Senate Trial of Donald Trump

Page 10 of 19 [ 292 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 19 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

15 Feb 2021, 11:29 am

↑↑ A Class-Action Civil Suit against Mr. Trump may be in order...

Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2021, 11:33 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?

While in office, you are not able to bring charges against a president as it would interfered in his abilities to discharge the duties of his office. Once out of office, he can be charged as he no longer has those responsibilities as his is a private citizen. You will notice there were several investigation by states into Trumps business dealings. Those onging investigations can now lead to charges.

TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2021, 11:44 am

Jiheisho wrote:

TheRobotLives wrote:

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

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.

An impeachment conviction doesn't bar a public official from holding office.

Impeachment simply removes the public official from office.

"sitting congressman Alcee Hastings (D-Florida), who was convicted and removed from office as a federal judge in 1989, but was not barred from holding federal office, only to be elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1992.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... ted_States

_________________
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.

Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2021, 11:50 am

TheRobotLives wrote:

Jiheisho wrote:

TheRobotLives wrote:

An impeachment conviction doesn't bar a public official from holding office.

Impeachment simply removes the public official from office.

From the US Constitution:

Quote:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

It seems is quite clear that it does bar the person from office.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

15 Feb 2021, 12:02 pm

Jiheisho wrote:

From the US Constitution:

Quote:

It seems is quite clear that it does bar the person from office.

It is quite clear to anyone who has actually read the U.S. Constitution; but to those for whom Fox, Newsmax, QAnon, and Trump are the only "legitimate" news sources, the U.S. Constitution simply does not exist.

TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2021, 12:07 pm

Jiheisho wrote:

TheRobotLives wrote:

Jiheisho wrote:

TheRobotLives wrote:

An impeachment conviction doesn't bar a public official from holding office.

Impeachment simply removes the public official from office.

From the US Constitution:

Quote:

It seems is quite clear that it does bar the person from office.

It's a separate vote.

And as you point out, it's a judgement as to whether the official is banned or not.

An impeachment conviction would not ban Trump from running again.

Fact check: No, impeachment itself would not ban Trump from a 2024 run
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics ... index.html

_________________
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.

Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2021, 12:34 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:

Jiheisho wrote:

TheRobotLives wrote:

Jiheisho wrote:

TheRobotLives wrote:

An impeachment conviction doesn't bar a public official from holding office.

Impeachment simply removes the public official from office.

From the US Constitution:

Quote:

It seems is quite clear that it does bar the person from office.

Yes, it is called a process. Impeachment first determines whether there is a case for impeachment (that is the House responsibility), then the Senate determines if the person has committed that violation (that is the part that just ended), then you have a vote to either remove him from office and/or ban him from office. And if you read the quote from the Constitution I posted, the sentence begins with "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment..." which states this is what happens if someone is impeached in the Senate. You seem to be saying that the ban has nothing to do with impeachment, but the Constitution clearly states it is part of the impeachment process. There is no ambiguity here.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

15 Feb 2021, 12:42 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:

... An impeachment conviction would not ban Trump from running again.

Fact check: No, impeachment itself would not ban Trump from a 2024 run
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics ... index.html

Suddenly, a leftist news outlet is worthy of you citing it as a reliable source of evidence to support a claim.

I thought I had felt a ripple in the force ... nay, a wrenching twist in the very fabric of spacetime!

:lol:

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,690
Location: Long Island, New York

15 Feb 2021, 1:10 pm

The process arguably, very arguably aided in deplatforming him making it more difficult to win in 2024. It might have made it politically easier to prosecute him not only for trying to undo an election but for various frauds and tax violations. It arguably will make it easier for state officials to not pardon him.

_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

15 Feb 2021, 1:22 pm

The Georgia Phone Call is indictable.

goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

15 Feb 2021, 2:04 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

MrsPeel wrote:

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.

It was announced mid January that the Attorney General of DC was considering Incitement charges against trump. It's being considered and debated now, along with the possibility that the US Attorney may do it - in part due to jurisdictional reasons. It's still not been decided who, if anyone, might charge him with Incitement - here's the update from a couple days ago:

https://abc7news.com/washington-dc-atto ... /10334206/

_________________
No :heart:

for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.

ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2021, 2:39 pm

Well it says in the article that insitement is a misdemeanor and they cannot extradict him back to Washington for that. So as long as he stays out of Washington, I guess he is safe then?

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

15 Feb 2021, 2:53 pm

Maybe from THAT charge...but what about all the potential state and federal felonies.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2021, 3:15 pm

nothing will happen to that man, he is protected.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2021, 3:29 pm

cyberdad wrote:

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

I wasn't one of them, but it was a political exercise, yes.
It was definitely a desire, by the Democrats, to humiliate Trump since nothing was ever going to come of it and he was out of office anyway.
I am not suggesting Trump didn't deserve 'the blowtorch to the belly' treatment, however.
His 'brain fart' was extraordinary.

But ultimately, both sides of politics did themselves no favours in terms of integrity.

On reflection, it was obvious that my belief there would be no impeachment, would have been actualised.
The same would have applied if a Democratic President was involved.
Political buggery loyalties trumps everything/k.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2021, 3:40 pm

auntblabby wrote:

nothing will happen to that man, he is protected.

It will be interesting to see what eventuates.

Page 10 of 19 [ 292 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 19 Next

Jump to:

Senate Trial of Donald Trump Post Reply New Topic

Senate Trial of Donald Trump