There are 162 comments.

1. Member
   Gary Robbins

   @GaryRobbins

   10:00 PM EST ⋅ Jan 27, 2021

   Hoyacon (View Comment):

   Gary Robbins (View Comment):

   Saint Augustine (View Comment):

   Gary Robbins (View Comment):

   There is another path to bring Trump to Justice and to disqualify him in the future, namely Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I have posted on that issue. It does not require a 2/3’s vote. See my post:

   Plan B: Censure Trump, and under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, disqualify him from future office

   at https://ricochet.com/879485/plan-b-censure-trump-and-under-section-3-of-the-14th-amendment-disqualify-him-from-future-office/.

   I clicked “Like” for the censure option. Depending on what the text of the censuring says, I could conceivably support it. (But whom are we kidding? Democrats will write it! It’ll probably be ridiculous.)

   Now about the rest: We talking about this?

   No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

   I guess “any office” covers the President, and it looks like Section 5 gives Congress the power to enact this. Ok, you have a Constitutional means.

   I still don’t see any reason to accuse Trump of supporting an insurrection. Do I need to cite the Avengers again?

   I would think that Trump’s lawyer will argue that. But this is no a criminal law, it is civil in nature, and thus does not need to be so exacting. In fact, Trump calling the Georgia Secretary of State, and then asking people to come to Washington, D.C. (“it will be wild”) are both acts that come before the incursion into the Capitol. Also, there is the issue of Trump, according to Senator Sasse, getting joy over the assault and delaying an appropriate reaction to defend the Capitol.

   Do you think that Senators might be a little upset about being pushed off of the Senate Floor, and running for their lives?

   There’s a whole post about this now. I’m not going to fight a two-front war. Take your pick.

   I will see you over on the Member Feed.  https://ricochet.com/879485/plan-b-censure-trump-and-under-section-3-of-the-14th-amendment-disqualify-him-from-future-office/

2. Member
   Saint Augustine

   @SaintAugustine

   10:20 PM EST ⋅ Jan 27, 2021

   Gary Robbins (View Comment):
   I would think that Trump’s lawyer will argue that. But this is no a criminal law, it is civil in nature, and thus does not need to be so exacting.

   Facts are terribly exacting things, aren’t they?

3. Member
   RufusRJones

   @RufusRJones

   1:33 AM EST ⋅ Jan 28, 2021

   Anon (View Comment):

   For every politician voting should have nothing to do with political party. Inevitably, the exercise of political power is an expression of what one truly believes in, substantiated by principle. If a politician truly believes that what Pelosi and Schumer are selling is in fact constitutional, then he or she should vote with them and let their constituents either support or protest by their votes. The problem with that, as it so often is, is that most constituents probably do not understand the constitution.

   Impeachment is not supposed to be used unless there is wide, obvious bipartisan support.

4. Member
   RufusRJones

   @RufusRJones

   1:35 AM EST ⋅ Jan 28, 2021

   Gary Robbins (View Comment):

   MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

   Gary Robbins (View Comment):

   Misthiocracy got drunk and (View Comment):

   Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…: Note that the vote on this issue does not indicate that the five Senators listed above will necessarily vote to convict, if the Senate leadership proceeds with the trial.

   If they do, it’s a pretty good wager that the Chief Justice will refuse to preside because he’s only Constitutionally-required to preside over Presidential impeachment trials.

   Presiding over an impeachment trial is outside of Robert’s wheelhouse.

   I don’t get this comment. Mr. Justice Roberts presided over the impeachment trial last year.

   He did preside over impeachment last year. He just didn’t enjoy doing so. His strength is on the appellate court, not a trial court. Chief Justice Rehnquist on the other hand wrote a book about impeachment.

   This is not a direct answer. 

5. Member
   RufusRJones

   @RufusRJones

   1:37 AM EST ⋅ Jan 28, 2021

   Headedwest (View Comment):

   Saint Augustine (View Comment):

   Stad (View Comment):

   Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…:

   The five dissenting Republicans are:

   • Mitt Romney (UT)
   • Ben Sasse (NE)
   • Susan Collins (ME)
   • Lisa Murkowski (AK)
   • Pat Toomey (PA)

   They are on my “Do not vote for” list, along with the House Republicans who voted to impeach . . .

   They’re better than Dems. Make it a primary-only rule.

   I used to live in New England, and I believe that if someone significantly to the right of Collins won the primary they would lose the general election. Collins is as good as you’re going to get out of that state.

   There is nothing wrong with RINOs as long as they are very serious about containing their damage. This did not happen with the ACA.

6. Coolidge
   Gazpacho Grande'

   @ChrisCampion

   4:28 AM EST ⋅ Jan 28, 2021

   Seawriter (View Comment):

   Misthiocracy got drunk and (View Comment):

   Seawriter (View Comment):

   Misthiocracy got drunk and (View Comment):

   If they do, it’s a pretty good wager that the Chief Justice will refuse to preside because he’s only Constitutionally-required to preside over Presidential impeachment trials.

   He had refused prior to the vote. That was the first whack with the clue bat.

   Confirmed. Senator Patrick Leahy will preside.

   https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/535977-why-john-robertss-absence-from-senate-trial-isnt-a-surprise

   And now senators are looking into pivoting to a censure resolution.

   https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/536210-trump-censure-faces-tough-odds-in-senate

   I guess the whacks with the clue bat finally gave them a clue.

   Leahy is about 8,000 years old, so in between doing Batman cameos, he tends to be a little slow on the uptake.

7. Member
   MWD B612 "Dawg"

   @danok1

   5:36 AM EST ⋅ Jan 28, 2021

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   Gary Robbins (View Comment):

   MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

   Gary Robbins (View Comment):

   Misthiocracy got drunk and (View Comment):

   Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…: Note that the vote on this issue does not indicate that the five Senators listed above will necessarily vote to convict, if the Senate leadership proceeds with the trial.

   If they do, it’s a pretty good wager that the Chief Justice will refuse to preside because he’s only Constitutionally-required to preside over Presidential impeachment trials.

   Presiding over an impeachment trial is outside of Robert’s wheelhouse.

   I don’t get this comment. Mr. Justice Roberts presided over the impeachment trial last year.

   He did preside over impeachment last year. He just didn’t enjoy doing so. His strength is on the appellate court, not a trial court. Chief Justice Rehnquist on the other hand wrote a book about impeachment.

   This is not a direct answer.

   Why bother, Rufus? We’re going to get more deflection.

8. Member
   DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone

   @DrewInWisconsin

   6:36 AM EST ⋅ Jan 28, 2021

   Look for Republicans to give Democrats this Censure win.

   Then look for Republican support among the citizen class to collapse.

9. Member
   Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…

   @ArizonaPatriot

   Post author

   4:16 PM EST ⋅ Jan 28, 2021

   philo (View Comment):

   Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment): According to Wikipedia…

   That part made me giggle.

   Beyond that, with all due respect, you show great ignorance of the case. I would direct you to Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment by David Schippers.

   This is very unhelpful.  I find Wikipedia to be quite accurate about many things.  Not necessarily always, but often.

   My quote was:

   According to Wikipedia (here), the judge in the Jones case ruled that the information about Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky was immaterial (which sounds correct to me). So we have perjury on a sexual issue that is inadmissible in the underlying lawsuit in which the perjury occurred.

   Do you claim that the judge in the Jones case did not make such a ruling on inadmissibility?  If so, please provide an actual source, not a snide comment and a useless link to the Amazon page for some book.

   Wikipedia’s account on this issue was in accord with my general recollection, but I didn’t completely trust my memory on this issue.

   If you have a good argument to make about the materiality of Clinton’s false testimony in the Paula Jones case, please make it.  It looks immaterial to me, in the context of that case.  That doesn’t make it right.  He shouldn’t have lied.  But it does affect the analysis of the perjury charge.

10. Member
    philo

    @philo

    5:19 PM EST ⋅ Jan 28, 2021

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment): According to Wikipedia…

    That part made me giggle.

    Beyond that, with all due respect, you show great ignorance of the case. I would direct you to Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment by David Schippers.

    This is very unhelpful. I find Wikipedia to be quite accurate about many things. Not necessarily always, but often.

    My quote was:

    According to Wikipedia (here), the judge in the Jones case ruled that the information about Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky was immaterial (which sounds correct to me). So we have perjury on a sexual issue that is inadmissible in the underlying lawsuit in which the perjury occurred.

    Do you claim that the judge in the Jones case did not make such a ruling on inadmissibility? If so, please provide an actual source, not a snide comment and a useless link to the Amazon page for some book.

    Wikipedia’s account on this issue was in accord with my general recollection, but I didn’t completely trust my memory on this issue.

    If you have a good argument to make about the materiality of Clinton’s false testimony in the Paula Jones case, please make it. It looks immaterial to me, in the context of that case. That doesn’t make it right. He shouldn’t have lied. But it does affect the analysis of the perjury charge.

    Your Wiki link does in fact say what you indicate is says. Interesting that there is no link to anything factual. I presume they are talking about Judge Susan Webber Wright. My 5 minutes of research into the Schippers text tells me this:

    Another argument propounded by those who oppose impeachment is that the President’s lies were not material to the Jones case. That is, the Lewinsky information was private and irrelevant. That argument, though, was disposed of by Judge Susan Webber Wright in her order of December 11, 1997. She said:

    “The Court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame [five years prior to May 8, 1991, to the present] state or federal employees. Plaintiff is also entitled to information regarding every person whom the President asked, during the relevant time frame, to arrange a private meeting between himself and any female state or federal employee which was attended by no one else and was held at any location other than his office. The Court cannot say that such information is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

    [continued…]

     

11. Member
    philo

    @philo

    5:34 PM EST ⋅ Jan 28, 2021

    […continued]

    More than a month before the President’s deposition, and six days before the President suggested that Monica Lewinsky could sign an affidavit to avoid testifying, the Judge had clearly concluded that the subject matter was neither private nor irrelevant. So much for the materiality issue. If the President’s testimony concerning Monica Lewinsky was not material, the Judge who was physically present during the deposition would never have allowed it.

    Judge Wright’s order is not the only decision on the materiality questions. A recently unsealed opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit conclusively decided the issue.

    In the opinion, filed under seal on May 26, 1998, the court addressed Ms. Lewinsky’s argument that she could not have committed perjury or obstruction of justice because her false affidavit did not involve facts material to the Jones case. In a 3-0 decision, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court examined “whether the misrepresentation or concealment was predictably capable of affecting, i.e., has a natural tendency to affect, the official decision.” The judges unanimously concluded: “There can be no doubt that Lewinsky’s statements in her affidavit were—in the words of Kungys v. United State—‘predictably capable of affecting’ this decision. She executed and filed her affidavit for this very purpose. – Pages 242-243

    Seems to be Schippers 1 : Wiki 0.

    Also, what you want to characterize as only “denying that he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky” was really a much more complex issue about perjury, witness tampering, and suborning perjury. Maybe you don’t think rigging the system in civil rights cases is a big deal, but others do.

    But then again, when we come to the part about “She did not make any charges against him, and seems to have been a willing (even eager) participant” maybe we can come to common ground. Maybe diddling the intern with the maximum imbalance in power possible in the free world shouldn’t be a problem. (No, now that I’ve said it, I don’t think there is any common ground here.)

    Sorry, this a pet peeve of mine. I expect the young and the ignorant not to know their history…and not to be curious enough to look past Wiki to learn about it. Seeing this on R> set me off a little bit.

12. Member
    philo

    @philo

    3:59 PM EST ⋅ Feb 12, 2021

    philo (View Comment):

    […continued]

    More than a month before the President’s deposition, and six days before the President suggested that Monica Lewinsky could sign an affidavit to avoid testifying, the Judge had clearly concluded that the subject matter was neither private nor irrelevant. So much for the materiality issue. If the President’s testimony concerning Monica Lewinsky was not material, the Judge who was physically present during the deposition would never have allowed it.

    Judge Wright’s order is not the only decision on the materiality questions. A recently unsealed opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit conclusively decided the issue.

    In the opinion, filed under seal on May 26, 1998, the court addressed Ms. Lewinsky’s argument that she could not have committed perjury or obstruction of justice because her false affidavit did not involve facts material to the Jones case. In a 3-0 decision, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court examined “whether the misrepresentation or concealment was predictably capable of affecting, i.e., has a natural tendency to affect, the official decision.” The judges unanimously concluded: “There can be no doubt that Lewinsky’s statements in her affidavit were—in the words of Kungys v. United State—‘predictably capable of affecting’ this decision. She executed and filed her affidavit for this very purpose. – Pages 242-243

    Seems to be Schippers 1 : Wiki 0.

    Also, what you want to characterize as only “denying that he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky” was really a much more complex issue about perjury, witness tampering, and suborning perjury. Maybe you don’t think rigging the system in civil rights cases is a big deal, but others do.

    But then again, when we come to the part about “She did not make any charges against him, and seems to have been a willing (even eager) participant” maybe we can come to common ground. Maybe diddling the intern with the maximum imbalance in power possible in the free world shouldn’t be a problem. (No, now that I’ve said it, I don’t think there is any common ground here.)

    Sorry, this a pet peeve of mine. I expect the young and the ignorant not to know their history…and not to be curious enough to look past Wiki to learn about it. Seeing this on R> set me off a little bit.

    Interesting…