What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

ohnonotgmail

everlast75 wrote: »

I think the penny has dropped with a lot of Americans that you cannot "both sides" trump anymore.

The big lie, as it is referred to, is so egregious. What it caused was entirely foreseeable. Couple that with the fact that he is (thankfully) out of power means that people are now prepared to call him on his BS.

News media reporters who stayed in the centre finally are saying what needs to be said and now you have lawyers clearly saying that they want no part of Trump or his lie. It is about damn time.

I'm not as optimistic as you. there will be no consequences for Trump from all of this.

ohnonotgmail

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Of course not. But a defense attorney already knows kind of thing they're going to be defending.

Trumps lawyers likely don't know the full extent of the situation until the get in there. Also they're undoubted facing a lot of social pressure not to defend a man who is perceived as dividing the country and inciting an insurrection. Defending him unfairly carry's a potential career ending stigma.

Peddling his big lie about election fraud would certainly be career ending. and rightly so. If his defence team argued on the constitutionality of a senate trial for a former president there would be no stigma.

nolivesmatter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Peddling his big lie about election fraud would certainly be career ending. and rightly so. If his defence team argued on the constitutionality of a senate trial for a former president there would be no stigma.

There is a stigma just by defending Trump which I think is unfair. But I agree, if they continue to peddle his lies then they should reap what they sow.

Quin_Dub

nolivesmatter wrote: »

No, I'm aware of circumstance for the tweet. I'm saying defending Manson was a job for a criminal defense lawyer that had to be done. No moral reason to quit there once you've taken that job in the first place.

The point is not about the Client and their alleged crimes - Everyone requires legal representation.

However , what we have here is a client that is refusing point blank to accept the legal guidance being given to him by his legal team.

That is why they quit , not because they have an opinion about his guilt or innocence or because they dislike him as a person.

Bottom-line though , Trump knows that he will be acquitted no matter what happens in the course of the trial. so what he wants to do is spend the free Prime time TV coverage on spreading more of his disinformation and lies about the election so that he can continue to grift cash off his supporters.

His previous legal team were clearly unhappy at essentially being used as MC's for the "Donald Trump Election Bullsh!t show".

Amazingly, they thought that they were being hired to be actual lawyers to argue points of Constitutional law in a Major high profile case , when they discovered that this wasn't the case , they resigned.

Muahahaha

Aside from Mitt Romney what other Reps are expected to vote to convict him?

everlast75

https://twitter.com/EricLiptonNYT/status/1356025806846382091?s=19

A worthwhile read

everlast75

Muahahaha wrote: »

Aside from Mitt Romney what other Reps are expected to vote to convict him?

At this stage, it borders from highly unlikely to definite that he won't be convicted.

However, there are 2 weeks left and lots of polling numbers to look at for the rep Senators.

You see - that's what it's all about. My kingdom for one with any sort of moral compass.

Tell me how

Muahahaha wrote: »

Aside from Mitt Romney what other Reps are expected to vote to convict him?

everlast75 wrote: »

At this stage, it borders from highly unlikely to definite that he won't be convicted.

However, there are 2 weeks left and lots of polling numbers to look at for the rep Senators.

You see - that's what it's all about. My kingdom for one with any sort of moral compass.

Don't think he is going to be convicted. But think the trial is absolutely necessary to showcase exactly what happened on and around the 6th, and also make Senators put their name to the fact that they don't actually care about their supposedly revered constitution.

jill_valentine

Quin_Dub wrote: »

However , what we have here is a client that is refusing point blank to accept the legal guidance being given to him by his legal team.

That is why they quit , not because they have an opinion about his guilt or innocence or because they dislike him as a person.

I would suggest he may have made it clear he will use the proceedings to lie and maybe even spur on more violence given half a chance, and they're legitimately concerned he'll make them party to a crime. Lawyers can and do defend guilty clients, but if their client tells them in advance of their intention to commit perjury or some other new crime they're in potentially very hot water.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Don't think he is going to be convicted. But think the trial is absolutely necessary to showcase exactly what happened on and around the 6th, and also make Senators put their name to the fact that they don't actually care about their supposedly revered constitution.

Yeah, showtrials have always been a positive development..

That some of you are on a horn at the way the institutions of justice are being weaponised is frightening..

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, showtrials have always been a positive development..

That some of you are on a horn at the way the institutions of justice are being weaponised is frightening..

People placed on trial in accordance with the law is entirely positive. That he won't be convicted because the GOP will never vote to convict despite the evidence is an issue and the american voting public need to know where their senators stand on treason and sedition.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, showtrials have always been a positive development..

That some of you are on a horn at the way the institutions of justice are being weaponised is frightening..

Takes some gall to call this a show trial after Clinton was impeached over a blowjob.

What happened to the 'Law and Order' BS the US electorate were fed by Trump?

everlast75

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, showtrials have always been a positive development..

I think the reason why Trump's lawyers quit was exactly because he was going to make it a show trial. That's the important difference

Deleted User wrote: »

That some of you are on a horn at the way the institutions of justice are being weaponised is frightening..

1) Implementing the correct procedure is not "weaponising" it.

2) "Weaponising" the institutions of justice would be, for example, getting the department of justice to step into a case brought by a person who alleged Trump defamed her, or attempting to prosecute Andy McCabe despite there being no case, or the widespread and unprecedented usage of NDAs and threatening to sue people if they breached them? You know, all the stuff you voiced your outrage against on the previous Trump thread. Oh wait....

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah, showtrials have always been a positive development..

That some of you are on a horn at the way the institutions of justice are being weaponised is frightening..

If you made any post calling out the senate GOP for voting to interpret an impeachment as unconstitutional I must have missed it? Don’t you think it’s up to the SCOTUS to interpret the constitution?

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

If you made any post calling out the senate GOP for voting to interpret an impeachment as unconstitutional I must have missed it? Don’t you think it’s up to the SCOTUS to interpret the constitution?

Ah spare me.. This is a political witch hunt to stop him from running again..

You know it as well as I do..

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah spare me.. This is a political witch hunt to stop him from running again..

You know it as well as I do..

Do you think that he has any case to answer for his actions relating to what happened on January 6th?

If yes , then where and how should he be held accountable for those actions?

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah spare me.. This is a political witch hunt to stop him from running again..

You know it as well as I do..

Putting aside the use of the most trotted out and ridiculous phrase since "no collusion, no obstruction" do you think he should run again?

Do you think the trial is unconstitutional?

If so, why?

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah spare me.. This is a political witch hunt to stop him from running again..

You know it as well as I do..

Do you not think he has a case to answer?

And why would he want to run again, the system is clearly and obviously completed stacked in favour of the DNC and now he is out of power that is only get worse.

I'm mean, if one was to actually believe the crazy!

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Do you think that he has any case to answer for his actions relating to what happened on January 6th?

If yes , then where and how should he be held accountable for those actions?

No..

Penn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah spare me.. This is a political witch hunt to stop him from running again..

You know it as well as I do..

If I were the Dems, I'd love for him to run again. He lost by about 8m votes, voters mobilised against him to flip some states blue which haven't been that colour in quite some time, and more importantly, Biden beat him. Biden... probably one of the least progressive, more of the same, old as f*ck and lowest energy candidates the Dems could have put forward. And he beat Trump by 8m votes. The GOP also lost the Senate.

If the Dems were impeaching him for a minor, largely inconsequential reason, you might have had a point. However given what happened, impeachment is the right course of action, and I would say rather than trying to stop Trump from running again, it's to try hold him accountable to help deter anyone else from trying to do what he's guilty of.

Muahahaha

everlast75 wrote: »

At this stage, it borders from highly unlikely to definite that he won't be convicted.

However, there are 2 weeks left and lots of polling numbers to look at for the rep Senators.

You see - that's what it's all about. My kingdom for one with any sort of moral compass.

Id say its almost certain he wont be convicted. For that to happen Mitch McConnell needs to fold and its been obvious for a couple of weeks now that Mitch has tested which way the wind is blowing and wont be voting to convict.

Im interested though to see what Reps do vote to convict. Id say Romney is nailed on and Liz Cheney is a strong possibility. Im wondering how many others there might be, definitely not the 17 required but it'll be interesting to see how many break ranks.

partyguinness

Any respectable lawyer will stay the hell away from it. A 'fool's errand' if ever there was one. He is going to get acquitted anyway so why sully your reputation unnecessarily. Perhaps ask for $1m down payment and see it as one last payday before retirement or some whipper snapper out to make a name for themselves.

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No..

Well then I have no ****ing idea what you would consider worthy of conviction.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Do you think that he has any case to answer for his actions relating to what happened on January 6th?

If yes , then where and how should he be held accountable for those actions?

Deleted User wrote: »

No..

So his actions and behaviour in no way influenced the actions of the crowd on the day in your opinion?

Him spending months lying to his supporters of a vast conspiracy to rob them of having Trump as President had no impact?

If that's true - Then Who or What caused the people who assaulted the Capitol to behave in the way that they did?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah spare me.. This is a political witch hunt to stop him from running again..

You know it as well as I do..

As someone else said, democrats would love for him to take the 2024 republican nomination as there's not a chance he'd do as well as e.g. Pence.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

No..

You believe he carries no responsilibity at all?

Even though he asked for the people to march on the capital. TOld them weakness would get them nowhere. That he failed to action the NG to protect the Capital?

That he spent 80 days lying and degrading the democratic system of the US?

That he tried to force the VP to undertake an unconstitutional act?

That he attempted to force the governor of Georgia to commit fraud and illegally amend the vote?

You think there is nothing there at all?

The democrats spent 3 years saying an election was robbed (based on a proven lie), and spent the summer saying they didn't know how more people weren't rioting..

Like.. they're actually gaslighting you.. it's all projection.. yeah, there was violence on the 6th..qui bono?.. Trump specifically asked for the protest to be peaceful..

partyguinness

Penn wrote: »

If I were the Dems, I'd love for him to run again. He lost by about 8m votes, voters mobilised against him to flip some states blue which haven't been that colour in quite some time, and more importantly, Biden beat him. Biden... probably one of the least progressive, more of the same, old as f*ck and lowest energy candidates the Dems could have put forward. And he beat Trump by 8m votes. The GOP also lost the Senate.

If the Dems were impeaching him for a minor, largely inconsequential reason, you might have had a point. However given what happened, impeachment is the right course of action, and I would say rather than trying to stop Trump from running again, it's to try hold him accountable to help deter anyone else from trying to do what he's guilty of.

The electorate have a very short memory and they are fickle.

The episode at the Capitol will be incosequential by 2024 if the pockets of the man on the street are not in a healthier state.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

You believe he carries no responsilibity at all?

Even though he asked for the people to march on the capital. TOld them weakness would get them nowhere. That he failed to action the NG to protect the Capital?

That he spent 80 days lying and degrading the democratic system of the US?

That he tried to force the VP to undertake an unconstitutional act?

That he attempted to force the governor of Georgia to commit fraud and illegally amend the vote?

You think there is nothing there at all?

Don't forget the things he did in the four years before all that too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glTchiXJcbo

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

That he attempted to force the governor of Georgia to commit fraud and illegally amend the vote?

That lad was lying through his teeth..