If Senate does not convict Trump, 'he can do this again,' Democrats warn

[candide]

5 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

The Democrats are absolutely right: If President Trump is not convicted he can be reelected and in fact will be, assuming a fair election.

 

 

Why do you mention "assuming a fair election"?

[Jeffr2]

10 minutes ago, Salerno said:

 

No, he's wrong, it's still President Trump. He's just not THE President.

 

I guess the proper term is Mr President. Though kinda hard to use that with a President who incited an invasion of the Capitol. But that's another topic.

[ExpatOK]

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

I guess the proper term is Mr President. Though kinda hard to use that with a President who incited an invasion of the Capitol. But that's another topic.

The proper term is "President Trump".

[canuckamuck]

This trial is just theater. You should all be upset that the democrats are wasting their time on this instead of doing their jobs. No one expects a conviction. Maybe you should  spend your time wondering why Biden has made something like 37 executive orders already. That's some serious abuse of power.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

The proper term is "President Trump".

Loser will suffice.

[Sujo]

Just now, canuckamuck said:

This trial is just theater. You should all be upset that the democrats are wasting their time on this instead of doing their jobs. No one expects a conviction. Maybe you should  spend your time wondering why Biden has made something like 37 executive orders already. That's some serious abuse of power.

The dems are doing their jobs. Its the repubs that are not upholding their oath.

 

I hope biden does more executive orders, enough to reverse everyone of trumps orders.

[Jingthing]

48 minutes ago, klauskunkel said:

It's not "President Trump", but Former President, or Ex-President, or Past President, or Has Been President, or Presidential Election Loser Trump

President Rejected.

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

The Democrats are absolutely right: If President Trump is not convicted he can be reelected and in fact will be, assuming a fair election.

 

 

Trump won an election, but with help from russia.

 

This time it was a fair election and he lost bigly.

 

Thats twice he also lost the popular vote. I guess dome just like losers.

[OneMoreFarang]

19 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

This trial is just theater. You should all be upset that the democrats are wasting their time on this instead of doing their jobs. No one expects a conviction. Maybe you should  spend your time wondering why Biden has made something like 37 executive orders already. That's some serious abuse of power.

It's only theater if the GOP politicians don't pay attention and don't convict Trump.

He is guilty, there is no doubt. And they all know it.

When GOP politicians don't convict Trump then we all will see that those senators didn't uphold the constitution. Every one of them should be prosecuted!

 

[Walker88]

If the Senate does not convict, the candidate who lost in a landslide in 2020 can be sued in a civil lawsuit. Since it would not be criminal, he would not be in danger of going to jail, at least for his incitement of insurrection, but he would be subject to monetary damages if the court rules against him. The jurisdiction would be Washington, DC, an area where he only received 5.4% of the vote in 2020. It's a bit of an understatement to say he is not popular in the nation's capital, and is likely even less popular after the 6 Jan putsch.

 

Not only could he face a civil lawsuit from any of the 140 Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police who were injured by the terrorists, but even his (former) supporters who now feel they were fooled could sue him.

 

Recall that even though OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, he was subsequently sued for civil damages and lost that case.

 

The candidate who lost by a landslide in 2020 could be bankrupted if the courts rule against him.

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

The Democrats are absolutely right: If President Trump is not convicted he can be reelected and in fact will be, assuming a fair election.

 

 

And assuming he is not subsequently convicted of federal statue Title 18 USC Ch.. 115: Section 2383 Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=preliminary

 

Trump did not receive a pardon (ie., by resigning and being pardoned by POTUS Pence) from any federal crimes associated with the Capitol insurrection. If the Senate finds him not guilty of inciting insurrection - that is  political finding and not a judicial finding. He could likely be charged and prosecuted by US DOJ in DC, not his favorite circuit. 

 

Trump could be fined and a maximum of 10 years federal prison. Ironically without Senate conviction, he could also become ineligible for public office. 

https://www.findlaw.c9m/cr8m8nal/cr8minal-charges/rebellion-or-insurrection.html

 

And this does not account for several other potential serious federal crimes such as RICO and felony murder.

 

[J Town]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

<snip>

 He's way ahead already in the 2024 nominating contest. Remember he's great at dividing and conquering.

<snip>

Gratefully, his greatest divide is the Republican party which is morphing into the Q party. There are prominent Republicans who still have brain cells left to rub together brainstorming forming a center-right NEW Republican party. This divide will assure a Democratic rule for at least the next ten years, and that's about how long it's going to take to remove the stench of voter suppression, gerrymandering, basic overall cheating.

 

All this is a delightful death knell of the Republican party as it is, and it needs to go!

[klauskunkel]

1 hour ago, Salerno said:

1 hour ago, klauskunkel said:

It's not "President Trump", but Former President, or Ex-President, or Past President, or Has Been President, or Presidential Election Loser Trump

 

Just because someone is disliked doesn't mean the honorific is changed.

Disliked President

[J Town]

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

You're like many Democrats who are still living in 2016 and terrified of Trump making a comeback.  I'm not worried about it.  2020 is a much better gauge for 2024.  If an incumbent President with a 90% approval rating within his party can't win a general election, what chance does he have as a challenger?  And after what happened to Pence, who the heck would want to be his running mate?  Relax.  The GOP is self-destructing on its own. 

You're right, save we can't relax. This evil former president still commands tens of millions of red hats with guns and still has a sizeable war chest. Ever vigilant is the only way to go forward.

[Jeffr2]

49 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

This trial is just theater. You should all be upset that the democrats are wasting their time on this instead of doing their jobs. No one expects a conviction. Maybe you should  spend your time wondering why Biden has made something like 37 executive orders already. That's some serious abuse of power.

Theater? Trump incited an insurrection. He should be hung as a traitor. Just like his supporters wanted to do to Pence.

 

37 executive orders wouldn't be necessary if trump hadn't issued so many bad ones.

[J Town]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

Trump is still the leader of the GOP. Purely out of fear.

 

If he runs in 2024, he'll lose as his opponent will be Kamala Harris. Who will be coming off a huge win in dealing with the virus. Hopefully....

 

But who knows. A lot can happen between now and then.

The first black female president is a shoe-in IF she doesn't mess it up. I can imagine the heads still wearing red hats exploding!

[J Town]

1 hour ago, Salerno said:

 

Just because someone is disliked doesn't mean the honorific is changed.

The former president never earned that title. He is a traitor.

[cmarshall]

10 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

And assuming he is not subsequently convicted of federal statue Title 18 USC Ch.. 115: Section 2383 Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=preliminary

 

Trump did not receive a pardon (ie., by resigning and being pardoned by POTUS Pence) from any federal crimes associated with the Capitol insurrection. If the Senate finds him not guilty of inciting insurrection - that is  political finding and not a judicial finding. He could likely be charged and prosecuted by US DOJ in DC, not his favorite circuit. 

 

Trump could be fined and a maximum of 10 years federal prison. Ironically without Senate conviction, he could also become ineligible for public office. 

https://www.findlaw.c9m/cr8m8nal/cr8minal-charges/rebellion-or-insurrection.html

 

And this does not account for several other potential serious federal crimes such as RICO and felony murder.

 

 

I think Trump has signed pardons for himself, his children, Giuliani, and maybe some others, but which he has kept secret.  Although it is DoJ practice to publish presidential pardons, since the Constitution does not require that the pardon be public, failure to publish would not invalidate any presidential pardon.  For Trump secret pardons are the perfect solution.  If the Biden DoJ decides not to prosecute him, he never has to answer the question of what crime is it for which he was pardoning himself.  But then if he is indicted he can go petition a judge to quash the indictment since he has received a presidential pardon.

 

In that case I would expect the district judge to reject the self-pardon as invalid after which Trump will appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.  My guess is that the SC would reject the self-pardon, 7 to 2, but who knows?

 

Long term, if Trump is indeed facing a real prospect of prison, I think he will flee the country for Turkey or Kazakhstan, etc.  That is also the opinion of people who have worked closely with Trump over long periods, such as Michael Cohen and Barbara Res. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by cmarshall

[J Town]

48 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

President Rejected.

Twice impeached xenophobic homophobic disgraced former president.

[helpisgood]

59 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Maybe you should  spend your time wondering why Biden has made something like 37 executive orders already. That's some serious abuse of power.

 

At least, just read the first paragraph:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

 

Just basically, executive orders by the president are lawful if they fall within the purview of the Constitution or a lawful statute passed by the US Congress.  

Edited February 12, 2021 by helpisgood
typo

[J Town]

Just now, helpisgood said:

56 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Maybe you should  spend your time wondering why Biden has made something like 37 executive orders already. That's some serious abuse of power.

 

At least, just read the first paragraph:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

 

Just basically, executive orders by the president are lawful if they fall within the purview of the Constitution or a lawful statute by the US Congress.  

It's been repeated multiple times on TV that President Biden isn't signing in any new laws, he's removing the terrible policies the former president put in place.

 

But y'all already knew that, didn't you?

[ExpatOK]

31 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Theater? Trump incited an insurrection. He should be hung as a traitor. Just like his supporters wanted to do to Pence.

 

37 executive orders wouldn't be necessary if trump hadn't issued so many bad ones.

President Trump did no such thing, but let's wait for the verdict in his impeachment trial.

[Jingthing]

34 minutes ago, J Town said:

The former president never earned that title. He is a traitor.

He doesn't deserve any respectful honorifics of any kind.

[J Town]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

He doesn't deserve any respectful honorifics of any kind.

If there is ever an official portrait of the former president hanging in the White House, it should be that of a dumpster fire.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

This trial is just theater. You should all be upset that the democrats are wasting their time on this instead of doing their jobs. No one expects a conviction. Maybe you should  spend your time wondering why Biden has made something like 37 executive orders already. That's some serious abuse of power.

No, the trial isn't theater.  A conviction is warranted.  However it is likely that too many Republican Senators will prove themselves to be too cowardly and self-serving to vote for conviction.

 

In spite of this, having the trial and having a majority vote to convict will send out the message that summoning a mob to Washington, whipping it up into a frenzy and pointing it towards the Capitol in an effort to shut down the federal government will have consequences for future Presidents.  The message would be much clearer with a conviction, but we'll have to settle for less. 

 

Not having the trial would send the opposite message; it would make it clear that future sore losers can attempt to use mob violence to stay in office without consequences.  Only a Trump supporter would approve of this message.

[RocketDog]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump is the first U.S. president to be impeached twice and the first to face trial after leaving office

He's got several 'firsts' going for him.

 

I'm supporting his efforts to become the first president to be jailed. 

Go Team Trump! 

[cmarshall]

19 minutes ago, heybruce said:

No, the trial isn't theater.  A conviction is warranted.  However it is likely that too many Republican Senators will prove themselves to be too cowardly and self-serving to vote for conviction.

 

Actually, I think the fault is with the Constitution which has befuddled virtually everyone since 1789 about impeachment, because it is such a badly designed process.  The Senate "trial" bears so little resemblance to the common judicial trial we all have in our minds that the word "trial" seems inappropriate.  In a real trial the first essential ingredient is to have jurors who can be impartial, because they have no personal interest in the outcome of the trial or the parties invovlved.  This is aspect is so important that if any connection, however tenuous, is found between a juror and a defendant, officer of the court, witness, etc. then a mistrial might be declared requiring the whole process to start over.  In the case of impeachment however, we know that every single one of the senators has a definite political interest in the outcome at the very least.  So then, the ability for the trial to be fair depends on the willingness of every single one of the senators to put the public interest ahead of his own political interest.  Is there a design of a trial that is better guaranteed to fail than this?

 

Then everyone refers to the senators a jurors, but their role is nothing like that of a juror, not only for the reasons stated, but they can invent the offense the president may have committed, also the procedural rules such as the rules of evidence, and so on.  In fact, their role is much closer to a panel of judges than jurors.

 

For these and a host of other reasons, the impeachment process has failed every time it has been tried with a president.  So, it is a feature of the Constitution that has simply failed to live up to its purpose.  Unfortunately, no better procedure can be devised, because the Constitution will never be amended again.  So, we are stuck without an effective protection for the republic against the abuses of power of a president.  As we now see in spades. 

[ExpatOK]

2 hours ago, J Town said:

The first black female president is a shoe-in IF she doesn't mess it up. I can imagine the heads still wearing red hats exploding!

All Kamala Harris has to do is continue to breathe in and out for the next year, maybe more. joe_i won't last longer than that. No election necessary for her to become the first black woman president.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

All Kamala Harris has to do is continue to breathe in and out for the next year, maybe more. joe_i won't last longer than that. No election necessary for her to become the first black woman president.

Stop making things up:

Joe Biden More Likely to Survive 4-Year Term Than Trump, 'Super-Ager' Study Finds

"Both President Donald Trump, 74, and former Vice President Joe Biden, 77, are "super-agers" overwhelmingly likely to live beyond their mid-80s—but a new study finds Biden has a higher probability of outliving his younger opponent.

The age and mental acuity of both septuagenarian presidential candidates became a campaign talking point almost immediately after Biden, who would be the oldest president to ever take office, joined the 2020 race against Trump, who is currently the oldest U.S. president to enter office. A new study published in September's Journal on Active Aging draws on publicly available medical records, family disease history and confirmed personal information to determine how ageism and longevity have factored into the election."

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-more-likely-survive-4-year-term-trump-super-ager-study-finds-1536219

[heybruce]

20 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

Nonsense. The defense has not even finished presenting its case so it is impossible to determine the verdict. However, it does look like Pelosi has ignored the first thing you learn in criminal law, which is don't prosecute a case you know you cannot win. Perhaps she missed that lecture or, more likely, was drunk.

 

But let's wait for the official verdict. One never knows.

Do you really think that the defense will change anyone's minds?  Or that spineless Republican Senators will vote for conviction when it would endanger their re-election chances?

 

Have you not picked up on the often stated fact that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one?  Do you understand that the decision to proceed with impeachment is not made the same way the decision to proceed with a legal case is?

 

Finally, do you have evidence that Nancy Pelosi went to law lectures drunk?  Or do you just enjoy libeling people?

Edited February 12, 2021 by heybruce