Serious Question

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,721
Reaction score
16,986
Points
2,290
I doubt Trump will be a candidate in 2024 regardless of the outcome of the trial. The GOP leadership certainly has no use for him and looking at his drop in popularity after the attack on the capital, he has certainly lost support. 4 years as president has been hard on him and in 4 more years, the presidency will be out of his reach. His inability to carry on discussions and to speak accurately and fluently which is not very good now, will certainly get worse. I suspect he will remain in politics, probably campaigning for others and trying to reclaim his place again as a media personality. The Trump show or Trump TV may well become a reality.
Who knows, at his age 4 years means a lot. On the other hand look at confused Joe who was elected. He gets confused telling you his name. Trump lost support after the attack but it came back up, and his support will likely grow given what plans Biden has for this country and the likely outcome. Regrets are already in play with the unions, our northern neighbors, the American Indians, mothers with athletic daughters in school, and that was just one week. Think of how many millions of people he's going to piss off at the end of four years.

The Democrats know this of course which is why they are making idiots out of themselves trying to keep Trump from running again. As for the GOP, they will not refuse Trumps bid to be a contender in the primaries.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,863
Reaction score
10,744
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
Without a trial, Trump would be denied the opportunity for an acquittal. Does that seem like justice to you?

Impeachment is about a political process, it's not about justice, as nazi palousey proved by proceeding with no hearing, no witnesses and no representation by the defense.

.
An accusation (whether it's a criminal indictment, or a political impeachment) deserves a verdict to be rendered in answer to the charge brought forward.

A dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction accomplishes the same thing.

.
 

Mustang

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
1,823
Points
245
Location
39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
Once the House passed the articles of impeachment to the Senate, that put the Senate in a position to act, the impeachment is just a part, the issue facing the Senate is whether to allow Trump to hold a public office.

I’d be interested in what a judicial decision would look like.

The house didn't present the article of impeachment before Trump left office.


Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Funny I don't see disqualification for office listed here and he's already gone.

.
If former officials are immune to the impeachment power, anyone facing conviction would resign their office moments before the Senate votes to convict. I doubt the framers of the constitution meant to create such a loophole. Although many judges interpret the constitution literally as written, when it becomes clear that the literal interpretation was not the framers intent, then the ruling is likely to include intent.

It's pretty damn simple, if they truly committed a crime, there's the criminal justice system. But the commies know there's no evidence to get a conviction, so they are pressing an unconstitutional impeachment.

.
There's plenty of evidence. However, political courage is a rarity even when politicians' only concern is reelection and being able to continue their political careers until fully vested in a very lucrative retirement which comes after only 18 years of service in Congress. However, given the nature of what happened on January 6, Senate Republicans have ample reason to suspect their lives (and the lives of their families) would be at risk if they chose to convict. That's what I would call a heavy disincentive to vote their conscience and convict.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,863
Reaction score
10,744
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
Once the House passed the articles of impeachment to the Senate, that put the Senate in a position to act, the impeachment is just a part, the issue facing the Senate is whether to allow Trump to hold a public office.

I’d be interested in what a judicial decision would look like.

The house didn't present the article of impeachment before Trump left office.


Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Funny I don't see disqualification for office listed here and he's already gone.

.
If former officials are immune to the impeachment power, anyone facing conviction would resign their office moments before the Senate votes to convict. I doubt the framers of the constitution meant to create such a loophole. Although many judges interpret the constitution literally as written, when it becomes clear that the literal interpretation was not the framers intent, then the ruling is likely to include intent.

It's pretty damn simple, if they truly committed a crime, there's the criminal justice system. But the commies know there's no evidence to get a conviction, so they are pressing an unconstitutional impeachment.

.
There's plenty of evidence. However, political courage is a rarity even when politicians' only concern is reelection and being able to continue their political careers until fully vested in a very lucrative retirement which comes after only 18 years of service in Congress. However, given the nature of what happened on January 6, Senate Republicans have ample reason to suspect their lives (and the lives of their families) would be at risk if they chose to convict. That's what I would call a heavy disincentive to vote their conscience and convict.

Plenty of evidence, yet he hasn't been charged. Go figure.

.
 

Mustang

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
1,823
Points
245
Location
39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
Once the House passed the articles of impeachment to the Senate, that put the Senate in a position to act, the impeachment is just a part, the issue facing the Senate is whether to allow Trump to hold a public office.

I’d be interested in what a judicial decision would look like.

The house didn't present the article of impeachment before Trump left office.


Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Funny I don't see disqualification for office listed here and he's already gone.

.
If former officials are immune to the impeachment power, anyone facing conviction would resign their office moments before the Senate votes to convict. I doubt the framers of the constitution meant to create such a loophole. Although many judges interpret the constitution literally as written, when it becomes clear that the literal interpretation was not the framers intent, then the ruling is likely to include intent.

It's pretty damn simple, if they truly committed a crime, there's the criminal justice system. But the commies know there's no evidence to get a conviction, so they are pressing an unconstitutional impeachment.

.
There's plenty of evidence. However, political courage is a rarity even when politicians' only concern is reelection and being able to continue their political careers until fully vested in a very lucrative retirement which comes after only 18 years of service in Congress. However, given the nature of what happened on January 6, Senate Republicans have ample reason to suspect their lives (and the lives of their families) would be at risk if they chose to convict. That's what I would call a heavy disincentive to vote their conscience and convict.

Plenty of evidence, yet he hasn't been charged. Go figure.

.
Of course he has. Or do you think anyone goes to trial without first being charged?
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,863
Reaction score
10,744
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
Once the House passed the articles of impeachment to the Senate, that put the Senate in a position to act, the impeachment is just a part, the issue facing the Senate is whether to allow Trump to hold a public office.

I’d be interested in what a judicial decision would look like.

The house didn't present the article of impeachment before Trump left office.


Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Funny I don't see disqualification for office listed here and he's already gone.

.
If former officials are immune to the impeachment power, anyone facing conviction would resign their office moments before the Senate votes to convict. I doubt the framers of the constitution meant to create such a loophole. Although many judges interpret the constitution literally as written, when it becomes clear that the literal interpretation was not the framers intent, then the ruling is likely to include intent.

It's pretty damn simple, if they truly committed a crime, there's the criminal justice system. But the commies know there's no evidence to get a conviction, so they are pressing an unconstitutional impeachment.

.
There's plenty of evidence. However, political courage is a rarity even when politicians' only concern is reelection and being able to continue their political careers until fully vested in a very lucrative retirement which comes after only 18 years of service in Congress. However, given the nature of what happened on January 6, Senate Republicans have ample reason to suspect their lives (and the lives of their families) would be at risk if they chose to convict. That's what I would call a heavy disincentive to vote their conscience and convict.

Plenty of evidence, yet he hasn't been charged. Go figure.

.
Of course he has. Or do you think anyone goes to trial without first being charged?

Did you bother to read the post you quoted, the reference was to criminal charges. Do try to keep up.

.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,721
Reaction score
16,986
Points
2,290
There's plenty of evidence. However, political courage is a rarity even when politicians' only concern is reelection and being able to continue their political careers until fully vested in a very lucrative retirement which comes after only 18 years of service in Congress. However, given the nature of what happened on January 6, Senate Republicans have ample reason to suspect their lives (and the lives of their families) would be at risk if they chose to convict. That's what I would call a heavy disincentive to vote their conscience and convict.
Wrong. Trump gained 12 million more supporters than his first election. Voting to convict Trump would be political suicide for any Republican Senator. Secondly, there is rumor that's going around about Trump thinking of starting his own party, and the GOP would never allow their representatives to convict Trump on that alone.
 

Mustang

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
1,823
Points
245
Location
39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
There's plenty of evidence. However, political courage is a rarity even when politicians' only concern is reelection and being able to continue their political careers until fully vested in a very lucrative retirement which comes after only 18 years of service in Congress. However, given the nature of what happened on January 6, Senate Republicans have ample reason to suspect their lives (and the lives of their families) would be at risk if they chose to convict. That's what I would call a heavy disincentive to vote their conscience and convict.
Wrong. Trump gained 12 million more supporters than his first election. Voting to convict Trump would be political suicide for any Republican Senator. Secondly, there is rumor that's going around about Trump thinking of starting his own party, and the GOP would never allow their representatives to convict Trump on that alone.
He still lost the election.

Keep something else in mind. While many Americans watched the riot/insurrection live, probably more Americans watched it later, maybe not even having heard about it until later. In the days and weeks that followed, more video and audio was released. Some of it was captured on surveillance video. Other images were taken by the rioters or reporters.

However, the Senators and House members along with their staff, and the Vice President and his family LIVED it in real time. They hid and hunkered down and remained silent as the mob roamed the halls of the Capitol Bldg banging on doors and yelling out names. And guess what? They were ALL scared at what might happen to them if the riotous crowd just happened to break into where they were hiding. No video is going to capture that fear on film. They lived it for minute after agonizing minute, and that feeling of extreme vulnerability in a place that they had otherwise always felt safe is going to be the wild card in the deliberations.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
An impeachment and trial is a political process not a legal process. It's purpose is to determine whether the person is fit to serve and whether he should be removed from office and/or barred from serving again thus there is no criminal record nor punishment if found guilty. Impeachment is governed by Article 1 of the Constitution and House and Senate rules and that's it. Although Federal statues do not address impeachment, violation of those statues can certainly be grounds for impeachment. Even if Trump is found not guilty by the Senate, he can be charged in criminal or civil court for violation of federal statues. In short there is no issue of double jeopardy here.
good, factual summary.

Kudos!
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
There's plenty of evidence. However, political courage is a rarity even when politicians' only concern is reelection and being able to continue their political careers until fully vested in a very lucrative retirement which comes after only 18 years of service in Congress. However, given the nature of what happened on January 6, Senate Republicans have ample reason to suspect their lives (and the lives of their families) would be at risk if they chose to convict. That's what I would call a heavy disincentive to vote their conscience and convict.
Wrong. Trump gained 12 million more supporters than his first election. Voting to convict Trump would be political suicide for any Republican Senator. Secondly, there is rumor that's going around about Trump thinking of starting his own party, and the GOP would never allow their representatives to convict Trump on that alone.
Secret ballots are under consideration so Senators can vote their consciences without fear of retaliation.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,721
Reaction score
16,986
Points
2,290
He still lost the election.

Keep something else in mind. While many Americans watched the riot/insurrection live, probably more Americans watched it later, maybe not even having heard about it until later. In the days and weeks that followed, more video and audio was released. Some of it was captured on surveillance video. Other images were taken by the rioters or reporters.

However, the Senators and House members along with their staff, and the Vice President and his family LIVED it in real time. They hid and hunkered down and remained silent as the mob roamed the halls of the Capitol Bldg banging on doors and yelling out names. And guess what? They were ALL scared at what might happen to them if the riotous crowd just happened to break into where they were hiding. No video is going to capture that fear on film. They lived it for minute after agonizing minute, and that feeling of extreme vulnerability in a place that they had otherwise always felt safe is going to be the wild card in the deliberations.
The problem is the riots had nothing to do with Trump. Nazis are just being Nazis and using it as an excuse to try and stop a potential 2024 Trump run for President again. Like the first impeachment, as phony as a three dollar bill. No impeachable offense, no bribery, and no crime committed as the US Constitution outlines.
 

Mustang

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
1,823
Points
245
Location
39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
He still lost the election.

Keep something else in mind. While many Americans watched the riot/insurrection live, probably more Americans watched it later, maybe not even having heard about it until later. In the days and weeks that followed, more video and audio was released. Some of it was captured on surveillance video. Other images were taken by the rioters or reporters.

However, the Senators and House members along with their staff, and the Vice President and his family LIVED it in real time. They hid and hunkered down and remained silent as the mob roamed the halls of the Capitol Bldg banging on doors and yelling out names. And guess what? They were ALL scared at what might happen to them if the riotous crowd just happened to break into where they were hiding. No video is going to capture that fear on film. They lived it for minute after agonizing minute, and that feeling of extreme vulnerability in a place that they had otherwise always felt safe is going to be the wild card in the deliberations.
The problem is the riots had nothing to do with Trump. Nazis are just being Nazis and using it as an excuse to try and stop a potential 2024 Trump run for President again. Like the first impeachment, as phony as a three dollar bill. No impeachable offense, no bribery, and no crime committed as the US Constitution outlines.
Baloney. Trump has been pandering to White supremacists for years. Previous politicians used what are commonly referred to as dog whistles. Trump used fog horns like when last year he told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by. They all knew that he was in their camp. They certainly believed it without reservation. That's why he had such rabid support from them. They knew what he wanted, and they did it FOR him. And he sat back at the WH and watched it unfold without doing a damn thing to stop it.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,721
Reaction score
16,986
Points
2,290
Baloney. Trump has been pandering to White supremacists for years. Previous politicians used what are commonly referred to as dog whistles. Trump used fog horns like when last year he told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by. They all knew that he was in their camp. They certainly believed it without reservation. That's why he had such rabid support from them. They knew what he wanted, and they did it FOR him. And he sat back at the WH and watched it unfold without doing a damn thing to stop it.
Trump is not head of security, and he was giving his speech while it happened. The FBI told the Capital police they suspected this was going to take place based on the investigated information they came up with days earlier. The DC Mayor didn't do crap about it. And here you go with that leftist mind reading again. "They all knew." And you know that how? Did you talk to any of them? Any of them in your family?

This impeachment is nothing more than a farce, and a violation of Trump's first amendment rights, but I know how the left hates the Constitution. His language was no less caustic than when Waters told her followers to accost anybody in Trump's circle. No less caustic than when Schumer told people Justice Kavanaugh will feel the whirlwind of the people. No less caustic than when Bernie Sanders called Trump racist repeatedly, and one of his followers went to the baseball field where Republicans were practicing in an attempt to kill them all. But that you people on the left have no problem with.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,575
Reaction score
5,666
Points
280
Location
Washington
It's purpose is to remove the person from office and to bar him from serving again,
So where does the constitution say removal OR disqualification? Removal has to precede disqualification, that's not possible here.
I doesn't.
It's purpose is to remove the person from office and to bar him from serving again,
So where does the constitution say removal OR disqualification? Removal has to precede disqualification, that's not possible here.

.
The Senate will vote on Trump articles of impeachment. A 2/3 vote will be required to pass the Senate. Whether he has left office by losing an election or resignation is irrelevant. If the articles are passed, the Senate will then decide whether he should be barred from holding future office which requires only a majority vote.

The issue of impeachment of a person who has left office was decided by the Senate in 1876. William Belknap, Secretary of War was impeached by the House and prior to his trial he resigned from office. The trial began in April 1876. For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned his office in March. Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction; the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.

IMHO, this trial is a Democrat attempt to drag Trump's part in the attack on the White House before the public once again. If the republicans in the Senate vote the way they did in the House impeachment, democrats will not have the 17 republican votes needed for conviction. thus there will be no vote on barring him from office.

 
Last edited:

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,575
Reaction score
5,666
Points
280
Location
Washington
An impeachment and trial is a political process not a legal process. It's purpose is to determine whether the person is fit to serve and whether he should be removed from office and/or barred from serving again thus there is no criminal record nor punishment if found guilty. Impeachment is governed by Article 1 of the Constitution and House and Senate rules and that's it. Although Federal statues do not address impeachment, violation of those statues can certainly be grounds for impeachment. Even if Trump is found not guilty by the Senate, he can be charged in criminal or civil court for violation of federal statues. In short there is no issue of double jeopardy here.
Exercising first amendment rights is not a criminal activity. It's not even a high crime or misdemeanor.
First amendment rights restrict the congress from denying citizens their right to express themselves. Twitter may be muzzling Trump but I don't think congress is. When Trump incites an insurrection, that does fall under his right to free speech just as a man screaming fire in crowed auditorium. Trump told his people to come to Washington. He told them to go Capital and told them that force was needed.
 
Last edited:

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
27,970
Reaction score
13,890
Points
1,100
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Former President Donald Trump can be convicted in an impeachment trial for his role in inciting the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6 even though he is no longer in office, a bipartisan group of constitutional law scholars wrote in a letter Thursday.

“We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation,” wrote the signatories, which include the co-founder and other members of the conservative Federalist Society legal group. “But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.”


Seems pretty solid to me :dunno:

I don't want opinions, I can provide just as many opposite opinions. Show me in the Constitution.

.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that allows this. The libs have just painted themselves into a corner and have no way to extricate themselves from putting on a sham trial which really doesn't mean anything.

If they drop the case, after making this big deal, Trump will rightfully claim exoneration. Yet, if the case to verdict, its the same exoneration which is almost certain. But the D's are too proud just to drop the ridiculous case.


Personally, I think its great for Trump. Will give him a chance to dominate the News Cycle for a month, showing him on TV arguing and maybe even testifying.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,721
Reaction score
16,986
Points
2,290
But the D's are too proud just to drop the ridiculous case.
Actually it's more that the Democrats have no integrity. Trying to fix the next presidential election because of their fear of losing tells you just how insecure the commies are.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,863
Reaction score
10,744
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
It's purpose is to remove the person from office and to bar him from serving again,
So where does the constitution say removal OR disqualification? Removal has to precede disqualification, that's not possible here.
I doesn't.
It's purpose is to remove the person from office and to bar him from serving again,
So where does the constitution say removal OR disqualification? Removal has to precede disqualification, that's not possible here.

.
The Senate will vote on Trump articles of impeachment. A 2/3 vote will be required to pass the Senate. Whether he has left office by losing an election or resignation is irrelevant. If the articles are passed, the Senate will then decide whether he should be barred from holding future office which requires only a majority vote.

The issue of impeachment of a person who has left office was decided by the Senate in 1876. William Belknap, Secretary of War was impeached by the House and prior to his trial he resigned from office. The trial began in April 1876. For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned his office in March. Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction; the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.

IMHO, this trial is a Democrat attempt to drag Trump's part in the attack on the White House before the public once again. If the republicans in the Senate vote the way they did in the House impeachment, democrats will not have the 17 republican votes needed for conviction. thus there will be no vote on barring him from office.


Nice deflection, your example is contradicted by the attempted impeachment of William Blount. The senate decided then they didn't have the jurisdiction to try someone no longer in office.

Now would you care to actually address my point?

.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top