Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

L1011

If there's going to be a conviction, it almost certainly won't be 67 - it'll be easier to get some Republicans to abstain than vote against.

banie01

The fact that the vote to convict is "public" is in my eyes an affront to natural justice.

The vote in such an instance, where the outcome is a legal sanction should be secret ballot.

The fear of Trump's base, be it either just being primaried or actually physically threatened is all too real.
Trump's base are the ones whose retorting to physical violence has led to an assault on the Capitol.
Trump's base are the ones who are spouting bollox such as the below aswell as grasping on every utterance of his cabaal as "proof of the plan"

Being beholden to such a lunatic fringe, must be quite an eye opener when the demagogues fall.
They grasped the tiger, rather than shooting it.
Now they have to ride it or die.

I would be minded to think that a conviction will only come if a large number of GOP senators are missing from the house come voting time unfortunately.

briany

banie01 wrote: »

I would be minded to think that a conviction will only come if a large number of GOP senators are missing from the house come voting time unfortunately.

Would that work? I thought it was a 2/3rds majority of the sitting senators needed, as opposed to 2/3rds of those who voted on the day.

banie01

briany wrote: »

Would that work? I thought it was a 2/3rds majority of the sitting senators needed, as opposed to 2/3rds of those who voted on the day.

The bar is 2/3s of the senators present for proceedings.

I wonder if a mass Covid outbreak among some GOP senators may be in order.

McConnell seems to have cut ties and if he pulls any influence amongst senators left?
They have to be looking long term, and surely they can't believe Trumpism is a long term strategy.

aloyisious

briany wrote: »

Would that work? I thought it was a 2/3rds majority of the sitting senators needed, as opposed to 2/3rds of those who voted on the day.

Sitting senators as in those elected to the senate as distinct from those physically sitting in the senate on trial day [like enough to constitute 2/3rds of the elected membership numbers]?

If under a third chose to stay away from the chamber or chose to abstain from the vote, and those present in the senate chamber were beyond 2/3rds of the senate membership numbers, I'd say the legal numbers were present in the senate to constitute a legal senate trial, regardless of the vote outcome.

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/49496/are-all-u-s-senators-required-to-attend-the-impeachment-trial

No, there is no requirement for Senators to attend an Impeachment Trial, however only those in attendance are allowed to vote on the verdict. Conviction requires a 2/3rds majority (Rounded Up) of all Senators in attendance, not of all Senators overall, and additionally has no quorum requirements

briany

banie01 wrote: »

The bar is 2/3s of the senators present for proceedings.

I wonder if a mass Covid outbreak among some GOP senators may be in order.

McConnell seems to have cut ties and if he pulls any influence amongst senators left?
They have to be looking long term, and surely they can't believe Trumpism is a long term strategy.

Interesting, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference. If it's 2/3rds of those present, then being absent/abstaining will be viewed as dimly by the Trumpists as an active vote to convict, so they might as well show up.

aloyisious

briany wrote: »

Interesting, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference. If it's 2/3rds of those present, then being absent/abstaining will be viewed as dimly by the Trumpists as an active vote to convict, so they might as well show up.

I'd like to think that if there was a vote to convict Trump of the charge laid against him, it would show the U.S public that there was no such thing as a U.S president above the rule of the U.S constitution and that there were GOP senators who knew and honoured the truth of that. However, I don't reckon there will be enough GOP senators with the mettle to honour the constitution and the truth will be there for the U.S to see and keep in it's memory that the GOP senators put party above country. Trumps defence relies solely on a lie that there is nothing in the constitution to permit the trial of a former office HOLDER for offences committed in office after he left office, which is complete and utter bull**** from the mouths of his lying legal team.

Itssoeasy

I can’t wait to see what stuff the house managers drop that the public haven’t seen. That’s because there seem to be hints(and they were just that) or them having more evidence that isn’t out there.

looksee

They are going to discuss constitutionality first, will there be a vote on that, and could that bring things to an end? How will they decide whether it is constitutional or not?

Itssoeasy

looksee wrote: »

They are going to discuss constitutionality first, will there be a vote on that, and could that bring things to an end? How will they decide whether it is constitutional or not?

They’ll vote after the debate. That’s now they'll decide. And it’s been stated by legal experts of both major political persuasions that the trial is constitutional. The impeachment happened while he was president and the act which triggered the impeachment happened while he was president. Also, why did the founders put the option of banning people from further holding office any actions against a president stopped once their terms ended ?

Itssoeasy

That video that was just played looks ****ing awful. Lots of new angles I’d never seen.

looksee

They have certainly got off to a stirring start. Be interesting to hear how Trump's lawyers argue against it.

Cody montana

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That video that was just played looks ****ing awful. Lots of new angles I’d never seen.

Absolutely disgraceful.

PropJoe10

briany wrote: »

This is an interesting point. We don't know if these senators would face serious death threats if they did decide to vote against Trump as it's probably not something they're going to talk about, but assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, then it means that a cohort of extremists can control a party by threatening representatives with physical violence. And that means that if those representatives acquiesce to that threat then a very, very dangerous precedent has been set, i.e. that this threat works, and it would be one that will hang over the Republican party for a long time. American politics in general, in fact.

I wonder if lobbyists are attempting to influence the vote at all, given how much we hear about lobbying in American politics, and what way lobbyists would want those senators to vote. If it's at odds with the Trumpist base, then does that mean that the threat of violence more powerful than financial reward? Again, it's a dangerous precedent.

You only have to look at the disgusting campaign waged against Liz Cheney for her vote to impeach, to see how things are currently working in the GOP. Go against the Donald at your extreme peril. If more than five Republican senators vote to convict, I'd be absolutely shocked.

Tell me how

Neguse is impressive. Good speaker.

Leroy42

looksee wrote: »

They have certainly got off to a stirring start. Be interesting to hear how Trump's lawyers argue against it.

Fake news, stolen election, 75m voted for Trump.

looksee

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fake news, stolen election, 75m voted for Trump.

Well yes, but they have to do the constitutionality bit first.

looksee

Trumps defence talking him into a prosecution.

BrookieD

This Bruce Castor Jr. is talking a lot of crap to be honest.

abff

Yes, it’s a load of crap, but probably best described as a load of waffle.

looksee

Total waffle, he could give Trump a run for his money. He is not making any sense at all.

abff

I think he’s hoping to bore everyone to death. I’m not sure how much longer I can listen to this sh*te.

Water John

Haven't watched it yet but C-SPAN have uploaded the video.

Timberrrrrrrr

Water John wrote: »

Haven't watched it yet but C-SPAN have uploaded the video.

Here you go, absolutely shocking stuff

https://twitter.com/JoaquinCastrotx/status/1359206179793211406?s=20

Tell me how

Trump's Attorney does not seem to be able to think without saying it aloud.

Cody montana

WTF was that?

Itssoeasy

Cody montana wrote: »

WTF was that?

I’m watching behind.

Edit: I’m watching the trump defense and he’s saying along of words but not much is actually a rebuttal of the charges against trump. It’s like a trip down through his own life. What does record players have to do with anything ?

EltonJohn69

Does anyone have a video of Trumps lawyer rambling opening ??? Twitter is going crazy but I can’t find a link...

Itssoeasy

Right that first guy was supposed to go second not first so that does explain this word salad.

Tell me how

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Does anyone have a video of Trumps lawyer rambling opening ??? Twitter is going crazy but I can’t find a link...

Check Cspan channels on YouTube . See below, you should be able to scroll back to his section.

Give Twitter/TikTok an hour and the main parts will be on their platforms in the form of memes.