Impeachment Questions...

[Canon Shooter]

I've got some questions about Trump's impending impeachment trial, and I'm holding out some sliver of hope that those on the left can address these questions reasonably and without their usual "HE SAID PUSSY!" or "ORANGE MAN BAD!" hissy-fits.

For this second trial, do the democrats truly believe they will get a conviction in the Senate?

Any criminal prosecutor will tell you that you don't take something to trial unless you're relatively certain you'll win. Needing a super majority to convict, this isn't the case with Trump. It's pretty much accepted that he'll be acquitted.

Second, there's the question about trying someone who's no longer in office. The end goal of impeachment is to remove someone from office. I get that. In this case, Trump's already gone, so removal is off the table. The left will then say that it's to preclude him from ever holding public office again. While that may or may not be true, it's a fool's errand as there's really no chance of the democrats getting a conviction.

The impeachment of a President is to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Well, John Roberts will not be presiding over this trial, as Trump is not President. The person who will be presiding, Patrick Leahy, has already voiced his support for a conviction, so he can hardly be considered unbiased, which is required for the presiding official. And, while the president pro tempore of the Senate presides over the trials of those who are not President, there's no Constitutional responsibility to preside over the trial of a private citizen, as private citizens cannot be impeached.

Now what comes into play, and this is a major factor, is the fact that the United States Senate cannot punish a private citizen. Even if convicted, a very definite argument can be made that Donald Trump is immune from punishment by the Senate by virtue of the simple fact that he is now a private citizen.

All of this is, of course, pretty academic, simply because the democrats will fail to get the required number of votes for conviction. But the questions remain.

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

 

[Moonglow]

This is not a criminal trial it is a political question that desires an answer for discipline if necessary..

 

[JoeMoma]

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

They want to punish the bad orange man, and they want to provide red meat to their base.

They also want to use Trump as an example to show what they will do to a republican that is willing to fight back.

 

[Moonglow]

The Democrats are exposing the people that support the actions of Trump and those that rioted at the capitol.

 

[Canon Shooter]

This is not a criminal trial it is a political question that desires an answer for discipline if necessary..

Thank you for addressing exactly none of my points...

 

[Moonglow]

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

They want to punish the bad orange man, and they want to provide red meat to their base.

They also want to use Trump as an example to show what they will do to a republican that is willing to fight back.

Fighting back is one thing yet mob violence to answer a political cause is not fighting back when you seek to overthrow the US Constitution like Trump was attempting.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The Democrats are exposing the people that support the actions of Trump and those that rioted at the capitol.

If you're just going to belch up ignorant liberal talking points, please refrain.

If you find yourself in a position to offer some intelligent responses, though, I'm all ears...

 

[Moonglow]

This is not a criminal trial it is a political question that desires an answer for discipline if necessary..

Thank you for addressing exactly none of my points...

I did address your point that this is not a criminal trial like you tried to use as an example.

 

[Moonglow]

The Democrats are exposing the people that support the actions of Trump and those that rioted at the capitol.

If you're just going to belch up ignorant liberal talking points, please refrain.

If you find yourself in a position to offer some intelligent responses, though, I'm all ears...

You can either take them or leave them but you may not dismiss them. If you want to stay on topic that would be great and if you want to derail your own thread with personal attacks we can play that game also. Just because you don't like what I say is not the point of the OP.

 

[Canon Shooter]

This is not a criminal trial it is a political question that desires an answer for discipline if necessary..

Thank you for addressing exactly none of my points...

I did address your point that this is not a criminal trial like you tried to use as an example.

I said exactly nothing about a criminal trial.

I said "criminal prosecutor" simply because they're the learned individuals who most often determine whether or not a case should be tried.

By the way, "prosecutor" is simply a lawyer who conducts a case against a defendant in a criminal court. I easily could've left out the word "criminal".

Pity you're unable to comprehend that...

 

[Moonglow]

This trail is about when Trump was in office and what he did while in office, it is not about his actions while not in office that would be ridiculous. Trump like anyone is held responsible for what they do while in office and that is the justification for the trial, he was impeached while in office this is the trial phase.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The Democrats are exposing the people that support the actions of Trump and those that rioted at the capitol.

If you're just going to belch up ignorant liberal talking points, please refrain.

If you find yourself in a position to offer some intelligent responses, though, I'm all ears...

You can either take them or leave them but you may not dismiss them. If you want to stay on topic that would be great and if you want to derail your own thread with personal attacks we can play that game also. Just because you don't like what I say is not the point of the OP.

You've addressed none of my points. I don't consider your burping up tired old liberal pablum as "addressing my points"...

 

[blackhawk]

I've got some questions about Trump's impending impeachment trial, and I'm holding out some sliver of hope that those on the left can address these questions reasonably and without their usual "HE SAID PUSSY!" or "ORANGE MAN BAD!" hissy-fits.

For this second trial, do the democrats truly believe they will get a conviction in the Senate?

Any criminal prosecutor will tell you that you don't take something to trial unless you're relatively certain you'll win. Needing a super majority to convict, this isn't the case with Trump. It's pretty much accepted that he'll be acquitted.

Second, there's the question about trying someone who's no longer in office. The end goal of impeachment is to remove someone from office. I get that. In this case, Trump's already gone, so removal is off the table. The left will then say that it's to preclude him from ever holding public office again. While that may or may not be true, it's a fool's errand as there's really no chance of the democrats getting a conviction.

The impeachment of a President is to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Well, John Roberts will not be presiding over this trial, as Trump is not President. The person who will be presiding, Patrick Leahy, has already voiced his support for a conviction, so he can hardly be considered unbiased, which is required for the presiding official. And, while the president pro tempore of the Senate presides over the trials of those who are not President, there's no Constitutional responsibility to preside over the trial of a private citizen, as private citizens cannot be impeached.

Now what comes into play, and this is a major factor, is the fact that the United States Senate cannot punish a private citizen. Even if convicted, a very definite argument can be made that Donald Trump is immune from punishment by the Senate by virtue of the simple fact that he is now a private citizen.

All of this is, of course, pretty academic, simply because the democrats will fail to get the required number of votes for conviction. But the questions remain.

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

This was always about politics. If Trump is not convicted by the Senate I’m not sure but I believe he could run for President again in 2024 if he wanted to. This is about having the talking point for 2024 do you want someone has already been impeached twice as President again if he should decide to run again. That is all this has ever been about.

 

[Canon Shooter]

This trail is about when Trump was in office and what he did while in office, it is not about his actions while not in office that would be ridiculous. Trump like anyone is held responsible for what they do while in office and that is the justification for the trial, he was impeached while in office this is the trial phase.

Then maybe they should've tried him while he was President because, now, he's a private citizen, and the Senate cannot punish a private citizen...

 

[Canon Shooter]

I've got some questions about Trump's impending impeachment trial, and I'm holding out some sliver of hope that those on the left can address these questions reasonably and without their usual "HE SAID PUSSY!" or "ORANGE MAN BAD!" hissy-fits.

For this second trial, do the democrats truly believe they will get a conviction in the Senate?

Any criminal prosecutor will tell you that you don't take something to trial unless you're relatively certain you'll win. Needing a super majority to convict, this isn't the case with Trump. It's pretty much accepted that he'll be acquitted.

Second, there's the question about trying someone who's no longer in office. The end goal of impeachment is to remove someone from office. I get that. In this case, Trump's already gone, so removal is off the table. The left will then say that it's to preclude him from ever holding public office again. While that may or may not be true, it's a fool's errand as there's really no chance of the democrats getting a conviction.

The impeachment of a President is to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Well, John Roberts will not be presiding over this trial, as Trump is not President. The person who will be presiding, Patrick Leahy, has already voiced his support for a conviction, so he can hardly be considered unbiased, which is required for the presiding official. And, while the president pro tempore of the Senate presides over the trials of those who are not President, there's no Constitutional responsibility to preside over the trial of a private citizen, as private citizens cannot be impeached.

Now what comes into play, and this is a major factor, is the fact that the United States Senate cannot punish a private citizen. Even if convicted, a very definite argument can be made that Donald Trump is immune from punishment by the Senate by virtue of the simple fact that he is now a private citizen.

All of this is, of course, pretty academic, simply because the democrats will fail to get the required number of votes for conviction. But the questions remain.

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

This was always about politics. If Trump is not convicted by the Senate I’m not sure but I believe he could run for President again in 2024 if he wanted to. This is about having the talking point for 2024 do you want someone has already been impeached twice as President again if he should decide to run again. That is all this has ever been about.

Honestly, considering how democrats were screaming for impeachment before he even took the oath of office, the fact that they've impeached him is, to me, pretty meaningless...

 

[Moonglow]

This is not a criminal trial it is a political question that desires an answer for discipline if necessary..

Thank you for addressing exactly none of my points...

I did address your point that this is not a criminal trial like you tried to use as an example.

I said exactly nothing about a criminal trial.

I said "criminal prosecutor" simply because they're the learned individuals who most often determine whether or not a case should be tried.

By the way, "prosecutor" is simply a lawyer who conducts a case against a defendant in a criminal court. I easily could've left out the word "criminal".

Pity you're unable to comprehend that...

Any criminal prosecutor will tell you that you don't take something to trial unless you're relatively certain you'll win.

this is not a criminal trial I will reiterate to your ignorance and let you know that this trial is being held because it is part of a system used to keep people from pulling boners like Trump did because he wanted to remain in power. You feelings are not what is at stake here a fundamental issue of having adults run the country is that when they lose they do not try to change the outcome through hook and crook.

 

[Moonglow]

This trail is about when Trump was in office and what he did while in office, it is not about his actions while not in office that would be ridiculous. Trump like anyone is held responsible for what they do while in office and that is the justification for the trial, he was impeached while in office this is the trial phase.

Then maybe they should've tried him while he was President because, now, he's a private citizen, and the Senate cannot punish a private citizen...

The punishment's they can give him is a political punishment not a criminal one, that trial will come later.

 

[Canon Shooter]

This is not a criminal trial it is a political question that desires an answer for discipline if necessary..

Thank you for addressing exactly none of my points...

I did address your point that this is not a criminal trial like you tried to use as an example.

I said exactly nothing about a criminal trial.

I said "criminal prosecutor" simply because they're the learned individuals who most often determine whether or not a case should be tried.

By the way, "prosecutor" is simply a lawyer who conducts a case against a defendant in a criminal court. I easily could've left out the word "criminal".

Pity you're unable to comprehend that...

Any criminal prosecutor will tell you that you don't take something to trial unless you're relatively certain you'll win.

this is not a criminal trial I will reiterate to your ignorance and let you know that this trial is being held because it is part of a system used to keep people from pulling boners like Trump did because he wanted to remain in power. You feelings are not what is at stake here a fundamental issue of having adults run the country is that when they lose they do not try to change the outcome through hook and crook.

Hey, dumbfuck, I never said it was a criminal trial.

A private citizen cannot be punished by the United States Senate. The democrats are going to have to wrestle with that, because that's among the first things which will be thrown in their faces.

Do you believe Trump will be convicted?

 

[Canon Shooter]

This trail is about when Trump was in office and what he did while in office, it is not about his actions while not in office that would be ridiculous. Trump like anyone is held responsible for what they do while in office and that is the justification for the trial, he was impeached while in office this is the trial phase.

Then maybe they should've tried him while he was President because, now, he's a private citizen, and the Senate cannot punish a private citizen...

The punishment's they can give him is a political punishment not a criminal one, that trial will come later.

More liberal idiocy.

What political punishment can they give him? They're not trying a President. They're trying a private citizen.

Do you think Trump will be convicted?

 

[JoeMoma]

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

They want to punish the bad orange man, and they want to provide red meat to their base.

They also want to use Trump as an example to show what they will do to a republican that is willing to fight back.

Fighting back is one thing yet mob violence to answer a political cause is not fighting back when you seek to overthrow the US Constitution like Trump was attempting.

Trump was not attempting to overthrow the US Constitution. He did not tell the people to riot, but he did encourage them to peacefully protest. A bunch of people, which was actually a small percentage of people that were in DC supporting Trump got out of hand. They should be tried and if convicted punished according to the law.

Trump wanted Pence and the Republican led senate to not accept the electors vote for president due to fraud in several swing states. It is debatable whether this is constitutional. If it is not, it would not be the first time a president is wrong about the constitution. Being wrong is not an impeachable offense...... unless the house decides to vote that it is.