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

Timberrrrrrrr

Muahahaha wrote: »

Anyone know if he were to be convicted in a criminal trial would that disbar him from running again? Can a convicted felon run for the Presidency?

In short yes they can.

The reason for this is that no part of the constitution prohibits a felon from contesting. The constitution spells out that all you have to do to become the president is to be 35 years old, a native-born American, be a resident of America. 

StringerBell

Muahahaha wrote: »

Anyone know if he were to be convicted in a criminal trial would that disbar him from running again? Can a convicted felon run for the Presidency?

I'm not sure, but given how difficult it is for convicted felons to vote in certain states I wouldn't be surprised.

He won't be running again, I'd be fairly certain of that. Oh he'll raise money off it, he will keep himself in the public eye and get his attention fix for sure, but he won't be running for anything.

Aidric

gimli2112 wrote: »

I'm watching Mitch McConnell hammer Trump after voting for him in the impeachment. The Republican hierarchy are fundamentally broken. What he's trying to do now is save a dying party. the cray cray will follow

Playing the long game with a party suffering from collective amnesia. He is as much a charlatan as Trump.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

Raskin has taught Constitutional Law for 25 years:

What do you think the chances are of him using the outcome of the trial [given the GOP line and that of the defence team itself that it was unconstitutional to try Trump under the clause in the constitution that refers to try him for the offence stated in the impeachment document as he had left office between the impeachment and trial] to state a case to the USSC that the clause in the constitution was unconstitutionally worded and should be adjudged so leading to it being amended, maybe worded to read that an impeached person leaving office does not nullify the impeachment process started while he/she was in office, regardless of the office held. He made it clear that he believed that Congress cannot try an impeached office holder if the person leaves office before the trial starts.

Water John

aloyisious wrote: »

What do you think the chances are of him using the outcome of the trial [given the GOP line and that of the defence team itself that it was unconstitutional to try Trump under the clause in the constitution that refers to try him for the offence stated in the impeachment document as he had left office between the impeachment and trial] to state a case to the USSC that the clause in the constitution was unconstitutionally worded and should be adjudged so leading to it being amended, maybe worded to read that an impeached person leaving office does not nullify the impeachment process started while he/she was in office, regardless of the office held. He made it clear that he believed that Congress cannot try an impeached office holder if the person leaves office before the trial starts.

The Senate decided earlier this week by 56 to 44, that they are entitled to try the issue.

BonnieSituation

So that's that. It's been quite a ride.

I didn't bother watching any of it. And I'm feeling better for it.

The fact that I have managed to go over 3 weeks without hearing his voice is, in and of itself a wonderful thing.

Long may it continue.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

The Senate decided earlier this week by 56 to 44, that they are entitled to try the issue.

I think that was the problem he found with the trial, that the senate [in his stated opinion] was acting unconstitutionally by deciding it had the right to make such a decision. I might argue with his opinion but it's worth noting that McConnell is of two minds on the situation created by the 2nd impeachment charge due to Trump leaving office after the process began and trial started. It's possible that McConnell's left with the worst of both world: Trump still there and with no conviction due to Mitch allegedly impeding the progressing of Trump to an earlier trial date.

It looks like it will need the USSC to make a ruling on two issues: 1st the wording AND 2nd the right of the congress to decide that it can add/amend understand sections of the constitution relating to the trial of persons holding high federal office when the person is able to affect the future careers of congress members after leaving office.

Itssoeasy

I know I said earlier that the democrats were cowards and maybe that was a bit unfair but I still believe they should have pushed harder. But even with a second Non conviction by the senate, Donald trump will forever go down in US history to be impeached twice and with 57 senators voting to remove him is the most from any impeachment. He’s not won anything.

amandstu

Am I the only one to think that the majority for conviction means something (a lot)?

Not getting the two thirds means he avoids the consequences of a full conviction but I don't see how it doesn't jar to say that he was "acquitted" even if that may literally be the case.


(ie RTE are headlining this as "Donald Trump found not guilty in impeachment trial"

I hope he and his cronies may now be held accountable in the courts for anything they are no longer able to corruptly prevent as a result of his abuse of presidential power when he had it.

froog

mitch is an absolute disgrace. basically said he's guilty in his speech, but due to a technicality (that doesn't actually exist) they can't find him guilty. what a worthless lizard of a man.

anyway, various big cases moving now against trump and his company. it won't end well for him, no senate or other hired goons to protect him.

StringerBell

I do think it should be made clear in news media reports particularly outside the US that he wasn't found Not Guilty, he was Acquitted, he wasn't found Innocent - he was voted as guilty by a majority of the Senate just not enough to meet the 2/3rds threshold that in all honesty will never be met.

In essence - "Trump guilty in Senate trial, but escapes punishment on technicality"

Capt'n Midnight

StringerBell wrote: »

57 is probably as good as it was ever gonna get in that cesspit alright.

So the 15 Republican senators who were MIA earlier came back ?

They could have stayed away. Made excuses. Self isolated.
Where there's a will there's a way.

Tell me how

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So the 15 Republican senators who were MIA earlier came back ?

They could have stayed away. Made excuses. Self isolated.
Where there's a will there's a way.

The 15 who had been absent could have voted last Monday. They absolutely knew which way they were going to go.

aloyisious

There is one item left puzzling me from the 06th Jan and that is the story about Trump phoning Senator Tuberville asking him to delay the reading of the individual states into the senate record by his V/P. Sen Tuberville is a brand new GOP member of the senate, some-one untried in senate party machinations yet Trump phones Senator lee's Phone [reportedly in error] allegedly thinking he was ringing Tuberville's phone. It would [IMO] be very risky for Trump to use a newby to contact Pence and say Trump want's you to delay the vote recording and more sensible to use a veteran like Lee to make the request of Pence.


The hoohah caused by the newby Tuberville's revelation of the call probably caused Lee to have several conniptions explaining Lee's desire to let people know during the trial that he didn't know what was said by Tuberville to Trump, denying any knowledge at all. It might be that Trump was "blooding" Tuberville into GOP machinations and it all went GOP-SNAFU.

y0ssar1an22

StringerBell wrote: »

I do think it should be made clear in news media reports particularly outside the US that he wasn't found Not Guilty, he was Acquitted, he wasn't found Innocent - he was voted as guilty by a majority of the Senate just not enough to meet the 2/3rds threshold that in all honesty will never be met.

In essence - "Trump guilty in Senate trial, but escapes punishment on technicality"

in essence, trump was acquitted.

i dont know what the senate definition of acquitted means but in google it means:
free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.

just move on now.

Tell me how

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

in essence, trump was acquitted.

i dont know what the senate definition of acquitted means but in google it means:
free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.

just move on now.

That's what the GOP are going to do. McConnell made it clear what he thinks of Trumps culpability. Their internal fight for the Republican party has started already. Let's hope they rip each other to pieces.

Muahahaha

aloyisious wrote: »

There is one item left puzzling me from the 06th Jan and that is the story about Trump phoning Senator Tuberville asking him to delay the reading of the individual states into the senate record by his V/P. Sen Tuberville is a brand new GOP member of the senate, some-one untried in senate party machinations yet Trump phones Senator lee's Phone [reportedly in error] allegedly thinking he was ringing Tuberville's phone. It would [IMO] be very risky for Trump to use a newby to contact Pence and say Trump want's you to delay the vote recording and more sensible to use a veteran like Lee to make the request of Pence.


The hoohah caused by the newby Tuberville's revelation of the call probably caused Lee to have several conniptions explaining Lee's desire to let people know during the trial that he didn't know what was said by Tuberville to Trump, denying any knowledge at all. It might be that Trump was "blooding" Tuberville into GOP machinations and it all went GOP-SNAFU.

I would say it was a mixture of desperation by Trump and also that it would be much easier for Trump and Guilani to bully a first term senator who knows a sizeable part of the vote that got him elected is down to Trump himself. Im not sure how Trump thought Tubberville was going to delay the certification anyway, I dont think they are allowed stand up and make hours long speeches for such procedural matters. It just sounded like desperation from Trump to be ringing Tubberville while he is watching tv and seeing the rioters breach police lines.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I know I said earlier that the democrats were cowards and maybe that was a bit unfair but I still believe they should have pushed harder. But even with a second Non conviction by the senate, Donald trump will forever go down in US history to be impeached twice and with 57 senators voting to remove him is the most from any impeachment. He’s not won anything.

I too was annoyed earlier that they didnt call that witness to the Tubberville phone call too. But at the presser after the trial the Lead Impeachment Manager Raskin made a good point. No matter what a witness said the Republican party were not going to be convinced. This was against the backdrop of McConnell threatening to call 500 witnesses if the Managers dared to call even one. Raskin said that the trial could have went on for weeks or even months and still end up at the same result anyway. There was also a sense from him that by leaving these matters to the criminal & civil courts it will result in a better overall outcome.

y0ssar1an22

Tell me how wrote: »

That's what the GOP are going to do. McConnell made it clear what he thinks of Trumps culpability. Their internal fight for the Republican party has started already. Let's hope they rip each other to pieces.

and that will play out in a few years time.

with trump gone, we can all focus on biden and his presidency.

should be a good day, no?

duploelabs

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

and that will play out in a few years time.

with trump gone, we can all focus on biden and his presidency.

should be a good day, no?

Except this is a thread about Trump

abff

It would be nice to think that this thread will die a natural death, but I expect that we’ll continue to hear a lot about and from Trump for a while to come. It would be wonderful to think that he might end up behind bars, but that would require natural justice to apply and there has been very little evidence to suggest that this will be the case.

DrumSteve

I actually don't think he will run in 4 years time, strong chance he will lose tbh, but he will be a kingmaker in that party.

He will never pick Cruz, Graham etc. (which makes me wonder what he has on them)

aloyisious

DrumSteve wrote: »

I actually don't think he will run in 4 years time, strong chance he will lose tbh, but he will be a kingmaker in that party.

He will never pick Cruz, Graham etc. (which makes me wonder what he has on them)

It might simply be that they are spineless and talk out of both sides of their mouths. I can't help but say that he's an excellent judge of character, after a fashion.

Water John

It was funny how CNN put together a montage of Cruz over the years making strong declarations on defending the Constitution, total bloody hypocrite.

aloyisious

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

in essence, trump was acquitted.

i dont know what the senate definition of acquitted means but in google it means:
free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.

just move on now.

Given that after he voted NO in the vote, McConnell stood up in the senate chamber and said Trump was responsible for and caused the insurrection, it shows that the constitution law is an ass in that it allows an offender in office to be charged but allows the jury to decide that as the trial didn't start until the offender had left office, the trial was unlawful. The law needs to be amended to include in writing that an accused cannot avoid being tried after leaving office once the impeachment process, including the senate trial, has started, that the trial is an integral part of the impeachment process.

They didn't acquit him on the basis that he was was INNOCENT but on their claim that the constitution didn't allow them to try him because he had left office mid-process. Like McConnell, they knew Trump was guilty as hell of the offence he was charged with on impeachment. Even his lawyer used the same defence that the law is an ass.

Water John

But it was McConnell himself who delayed the trial, to create the loophole for himself and the GOP.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

But it was McConnell himself who delayed the trial, to create the loophole for himself and the GOP.

That does seem to be the actuality of the later part of impeachment 2 hearings. One might get the idea that McConnell is very aware of the wording in the constitution, as well as the original intent of the constitution, and is adept at using it to his advantage to get around it's "original law" intent. One might well ask if he was available for the meetings between the defence team and the GOP senators to give them advice on WHAT TO DO to circumvent the impeachment process as a single law structure.

robinph

It shouldn't need the impeachment or the trial to have started for Congress/ Senate to be able to take action against an elected official.

The only criteria on if they have jurisdiction should be did the incident happen during their time in office, nothing else.

StringerBell

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

in essence, trump was acquitted.

i dont know what the senate definition of acquitted means but in google it means:
free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.

just move on now.

Can you name another jury trial where you could be found guilty by the majority but escape punishment?

I agree though, in trump's case it's definitely time to move on to the more pressing matters of state prosecutions against him and his organisation.

For the states themselves it's a long road because Mitch savaging trump (and saying he is guilty of what he and his I'll just voted to.acquit him of, go figure) or not after licking his boots the party is in trouble down the line which makes the country weaker because with no healthy opposition both sides become weaker.

For Biden? Jesus, I'm sure for he and the majority of Democrat leadership he is quite happy to be able to get on with the business at hand and leave the rest to law enforcement.

Thankfully it's not some republican witch-hunt so there won't be any need for investigation after investigation and committee after committee on the same issue over and over.

duploelabs

StringerBell wrote: »

Can you name another jury trial where you could be found guilty by the majority but escape punishment?

I agree though, in trump's case it's definitely time to move on to the more pressing matters of state prosecutions against him and his organisation.

For the states themselves it's a long road because Mitch savaging trump (and saying he is guilty of what he and his I'll just voted to.acquit him of, go figure) or not after licking his boots the party is in trouble down the line which makes the country weaker because with no healthy opposition both sides become weaker.

For Biden? Jesus, I'm sure for he and the majority of Democrat leadership he is quite happy to be able to get on with the business at hand and leave the rest to law enforcement.

Thankfully it's not some republican witch-hunt so there won't be any need for investigation after investigation and committee after committee on the same issue over and over.

Ahem, most jury trials here need a unanimous verdict or else a 10-2 majority or else it goes to retrial

Celticfire

StringerBell wrote: »

Can you name another jury trial where you could be found guilty by the majority but escape punishment?

Yes, pretty much every criminal trial in the US.

In criminal cases, most courts (state and federal) require a unanimous vote by the jury to find the defendant guilty.

Currently, courts in only two states allow for conviction of a defendant via non-unanimous voting, and those are generally reserved for minor charges.