Topic: Sexual Abuser Donald Trump Indicted

[Jiminy Cricket]

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

I am sorry, but secret ballots on such matters are just plain undemocratic. I understand the desire and logic for such a case, but there is a very large principle at stake by abandoning a transparent ballot.

[Skeeve]

Probably spotted a burger in the other room. Has about as much focus as Homer Simpson.

For that matter... fat, orange,  bald... stumbles into bizarre situations on an almost weekly basis... has worked for a super villain...

Yeah he IS Homer Simpson.  :S

Seems quite harsh on Homer to be honest, he's still on his first wife and loves his kids. 

[Nobby Reserve]

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

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

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.

I take on board both of your arguments, but don't think it's anything like as clear-cut as you infer that Trump would likely with the Repug nomination.

He was a political unknown in 2016, and many Repugs were prepared to give him a go, especially when there was such fervent adoration from the crazies that form his base. That sort of enthusiasm can be infectious, and many mainstream Repugs voted for him as the best placed nationally to defeat Clinton (who was favourite to win the Dem nomination at that time). Come the 2020 election, and many Repugs that voted for him did so only because he was the Repug candidate.

If he stands again, his army of crazies will still be a-whopping and a-hollering like the deranged knobheads they are, but a hell of a lot of ordinary Repugs will swerve him. Add to that the weight of the Repug establishment who will know that a coalition of hard-right crazies and a diminishing band of mainstream Repugs won't be anything like enough to win the Presidency, and there likely would be some behind the scenes jiggery-pokery to try to stop him winning the nomination.

There's several different permutations that could happen, and I think privately most Repug politicians will want him barred - but have to keep up the pretence that they still support him.

I just want to see the Repug vote split, whilst hoping the Democrats are able to reverse the regressive Trump/Repug policies on taxation & spending. My greatest wish is the Dems reversing the amendments to inheritance taxes.

[oldfordie]

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.

Am hoping some of the Democrats speeches today concentrate on the reasons why Impeachment trials are held, they are not held to prove a person comitted a criminal act, they are held to prove a person abused his position as a public official.
Yorkopite raised this point weeks before the riot after Trump lost the election, Trump went missing for weeks. reports were saying Pence was running the country as Trumps time was taken up trying to over turn the result of the election, Trump abdicated his responsibilities as President for weeks. this alone is another reason to justify impeachment to stop him from ever holding public office again but a stronger argument is his complete failure to defend his government and US democracy while it was under attack from rioters who wanted to violently overthrow the government.
The argument of Trump should face the courts if he's done anything wrong is a ludicrous argument, this is a political trial not a criminal trial. that point has to be made strongly to leave no doubt.

[Red Beret]

Seems quite harsh on Homer to be honest, he's still on his first wife and loves his kids. 

True dat.

[Qston]

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.

I agree with everything you say there, and rest assured there is plenty of evidence for conviction.

What I meant was, are the Justice Department (or whoever is the appropriate body) likely to investigate this or alternatively should they ?  I understand the difference between balance of probabilities and beyond all reasonable doubt, but like anyone else involved in what has happened then he should be investigated independently of what is going on in the Senate.

[Red Beret]

I take on board both of your arguments, but don't think it's anything like as clear-cut as you infer that Trump would likely with the Repug nomination.

He was a political unknown in 2016, and many Repugs were prepared to give him a go, especially when there was such fervent adoration from the crazies that form his base. That sort of enthusiasm can be infectious, and many mainstream Repugs voted for him as the best placed nationally to defeat Clinton (who was favourite to win the Dem nomination at that time). Come the 2020 election, and many Repugs that voted for him did so only because he was the Repug candidate.

If he stands again, his army of crazies will still be a-whopping and a-hollering like the deranged knobheads they are, but a hell of a lot of ordinary Repugs will swerve him. Add to that the weight of the Repug establishment who will know that a coalition of hard-right crazies and a diminishing band of mainstream Repugs won't be anything like enough to win the Presidency, and there likely would be some behind the scenes jiggery-pokery to try to stop him winning the nomination.

There's several different permutations that could happen, and I think privately most Repug politicians will want him barred - but have to keep up the pretence that they still support him.

I just want to see the Repug vote split, whilst hoping the Democrats are able to reverse the regressive Trump/Repug policies on taxation & spending. My greatest wish is the Dems reversing the amendments to inheritance taxes.

The issue is the bedlam and chaos and probable violence if he is allowed to run again.  He might not be the shoe in for the nomination that he was in 2016, but the Republicans threw everything at him to stop him winning the nomination back then.  Several of those, such as Cruz, have been persistent bumhole lickers since, but still have their own eye on 2024.

If you have given blank check backing to the record and behaviour of a twice impeached president - that you have ACQUITTED TWICE - then how the hell can you stand up and criticise him in a primary debate if he stands again?

And if he runs as an independent?  That doesn't help Republicans either, as he'll split their vote.

Bar him from office.  Even if he starts his own party, then all he can do is have rallies and cheer on Ivanka's primary run. His entire family is dangerous and they need guardrails.  We've seen what happens without them.

[TSC]

The issue is the bedlam and chaos and probable violence if he is allowed to run again.  He might not be the shoe in for the nomination that he was in 2016, but the Republicans threw everything at him to stop him winning the nomination back then.  Several of those, such as Cruz, have been persistent bumhole lickers since, but still have their own eye on 2024.

If you have given blank check backing to the record and behaviour of a twice impeached president - that you have ACQUITTED TWICE - then how the hell can you stand up and criticise him in a primary debate if he stands again?

And if he runs as an independent?  That doesn't help Republicans either, as he'll split their vote.

Bar him from office.  Even if he starts his own party, then all he can do is have rallies and cheer on Ivanka's primary run. His entire family is dangerous and they need guardrails.  We've seen what happens without them.

If he does run again, barring a shitshow by the Biden administration, the Dems should be a shoe-in for another term.

Ironically it’s in the Rep’s interest that he is barred.

[Qston]

I have to say that Jamie Raskin is impressive in his delivery.

[Qston]

Joe Neguse is also impressive. Calm, collected and deliberate in his words. A stark contrast to his lawyers

[Red Beret]

If he does run again, barring a shitshow by the Biden administration, the Dems should be a shoe-in for another term.

Ironically it’s in the Rep’s interest that he is barred.

You're right.  Republicans have become so obsessed with opposing ANYTHING that comes from a Democrat that they've marched out to the right wing fringes to try and keep clear water between the two parties, because God forbid they actually agree on something.

Watching a couple of videos recalling Obama's experiences, he found Republicans opposing proposals they themselves had put forward just a few years earlier how that they were put forward by Democrats.  They've become dependent of the votes of the lunatic fringe, and refuse to wean themselves off the crack and move back to the centre ground.

It would mean hard choices - losing some degree of federal power and having to choke back vomit as they agree with Democrats on the basics - but it would cut Trump and his supporters off at the knees in a matter of moments and instantly disempower them.

[rafathegaffa83]

Watching a couple of videos recalling Obama's experiences, he found Republicans opposing proposals they themselves had put forward just a few years earlier how that they were put forward by Democrats. 

Yep. Obamacare. Essentially a conservative idea based on what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Carbon taxes are a conservative thinktank idea.

[Red Beret]

Yep. Obamacare. Essentially a conservative idea based on what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Carbon taxes are a conservative thinktank idea.

We know the rot probably started around the time of the Clinton impeachment, but it really accelerated when Obama took office. There became a stern determination to refuse to cooperate and then blame Democrats when nothing got done.

[stoa]

Have to say, the Democratic impeachment managers have done a good job so far. The point Swalwell made about this not being just about what Trump has said on the day, but also in the months and weeks before was a very strong one. It was kind of obvious that Trump laid the groundwork for the "the election was stolen" bollocks, but I never realised how it was really all built towards the 6th and getting people to fight...

[nozza]

They are laying it all out really well, the usual suspects not even taking notice of the proceedings, reading books and doing paperwork. They just don't want to hear it as they are complicit.

[TSC]

Have to say, the Democratic impeachment managers have done a good job so far. The point Swalwell made about this not being just about what Trump has said on the day, but also in the months and weeks before was a very strong one. It was kind of obvious that Trump laid the groundwork for the "the election was stolen" bollocks, but I never realised how it was really all built towards the 6th and getting people to fight...

Missed much of the coverage yesterday but caught today’s.  Essential viewing all week and the presentation of evidence is top notch to date.

[stoa]

Missed much of the coverage yesterday but caught today’s.  Essential viewing all week and the presentation of evidence is top notch to date.

Haven't seen a lot, but don't think you've missed much yesterday except the video that was shown by the impeachment managers and the shitshow by Trump's lawyers.

[Red Beret]

Have to say, the Democratic impeachment managers have done a good job so far. The point Swalwell made about this not being just about what Trump has said on the day, but also in the months and weeks before was a very strong one. It was kind of obvious that Trump laid the groundwork for the "the election was stolen" bollocks, but I never realised how it was really all built towards the 6th and getting people to fight...

Yeah.  The 6th was his absolute last chance after all other avenues were exhausted.  If he couldn't swindle, coerce, threaten or legally strip enough votes to win him key states then his only option was force.

I hope it's driven home that this is Trump's M.O. as well.  He accused Ted Cruz of stealing a victory in one of the 2016 primaries; he said in the election later in the year that he'd only accept the result if he won - and even claimed he won the popular vote in 2016 if you took out the millions of "illegal votes".

Nobody else has ever seemed to claim to such a degree or regularity that elections are being rigged or stolen from them.  It only seemed to become an issue when Donald Trump decided to run for president.  Funny that.

Of course, back then, he wasn't planning to win.  Complaining about stolen elections was part of his plan to grift from his base and set up his media company.  In 2020 it became something much more sinister, as it was his only means to save face and avoid prosecution.

Every single time a vote went against him.  Every single time he thought a vote MIGHT go against him.  And every single time he felt a vote didn't reflect what his ego thought he deserved, or the adoration he was entitled to - it had to be rigged.  Because it couldn't be anything he had done.

[BJ]

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.

Which money?

[Red Beret]

Which money?

Probably whatever federal funding he's entitled to as an ex-president, like his pension etc.

[BJ]

Probably whatever federal funding he's entitled to as an ex-president, like his pension etc.

He will likely forego that just like he’s not taken a presidential salary.

[Red Beret]

He will likely forego that just like he’s not taken a presidential salary.

If there's one thing Trump knows how to do, it's grift.  Like the Trump Organisation charging the USSS for use of rooms and facilities to protect him.  Conviction wipes all of that out hopefully.

[John C]

These Impeachment Managers couldn't do a better job of their presentation, I'm thoroughly impressed.

I do wonder what it would take to convince a full 17 Reps to be brave enough to do the right thing. If not the damming words of the Managers, perhaps the sombre words of a member of family of one of the dead pleading they owe it to their family to find him guilty. Or more so, the desperate plead of a Capitol Officer who serves to protect them daily asking that they show him or her the same protection which is in their hands to do so.

I never thought they'd find him guilty, but when you think about what's been presented, when they've been made to watch the horrendous evidence, what the entire planet is witnessing, how the fuck can a bunch of GOP cowards refuse to.

[Hazell]

Just watching those videos of Officer Goodman, crazy stuff, I find it amazing how he managed to do what he did.

[BJ]

From what I understand the only thing that could possibly happen if he is impeached is that he will be disqualified from holding future office but even that requires a separate Senate vote. He wasn’t impeached as President so will always be a former President and have a right to any privileges that go with that. This is unprecedented so nobody can be sure what will happen.

[stoa]

These Impeachment Managers couldn't do a better job of their presentation, I'm thoroughly impressed.

I do wonder what it would take to convince a full 17 Reps to be brave enough to do the right thing. If not the damming words of the Managers, perhaps the sombre words of a member of family of one of the dead pleading they owe it to their family to find him guilty. Or more so, the desperate plead of a Capitol Officer who serves to protect them daily asking that they show him or her the same protection which is in their hands to do so.

I never thought they'd find him guilty, but when you think about what's been presented, when they've been made to watch the horrendous evidence, what the entire planet is witnessing, how the fuck can a bunch of GOP cowards refuse to.

They're doing an incredible job. If that presentation won't make them vote to impeach Trump nothing will. And I'm kind of looking forward what Trump's lawyers will say in response. The only defence I could think of is that Trump is too dumb to think of something like that and he's thick enough to believe all the shite about the stolen election himself.

[Red Beret]

These Impeachment Managers couldn't do a better job of their presentation, I'm thoroughly impressed.

I do wonder what it would take to convince a full 17 Reps to be brave enough to do the right thing. If not the damming words of the Managers, perhaps the sombre words of a member of family of one of the dead pleading they owe it to their family to find him guilty. Or more so, the desperate plead of a Capitol Officer who serves to protect them daily asking that they show him or her the same protection which is in their hands to do so.

I never thought they'd find him guilty, but when you think about what's been presented, when they've been made to watch the horrendous evidence, what the entire planet is witnessing, how the fuck can a bunch of GOP cowards refuse to.

Some of them could well be complicit; financing and arranging transportation for a lot of these knuckle dragging numbskulls.

Plus, most seem incapable of agreeing with Democrats on anything, never mind something like this. They will stick to their "unconstitutional" line, even if the defenders make a pig's ear of selling it. It's the only trapdoor they have.

[Brissyred]

If that presentation won't make them vote to impeach Trump nothing will.

Not going to happen tho'.
Can't have a fair trial when the jurors are co-conspirators...

[Nobby Reserve]

The issue is the bedlam and chaos and probable violence if he is allowed to run again.

That's an attraction 

I think an armed full insurrection would be interesting, especially so when the security forces fire back. A few thousand dead white supremacists, gun nuts, neo-nazis, bible basher.... what's not to like?

[Red Beret]

That's an attraction 

I think an armed full insurrection would be interesting, especially so when the security forces fire back. A few thousand dead white supremacists, gun nuts, neo-nazis, bible basher.... what's not to like?

"Interesting"?

One of the rioters who died was a war veteran.  Whilst every gun nut or white supremacist might love Trump, not everyone who loves trump is a gun nut or a white supremacist.  Any number of them are dupes.

I'm just not a big fan of seeing people gleefully anticipate massacres of other human beings, even if they're a gang of idiots or dickheads.  That's the kind of thing Trump enjoys.

The divisions in America aren't going to be solved through black and white thinking, or purges.

[Ray K]

Officer Goodman saved Mitt Romney from a lynch mob. I don't think there's the slightest chance that Mitt will vote to acquit.

One interesting new piece of information: the original protest permit was only for the Ellipse and not the Capitol. Trump reviewed it and had it changed to allow them to march to the Capitol. He ordered the mob there personally.

The guy pictured sitting in Pelosi's office had a 950,000 volt stun gun in his waistband.

[Qston]

Officer Goodman saved Mitt Romney from a lynch mob. I don't think there's the slightest chance that Mitt will vote to acquit.

One interesting new piece of information: the original protest permit was only for the Ellipse and not the Capitol. Trump reviewed it and had it changed to allow them to march to the Capitol. He ordered the mob there personally.

The guy pictured sitting in Pelosi's office had a 950,000 volt stun gun in his waistband.

He also changed the date. The implication being it was his last chance to stay in power as the original permit was for the 22nd

[RedG13]

Officer Goodman saved Mitt Romney from a lynch mob. I don't think there's the slightest chance that Mitt will vote to acquit.

One interesting new piece of information: the original protest permit was only for the Ellipse and not the Capitol. Trump reviewed it and had it changed to allow them to march to the Capitol. He ordered the mob there personally.

The guy pictured sitting in Pelosi's office had a 950,000 volt stun gun in his waistband.

Romney voted to convict in the last impeachment trail

[nozza]

These Impeachment Managers couldn't do a better job of their presentation, I'm thoroughly impressed.

I do wonder what it would take to convince a full 17 Reps to be brave enough to do the right thing. If not the damming words of the Managers, perhaps the sombre words of a member of family of one of the dead pleading they owe it to their family to find him guilty. Or more so, the desperate plead of a Capitol Officer who serves to protect them daily asking that they show him or her the same protection which is in their hands to do so.

I never thought they'd find him guilty, but when you think about what's been presented, when they've been made to watch the horrendous evidence, what the entire planet is witnessing, how the fuck can a bunch of GOP cowards refuse to.

Because unfortunately a lot of them are complicit, The likes of Cruz, Jordan would be basically convincting themselves after all the blind faith they have shown following Trump and re-affirming his lies. Thats why it is so fucked up. It would not suprise me after all this that Trumps defence rests stating that they think it is still unconsitutional knowing that they republicans will not convict.

I do agree they should allow witness though. If they could actually get somebody from the White House to tell the senate how Trump was was reacting when all this was going it would be solid. I do hope the reiterate the timeline and how long it took for trump to take any action to stop the mob.

[TepidT2O]

He could have been found with a gun in his hand, 16 witnesses, a body riddled with bullets, and have been shouting “I killed him I killed him” and he would still have get off.

This is really such a waste of time in many ways.

[stoa]

One thing I still find unbelievable after seeing the footage again, is that as far as I know there were only two (?) shots fired that day and those were the shots who killed the woman who climbed through the broken window. I have heard an interview with one officer who basically faced the mob on his own and who thought about pulling his gun and came to the conclusion (probably rightly so) that doing that would probably mean he'd get killed, because the people would have taken that as justificiation for doing so. However, there were other situations where I'm baffled that they didn't even threaten to use lethal force. It's just so different from seeing footage from BLM protests or even footage from other protests, where cops are out in the street in riot/military gear with long guns aimed at protesters...

[Chakan]

Fucking hell watching all that footage is chilling.

Fuck the republicans who will vote to not impeach.

Fuck i'm livid.

[rafathegaffa83]

These Impeachment Managers couldn't do a better job of their presentation, I'm thoroughly impressed.

I do wonder what it would take to convince a full 17 Reps to be brave enough to do the right thing. If not the damming words of the Managers, perhaps the sombre words of a member of family of one of the dead pleading they owe it to their family to find him guilty. Or more so, the desperate plead of a Capitol Officer who serves to protect them daily asking that they show him or her the same protection which is in their hands to do so.

I never thought they'd find him guilty, but when you think about what's been presented, when they've been made to watch the horrendous evidence, what the entire planet is witnessing, how the fuck can a bunch of GOP cowards refuse to.

Sadly there's nothing that convince some of the GOP. The likes of Cruz and Hawley should on trial instead of being a jury. Hawley had his feet on his desk playing on his phone during it. The disrespect is palapable because they know they are getting away with it

[Red Beret]

Fucking hell watching all that footage is chilling.

Fuck the republicans who will vote to not impeach.

Fuck i'm livid.

You're meant to be angry. The whole thing is designed to enrage the public, so that when Republicans let Trump off the Democrats can hammer it all the way to the midterms.

[John C]

This is really such a waste of time in many ways.

You're so wrong, it really isn't Tepid.