the constitution has always been interpreted to mean the 'sitting president'. The idea that 'President' should now also be interpreted to include all 'former presidents' and 'former civil officers' for the purpose of Art 2 (and only Art 2!) is a stretch. It would mean a future Republican congress could impeach Barack Obama, or disqualify any former congressman, senator or cabinet member who might pose a political threat in the next election. Giving congress this much power would guarantee chaos and the eventual end of real democracy. I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme court steps in to put an end to this.

The purpose of impeachment was to provide a practical remedy against a sitting president who can't normally be indicted and brought before an ordinary court. The moment he leaves office (by the expiry of his term or resignation), he can be tried for incitement or any other alleged crimes in an ordinary court just like every other private citizen. It ceases to be an issue for congress once he's no longer the sitting president.

-11 ( +8 / -19 )

I'm certainly no fan of Trump but I find the arguments against the constitutionality of impeachment to be convincing.

I respectfully disagree because of the remedies available (prevent them from holding office again) and because he was the president when he was impeached.

There was a case in the 1800's were a former cabinet member was convicted in the Senate trial after leaving office. So, the constitution should and does work to impeach someone, even if they leave office before the trial.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

This will just set a dangerous precedent.

No, it won't. This is a just a run of the mill slippery slope argument that is as baseless as it is inane.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

The moment he leaves office (by the expiry of his term or resignation), he can be tried for incitement or any other alleged crimes in an ordinary court just like every other private citizen

An ex-president is not any other citizen and to pretend otherwise is comical.

The logical comparison to this situation is if a President of a bank loots it while he was in power and then resigns. Then when prosecuted he says he is no longer the Bank President and therefore cannot be prosecuted. It is a fake excuse to try an cover for the Trump criminality which began when he falsely claimed victory on election night, lying once again to the American people. Over those two months he committed numerous crimes, in Georgia for example, but the most egregious is planning and then executing sedition via his deluded white christian nationalist band of terrorists. This situation demands he be put on trial for his obvious crimes to set the precedent that Presidential power has limits, yes that is right, limits to inciting sedition and murdering police.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

You do realize the law doesn’t require exact words to find incitement, correct?

alright. Please show us a clause.

-12 ( +5 / -17 )

donald is not going to pay this bunch if lawyers too, he will stiff them the same way he stiffed rudy.

But what a pathetic show from the donald team, I can understand they are taking up a case no one else wants to touch with a bargepole, but boy, I would ask for proof these guys cleared the bar!!!!

5 ( +9 / -4 )

The Whole thing is a circus orchestrated by the liberals and there crooked media to spin the agenda into overdrive.

-14 ( +7 / -21 )

If rudy had taken up the case, we would least had some laughs, instead of shaking our heads in disgust!!!!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Yes, that kind of argument would allow any politician to commit an impeachable offense and just quit if they think they would be convicted.

I don't think this is a convincing counter-argument. If a sitting president commits a crime and then resigns immediately before an impeachment vote is taken, what's the problem? No loophole is being exploited. The purpose of impeachment is to remove him from office and strip him of immunity. By resigning, that result (the one impeachment is designed to bring about) already exists. Impeachment becomes redundant. Impeachment was not intended to be used as a public shaming ritual, even if many now see it that way.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Well... all of those saying the trial can't go ahead because of the fact he is no longer a sitting president have just lost that argument. 56-44 voted in favor of the trial proceeding.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

alright. Please show us a clause.

Don't hold your breath. I typically get the "check the internet" response.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Watched the opening. First Trump lawyer was rambling and even admitted Trump had lost the election which will have angered his client.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The purpose of impeachment is to remove him from office and strip him of immunity.

And legally keep him from running ever again. That's the whole point here.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

OK, now I'm really confused....Trump's attorney today at the impeachment trial just said;

*Bruce Castor Jr., one of former President Donald Trump's defense lawyers in his second impeachment trial, explicitly acknowledged President Joe Biden's victory and said the *American people were "smart enough" to vote in a new administration. 

*Castor argued that Trump should not be convicted and barred from holding federal office by the Senate because the American people already made a conscious choice to boot him from office. *While Castor's presentation during the first day of the trial was rambling and difficult to follow, he did clearly state that the American people elected Biden, a fact that Trump spent months denying. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyer-bruce-castor-americans-smart-enough-elect-new-president-2021-2

So "The Big Lie" was all just a BIG LIE? All the "the election was stolen from us", it "was rigged", "I won in a landslide" was all a fairy tale?

All the ranting and raving about fighting and take back our country at the rally on Jan 6 was BS and a scam?

So Trump supporters, explain this to us - who is right? Trump when he continues to say the election was stolen, or his lawyer who today said Trump lost and Biden was elected fairly and legitimately?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

You get the legal representation you pay for.

The idea that a former president who was impeached while still in office can’t be convicted out of office is so silly on its face, that any Senator who actually believes that (spoiler alert: they don’t) is too stupid to be a United States Senator.

So why argue an unfounded debunked argument? Because they all know he’s guilty AF. And they know that we know it as well. So 44 invertebrate Eunichs (nice to see the Senator from the “great” state of Louisiana grow a pair) decided to punt on 1st down rather than to uphold their oaths as Senators.

Pathetic. I guess having no scruples allows them to live with themselves.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

alright. Please show us a clause.

A clause is a direct quote. Anyone with a basic education can easily pick out the points in Trump’s speech in which he encourages his supporters to go to the Capitol building to confront members of Congress. When you combine this with the fact that Trump was painfully aware of his supporters history of answering his calls for violence, you get incitement.

I know that’s a lot of steps to follow, but I’m confident in your ability.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

 jarring video of siege

Kind of a stretch on sensational reporting.......

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Liberals setting themselves up for major losses in the future.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Ha = while John Quincy Adams may have had his opinion about impeachment after an official has left office, he was talking about himself and his wording to that effect was not included in the constitution.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Liberals setting themselves up for major losses in the future.

Yeah, you guys have been saying that for a long time now. Last impeachment was going to be the end of the Democrats.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Come on Trump supporters, help us understand....

Trump has stated since Nov that he won in a landslide, the election was stolen, that it was rigged...

Yet his lawyer defending him at his impeachment trial said today; "Americans have spoken", and "they have booted him from office", and "voted in a new administration".

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyer-bruce-castor-americans-smart-enough-elect-new-president-2021-2

So Trump, to keep from being impeached, has instructed his lawyer to admit that he was LYING all along. The "Big LIe" was coming straight out of Trump's mouth. He was scamming and playing his supporters with all the "it was rigged" talk...and grifting them for millions to "fight the steal"...

Wanna explain that to us or are you too humiliated?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Be so happy when this joke and laughable spectacle is over and Trump is acquitted again...

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

bass4funk

Be so happy when this joke and laughable spectacle is over and Trump is acquitted again...

Why do you even care. Trump will never be president again. The lawyer admitted his client had lost the election.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

People like Rafael Cruz and Nimrata Randhawa need to realize that if the fat guy isn't impeached, they can kiss their 2024 ambitions away because there's no way they'll win the Q party presidential primaries against the fat guy.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Why do you even care.

Because I can.

Trump will never be president again.

“If” he’s convicted which he won’t so....

The lawyer admitted his client had lost the election.

Which has nothing to do with the Democrats once again futile efforts to try and impeach a private citizen, just dumb, but it’s to be expected of Democrats.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

@viking68

I respectfully disagree because of the remedies available (prevent them from holding office again) and because he was the president when he was impeached.

There was a case in the 1800's were a former cabinet member was convicted in the Senate trial after leaving office. So, the constitution should and does work to impeach someone, even if they leave office before the trial.

Yes, I can see where you're coming from but the problem you face is that the text of the constitution seems to refute this. It says "Judgement in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office..". To give effect to your interpretation, the 'and' must be read as 'or'. That's not something the courts will accept lightly.

As to the 1800s case, congress did impeach someone who resigned immediately before the vote was taken. However, I don't think this was ever reviewed by the courts. It could very well have been unconstitutional.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

the constitution says only a sitting president can be impeached.

@Mr. Noidall - So how would you deal with a President who commits a high crime and misdemeanour during the final hour of his/her final day in office? Does the constitution mean it would be impossible to hold that President accountable no matter how grave the act was?

13 ( +15 / -2 )

It's typical of Republicans and particularly Trump supporters to question the constitutionality of an impeachment on a matter where insurrection and treason against the constitution by them and him is the issue.

They'll try to use the constitution to support lies when they can and go against the US constitution and democracy to promote lies and narrative for fascism incited by Trump.

They're not American patriots, that's for 100% certain.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Well, we learned several things today....

The video showed how much the MAGA hoards support Blue Lives Matter - by insulting, attacking, and in one case, murdering a law enforcement officer protecting the Capitol...

Trump's lawyer admits "The Big Lie" was just that - a BIG LIE - testifying that Trump lost the election and was "booted out" by the American people...

This admission by the Trump lawyer also shows that 'Stop the Steal" was indeed a STEAL - Trump knew he lost but instead kept up with the "I won in a landslide" scam just so he could bilk more money from his supporters...over $250 million so far...

Will the Repubs in the Senate have the courage to impeach - doubtful. But what today did was put in the official record that Trump admitted his "the election was crooked and I won" campaign was all just a huge lie and a total scam.

There it is Trump supporters - testimony under oath by Trump's own lawyer - that you were lied to, scammed, and played...

8 ( +11 / -3 )

An ex President never becomes a private citizen. What would happen if one of them moved to Russia or North Korea has a private citizen. They are guarded for life to protect the nation not them.

“If” he’s convicted which he won’t so....

Even if not convicted Trump will never be president again

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Trump will never hold office again. Even if he ran he'd lose again. That being said, he could tease people with statements in 2022 or 2023 and form some kind of fundraiser that he will pocket in the end when he "decides against it."

I can't wait to see the look on McConnell's face when his party votes to acquit. The GOP can hide behind their fake "unconstitutional" claims, but they'll know the consequences. Appeal to the Trump base or get voted out of office. Four years of watching Trump bring the party down will get renewed for another 4 years.

Unless, of course, there's a GOP civil war.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

That being said, he could tease people with statements in 2022 or 2023 and form some kind of fundraiser that he will pocket in the end when he "decides against it."

And his Barry educated supporters would gladly send the leftover money from their food stamps to this fund.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

*barely educated

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Which has nothing to do with the Democrats once again futile efforts to try and impeach a private citizen, just dumb, but it’s to be expected of Democrats.

Wjst is truly dumb is constantly conflating the impeachment with the trial.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The fat guy will sell state secrets to the Russians and even China if enough money was offered. All he ever understands is money. The whole family should be thrown in jail. Princess' children are going to feel like orphans soon.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

It's typical of Republicans and particularly Trump supporters to question the constitutionality of an impeachment on a matter where insurrection and treason against the constitution by them and him is the issue. 

Which everyone knows is a complete joke. No witnesses, no depositions, No factual evidence other than some Viking hat wearing fool. Maybe Michael Cohen can testify for the Democrats and as unconstitutional as this process is, the Democrat led Senate can make up any reason they want to impeach a sitting President....wait, Trump is not a sitting President...oh, well...so much for the constitutionality of this farce. 

They're not American patriots, that's for 100% certain.

No, they are patriots especially and should question the legitimacy of this circus and not just follow some quack of partisan politicians that want to force feed the public into thinking that this former President is a threat other than possibly in 2024 which is possible ans they’ll never get the conviction they want so...

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

@Mr. Noidall - So how would you deal with a President who commits a high crime and misdemeanour during the final hour of his/her final day in office? Does the constitution mean it would be impossible to hold that President accountable no matter how grave the act was?

I can answer that, if you don't mind. The constitution does provide a remedy for this situation in Art III. A former president can be put on trial for any crimes they've committed during their tenure once they leave office. It's not as if the president can murder someone, immediately resign, and then never be held accountable. If you want private citizen Trump to face criminal charges (and real consequences), the proper authority to contact is the US attorney's office in Washington DC, not the senate.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

To give effect to your interpretation, the 'and' must be read as 'or'.

No, that's not correct at all. Even if you try to interpret the text to the letter, "and" isn't necessarily in this context (or any other for that matter) used to show that one thing (impeachment) must come before another (disqualification). It simply presents two non-contrasting ideas (the whole point of "and" as a grammatical conjunction).

6 ( +6 / -0 )

A president who lost re-election in the last days of office has nothing to lose

There's no stopping any future president to attempt the same in the last days of office

Except save for one - a president who values his/her legacy

But what if a future president doesn't care about that? So why not make an attempt? What's to stop him/her?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Wjst is truly dumb is constantly conflating the impeachment with the trial.

So from the so called smart and highly educated Democrats (lol) what do they think they can get out of this or what’s their overall goal for this charade except to be laughed out of the room.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Trump has stated since Nov that he won in a landslide, the election was stolen, that it was rigged...

Yet his lawyer defending him at his impeachment trial said today; "Americans have spoken", and "they have booted him from office", and "voted in a new administration".

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyer-bruce-castor-americans-smart-enough-elect-new-president-2021-2

So Trump, to keep from being impeached, has instructed his lawyer to admit that he was LYING all along. The "Big LIe" was coming straight out of Trump's mouth. He was scamming and playing his supporters with all the "it was rigged" talk...and grifting them for millions to "fight the steal"...

Wanna explain that to us or are you too humiliated?

Lots of pro-Trump posts - no reply to this though...I guess they are too humiliated...

7 ( +9 / -2 )

The reason that 44 Invertebrate Eunichs voted for the completely stupid and non-sense argument that this trial is in-constitutional is because otherwise they would have to defend the indefensible.

Its laughable.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Although it makes clear that the Senate’s punishment cannot go beyond removal or disqualification, the Constitution does not say anything about the timing of a trial.

-From the Washington Post

@M3M3M3 - Read the above. These are high crimes in which he should be held accountable. I'm sure his staff has been sentenced to prison for less.

Is it just me or does David Schoen look a bit like an older version of the 80's Max Headroom?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Whatever happens with this thing, Trump is still a LOSER who will spend the rest of his days with his small team of weirdos, imagining he's still the president.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Emotional seems to have been far too much of this whole process. Impeachment has now become just another way of people venting their spleen rather than the serious and formal tool it was intended to be to remove an official from office due to serious malfeasance. The country will not better for this, whatever the outcome.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

If you want private citizen Trump to face criminal charges (and real consequences), the proper authority to contact is the US attorney's office in Washington DC, not the senate.

@M3M3M3 - The Article of the constitution you reference would seemingly solve the problem of how to deal with a President committing a serious offence so late in office.

In this case it’s not relevant as Trump was formally impeached while still in office.

Had the events of Jan 6th happened on the morning or Inauguration Day, then things might've taken the route of charging as a private citizen - but you know the defence would just be screaming ‘you can’t charge a sitting president, you have to impeach - and you didn’t impeach so it’s too late’.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Impeachment has now become just another way of people venting their spleen rather than the serious and formal tool it was intended to be to remove an official from office due to serious malfeasance. 

So your argument is that inciting a violent riot and storming of the Capitol building resulting in the death of 5 people is not "serious malfeasance"? Then what is?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

The orange man will be acquitted cos it’s a political circus. Russian collusion, bla bla bla

Let’s keep race out of it.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

The funny thing about watching that video with the Trump fans shouting 'FIGHT FOR TRUMP!' is Trump has shown for decades, especially the 4 years he was in office, that he really only cares about himself and drops people like a stone when he realises they're of no benefit to him. What a bunch of mugs! You got played!

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Bring in the murdered police officers' families and let them testify. It would interesting to hear what they have to say about Trump's part in their loved ones' needless deaths.

The law & order president . . . year, right.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

The Whole thing is a circus orchestrated by the liberals and there crooked media to spin the agenda into overdrive.

No, it's not.

The media is quite irrelevant to deeds of Trump and supporters who are guilty of insurrection and trying to get rid of the electoral college votes at the Capitol, an act of treason to the constitution of the United States of America.

Beyond that, they threatened many members of our legislative branch, armed with weapons and guns capable of murdering people. People died because of their insurrection encouraged by Trump.

It was violent and the idiots were trying to execute a coup, of which, I believe they were too stupid to comprehend that is exactly what they were doing, wanting to create a a fascist state. Obviously, many still want this fascist state, they're all true anti-patriots to America.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The purpose of impeachment is to remove him from office and strip him of immunity.

There are two purposes for impeachment:

(1) removal from office, and

(2) disqualifying from holding office in the future.

[And is used as a list not a boolean argument. A person can be removed from office, but not disqualified from holding future office. Both can apply or only the last one can apply, like this case.]

Removing immunity is not a purpose of impeachment. Civil immunity is generally broad for official acts and would continue even after the president isn't in office. Criminal immunity is another thing. I don't know of any criminal immunity. There is just a DOJ memo saying not to bring a criminal case against a president, and the topic is basically understood that a president is not immune from criminal acts.

Inciting the riot could be criminal, but technically, the impeachment is about whether Trump committed "treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors," which is not defined in the constitution. Therefore, Trump's actions on that day don't need to meet the criminal definition of inciting a riot.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

The Whole thing is a circus orchestrated by the liberals and there crooked media to spin the agenda into overdrive.

The ghostly lefty hand with a crooked agenda. Sounds spooky.

A circus and orchestras are usually fun.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Trump and supporters who are guilty of insurrection and trying to get rid of the electoral college votes at the Capitol,

No, they wanted to voices to be heard and if you think that they wanted to get rid of the college electoral system, do you you believe AOC and her bogus claims of Ted Cruz wanting to kill her. Come on now, say what you want about Cruz, but a killer? Give me a break!

Beyond that, they threatened many members of our legislative branch, armed with weapons and guns capable of murdering people.

Republicans have been equally threatened, all of it bad and your point!

People died because of their insurrection encouraged by Trump. 

As did 26 people last summer through the actions of Dems and Trump haters.

It was violent and the idiots were trying to execute a coup

which is what the Democrats have been doing for almost 5 years entering trumps presidency and from day one and the very first day of his inauguration they were trying to stage a coup against this former president, it’s all bad.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Jsapc. Evidence that he was responsible for this might help. Pols making stupid speeches is a fact of life. Creating a causal chain between him speaking and the deaths is a wholly different matter of law and evidence. Like I said, too much emotion and too little grown up behavior.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

No, they wanted to voices to be heard

They’re voice were heard via the election and all those court cases that were filed by Trump and tossed for lack of evidence.

and if you think that they wanted to get rid of the college electoral system, do you you believe AOC and her bogus claims of Ted Cruz wanting to kill her. Come on now, say what you want about Cruz, but a killer? Give me a break!

Trump did tell us that Cruz’s father was in on the JFK assassination.

As did 26 people last summer through the actions of Dems and Trump haters.

> which is what the Democrats have been doing for almost 5 years entering trumps presidency and from day one and the very first day of his inauguration they were trying to stage a coup against this former president, it’s all bad.

This isn’t based in reality at all.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites