Topic: Sexual abuser & crook Donald Trump convicted

[Chakan]

For now. There will be a trial, but he won't be convicted. They're not picking up 11 more Republican senators to vote yes.

Oh I know that.

I'm just happy 4 hours didn't go to waste

[rafathegaffa83]

Wow. The enormity of what happened will GROW as the months and years slide by. If the United States Senate does not find Trump guilty it will have to live with the decision forever. The definition of insurrection will become so narrow as to be meaningless.

Yep.

[Red Beret]

Honestly, getting six Republicans to vote with Democrats is a good achievement, given the polarising nature of American politics right now.  It's a huge embarrassment and a poor reflection on the rest of the Republican Senators imo.

Six Republican senators just joined their Democratic colleagues in voting to move the trial forward.

They are Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Mitt Romney of Utah.

You may have heard most of those names before - Murkowski, Collins, Sasse, Toomey and Romney had previously taken a similar vote upholding the constitutionality of the trial proceedings.

But Bill Cassidy is a noteworthy name on the list: he had previously voted to dismiss the trial.

Cassidy later told CNN the House prosecutors made "very good arguments", noting he'd always planned to approach the trial "with an open mind" and as an "impartial juror".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-55996898

[oldfordie]

The Republicans evaded the constitutional question, they now move on to a lot of video evidence over the next 2 days, it's going to be absolutely damning for Trump am sure. the more the Republicans bulls,, this evidence the more the average American will be outraged. the Republicans politicians are only thinking of their own short term selfish interests and some will be around for many more years to come, some however are going to face a backlash. the images and evidence will be damning, Trumps reaction minute by minute to the riot will anger millions am sure. ive no idea how the Republicans will respond to this evidence except to say we shouldn't let emotion rule our decisions blah blah blah.

[RedG13]

The Republicans evaded the constitutional question, they now move on to a lot of video evidence over the next 2 days, it's going to be absolutely damning for Trump am sure. the more the Republicans bulls,, this evidence the more the average American will be outraged. the Republicans politicians are only thinking of their own short term selfish interests and some will be around for many more years to come, some however are going to face a backlash. the images and evidence will be damning, Trumps reaction minute by minute to the riot will anger millions am sure. ive no idea how the Republicans will respond to this evidence except to say we shouldn't let emotion rule our decisions blah blah blah.

It probably comes down to what Mitch McConnell decision on the big vote is. There are currently 4 GOP Senators in Burr, Portman, Shelby and Tomney that are retiring in 2022.

[oldfordie]

It probably comes down to what Mitch McConnell decision on the big vote is. There are currently 4 GOP Senators in Burr, Portman, Shelby and Tomney that are retiring in 2022.

You will know more about that than me. they way am looking at it right now is if only 6 Republicans voted with the Democrats argument over the Impeachment being constitutional then that will be the maximum number of Republicans for the big vote. so no more than 56 votes for guilty which means the Senate let Trump off, mind you I wouldn't be surprised if they still barred Trump from holding office in the future as it only needs a majority.

[John C]

mind you I wouldn't be surprised if they still barred Trump from holding office in the future as it only needs a majority.

Are we certain about that Oldie? Can they disqualify him without finding him guilty in the first place? And if so I'm sure it still requires 2/3rds?

[oldfordie]

Are we certain about that Oldie? Can they disqualify him without finding him guilty in the first place? And if so I'm sure it still requires 2/3rds?

Yeah, checked up on it, it won't look good in many eyes, finding Trump not guilty but barring him from holding future office. needs only a majority.
EDIT
 Reading source again there would be a bitter argument over it to be honest as it's uncharted water.

CAN TRUMP BE DISQUALIFIED IF HE IS NOT CONVICTED BY THE SENATE?

This is uncharted legal territory, and there is no clear answer, scholars said.

Paul Campos, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Colorado, said he believed a vote to disqualify Trump can be held even if there are not enough votes for conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Senate has wide latitude to determine how it conducts a trial, he said.

But Kalt said he thought disqualification would require conviction first. To do otherwise would be the equivalent of punishing the president for an offense he did not commit, Kalt said.

All three judges who were disqualified from office were first convicted.
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-01-13/explainer-impeachment-or-the-14th-amendment-can-trump-be-barred-from-future-office

The bar is lower on that second vote, with only a majority of senators needed to succeed. Then again, because it’s never happened before in the case of a president, a court challenge could follow. Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and author of “A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump,” said it was his view that the lower number of votes made sense, but it’s not crazy to think that it might be challenged if things got to that point.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-01-14/barring-trump-from-holding-office-again

[Red Beret]

They need to convict him before they can bar him.

Cassidy switching gives me a sliver of hope. As the trial and video evidence progresses, it becomes harder to argue for acquittal based solely on a technicality, and you're forced to judge the case on its merits, because it gets really hard to deny Trump's role in it all.

If the Democrats can peel off just another two or three Republicans behind the scenes it might trigger the dominoes.

[stoa]

Have watched CNN for the first time in a while today and Jim Acosta was reporting from Florida. I remember him flying there with Trump on the day of the inauguration. Has he been there since then? The poor guy can't catch a break...

Listening to some of the coverage this could get really interesting in the next days. You have an inept team of lawyers on Trump's side that even gets criticised by Republicans. Then you have the Democrats with their video today and probably loads and loads of videos to come (John King said that today's video was basically just a trailer for what is to come). Maybe some more Republicans start finding a backbone in the next two days even if the chances are slim.

[Eeyore]

Honestly, getting six Republicans to vote with Democrats is a good achievement, given the polarising nature of American politics right now.  It's a huge embarrassment and a poor reflection on the rest of the Republican Senators imo.

It is a massive achievement. Those breaking party lines are facing a huge backlash from the Trump base.

The biggest thing is that suggesting that Trump should not be impeached because he is no longer the President is a semi legitimate defence. From now on in it gets much more difficult. The GOP now have to find a defence for a crime the whole world witnessed over several months.

The major problem for the GOP defence though is that they either condemn Trump or condemn Trump's supporters. The insurrection happened, and it will be played out in the senate. 

 

[RedG13]

It is a massive achievement. Those breaking party lines are facing a huge backlash from the Trump base.

The biggest thing is that suggesting that Trump should not be impeached because he is no longer the President is a semi legitimate defence. From now on in it gets much more difficult. The GOP now have to find a defence for a crime the whole world witnessed over several months.

The major problem for the GOP defence though is that they either condemn Trump or condemn Trump's supporters. The insurrection happened, and it will be played out in the senate.

Considering They cant really touch Murkowski in AK, Collins in Maine, Romney in Utah and Toomey is retiring in 2022. Sasse and Cassidy are the two biggest that would face blacklash. Sasse had some Nebraska county censure him already.

[oldfordie]

They need to convict him before they can bar him.

Cassidy switching gives me a sliver of hope. As the trial and video evidence progresses, it becomes harder to argue for acquittal based solely on a technicality, and you're forced to judge the case on its merits, because it gets really hard to deny Trump's role in it all.

If the Democrats can peel off just another two or three Republicans behind the scenes it might trigger the dominoes.

So what happens after the first vote if Trumps found not guilty. do they leave the 2nd vote or are they duty bound to vote on the 2nd vote?
One argument the Republicans will make is if Trumps really guilty then this should be decided by the courts which is bulls... , A president can't be prosecuted for sitting on his backside doing nothing for hours feeling happy while the country is under attack, so the 2nd vote would be a political decision on a different issue, the courts can't prosecute or bar Trump for sitting on his backside while the country is under attack but the Senate must have the right to stop that person ever holding office again.

[Red Beret]

This concept of "yeah, he did bad, but we're going to acquit because we don't think this is the appropriate forum to issue a sanction" is really going to weigh Republicans down in the face of "conviction is required in order to bar him from running again, and he NEEDS to be barred."

Even Collins can't pull the old "I think he's learned his lesson " line because he clearly fucking hasn't.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

For now. There will be a trial, but he won't be convicted. They're not picking up 11 more Republican senators to vote yes.

Depends on what this new unseen evidence that the Dems have is.

[blacksun]

Yes, it's normal. Incumbent presidents routinely asked their predecessors for advice and input, based on their own experiences in office. It's why former intelligence operatives are usually also kept in the loop.

Trump systematically removed briefings from ex-CIA and others because they gave him replies he didn't want to hear. And given his well reported disinterest in such briefings, and his flappy gob, it makes perfect sense to exclude him. He would have no substantial opinion to offer.

I think this is one of the reasons they wanted to impeach him, so it wouldn't be entitled to these anymore

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I think this is one of the reasons they wanted to impeach him, so it wouldn't be entitled to these anymore

It's not a rule & he isn't entitled or going to get them,Biden has already said that he won't.

Impeachment would mean that he will lose all money and his SS guards though.

[rafathegaffa83]

Maybe some more Republicans start finding a backbone in the next two days even if the chances are slim.

I doubt they will. Let's assume they acquit him in doing so they will have made future impeachment of any president impossible and pretty much said insurrectionary violence gets a free pass. Which is mental. Even banana republics wouldn't likely tolerate that

[TepidT2O]

Impeachment is not fit for purpose. In reality, a president can do what the hell they want provided they don’t have a two thirds majority gain at them in the senate.

It’s a huge flaw in the constitution and it makes a mockery of the integrity of their politics.

The only way to reform it is a blind vote.  Generally I’m totally against that, but in this case I think it’s the only way forwards

[Billy The Kid]

Depends on what this new unseen evidence that the Dems have is.

No it doesn't. It depends sweet fuck all. Trump will get acquitted regardless of how many videos get shown

[Qston]

They need to convict him before they can bar him.

Cassidy switching gives me a sliver of hope. As the trial and video evidence progresses, it becomes harder to argue for acquittal based solely on a technicality, and you're forced to judge the case on its merits, because it gets really hard to deny Trump's role in it all.

If the Democrats can peel off just another two or three Republicans behind the scenes it might trigger the dominoes.

It should. And everyone needs to keep in mind that a debate on the constitutionality of the impeachment is very different from a trial of the issue of whether he committed a high crime.

[rafathegaffa83]

Impeachment is not fit for purpose. In reality, a president can do what the hell they want provided they don’t have a two thirds majority gain at them in the senate.

It’s a huge flaw in the constitution and it makes a mockery of the integrity of their politics.

The only way to reform it is a blind vote.  Generally I’m totally against that, but in this case I think it’s the only way forwards

I tend to agree. I bet he would be impeached if it was via blind vote

[KillieRed]

Apparently they’re going to do it on a “by request” basis. He can ask them for an intelligence briefing on Latvia or Ukraine and they can tell him to fuck off. As PSA said, it’s not like he’s studied international affairs deeply, would like to keep on top of things so that he can lend (unsought) advice on the areas of his expertise. He’s just a security risk, one that I have no doubt would sell his country out for money.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

No it doesn't. It depends sweet fuck all. Trump will get acquitted regardless of how many videos get shown

Ok Nostradamus.

I've no idea what form this secret evidence is in,nobody but a select few did until your prediction.

[stoa]

I tend to agree. I bet he would be impeached if it was via blind vote

Not sure about that. It would also give people, who might be on the fence, the opportunity to vote against it "for the good of the Republican party" without having to publicly stand behind their decision.

[Nobby Reserve]

It's not a rule & he isn't entitled or going to get them,Biden has already said that he won't.

Impeachment would mean that he will lose all money and his SS guards though.

I know he's got a fondness for white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups, but I didn't think it ran so deep 

[Nobby Reserve]

This concept of "yeah, he did bad, but we're going to acquit because we don't think this is the appropriate forum to issue a sanction" is really going to weigh Republicans down in the face of "conviction is required in order to bar him from running again, and he NEEDS to be barred."

Even Collins can't pull the old "I think he's learned his lesson " line because he clearly fucking hasn't.

Does he?

I don't necessarily agree.

The Repugs aren't going to choose him as their 2024 candidate, even if he runs for it. When defeated, he'll probably have another 'stolen election' hissy fit, this time aimed at the Repug establishment. That's going to stop many of his crazies voting Repug.

If he runs as an independent/'patriot' ( ), then great! that splits the Repug vote.

Whatever, I want to see the Repugs scrabbling round in the political wilderness, and hopefully a further inching to the left for the Democrats.

[Red Beret]

I think this is one of the reasons they wanted to impeach him, so it wouldn't be entitled to these anymore

It's a convention rather than a rule. Before Trump it was a natural assumption that predecessors would have a store of knowledge, experience and wisdom from their time in office that could be shared. This is, well, it's Trump. Go figure.

If what Killie says is correct it's good on both sides. Trump won't dare ask for fear of being knocked back, and Biden's people know this.

"Ask us. Go on. Please."

[oldfordie]

So how do the Republicans answer the damning evidence we will hear over the next few days?
Are they really going to argue we shouldn't let emotion dictate our decisions and this evidence is irrelevant to the vote we have to take, this vote is unconstitutional which means we do not recognize it's legitimacy.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I know he's got a fondness for white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups, but I didn't think it ran so deep 

He actually tweeted about the American SS 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-praises-ss-in-tweet-dc-national-guard-protests-2020-6?r=US&IR=T

[rafathegaffa83]

Not sure about that. It would also give people, who might be on the fence, the opportunity to vote against it "for the good of the Republican party" without having to publicly stand behind their decision.

True. The one benefit is the people who vote to acquit him will have that mark on their record permanently

[Jiminy Cricket]

Impeachment is not fit for purpose. In reality, a president can do what the hell they want provided they don’t have a two thirds majority gain at them in the senate.

It’s a huge flaw in the constitution and it makes a mockery of the integrity of their politics.

The only way to reform it is a blind vote.  Generally I’m totally against that, but in this case I think it’s the only way forwards

I understand your reasoning, and I have some sympathy for it. But I think the voting history of legislators always should be transparent to their electorate.

[Red Beret]

Does he?

I don't necessarily agree.

The Repugs aren't going to choose him as their 2024 candidate, even if he runs for it. When defeated, he'll probably have another 'stolen election' hissy fit, this time aimed at the Repug establishment. That's going to stop many of his crazies voting Repug.

If he runs as an independent/'patriot' ( ), then great! that splits the Repug vote.

Whatever, I want to see the Repugs scrabbling round in the political wilderness, and hopefully a further inching to the left for the Democrats.

Repugs don't get a say. Don't you remember the 2016 Republican primaries?

To answer your question, yes, he needs to be barred.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Does he?

I don't necessarily agree.

The Repugs aren't going to choose him as their 2024 candidate, even if he runs for it. When defeated, he'll probably have another 'stolen election' hissy fit, this time aimed at the Repug establishment. That's going to stop many of his crazies voting Repug.

If he runs as an independent/'patriot' ( ), then great! that splits the Repug vote.

Whatever, I want to see the Repugs scrabbling round in the political wilderness, and hopefully a further inching to the left for the Democrats.

I have no idea why you think this (unless Trump is barred by the Senate). Trump still holds a good approval rating by the majority of Republican voters. He certainly would have the highest support amongst a field of potential candidates. Unless Trump is so highly damaged by criminal court cases in the interim, AND all anti-Trump Republican voters get behind one candidate, there is every chance that Trump would end up as their candidate. As to whether he would win the election is another, more complicated matter. But he surely would be helped by some state legislatures in passing new laws to make this more likely within their states. We have already seen what Arizona has tried to do, and the Louisiana House has voted to censure Mike Cassidy for voting in favour of the trial being constitutional.

[TepidT2O]

I understand your reasoning, and I have some sympathy for it. But I think the voting history of legislators always should be transparent to their electorate.

Totally. Agree..

Maybe just not for this one particular case

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I understand your reasoning, and I have some sympathy for it. But I think the voting history of legislators always should be transparent to their electorate.

This isn't a normal vote though,a vote to hold him accountable is a dangerous thing considering wtotal fucking lunatics that are the Republican voters.

A secret ballot is the only safe way and the only way to get a true vote imo.

[Red Beret]

Don't understand the logic that a secret ballot will protect Republican senators from reprisal.  If Trump's lunatics see a sizeable chunk of senators stab their god in the back they wont need names. They will just target those they think are most likely to have sold Trump out. Won't bother them if they get the wrong senator.

[Qston]

Out of all the nonsense spouted by his 'legal' (I use the term advisedly given they took to quoting Longfellow), was there one element that does make a point i.e. that there is nothing stopping him facing criminal prosecution for what happened ?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Don't understand the logic that a secret ballot will protect Republican senators from reprisal.  If Trump's lunatics see a sizeable chunk of senators stab their god in the back they wont need names. They will just target those they think are most likely to have sold Trump out. Won't bother them if they get the wrong senator.

You say that you don't understand the logic and then make the case for it.


Let the loons go after them all if that's the only way to get an honest vote

[Jiminy Cricket]

Out of all the nonsense spouted by his 'legal' (I use the term advisedly given they took to quoting Longfellow), was there one element that does make a point i.e. that there is nothing stopping him facing criminal prosecution for what happened ?

Of course not. This is political trial - the Senate can (and should) arrive at a reasonable conclusion, probably based upon the 'balance of probabilities', much like a civil case. Or, at least, that's my take on it. But, more factually, a Senate trial is independent of criminal and/or civil trials for similar offenses. As someone else here pointed out (oldfordie, I think), the Senate can (and should) find Trump guilty for failing to do anything (for hours) to attempt to bring the siege to an end. By itself, this is disgraceful behaviour and is surely enough to warrant his barring from future public office. But, that particular failure - failing to act - might well fall short of what is required any possible related criminal charge.