Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Senate Trial of Donald Trump

Page 8 of 19 [ 292 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 19  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

14 Feb 2021, 7:20 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay well if there is no set definition though, according to that article, then that's why it's too hard to prosecute. There has to be set definitions, in order to make a successful case, doesn't there?


Please read the link to the Federal code. That is the first step and will give you the definition of incite a riot. The impeachment process allows for a lower bar, but that is technically easier to prosecute. And no, there does not have to be a definition (althought the Federal code gives one). The prosecutor and defense in the impeachment can argue what constitutes, in this case, high crimes and misdemeanors. Since Trumps action would also fall under the code and there was evidence to show he did incite the crowd to attack the Capitol, I am not sure that this is an ambiguous case.

But this trial is not even close. The Republicans acquitted on a technicality (Trump was out of the office at the time of the trial), not the substance of the charge. Why not acquit because the prosecution could not show he incited the riot?

This also shows Cruz is not actually telling the truth.


What does Trump not being in office have to do with it a technicality to acquit?



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

14 Feb 2021, 7:27 pm

ironpony wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay well if there is no set definition though, according to that article, then that's why it's too hard to prosecute. There has to be set definitions, in order to make a successful case, doesn't there?


Please read the link to the Federal code. That is the first step and will give you the definition of incite a riot. The impeachment process allows for a lower bar, but that is technically easier to prosecute. And no, there does not have to be a definition (althought the Federal code gives one). The prosecutor and defense in the impeachment can argue what constitutes, in this case, high crimes and misdemeanors. Since Trumps action would also fall under the code and there was evidence to show he did incite the crowd to attack the Capitol, I am not sure that this is an ambiguous case.

But this trial is not even close. The Republicans acquitted on a technicality (Trump was out of the office at the time of the trial), not the substance of the charge. Why not acquit because the prosecution could not show he incited the riot?

This also shows Cruz is not actually telling the truth.


What does Trump not being in office have to do with it a technicality to acquit?


The Republicans are arguing that, since Trump is not in office, he cannot be impeached. There is nothing in the Constitution that bars Congress from impeaching Trump and preventing him from public office because he is no longer the president. What they are missing is the A) Trump committed this act while in office, B) was impeached by the house while in office, and C) the articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate while in office. The concern is this precedent will give presidents a short window at the end of their terms when they can break the law and not be held accountable by Congress.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

14 Feb 2021, 7:47 pm

Oh okay. Well why not just charge him though with the incitement crime? Why bother to go through the impeachment process and just skip ahead to charging? He is not President anymore and therefore, can be charged without being impeached first, can't he?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,712
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Feb 2021, 7:50 pm

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. Well why not just charge him though with the incitement crime? Why bother to go through the impeachment process and just skip ahead to charging? He is not President anymore and therefore, can be charged without being impeached first, can't he?


Mitch McConnell certainly has said Trump should be.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

14 Feb 2021, 7:51 pm

Oh okay. Well it seems like if they wanted to charge Trump they would have done it without the impeachment. They seem more interested in putting on a show rather than actually charging.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,712
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Feb 2021, 7:59 pm

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. Well it seems like if they wanted to charge Trump they would have done it without the impeachment. They seem more interested in putting on a show rather than actually charging.


I'm hoping that'll be down the road sooner or later. They say Trump's scared they'll get around to charging him.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

14 Feb 2021, 8:08 pm

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. Well it seems like if they wanted to charge Trump they would have done it without the impeachment. They seem more interested in putting on a show rather than actually charging.


Trump can still be charged.

Impeachment serves another purpose.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

14 Feb 2021, 8:21 pm

So if he can still be charged why are some people making a big deal out of him beating the impeachment then? Seems like the impeachment is not a big deal then?



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

14 Feb 2021, 9:12 pm

ironpony wrote:
So if he can still be charged why are some people making a big deal out of him beating the impeachment then? Seems like the impeachment is not a big deal then?


As I explained before, impeachment allows Congress to ban Trump from public office. A criminal conviction does not do that. Also, the Constitution give Congress the mandate to protect the nation from the president if he/she commits a "high crime or misdemeanor." Having the Congress of the United States impeach you for high crimes is a big deal. It is saying that attacks on the government and democracy by the president or high official will not be tolerated--at least in theory (obviously, the Republicans are not taking it seriously).



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

14 Feb 2021, 9:15 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
ironpony wrote:
So if he can still be charged why are some people making a big deal out of him beating the impeachment then? Seems like the impeachment is not a big deal then?


As I explained before, impeachment allows Congress to ban Trump from public office. A criminal conviction does not do that. Also, the Constitution give Congress the mandate to protect the nation from the president if he/she commits a "high crime or misdemeanor." Having the Congress of the United States impeach you for high crimes is a big deal. It is saying that attacks on the government and democracy by the president or high official will not be tolerated--at least in theory (obviously, the Republicans are not taking it seriously).


Oh okay, but I thought that if you were a convicted felon that you would not allowed to run for President. Unless people are allowed to still?



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

14 Feb 2021, 9:27 pm

ironpony wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
ironpony wrote:
So if he can still be charged why are some people making a big deal out of him beating the impeachment then? Seems like the impeachment is not a big deal then?


As I explained before, impeachment allows Congress to ban Trump from public office. A criminal conviction does not do that. Also, the Constitution give Congress the mandate to protect the nation from the president if he/she commits a "high crime or misdemeanor." Having the Congress of the United States impeach you for high crimes is a big deal. It is saying that attacks on the government and democracy by the president or high official will not be tolerated--at least in theory (obviously, the Republicans are not taking it seriously).


Oh okay, but I thought that if you were a convicted felon that you would not allowed to run for President. Unless people are allowed to still?


Federal law does not prevent a felon from running from office, even from prison.

What you maybe thinking of is the right to vote. Since voting eligibility is determined by the states, states can and do ban felons from voting. So, if Trump is convicted of a felony, he can still run for president, but he might not be able to vote for himself, depending on which state he lives in.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

14 Feb 2021, 9:50 pm

Oh okay, I just thought maybe that a felony record might prevent one from getting certain jobs like that. There are certain jobs you cannot get with felon records, and I thought that the President might be one of them but I guess not :).



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,608
Location: the island of defective toy santas

14 Feb 2021, 9:59 pm

yes, that is IMHO a phuqed-up thing that a felon can be president but can't vote.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

15 Feb 2021, 1:42 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
i would not put that past the present crop of fascists in the GOP.


Well, as long as you guys fan the hate, America will never heal.
No real skin off my nose since I am here in Australia.

If the red state does invade, I will probably have moved on from "this mortal coil" without kids left behind. Meh.
Not my problem. 8)


The right is still kindling the fire, as they've been censoring fellow Republicans who had voted to impeach Trump, and those who refused to change the outcome of the last election.


And judging what is happening here the left is helping to stoke the fires, also.

As I said, it isn't my problem.
I just can't believe the cyclopean partisanship that I am seeing.
I have never seen anything/k like it in my life.
Fascinating.

I am starting to get bored, though.
I will leave you guys to it. :wink:


Were the GOP to rid itself of their allegiance to Trump, there wouldn't be any more judgement.
Don't let us keep you from being obsessed with out politics.


I like being challenged.
You have rekindled my interest.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

15 Feb 2021, 1:45 am

ironpony wrote:
Well it seems that a lot of people think that Trump walked free because he was a President, but according to this, at 5:15 into the video, he say that what the President said didn't meet the legal standards for incitement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHo15kRIz0E

So I don't think it's a matter of a big bad rich man getting away with it, and was really just not legally meeting the standards and it's more of a legal technicality? It's not that Trump is a criminal mastermind, it's that the prosecutors were too dumb to look up in their legal books, to know what counts as a crime, legally speaking.


Agreed.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,608
Location: the island of defective toy santas

15 Feb 2021, 2:02 am

i find it increasingly disquieting and discouraging when the greek chorus of non-americans increasingly parlor-games the laying of odds on us 'murricans self-destructing while laughing and joking about us.