Really? I wouldn't have thought so. But you're probably closer to Russia than to Montreal, right? :razz:

Probably true, but I live below the 49th parallel.

No. Trump is subject to prosecution within applicable statutes of limitations for anything he has ever done, position notwithstanding, impeachment and impeachment "trial" notwithstanding. In a very real sense, an impeachment "trial" has zero to do with prosecution. For example, however the Senate votes, Trump could still be prosecuted for incitement - no double jeopardy would apply.

The case needs to be made in regards to what Trump did during the insurrection. That looks like what's going to happen with witnesses. If Trump meant any of the peaceful things he said, if Trump did not want exactly what happened, he would have been just as horrified as nearly everyone else and would have done whatever was in his power to do to STOP it.

Did he?

The US is a free country and everyone is responsible for themselves.

So he was acquitted, as expected. Now what?

The senate acquitted Trump in the Dem’s impeachment show-trial.

The US is a free country and everyone is responsible for themselves. — baker

...and there's your problem.

It wasn't a show trial, you know what he did. Apparently he won't be running again tho. He'd have to reveal incriminating records to do so?

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who voted to acquit Donald Trump of incitement of insurrection, is now delivering a blistering speech about the former president.

The Republican leader said Trump committed a “disgraceful dereliction of duty” by refusing to intervene as his supporters carried out a violent insurrection at the Capitol.

“There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically, and morally, responsible for provoking the events of the day,” McConnell said.

McConnell emphasized that the insurrectionists turned violent because Trump had told them a series of lies about the presidential election.

“They did this because they’d been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth because he was angry he lost an election,” McConnell said. “This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories.”

The Republican leader then pivoted to making a jurisdictional argument against conviction, saying the Senate is not meant to act as a “moral tribunal”. — https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/feb/13/donald-trump-impeachment-senate-trial-vote-verdict-live-updates

So Mitch is saying that Trump is guilty, but voted to acquit because he claims to believe that ex-Presidents can't be impeached.

God I hate that man.

Edit:

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell also argued that the chamber did not have the ability to convict Donald Trump because he has already left office.

It’s worth noting that the House impeached Trump while he was still in office, and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called on McConnell, who was then the majority leader, to bring the chamber back for an emergency session to start the trial.

McConnell refused to do so, delaying the trial until after Joe Biden was sworn in.

God, I really hate that man.

McConnell made the case. He needs tried in the justice system. Impeachment and conviction results only in removal from office. McConnell said that result would have allowed Trump to get away with what he is clearly responsible for, provoking - inciting - the insurrection. He is no longer president after-all.

Expect criminal charges...

I'm confused though. Didn't they vote to call witnesses? What happened to that?

It was a show trial by definition.

It was a show trial by definition. — NOS4A2

How so?

Sorry but Trump’s words are protected by the constitution and do not rise to the level of incitement, let alone incitement to insurrection. This is probably why they never went to criminal trial in the first place.

55-45 no witnesses. Presumably everyone knew that the 2/3 majority conviction was out of reach, and the GOP threatened to hold up any and all proceeding aside from the impeachment until after... So... vote on record and get it over with.

The pattern of behaviour before during and after is the evidence. It's more than adequate.

It was never about seeking justice.

That’s not true. At no point did Trump advocate violence, which is a necessary test under the first amendment.

With 100 total:

Guilty: 57 (67 required)
Not guilty: 43 (34 required)

I imagine Trump saying "he's a good guy, I like him" to various non-guilty'ers, and swearing and name-calling on various guilty'ers. :D

Bullshit. Trump will be charged.

It was never about seeking justice. — NOS4A2

Impeachment isn't about justice. It's about whether a certain person should be removed from the office of president.

I feel like you were insulting me to suggest otherwise. Were you? Or do you not understand what impeachment is?

Given their propensity for witch-hunts, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. But it would be unconstitutional and unjust and would set a dangerous precedent.

55-45 no witnesses. — creativesoul

Senate votes 55-45 in favor of calling witnesses in Trump's second impeachment trial

Not sure of the numbers. I've watched on PBS, and that's the story they've been telling(the one I repeated).

There's nothing unconstitutional about charging a former president.

They made a deal to move to closing arguments without calling witnesses. Trump’s team threatened to call Pelosi, Harris, and more.

No, I was speaking of criminally charging someone for incitement to insurrection when his speech is fully protected by the 1st.

Not all speech is protected.

Without his speech there would have been no insurrection attempt. The case is easy to make. McConnell made it. Trump will stand trial. One man created it. One man.