Impeachment Questions...

[JoeMoma]

We should at least try. Why? So he may never hold public office ever again.

Do you distrust allowing the voters of America deciding if Trump ever holds office again?

 

[Canon Shooter]

We should at least try. Why? So he may never hold public office ever again.

Do you distrust allowing the voters of America deciding if Trump ever holds office again?

He's a lib.

Don't lose sight of the fact that libs are unable to exercise individual thought, deferring to what their leadership instructs them to think...

 

[White 6]

There will be no conviction in the Senate. Democrats do not have enough votes.

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

Personally, I was hoping that Donald's lawyers would finally take this opportunity to prove that the election was stolen. This is their last chance. If they don't even attempt to do that, we know what that means, and Trump fans throughout the country are going to have to recognize that it's been a huge hoax.

Probably will not be trial of free election, but of trump's attacks on elections and responsibility for the attack on the capita. Not last chance to get your allegations in court, if you can find a lawyer that will make the accusations in court. Diehards will not recognize that it is and has been a hoax. Many of the them would not recognize their own daddy.

 

[Lastamender]

There will be no conviction in the Senate. Democrats do not have enough votes.

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

Personally, I was hoping that Donald's lawyers would finally take this opportunity to prove that the election was stolen. This is their last chance. If they don't even attempt to do that, we know what that means, and Trump fans throughout the country are going to have to recognize that it's been a huge hoax.

Probably will not be trial of free election, but of trump's attacks on elections and responsibility for the attack on the capita. Not last chance to get your allegations in court, if you can find a lawyer that will make the accusations in court. Diehards will not recognize that it is and has been a hoax. Many of the them would not recognize their own daddy.

Trump did not attack the election. The fraudsters attacked it. Trump was defending election integrity. The Democrats want no part of that. They will not release evidence for discovery. It could not be more obvious that MASSIVE fraud occurred.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Probably will not be trial of free election, but of trump's attacks on elections and responsibility for the attack on the capita. Not last chance to get your allegations in court, if you can find a lawyer that will make the accusations in court. Diehards will not recognize that it is and has been a hoax. Many of the them would not recognize their own daddy.

I'm not even sure what any of that means...

 

[White 6]

There will be no conviction in the Senate. Democrats do not have enough votes.

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

Personally, I was hoping that Donald's lawyers would finally take this opportunity to prove that the election was stolen. This is their last chance. If they don't even attempt to do that, we know what that means, and Trump fans throughout the country are going to have to recognize that it's been a huge hoax.

Probably will not be trial of free election, but of trump's attacks on elections and responsibility for the attack on the capita. Not last chance to get your allegations in court, if you can find a lawyer that will make the accusations in court. Diehards will not recognize that it is and has been a hoax. Many of the them would not recognize their own daddy.

Trump did not attack the election. The fraudsters attacked it. Trump was defending election integrity. The Democrats want no part of that. They will not release evidence for discovery. It could not be more obvious that MASSIVE fraud occurred.

Sure he did, for two months straight without evidence but accusations voiced outside of court only. No fraud that could have changed an outcome.

 

[White 6]

Probably will not be trial of free election, but of trump's attacks on elections and responsibility for the attack on the capita. Not last chance to get your allegations in court, if you can find a lawyer that will make the accusations in court. Diehards will not recognize that it is and has been a hoax. Many of the them would not recognize their own daddy.

I'm not even sure what any of that means...

Then you are probably one of the ones I was referring to.

 

[Lastamender]

There will be no conviction in the Senate. Democrats do not have enough votes.

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

Personally, I was hoping that Donald's lawyers would finally take this opportunity to prove that the election was stolen. This is their last chance. If they don't even attempt to do that, we know what that means, and Trump fans throughout the country are going to have to recognize that it's been a huge hoax.

Probably will not be trial of free election, but of trump's attacks on elections and responsibility for the attack on the capita. Not last chance to get your allegations in court, if you can find a lawyer that will make the accusations in court. Diehards will not recognize that it is and has been a hoax. Many of the them would not recognize their own daddy.

Trump did not attack the election. The fraudsters attacked it. Trump was defending election integrity. The Democrats want no part of that. They will not release evidence for discovery. It could not be more obvious that MASSIVE fraud occurred.

Sure he did, for two months straight without evidence but accusations voiced outside of court only. No fraud that could have changed an outcome.

There was plenty of evidence. The courts refused to hear it. That is a fucking fact and you continue to lie.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

With the alternative being that his behavior was just fine and dandy.

 

[White 6]

There will be no conviction in the Senate. Democrats do not have enough votes.

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

Personally, I was hoping that Donald's lawyers would finally take this opportunity to prove that the election was stolen. This is their last chance. If they don't even attempt to do that, we know what that means, and Trump fans throughout the country are going to have to recognize that it's been a huge hoax.

Probably will not be trial of free election, but of trump's attacks on elections and responsibility for the attack on the capita. Not last chance to get your allegations in court, if you can find a lawyer that will make the accusations in court. Diehards will not recognize that it is and has been a hoax. Many of the them would not recognize their own daddy.

Trump did not attack the election. The fraudsters attacked it. Trump was defending election integrity. The Democrats want no part of that. They will not release evidence for discovery. It could not be more obvious that MASSIVE fraud occurred.

Sure he did, for two months straight without evidence but accusations voiced outside of court only. No fraud that could have changed an outcome.

There was plenty of evidence. The courts refused to hear it. That is a fucking fact and you continue to lie.

What a whiner. Hire a friggin lawyer that can pursue your case. I am not interested in helping.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The courts refused to hear it.

Shameless lie. When Rudy was ORDERED by the court to present the evidence, he withdrew the fraud claim.

 

[otto105]

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?

First, I want republic sycophants on record for the actions of his mob 1/6/2021.

Second, I want to see republic sycophant defend the actions of the trump mob so they can defend them again in 2022.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Not really relevant. Impeachment is a political process. There is value is testimony and evidence being brought to light.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Now what comes into play, and this is a major factor, is the fact that the United States Senate cannot punish a private citizen.

They absolutely can punish a private citizen by barring him from ever again holding office.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Now what comes into play, and this is a major factor, is the fact that the United States Senate cannot punish a private citizen.

They absolutely can punish a private citizen by barring him from ever again holding office.

No, they cannot.

No Constitutional avenue exists for the Senate to punish a private citizen. If it exists, I'd love for you to show it to me...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Probably will not be trial of free election, but of trump's attacks on elections and responsibility for the attack on the capita. Not last chance to get your allegations in court, if you can find a lawyer that will make the accusations in court. Diehards will not recognize that it is and has been a hoax. Many of the them would not recognize their own daddy.

I'm not even sure what any of that means...

Then you are probably one of the ones I was referring to.

Or it means that you're a borderline illiterate...

 

[Canon Shooter]

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

Not really relevant. Impeachment is a political process. There is value is testimony and evidence being brought to light.

What testimony will there be? What evidence?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, they cannot.

False. They absolutely can punish a private citizen by barring him from holding office, when they are convicting him of a high crime committed while in office.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What testimony will there be? What evidence?

I don't know. They haven't shown everyone their hand. I wonder if they will subpoena the mentally ill Trump? Doubtful.

 

[hadit]

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?

It's a kangaroo trial with a pre-ordained outcome.