Yes, Virginia, Donald J. Trump WILL be the first convicted felon to become U.S. president

[Hawaiian]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

What???

 

Trump was "impeached" two times.  That just means a vote was taken to go ahead with a trial in the Senate.  While you may call the vote in the Senate following the trial a "political" move, it was nonetheless a crucial part of a legal proceeding and part of the Constitutional framework for the proceedings. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The impeachment grounds were legitimate. The Senate not convicting was a political action not a legal one. Trump's two impeachments will stand forever in history. Fact.

What move in D.C. is not "political"? 

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

 

 

What move in D.C. is not "political"? 

Cheap disingenuous deflection from the facts about impeachment. If convicted there are no legal consequences different from a trial in the justice system.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, rasg said:

For some strange reason I cannot fully fathom, Trump is having is having his celebration party on the 19th January, the day before the inauguration.   

He'll be too busy after the inauguration pardoning the J 6 crowd and repealing Bidens regulations to have a party then. There is work to do and he's gonna do it.

[Hawaiian]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Cheap disingenuous deflection from the facts about impeachment. If convicted there are no legal consequences different from a trial in the justice system.

It was meant to be a facetious remark, but evidently you thought I was challenging your statement.  Whatever.

[Jingthing]

52 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He'll be too busy after the inauguration pardoning the J 6 crowd and repealing Bidens regulations to have a party then. There is work to do and he's gonna do it.

The work of fascism.

[Jingthing]

31 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

It was meant to be a facetious remark, but evidently you thought I was challenging your statement.  Whatever.

The majority of the activities in Washington D.C. like any other American city do not revolve around partisan politics. 

For example it's the best place out of Addis Ababa for Ethiopian food.

[jas007]

1 hour ago, Hawaiian said:

 

 

What move in D.C. is not "political"? 

Read his statement.  He says it's "political," not legal.  Of course it's political, but you can hardly say it's not a "legal" action. It's part and parcel of the constitutional impeachment process and very much "legal."

[herfiehandbag]

6 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

I'll think Trump's ego will get the best of him.  He doesn't need any more campaign contributions and his enemies will be watching very closely for any questionable business deals involving Musk.

Perhaps - my suspicion is rather that money for its own sake is central to Trump, not because of what he can use it for.

 

7 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

 

Pretty sure EVERY candidate for president in the last 50 years has unlimited ego.  Most just do a better job of hiding it than Trump.  🤣

Again, true, but in Trumps case money is central to, the foundation on which his ego is built.

 

Musk has money, that ( pun rather intended) trumps all other considerations.

[Hawaiian]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The majority of the activities in Washington D.C. like any other American city do not revolve around partisan politics. 

For example it's the best place out of Addis Ababa for Ethiopian food.

You've lost touch with reality. 

[Jingthing]

Just now, Hawaiian said:

You've lost touch with reality. 

Pot kettle black.

The funny thing I find about your POV is that you pose as fair and objective while your bias is totally obvious.

I always prefer when people don't play such transparent games.

[Hawaiian]

7 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Read his statement.  He says it's "political," not legal.  Of course it's political, but you can hardly say it's not a "legal" action. It's part and parcel of the constitutional impeachment process and very much "legal."

He means legal consequences.  The purpose of impeachment is usually to remove someone from office, thus a political action.  However,  it does not preclude legal consequences. 

[Hawaiian]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Pot kettle black.

The funny thing I find about your POV is that you pose as fair and objective while your bias is totally obvious.

I always prefer when people don't play such transparent games.

Get a life!

[Jingthing]

26 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Read his statement.  He says it's "political," not legal.  Of course it's political, but you can hardly say it's not a "legal" action. It's part and parcel of the constitutional impeachment process and very much "legal."

No.

It is outside the justice system. 

If a Senate impeachment trial was a real legal trial a person convicted could possibly place jail time, fines, probabtion, etc. But no. The only consequence is removal from office. 

As far as impeachments themselves WITHOUT a conviction, the only consequence is it being recorded in history that the impeachment occurred. Trump has two. A record I daresay that will never be broken.

[Jingthing]

Just now, Hawaiian said:

Get a life!

Oh, no, he's triggered now. 

[jas007]

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No.

It is outside the justice system. 

If a Senate impeachment trial was a real legal trial a person convicted could possibly place jail time, fines, probabtion, etc. But no. The only consequence is removal from office. 

As far as impeachments themselves with a conviction, the only consequence is it being recorded in history that the impeachment occurred. Trump has two. A record I daresay that will never be broken.

You are lacking a fundamental understanding of the legal system.  I'll leave it at that.  

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, jas007 said:

You are lacking a fundamental understanding of the legal system.  I'll leave it at that.  

You are lacking a fundamental understanding of impeachment.

 

There was a big unintended error in what you quoted from me.

It said with conviction. I corrected that to say WITHOUT conviction. 

Of course conviction brings removel from office but ZERO criminal penalties. 

[jas007]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You are lacking a fundamental understanding of impeachment. 

I understand impeachment.  It may technically be "outside the justice system," Nixon v. United States, but you cannot really say it's not a legal proceeding.  It's a proceeding established by the constitution, without which there would be no USA and no justice system. 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, jas007 said:

I understand impeachment.  It may technically be "outside the justice system," Nixon v. United States, but you cannot really say it's not a legal proceeding.  It's a proceeding established by the constitution, without which there would be no USA and no justice system. 

You're just playing a silly game that shouldn't fool even one knowledgeable person. 

The proof again is that a conviction carries zero possibility of CRIMINAL penalties.

[jas007]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're just playing a silly game that shouldn't fool even one knowledgeable person. 

The proof again is that a conviction carries zero possibility of CRIMINAL penalties.

I understand that.  If you didn't notice, along the way you changed your original assertion that impeachment in the Senate was not a legal proceeding to what you're currently arguing, that it's outside the justice system and carries no possibility of a criminal penalty.  Two different assertions. Two different meanings.  

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, jas007 said:

I understand that.  If you didn't notice, along the way you changed your original assertion that impeachment in the Senate was not a legal proceeding to what you're currently arguing, that it's outside the justice system and carries no possibility of a criminal penalty.  Two different assertions. Two different meanings.  

 

 

No. 

Just stop it.

An impeachment trial in the SENATE is a POLITICAL trial. PERIOD.

[placeholder]

15 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

 

Reading comprehension is a good skill.  Learn it.  No where did I say he was found guilty in a court of law nor that he was removed from office.  In fact I said the opposite. 

 

Odd that you should accuse someone else of a reading comprehension problem.  The House of Representatives charged him. That's what impeachment is. They didn't convict him. What do you think it means to charge someone with an offense?

"In criminal cases, a charge is a formal accusation of criminal activity. The prosecuting attorney decides on the charges, after reviewing police reports, witness statements, and any other evidence of wrongdoing. Formal charges are announced at an arrested person's arraignment. For example, X was charged with murder." Just because impeachment and trial in the Senate aren't criminal proceedings doesn't mean that they aren't analogous to a criminal proceeding.

He was not found guilty.. The impreachment process is analagous to  a grand jury investigation. The Senate proceedings are the trial. Here's what a document that you are plainly unfamiliar with, says:

"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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-2/ALDE_00000689/

If someone isn't convicted, then they're not guilty. That was a basic tenet of English law and was inherited by the United States.

How can someone be found guilty of something if they are not convicted of anything?

 

 

[jas007]

Just now, Jingthing said:

No. 

Just stop it.

An impeachment trial in the SENATE is a POLITICAL trial. PERIOD.

I'll tell you what. Go to college, graduate with an undergraduate degree, take the LSAT test, get yourself into law school, take all the required courses including a course in Constitutional Law and Criminal Law, one of which was taught by someone who became the attorney general of the United States, graduate from law school with a J.D. degree, spend some time working for the Department of Justice, and then come back and talk. 

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Is it the fact Clinton wasn't removed from office you think he was found innocent?  Love to hear what part you disagree with.

 

After nearly 14 hours of debate, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Clinton, the second president in American history to be impeached, vowed to finish his term.

In the way American law operates, yes he was innocent. What is preventing you from understanding the doctrine of presumption of innocence?  It's a bedrock of the US judicial system. 

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, G_Money said:

And you believe fake news.  That’s all you got.

One of the ways that people who have nothing to offer in the way of rebuttal is to claim fake news and offer no credible fact in rebuttal.. I will say this for you: you didn't even bother to offer facts. You have nothing

[jimmybcool]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

Odd that you should accuse someone else of a reading comprehension problem.  The House of Representatives charged him. That's what impeachment is. They didn't convict him. What do you think it means to charge someone with an offense?

"In criminal cases, a charge is a formal accusation of criminal activity. The prosecuting attorney decides on the charges, after reviewing police reports, witness statements, and any other evidence of wrongdoing. Formal charges are announced at an arrested person's arraignment. For example, X was charged with murder." Just because impeachment and trial in the Senate aren't criminal proceedings doesn't mean that they aren't analogous to a criminal proceeding.

He was not found guilty.. The impreachment process is analagous to  a grand jury investigation. The Senate proceedings are the trial. Here's what a document that you are plainly unfamiliar with, says:

"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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-2/ALDE_00000689/

If someone isn't convicted, then they're not guilty. That was a basic tenet of English law and was inherited by the United States.

How can someone be found guilty of something if they are not convicted of anything?

 

 

Read my comments again. 

 

I said Clinton was impeached.  - Correct

I said he was found guilty of minor charges - Correct

I said his crimes didn't rise to removal from office - Correct

 

People seem to think impeachment can only end in removal from office or innocence. 

 

Where am I wrong.  I give up on that Hawaiian dude who I can see just posts one liners to everyone so I feel like I am now part of the party here.  Perhaps you can state precisely WHAT I posted that is incorrect.  Unlike some here I am happy to admit an error if pointed out.  I don't lose sleep over this <deleted>.

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, jimmybcool said:

Read my comments again. 

 

I said Clinton was impeached.  - Correct

I said he was found guilty of minor charges - Correct

I said his crimes didn't rise to removal from office - Correct

 

People seem to think impeachment can only end in removal from office or innocence. 

 

Where am I wrong.  I give up on that Hawaiian dude who I can see just posts one liners to everyone so I feel like I am now part of the party here.  Perhaps you can state precisely WHAT I posted that is incorrect.  Unlike some here I am happy to admit an error if pointed out.  I don't lose sleep over this <deleted>.

 

 

Clinton was impeached in the house.

Clinton was not convicted in the senate.

So he's a president that was impeached one time.

Trump is a president who has been impeached two times.

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

Read my comments again. 

 

I said Clinton was impeached.  - Correct

I said he was found guilty of minor charges - Correct

I said his crimes didn't rise to removal from office - Correct

 

People seem to think impeachment can only end in removal from office or innocence. 

 

Where am I wrong.  I give up on that Hawaiian dude who I can see just posts one liners to everyone so I feel like I am now part of the party here.  Perhaps you can state precisely WHAT I posted that is incorrect.  Unlike some here I am happy to admit an error if pointed out.  I don't lose sleep over this <deleted>.

 

 

The Constitution of the United States that an official will be removed from office w"if impeached for and convicted of". If there's no conviction, there's no finding of death. That's the legal tradition the founding fathers were drawing on. Presumption of innocence is a crucial part of that tradition.

[jimmybcool]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

The Constitution of the United States that an official will be removed from office w"if impeached for and convicted of". If there's no conviction, there's no finding of death. That's the legal tradition the founding fathers were drawing on. Presumption of innocence is a crucial part of that tradition.

 

I see an area I might have been in error.  In fact the House voted to impeach for lying in court (perjury) but the senate voted not guilty.  They voted 50-50 guilty of obstruction of justice.

 

So I'm trying to figure out who forced him to accept a fine of $25,000 and suspension of his law license plus barred from practicing in front of the SCOTUS?  If not congress who had the power to levy those punishments?

 

 

[jimmybcool]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Clinton was impeached in the house.

Clinton was not convicted in the senate.

So he's a president that was impeached one time.

Trump is a president who has been impeached two times.

 

Yes I know.  And Trump was also not convicted in the senate two times.

 

I hope this concept of using legal shenanigans dies with the last Trump administration.  Democrats need to find a better way to make their case than lawfare against their political opponents regardless of how much they hate them.

 

And I hope the GOP doesn't go down the same road now they are in power.  Despite my belief that Biden (Joe, Hunter and others) sold influence I don't think it serves the country to chase after them now.

 

 

 

[Hawaiian]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No. 

Just stop it.

An impeachment trial in the SENATE is a POLITICAL trial. PERIOD.

Wow!  Look at who is triggered now.