Do You Believe Trump Will Be Convicted?

[Mustang]

Simple question: yes or no?

In the Senate? Quite probably not.

In the court of public opinion? I think it's more likely than not.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Yes, in the court of public opinion, in the senate no and it will cause a great rend in the party over people who know the truth and those that deny the truth.

The only one which matters is the Senate vote.

So, given that they'll fail (again), why bother? He's already been impeached. An acquittal will hardly harm Trump more...

Isn't the senate 50/50 with Harris the tie breaker? Oh yeah, I forgot the ten rinos...

Yes, the Senate is 50/50 with Harris as the tie breaker.

To that point, it would appear as though you're frighteningly clueless about what it takes to convict someone in an impeachment trial.

Educate yourself and come back when you're smarter...

 

[Moonglow]

It seems likely that despite abundant evidence Donald Trump provoked the deadly mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, the Senate will vote to acquit the former president of the charge of incitement of insurrection. And with acquittal goes the opportunity to punish Trump by barring him from holding future office.
There’s been talk of using a censure resolution as a fallback compromise. But as Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said this week, there’s not enough support on either side for that option. Democrats want “impeachment or nothing,” he explained, and Republicans “don’t want to bar Trump from running for office.”
But if the Democrats’ ultimate goal is to keep Trump from ever again appearing on a presidential ballot, there is still one avenue open to them. It’s in the Constitution, although it hasn’t received a judicial test in about a century. It’s Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides that “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
This less well-known section of the amendment that also gave people due process and equal protection under the Constitution after the Civil War has gotten a lot of attention of late. Some commentators have suggested that Section 3 could be invoked to bar Trump from future office regardless of the outcome of impeachment. But it’s procedurally tricky. And if it is to work, as many are suggesting, it may require that Congress shore it up statutorily so that it might survive the scrutiny that it needs—and would undoubtedly get—if Section 3 were ever employed against Trump.

The last time it was invoked was in 1919. That year, the House of Representatives refused to seat the first Socialist elected to Congress, Victor Berger, on Section 3 grounds. Berger actively opposed U.S. participation in World War I, and was prosecuted and convicted under the Espionage Act. The House of Representatives referred his case to a special committee for investigation, concluded that he was ineligible for membership and refused to seat him. If Trump were to run successfully for Congress, a Democratic majority in either chamber could presumably follow suit and vote to preclude him from taking office. But that option doesn’t address a possible 2024 presidential bid, which is perhaps foremost among concerns of Democrats—and many Republicans, too.

Congress Still Has One More Way to Ban Trump from Future Office

Even if the Senate acquits the former president, Democrats can achieve their ultimate goal by putting some teeth in a little-used section of the Constitution.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the Senate found him not guilty of insurrection, then how could they pass a resolution barring him from office because of his participation in an insurrection. It seems to me the better course is to dismiss the impeachm

What would stop them? One can be held liable for a crime, even if that person was acquitted of it at trial. Ask OJ.

The crime he was charged with was murder in the first degree. He was found not guilty of that charge, and he was not tried for that crime a second time...

But he was, nevertheless, found liable for their deaths and penalized. And that was an analogy anyway. In the case of Trump, nowhere is it written he cannot be censured for something for which he was acquitted in a Senate trial. And if the mentally ill ex-President and the GOP taught us anything these last 4 years, it's that, if it ain't written down, then it ain't a rule.

Biden could openly call for Chinese assistance in the 2022 election. This is fine, now.

Biden could extort foreign leaders, using congressionally-approved arms shipments, for personal gain. This is fine, now.

Biden could call Secs of State and ask them to change State vote results in 2022. This is fine, now.

Biden could openly state, on national television, that he fired his FBI director for investigating his political allies. Despite Nixon losing the Presidency for exactly this (but only once the tape became public)... This is fine, now.

 

[beautress]

Illegal, overbearing Democrats are overspending attempt #1001 to punish Donald J. Trump for beating Hillary Rodham Clinton. And I'm sick of it.

 

[Canon Shooter]

If the Senate found him not guilty of insurrection, then how could they pass a resolution barring him from office because of his participation in an insurrection. It seems to me the better course is to dismiss the impeachm

What would stop them? One can be held liable for a crime, even if that person was acquitted of it at trial. Ask OJ.

The crime he was charged with was murder in the first degree. He was found not guilty of that charge, and he was not tried for that crime a second time...

But he was, nevertheless, found liable for their deaths and penalized. And that was an analogy anyway. In the case of Trump, nowhere is it written he cannot be censured for something for which he was acquitted in a Senate trial. And if the mentally ill ex-President and the GOP taught us anything these last 4 years, it's that, if it ain't written down, then it ain't a rule.

Biden could openly call for Chinese assistance in the 2022 election. This is fine, now.

Biden could extort foreign leaders, using congressionally-approved arms shipments, for personal gain. This is fine, now.

Biden could call Secs of State and ask them to change State vote results in 2022. This is fine, now.

Biden could openly state, on national television, that he fired his FBI director for investigating his political allies. Despite Nixon losing the Presidency for exactly this (but only once the tape became public)... This is fine, now.

You really have no appreciation for how stupid Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, etal are making democrats look, do you?

 

[Lakhota]

Do You Believe Trump Will Be Convicted?

Probably not - but the GOP will be!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the Senate found him not guilty of insurrection, then how could they pass a resolution barring him from office because of his participation in an insurrection. It seems to me the better course is to dismiss the impeachm

What would stop them? One can be held liable for a crime, even if that person was acquitted of it at trial. Ask OJ.

The crime he was charged with was murder in the first degree. He was found not guilty of that charge, and he was not tried for that crime a second time...

But he was, nevertheless, found liable for their deaths and penalized. And that was an analogy anyway. In the case of Trump, nowhere is it written he cannot be censured for something for which he was acquitted in a Senate trial. And if the mentally ill ex-President and the GOP taught us anything these last 4 years, it's that, if it ain't written down, then it ain't a rule.

Biden could openly call for Chinese assistance in the 2022 election. This is fine, now.

Biden could extort foreign leaders, using congressionally-approved arms shipments, for personal gain. This is fine, now.

Biden could call Secs of State and ask them to change State vote results in 2022. This is fine, now.

Biden could openly state, on national television, that he fired his FBI director for investigating his political allies. Despite Nixon losing the Presidency for exactly this (but only once the tape became public)... This is fine, now.

You really have no appreciation for how stupid Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, etal are making democrats look, do you?

Ah, and the whataboutism starts. You will have to peddle it to someone else. Not interested.

 

[beautress]

Do You Believe Trump Will Be Convicted?

Probably not - but the GOP will be!

Take this back to the DNC leaders: Grow up. We have a Constitution and you're pissing on it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do You Believe Trump Will Be Convicted?

Probably not - but the GOP will be!

Take this back to the DNC leaders: Grow up. We have a Constitution and you're pissing on it.

Not how it works. If you say it is unconstitutional, then take it to court.

 

[miketx]

Yes, in the court of public opinion, in the senate no and it will cause a great rend in the party over people who know the truth and those that deny the truth.

The only one which matters is the Senate vote.

So, given that they'll fail (again), why bother? He's already been impeached. An acquittal will hardly harm Trump more...

Isn't the senate 50/50 with Harris the tie breaker? Oh yeah, I forgot the ten rinos...

Yes, the Senate is 50/50 with Harris as the tie breaker.

To that point, it would appear as though you're frighteningly clueless about what it takes to convict someone in an impeachment trial.

Educate yourself and come back when you're smarter...

Thanks man.

 

[Flopper]

If the Senate found him not guilty of insurrection, then how could they pass a resolution barring him from office because of his participation in an insurrection. It seems to me the better course is to dismiss the impeachm

What would stop them? One can be held liable for a crime, even if that person was acquitted of it at trial. Ask OJ.

The resolution would pass. If Trump decided to run again, then it would end up in court.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the Senate found him not guilty of insurrection, then how could they pass a resolution barring him from office because of his participation in an insurrection. It seems to me the better course is to dismiss the impeachm

What would stop them? One can be held liable for a crime, even if that person was acquitted of it at trial. Ask OJ.

The resolution would pass. If Trump decided to run again, then it would end up in court.

Yep!

 

[Clipper]

Trump is a lowlife, a born thief & that won't change. It's in his DNA. Screw him & good riddance.