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

Senate Trial of Donald Trump

Page 9 of 19 [ 292 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 19  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,380
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

15 Feb 2021, 3:21 am

Mr Reynholm wrote:
Well, since the precedent has been set that a former president can be impeached let’s bring Obama to trial next!


Nice try.

Trump was impeached while still President. The impeachment trial was held after he was no longer President.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

15 Feb 2021, 3:33 am

Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.
But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.

The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

15 Feb 2021, 3:35 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.
But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.

The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.


Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

15 Feb 2021, 3:43 am

cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.
But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.

The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.


Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?

The impeachment process is not even a legal trial, it holds no one accountable for anything, it is simply a means for removing government officials from their positions.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

15 Feb 2021, 3:54 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.
But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.

The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.


Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?

The impeachment process is not even a legal trial, it holds no one accountable for anything, it is simply a means for removing government officials from their positions.


So my question was why bother if it wasn't going to bear any fruit?



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

15 Feb 2021, 4:09 am

Trump's lawyer argued that since citizen Trump holds no public office, therefore, Trump cannot be removed from public office.

Therefore, the impeachment actions are moot, and should be dismissed.

It appears like in the entire history of the United States, there has never been an impeached official who left office (either resigning or otherwise), and later convicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... ted_States

The Constitution explicitly states that only government officials can be convicted.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

15 Feb 2021, 4:10 am

cyberdad wrote:
So my question was why bother if it wasn't going to bear any fruit?

Political show.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,380
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

15 Feb 2021, 4:15 am

cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.
But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.

The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.


Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?


There are two penalties. If convicted, he is removed from office. That didn't apply in this case.

Also, if convicted, they can vote to ban him from holding future federal offices of certain types. It seems like it could have kept him from ever running for election again, but there is a strong argument to be made that the offices he is banned from holding are those to which one is appointed and do not include elective office.

No impeachment trial puts the defendant in danger of losing his life, property, and liberty. I think that information that comes out during the trial, however, can be used against him.

As for this impeachment, Pelosi seems to be senile. The first impeachment was done without taking the effort to fully investigate the charges. They didn't come close to talking to their witnesses. They rushed it through and left little chance that it would ever succeed. It was nothing but idiocy. The House never had a chance of convicting Trump and they did it to themselves.

The second impeachment was done in an even bigger hurry. They didn't talk to the witnesses. Of course, they were in a hurry to get the impeachment before Trump was out of office. There was never any real chance of success. Once again, the blame for that failure goes to the House.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2021, 4:42 am

auntblabby wrote:
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.


Haven't I said I want America to be strong economically and militarily?
I hope you weren't including me in that statement.

You guys need to stop the hate and start the mending.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

15 Feb 2021, 4:49 am

kokopelli wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.
But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.

The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.


Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?


There are two penalties. If convicted, he is removed from office. That didn't apply in this case.

Also, if convicted, they can vote to ban him from holding future federal offices of certain types. It seems like it could have kept him from ever running for election again, but there is a strong argument to be made that the offices he is banned from holding are those to which one is appointed and do not include elective office.

No impeachment trial puts the defendant in danger of losing his life, property, and liberty. I think that information that comes out during the trial, however, can be used against him.

As for this impeachment, Pelosi seems to be senile. The first impeachment was done without taking the effort to fully investigate the charges. They didn't come close to talking to their witnesses. They rushed it through and left little chance that it would ever succeed. It was nothing but idiocy. The House never had a chance of convicting Trump and they did it to themselves.

The second impeachment was done in an even bigger hurry. They didn't talk to the witnesses. Of course, they were in a hurry to get the impeachment before Trump was out of office. There was never any real chance of success. Once again, the blame for that failure goes to the House.


So purely to humiliate him...nothing else?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

15 Feb 2021, 5:11 am

cyberdad wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.
But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.

The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.


Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?


There are two penalties. If convicted, he is removed from office. That didn't apply in this case.

Also, if convicted, they can vote to ban him from holding future federal offices of certain types. It seems like it could have kept him from ever running for election again, but there is a strong argument to be made that the offices he is banned from holding are those to which one is appointed and do not include elective office.

No impeachment trial puts the defendant in danger of losing his life, property, and liberty. I think that information that comes out during the trial, however, can be used against him.

As for this impeachment, Pelosi seems to be senile. The first impeachment was done without taking the effort to fully investigate the charges. They didn't come close to talking to their witnesses. They rushed it through and left little chance that it would ever succeed. It was nothing but idiocy. The House never had a chance of convicting Trump and they did it to themselves.

The second impeachment was done in an even bigger hurry. They didn't talk to the witnesses. Of course, they were in a hurry to get the impeachment before Trump was out of office. There was never any real chance of success. Once again, the blame for that failure goes to the House.


So purely to humiliate him...nothing else?


Had Trump been found guilty, his pension as President could have been denied him, as well as secret service protection. Considering how badly Trump's businesses are doing, he might very well have to depend on the pension to live.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


MrsPeel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2017
Age: 53
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,861
Location: Australia

15 Feb 2021, 5:52 am

I'm surprised that there's the possibility of Trump being charged over this.
I remember hearing somewhere that the president has some kind of immunity, he cannot be charged over criminal offences while in office?
So would that not cover crimes committed while in office also?
Or did I misinterpret that?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

15 Feb 2021, 6:13 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.
But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.

The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.


Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?


There are two penalties. If convicted, he is removed from office. That didn't apply in this case.

Also, if convicted, they can vote to ban him from holding future federal offices of certain types. It seems like it could have kept him from ever running for election again, but there is a strong argument to be made that the offices he is banned from holding are those to which one is appointed and do not include elective office.

No impeachment trial puts the defendant in danger of losing his life, property, and liberty. I think that information that comes out during the trial, however, can be used against him.

As for this impeachment, Pelosi seems to be senile. The first impeachment was done without taking the effort to fully investigate the charges. They didn't come close to talking to their witnesses. They rushed it through and left little chance that it would ever succeed. It was nothing but idiocy. The House never had a chance of convicting Trump and they did it to themselves.

The second impeachment was done in an even bigger hurry. They didn't talk to the witnesses. Of course, they were in a hurry to get the impeachment before Trump was out of office. There was never any real chance of success. Once again, the blame for that failure goes to the House.


So purely to humiliate him...nothing else?


Had Trump been found guilty, his pension as President could have been denied him, as well as secret service protection. Considering how badly Trump's businesses are doing, he might very well have to depend on the pension to live.


Thanks, others here were giving the impression it was purely a witch hunt



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2021, 10:56 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.
But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.

The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.


Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?

The impeachment process is not even a legal trial, it holds no one accountable for anything, it is simply a means for removing government officials from their positions.


Um, impeachment is a legal process--it is in the Constitution, the foundational legal document of the US.

Impeachment can do two things: remove someone from office and bar them from holding Federal office.

And there is a a Constitutional duty for Congress to take action against "crimes and misdemeanors" of high Federal officials. Out founding fathers put impeachment in our Constitution precisely for events like the president inciting an insurrection against the government.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,867
Location: London

15 Feb 2021, 11:14 am

MrsPeel wrote:
I'm surprised that there's the possibility of Trump being charged over this.
I remember hearing somewhere that the president has some kind of immunity, he cannot be charged over criminal offences while in office?
So would that not cover crimes committed while in office also?
Or did I misinterpret that?

There is no permanent protection for crimes committed while President. Nixon had to be pardoned by Ford for his crimes, for example.

I don’t think Trump’s actions wrt the insurrection would qualify as crimes. They’re probably not legally incitement, which is a very high legal bar due to the 1st Amendment. I suspect other things will be of greater concern to him. For example, his attempt to rig the election by pressuring Georgian officials to change ballot totals was probably illegal and would probably result in a prison spell. And tax charges could also get him in prison. Mueller wanted to charge him with obstruction of justice - that’s now an option. But it’s very unlikely Trump gets charged with incitement.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2021, 11:28 am

The_Walrus wrote:
MrsPeel wrote:
I'm surprised that there's the possibility of Trump being charged over this.
I remember hearing somewhere that the president has some kind of immunity, he cannot be charged over criminal offences while in office?
So would that not cover crimes committed while in office also?
Or did I misinterpret that?

There is no permanent protection for crimes committed while President. Nixon had to be pardoned by Ford for his crimes, for example.

I don’t think Trump’s actions wrt the insurrection would qualify as crimes. They’re probably not legally incitement, which is a very high legal bar due to the 1st Amendment. I suspect other things will be of greater concern to him. For example, his attempt to rig the election by pressuring Georgian officials to change ballot totals was probably illegal and would probably result in a prison spell. And tax charges could also get him in prison. Mueller wanted to charge him with obstruction of justice - that’s now an option. But it’s very unlikely Trump gets charged with incitement.


Incitement is not a 1st amendment issue. Many legal scholar said that the defense is not going to have a credible 1st amendment defense.