Do You Believe Trump Will Be Convicted?

[Lastamender]

My apologies, I should've been clearer.

Do you think he will be convicted by the Senate in his impeachment trial?

No, it'll be enough for some Senate Republicans that he has been banished by the American People, and all future prosecutions will be brought against the extremists he incited to attack the capitol. If any of them then sue him, that's another matter.

 

[Rawley]

Simple question: yes or no?

In the senate? No fuckin' way. The QOP is far to afraid of him.

In a court of law, later this year? Almost certainly.

You think Biden is going to have President Trump arrested? Really?

 

[Lastamender]

Simple question: yes or no?

In the senate? No fuckin' way. The QOP is far to afraid of him.

In a court of law, later this year? Almost certainly.

You think Biden is going to have President Trump arrested? Really?

Biden is not going to do one thing. He is simply just there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Too many idiotic Americans bought into the democrat's "unity" bullshit.

Nah, total fantasy. The fact is, Trump and Trumpism created more votes against it/himself than for it/himself. And that's not going to change.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Please cite your source.

Civics. Look up censure. Or don't. 51 votes.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Too many idiotic Americans bought into the democrat's "unity" bullshit.

Nah, total fantasy. The fact is, Trump and Trumpism created more votes against it/himself than for it/himself. And that's not going to change.

I agree that his antics turned off a lot of his previous supporters, but I disagree that it couldn't change. If Biden turns out to be the fuck up that it appears he will, those who moved away from Trump and voted for Biden, hoping for something better, could easily shift right back if they believe Biden can be beaten.

Biden wouldn't have won the election if a good number of previous Trump supporters didn't vote for him. If they sway back to Trump, Trump could most certainly win in 2024...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Simple question: yes or no?

No it is not a simple question and anyone who thinks that it's simple, or thinks that they know the answer, is well....SIMPLE McConnel wants him out of the way and out of the party. He is destoying and fragmenting the party amd McConnel and others know it. McConnel, who has a lot of influence in his party, may well be lobbying Senators to drum up the voytes to convict

And now, The Deocrats has asked Trump to testify! Very clever indeed! He is in a no win situation. He could be a no show, or take the 5th which would confirm his guilt and make him look even more stupid that he alredy does. Or, he could testify and get himself into even deeper shit with his pathological and compulsive lying . I am looking forward to the shit show.

It is a very simple question.

Do you think he'll be convicted?

I'm well aware that there are all kinds of things which come into play. I'm simply bypassing them ask what you think the end result will be.

Taking the 5th confirms nothing. Of course idiot libs will say it confirms his guilt, but thinking Americans know it doesn't. The fact of the matter is that the only reason for him to testify is that a conviction was a very possible result, and it's just not. The democrats know they don't have the votes. They know they'll be failing for a second time, and they know that good Americans are getting tired of the circus the democrats have created...

I stand by my answer. You are just dumbing it down by demanding a yes or no answere. Typicical of the anti intelecualism of the right. You're right about one thing: good Americans are getting tired of the circus. But not a circus that the Denmocrats created. It's a circus that the former clown in chief created.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I agree that his antics turned off a lot of his previous supporters, but I disagree that it couldn't change

Nonsense. Trump got 11 million MORE votes in 2020 than in 2016.

Biden wouldn't have won the election if a good number of previous Trump supporters didn't vote for him

Nonsense. See above. And Biden got 81 million votes. Every Trump rally was really a Biden rally, mwahahahaaa

 

[Canon Shooter]

Please cite your source.

Civics. Look up censure. Or don't. 51 votes.

Okay, so you're unable to support your argument.

Presidential Censure

Presidential Censure

Congress rarely acts against the president with a formal reprimand. Andrew Jackson was the first president to be thus reprimanded, by the Senate in 1834, after he removed the secretary of the treasury (a responsibility that Congress believed rested with the legislature). Jackson was a Democrat, but the Senate was controlled by the rival Whig Party. Three years later, when the Democrats took control of the Senate, Jackson's censure was expunged from the records.


President John Tyler was reprimanded in 1842 by the House of Representatives, which accused him of abusing his powers. Apparently Tyler had promised representatives on several occasions that he would support certain bills, only to Veto them when they arrived at his desk. In 1848, President James K. Polk was reprimanded by the House for starting the Mexican War without first obtaining Congressional approval. In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln and his secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, were condemned by the Senate for allowing an elected member of the House to hold commissions in the Army. The Senate voted for the reprimand 24 to 12, but it was referred to a special committee and no further action was taken.

In 1998, during the Impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, several members of Congress attempted to have him censured instead, believing that while his behavior warranted rebuke it did not merit a full impeachment. The move for censure failed, and Clinton was impeached.


Nowhere in that text regarding Presidential censure does it say anything about 51 votes for anything. Those who are censured are rarely re-elected, but there's no apparent provision which would allows for a vote by the Senate to keep Trump from running again.

They'll need a conviction for that, and everyone knows that's a pipe dream...

 

[Canon Shooter]

I stand by my answer.

But your answer was actually no answer at all. All you did was go off on some estrogen-driven hissy-fit about Trump.

Your gut wants you to say "Yes, he'll be convicted", but you're just too big a chickenshit to be wrong....

 

[LeftofLeft]

Who gives a shit? America is not at full economic capacity because of a global virus that originated in China and Democrats are still obsessed with Trump. Go ahead.... convict him while US struggles because of China.

 

[Crepitus]

Simple question: yes or no?

In the senate? No fuckin' way. The QOP is far to afraid of him.

In a court of law, later this year? Almost certainly.

For what?

Everything from tax evasion on up.

What evidence is there of tax evasion?

Or do you just go by what Wolf Blitzer and Keith Olbermann tell you?

Let's see what happens with SDNY.

 

[Clipper]

No.

They would if the vote was private.

Baseless fantasy.

All Toro wants is for the dark skinned VP to become President.

Just keep handing us a few more MTG's. That's all we need to send you clowns into orbit.

 

[Clipper]

Simple question: yes or no?

Yes. For spectacular incompetence and criminal negligence.

Really?

See, because neither of those are the charges contained in the articles of impeachment.

I'll just mark you down as another low-information lib with little to add...

Trump is NOT going to testify. He's a coward.

No it is a sigh of desperation that the dumdass, I mean Democrats asked him to testify, it is clear sign they know their case is dead in the water.

Trump doesn't have the balls to testify. As usual he lets his bulldog mouth get in the way of his chickenshit ass.

 

[Larsky]

Potato

 

[Indeependent]

No.

They would if the vote was private.

Baseless fantasy.

All Toro wants is for the dark skinned VP to become President.

Just keep handing us a few more MTG's. That's all we need to send you clowns into orbit.

I deal with facts, not emotions.
But don't let that stop your ad hominems.
After all, your Internet access is unlimited.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Simple question: yes or no?

Yes. For spectacular incompetence and criminal negligence.

Really?

See, because neither of those are the charges contained in the articles of impeachment.

I'll just mark you down as another low-information lib with little to add...

Trump is NOT going to testify. He's a coward.

He cannot be compelled to testify. That's how our system of justice is set up.

You're on record as stating that he will be convicted on two charges on which he's not even being tried.

You're an idiot...

Trump can lie and talk trash all day long but he's too chicken shit to testify. Are you impressed?

he's to smart to play the dems games. They want him to testify so they can try to spin a perjury trap.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I stand by my answer.

But your answer was actually no answer at all. All you did was go off on some estrogen-driven hissy-fit about Trump.

Your gut wants you to say "Yes, he'll be convicted", but you're just too big a chickenshit to be wrong....

Not an answer? Your problem is that you want a simple answer to a complex issue , because simple is all that you can deal with

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Okay, so you're unable to support your argument.

I just dont spoonfeed simple, easily found information that is literally in the news almost every day. The info is easily found, as is the precedent for censuring a President.

Basically, how it would work is that the 14th amendment would be invoked and referenced in the censure resolution. There is nothing prohibiting this in the Constitution.

 

[NoNukes]

Simple question: yes or no?

No.