Trump Presidency

[GoIrish41]

That has never been decided as far as I have read. The most compelling argument I've read was that it would be essentially a part of "sentencing" where the convicted accused has fewer procedural protections.

I dont really care what ends up happening with it at the end of the day beyond it being kinda interesting.

I've also read that legal experts aren't even sure its allowed to impeach a President who isn't occupying the office.

Point being, I wouldn't assume anything is definitely right or definitely wrong with a lot of this stuff because there isn't much of anything to go on.

He’s already been impeached while still in office. The trial in the Senate is going ng to happen. There was snow doubt about that. I’m not sure why you think that is in question.

 

[NorthDakota]

He’s already been impeached while still in office. The trial in the Senate is going ng to happen. There was snow doubt about that. I’m not sure why you think that is in question.

No one said he wasn't impeached while still in office. No one said there wouldn't be a trial in the Senate. The questions would be over the effect of said trial. Again, if you'd like to clear it up for the Con law nerds at the law schools, they'd probably greatly appreciate that.

 

[GoIrish41]

No one said he wasn't impeached while still in office. No one said there wouldn't be a trial in the Senate. The questions would be over the effect of said trial. Again, if you'd like to clear it up for the Con law nerds at the law schools, they'd probably greatly appreciate thtat.

You said that we who say he can’t be impeached after leaving office. Clearly that’s a moot point. He was impeached while in office. The Senate trial is scheduled and will happen so those who say it can’t happen are wrong. What am I missing? He may or may not be convinced, but either way there will be a vote on whether he can hold office again. This is going to happen. There is precedent.

 

[NorthDakota]

You saw d there are that we who say he can’t be impeached after leaving office. Clearly that’s a moot point. He was morally he’d while in office. The Senate e trial is scheduled and will happen so a year e who was that can’t happen are wrong. What am I missing? He may or may not be convinced, but either way there will be a vote on whether he can hold office again. This is going to happen. There is precedent.

I have no idea what this post is saying.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Its not clear whether impeachment would preclude him from running for office anyway.

Another vote with a simple majority can bar him from every holding office again. That is lrettt clear as I understand it.

 

[domer13]

You saw d there are that we who say he can’t be impeached after leaving office. Clearly that’s a moot point. He was morally he’d while in office. The Senate e trial is scheduled and will happen so a year e who was that can’t happen are wrong. What am I missing? He may or may not be convinced, but either way there will be a vote on whether he can hold office again. This is going to happen. There is precedent.

I have no idea what this post is saying.

My best attempt at translating.

You said that there are those who say he can't be impeached after leaving office. Clearly that's a moot point. He was impeached while in office. The Senate trial is scheduled and will happen so anyone who says that can't happen are wrong. What am I missing? He may or may not be convicted, but either way there will be a vote on whether he can hold office again. This is going to happen. There is precedent.

 

[GoIrish41]

My best attempt at translating.

You said that there are those who say he can't be impeached after leaving office. Clearly that's a moot point. He was impeached while in office. The Senate trial is scheduled and will happen so anyone who says that can't happen are wrong. What am I missing? He may or may not be convicted, but either way there will be a vote on whether he can hold office again. This is going to happen. There is precedent.

Close enough ... thanks.

 

[Irish#1]

I find that argument unconvincing.
1. The impeachable offense was committed while in office. He was impeached while in office.
2. Trump can still run for office again. If not President, some other office, unless convicted. Also after conviction, there can be a simple majority vote to deny him SS detail, financial support and the PDB and intelligence reports. This is massively important IMO.

He shouldn't be allowed to run again nor hold any office after this. He also is an intelligence liability of the highest order. No way should he get the PDB or daily intel reports. I have every expectation that he would sell the PDB to the highest bidder at the earliest convenience. The dude and his family are grifters 1st and foremost.

I'm not expecting GOP to convict him simply becasue its politically damaging to their party and its a shame that politics is the deciding factor instead of the correct thing to do but such is the way of things.

But if he isnt convicted then make them vote on it at least.


If this is allowed to go unpunished, what will happen the next item when they actually do succeed? In this instance I am very much ok with terminating with extreme prejudice.

If you experience a hard-on for more than four hours, please consult your physician.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Twitter has permanently banned My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell’s account after he continually perpetuated the baseless claim that Donald Trump won the 2020 U.S. presidential election. <a href="https://t.co/oSn6q11xFD">https://t.co/oSn6q11xFD</a></p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/1353982648323072003?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 26, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

LMAO.....

It’s just another vote tacked on at the end of the proceedings. Fifty one votes and he can never hold office again. This is almost certain to happen.

Getting impeached doesn't mean much at all if he isn't convicted which is the real key. Ask our 42nd. Regardless if he is or isn't convicted, he's never going to hold office again. He may try to run, but he isn't going to come close to getting elected.

 

[GoIrish41]

If you experience a hard-on for more than four hours, please consult your physician.




LMAO.....



Getting impeached doesn't mean much at all if he isn't convicted which is the real key. Ask our 42nd. Regardless if he is or isn't convicted, he's never going to hold office again. He may try to run, but he isn't going to come close to getting elected.

Nixon didn’t think so, and I suspect Clinton and Trump would rather not have impeachment as part of their legacy.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

If you experience a hard-on for more than four hours, please consult your physician.

Four hours..... ssshhhhheeeeeeiiiiiittt. Four years.

I make no bones about it. Electing this man as president was a terrible mistake. Fight me.


:0

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10565
Here is an interesting analysis of the constitutionality of impeachment procedures of a person out of office.

 

[drayer54]

If you can't get the votes to agree that the process is constitutional- good luck getting a conviction.

I personally approve of this process. I hope they spend weeks trying Trump and then cycling through every previous POTUS that is found to be flawed or questionable activities. The more time they waste on this, the less time they spend destroying more jobs and ruining our country.

 

[Irish#1]

Four hours..... ssshhhhheeeeeeiiiiiittt. Four years.

I make no bones about it. Electing this man as president was a terrible mistake. Fight me.


:0

Be careful what you wish for. One punch and when you wake up, your clothes will be out of style. lol

 

[NorthDakota]

when you wake up, your clothes will be out of style. lol

For some of us, that is a daily occurrence.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Be careful what you wish for. One punch and when you wake up, your clothes will be out of style. lol

Im not afraid to hit an old woman. Do I need italics?

 

[phork]

So the republicans wanted clinton impeached for lying under oath for getting a BJ. But are cool with letting insurrection go. Got ya.
Also pretrial any Senate members implicated in this should not be able to vote. Looking at you Cruz and Hawley.

 

[ulukinatme]

So the republicans wanted clinton impeached for lying under oath for getting a BJ. But are cool with letting insurrection go. Got ya.
Also pretrial any Senate members implicated in this should not be able to vote. Looking at you Cruz and Hawley.

Insurrection is a strong word. I mean, people actually occupied a large chunk of downtown Seattle for a number of weeks last summer in protest of the police and local government and nobody called it insurrection. They clashed with police and refused to leave. The local leaders allowed it to happen and even encouraged it, I don't think any of those politicians were impeached. On the other hand, the Capitol protest was over in a matter of a few hours and the people were dispersed without a lot of trouble, they didn't bunker down and try to annex the building. Damage was pretty minimal. The five people often cited as killed in the protest? One was the woman shot by police as she tried to enter the chambers, three others were medical emergencies with one being a heart attack, and the last was Officer Sicknick who passed away after returning to the division office and collapsing. Any casualties were clearly incidental and not intentional.

For all the pearl clutching it's pretty clear that the mob of people left pretty quickly and obviously had no clear goal or plan in place. They certainly weren't going to overthrow the government or stage some coup. The rioters were mostly peaceful (See what I did there?) with the most deadly act being the police response to Ashlii Babbitt trying to enter the chambers. As soon as the National Guard came in the whole incident was over. Congress reconvened that very same evening to finish counting votes.

That said, I'm not condoning the protest one bit. Should have never happened, I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate with my above comments. Those that physically broke into the Capitol Building fucked up, they deserve to be prosecuted just like the summer protesters were (I hope they were anyway). I thought the Clinton impeachment was over the top at the time.

Here's the thing...if you were to prosecute each President in a court of law with an impartial jury, there's probably more evidence against Clinton than there is Trump if you're looking to convict. Clinton was on camera lying under oath, even if the lie was fairly meaningless and quite pointless. Trump never directly called on anyone to take over the government or storm the Capitol from what I gathered in USA Today's timeline. At best he told people at the rally to go to the Capitol and "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women," and earlier in the day he Tweeted that there would be a protest later that day, and "it would be wild." Those are pretty loose words, and while I'm quite sure he was hoping for chaos, it's unlikely enough to convict him if he was before an impartial jury. Three times during the riot he called for peace and for people to go home. Given those circumstances I think it's going to be hard to legally find Trump at fault even if he should certainly shoulder some blame and be punished. Obviously there's two very different situations and degrees of sin, but the reason Trump has routinely escaped from any perceived transgressions is he always alludes to actions and rarely calls for direct results.

For what it's worth, I was done with the election once it was clear Biden took the lead. I'm sure there was some hinky stuff done on either side to try and secure the victory, but it's unlikely the truth will ever come out and it would be next to impossible to prove as I'm sure most the tracks would have been covered up. I genuinely hope that the extremists all calm the fuck down and we can get back to some normalcy some day, but with the way it feeds on social media platforms and mass media I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[NorthDakota]

I'm not sure what to really call it so I'm not gonna bust anyone's balls on using the word "insurrection." Some of those guys really fit the label. Others, seem more like beyond dumbass spring breakers.

I wasn't one of them and don't know anyone who was so call 'em whatever lol

 

[ulukinatme]

I'm not sure what to really call it so I'm not gonna bust anyone's balls on using the word "insurrection." Some of those guys really fit the label. Others, seem more like beyond dumbass spring breakers.

I wasn't one of them and don't know anyone who was so call 'em whatever lol

Yeah, clearly there was a group within the mob that took it too far and they deserve punishment. I heard the story of a few ex military members who were up to something, but obviously nothing came of it and the rest weren't in on it.

Past that, I honestly feel rather sorry for the others that simply showed up and just stayed outside the building. These more civil people are getting doxxed by assholes online, losing their jobs, getting outed by family and friends. It's pretty sad and it goes too far. You didn't see identities given up like this during the summer riots, quite the double standard. To be fair the younger generation were often wearing masks to conceal their identity, so it would have been rather difficult to identify anyone. The protesters at the Capitol were largely not masked. One of the few protesters I can remember that did get outed last year was the grandson wearing the body armor whose grandma inadvertently leaked his identity in the product reviews.

In any case, it's sad to see people posting pictures of individuals who just happened to be outside the Capitol and vigorously calling for their identities to be exposed. That just seems rather extreme if they were just present.

 

[Bishop2b5]

You said that we who say he can’t be impeached after leaving office. Clearly that’s a moot point. He was impeached while in office. The Senate trial is scheduled and will happen so those who say it can’t happen are wrong. What am I missing? He may or may not be convinced, but either way there will be a vote on whether he can hold office again. This is going to happen. There is precedent.

Not positive, but I believe that's incorrect. In order for the Senate to vote on whether he can ever hold office again (a simple majority vote is required), they have to convict him first (a 2/3 majority is required for this). Whether you believe he incited the violence or not, there's virtually no chance he'll be convicted and all of this is basically just political grandstanding.

 

[BilboBaggins]

Not positive, but I believe that's incorrect. In order for the Senate to vote on whether he can ever hold office again (a simple majority vote is required), they have to convict him first (a 2/3 majority is required for this). Whether you believe he incited the violence or not, there's virtually no chance he'll be convicted and all of this is basically just political grandstanding.

The fundamental problem is that doing nothing--or worse, taking the position that one can't be impeached while out of office--basically gives the green light to try any shenanigan under the sun in the closing weeks of one's presidency. What are the repercussions?

IMO this take is a golden copout for the Republicans. An excuse to dodge the question and not get primaried by some Trumper clown in 2022.

 

[Bishop2b5]

The fundamental problem is that doing nothing--or worse, taking the position that one can't be impeached while out of office--basically gives the green light to try any shenanigan under the sun in the closing weeks of one's presidency. What are the repercussions?

IMO this take is a golden copout for the Republicans. An excuse to dodge the question and not get primaried by some Trumper clown in 2022.

Any DA worth his or her salt knows not to take a case to trial that they have absolutely zero chance of winning unless they're doing it for show to score points with some particular group.

 

[TorontoGold]

Yeah, clearly there was a group within the mob that took it too far and they deserve punishment. I heard the story of a few ex military members who were up to something, but obviously nothing came of it and the rest weren't in on it.

Past that, I honestly feel rather sorry for the others that simply showed up and just stayed outside the building. These more civil people are getting doxxed by assholes online, losing their jobs, getting outed by family and friends. It's pretty sad and it goes too far. You didn't see identities given up like this during the summer riots, quite the double standard. To be fair the younger generation were often wearing masks to conceal their identity, so it would have been rather difficult to identify anyone. The protesters at the Capitol were largely not masked. One of the few protesters I can remember that did get outed last year was the grandson wearing the body armor whose grandma inadvertently leaked his identity in the product reviews.

In any case, it's sad to see people posting pictures of individuals who just happened to be outside the Capitol and vigorously calling for their identities to be exposed. That just seems rather extreme if they were just present.

I think one possible avenue where both sides can agree on is the cell data being used to track down people who were in the area. I'm not a "muh freedoms" type but it doesn't sit totally right.

 

[NorthDakota]

. I'm not a "muh freedoms" type.

Thats cause u is a canuck.

I'm with you though. I havent dwelled extensively on that topic, on its face I dont like it. These idiots really put people between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Irish#1]

Thats cause u is a canuck.

I'm with you though. I havent dwelled extensively on that topic, on its face I dont like it. These idiots really put people between a rock and a hard place.

You get your zealots who believe it's their way or the highway. There's no middle ground or compromise. That would be tantamount to the apocalypse.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

If you can't get the votes to agree that the process is constitutional- good luck getting a conviction.

I personally approve of this process. I hope they spend weeks trying Trump and then cycling through every previous POTUS that is found to be flawed or questionable activities. The more time they waste on this, the less time they spend destroying more jobs and ruining our country.

For me ( and Im not being adversarial to you but attempting to expand on your post) ...this is the whole crux of the impeachment process. The process is dependent upon an honor system. The system relies on men of honor dutifully serving the country and not protecting their own party (COUNTRY OVER PARTY). The Democrats are rightfully bringing these high crimes and impeachment articles to the Senate IMO (and in the opinion of many people smarter than me). I will challenge anyone to argue that what Trump fomented ( and aided and abetted by Junior, Guilliani and right wind extremists groups) WASN'Tt a crime against our country, but of course the burden of proof is on the House managers now). I would expect if the shoe were on the other foot the GOP would have done the same and I would also expect Dems to side with the country and our principles rather than preserving the party and minimizing political damage.

I honestly think a lack of conviction will not be becasue the GOP looked honestly at the evidence and determined no high crime against the country took place, but rather they will look at it and determine its in their party's best interest to not convict. This is a huge problem IMO. The fact that witnesses in the insurrection and seditious activities fomented by their own party leader are being required to vote for or against the leader of their own party and honestly evaluate the evidence is a major honor confliction.

There are some very important aspects to our republic that are being stress tested here. This admin has stressed our system more than anything before. I can only hope this duty is undertaken with honor but after seeing that path 45 GOP Senators took yesterday....eh it seems preservation of the party is more important with only Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Toomey and Sasse siding with the Dems on Paul's motion to dismiss on lack of constitutionality. No we already have 45 GOP on the record voting against the fundamental nature of the proceedings. They will not now all of a sudden look at the evidence and decide..."hmmmm yep he is guilty".

And for anyone minimizing this event as not sedition or insurrection, it is appearing more and more daily the DOJ will be bringing charges of sedition and conspiracy to overthrow the government to people involved in this event.

 

[BilboBaggins]

Any DA worth his or her salt knows not to take a case to trial that they have absolutely zero chance of winning unless they're doing it for show to score points with some particular group.

This isn't a criminal trial. This is a political trial intended to remind everyone that we have "norms" that aren't codified by law, but maybe they should be.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This guy (Daniel Beck) says several senators, Don Jr, Rudy, etc attended a January 5 pre-Insurrection meeting at Trump International Hotel.<br><br>Unreal.<br><br>No wonder they don’t want to have an impeachment trial... <a href="https://t.co/4Y0YrxRFgz">pic.twitter.com/4Y0YrxRFgz</a></p>— Rex Chapman&#55356;&#57287;&#55356;&#57340; (@RexChapman) <a href="https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1354303258131574786?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sorry about the source but I couldnt find another video. This guy claims he caucused with Giuliani, Lindell, Jr. Kim Guilfoyle and several SENATORS on Jan 5th. about the insurrection on the 6th.

 

[NorthDakota]

And for anyone minimizing this event as not sedition or insurrection, it is appearing more and more daily the DOJ will be bringing charges of sedition and conspiracy to overthrow the government to people involved in this event.

If you drive bad while intoxicated and kill someone, the state can charge you with murder. Would you run around town saying "does anyone have any information about the MURDER that occurred over on Main Street?"

If someone said they felt bad for the parents of the little girl who died in the car accident, would you correct them and say "it wasn't an accident it was murder!" the way you do on this topic?

I think that's what some here are getting at. Government can call it whatever they want, some of these guys deserve to get charged with everything under the sun, I don't think it's wrong for some to roll their eyes a bit at the "insurrection/insurrectionists" posts.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/social-media-influencer-charged-election-interference-stemming-voter-disinformation-campaign

The complaint alleges that in 2016, Mackey established an audience on Twitter with approximately 58,000 followers. A February 2016 analysis by the MIT Media Lab ranked Mackey as the 107th most important influencer of the then-upcoming Election, ranking his account above outlets and individuals such as NBC News (#114), Stephen Colbert (#119) and Newt Gingrich (#141).

As alleged in the complaint, between September 2016 and November 2016, in the lead up to the Nov. 8, 2016, U.S. Presidential Election, Mackey conspired with others to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages designed to encourage supporters of one of the presidential candidates (the “Candidate”) to “vote” via text message or social media, a legally invalid method of voting.

For example, on Nov. 1, 2016, Mackey allegedly tweeted an image that featured an African American woman standing in front of an “African Americans for [the Candidate]” sign. The image included the following text: “Avoid the Line. Vote from Home. Text ‘[Candidate’s first name]’ to 59925[.] Vote for [the Candidate] and be a part of history.” The fine print at the bottom of the image stated: “Must be 18 or older to vote. One vote per person. Must be a legal citizen of the United States. Voting by text not available in Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska or Hawaii. Paid for by [Candidate] for President 2016.”

The tweet included the typed hashtags “#Go [Candidate]” and another slogan frequently used by the Candidate. On or about and before Election Day 2016, at least 4,900 unique telephone numbers texted “[Candidate’s first name]” or some derivative to the 59925 text number, which was used in multiple deceptive campaign images tweeted by the defendant and his co-conspirators.

This was from the 2016 election. I feel there will be more to come like this.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1360816/download

If Im reading the tea leaves, these guys created and disseminated false information to direct a targeted group of people who would likely vote for HRC to an invalid method of voting. At least 4900 people responded thinking they voted for HRC.