The second impeachment of Donald Trump thread

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

10 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

....till 2021

[Boiler 43,721]

I watched the evidence on CNN, I do not see it.

[laylalex 7,261]

Ultimately though we are only "witnesses" to what happened. We are not the judge or jury, either in a Senate trial or court trial. We don't get to decide "this was/wasn't incitement of a riot." We can have our own opinions, sure, and we can carry them with us when we vote and speak up in other ways. But we have no power to decide whether he incited a riot. I have seen decent arguments on both sides of the question. The evidence will lead the trial(s) and that's where the decision will be made. Let's say he is not convicted in the Senate, and there is no court trial, or the court trial comes out saying "no incitement." There are always going to be people who think that's incorrect, but that's just an opinion, one of many.

[Boiler 43,721]

This a political process not a criminal process.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

17 minutes ago, Boiler said:

This a political process not a criminal process.

You can see the attempts to chip away at the criminal justice system by desensitizing people to corporate/social media authoritarianism, political authoritarianism, to turn the law into their weaponized "TOS" system. Already see inroads on this with the bureaus' (DOJ,/FBI, DHS, etc.) use of enforcement, local policies of enforcement (riots/looting, kung flu enforcement), etc. 

 

The biggest mistake people are making is smugly thinking this system will protect against this malicious abuse by itself. It won't. It requires a populace willing to give everything to protect the very values and freedoms the founding fathers and service members fought for, and not take freedom for granted as people are now. If they were guided by their principles they'd easily have dumped companies and services trying this, instead, they're whining as if they're helpless people. Pretty soon, they will be. The unhinged left aiding in this malicious abuse do so under the impression they're getting their way. Depending on their intellect, they'll realize, sooner or later, that the authoritarianism they've promoted, wasn't for their benefit, but for those actually in charge, and it will manifest as it always does, with it being turned on them.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,261]

43 minutes ago, Boiler said:

This a political process not a criminal process.

At the moment. There is still the possibility of criminal charges. That's why I brought it up. What I think is interesting about it is that there is apparently no particular burden of proof in a Senate trial, even though there is obviously the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden in a criminal trial. This is separate from there needing to be a two-thirds majority to convict of course. But if the burden is more like the "preponderance of the evidence" standard in a civil case, it is hypothetically easier for more people to get to a finding of incitement than if there were a criminal burden of proof. So you could end up with a conviction in the Senate but no conviction in a criminal trial.

 

This is all purely hypothetical and doesn't really have to do with what I think about whether he incited the action or not. I've been reading on here and in other places about incitement, and how incredibly rare it is for there to be an actual conviction, which is a good thing, I think. And I don't doubt that that comes from the prosecution having to meet the higher burden of proof. But with a lower standard of proof, there is the risk of too frequent conviction, which is sort of what I think Burnt is getting at. (Maybe.) However there really can be no serious argument that the American legal system will wholesale change itself to allow for criminal prosecutions to have something lower than the very highest burden. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

I'll lay out what I think is going to happen with the limited information out:

 

I said that their only way of rational success on removal with the arguments given was to do it immediately when emotions point to irrationality and being easily manipulated. I said if they delay the trial at all then it lowers the chances, which is why they'll either need actual proof of something, as the Georgia stunt as illustrated, like Ukraine, like the Ford thing with Kavanaugh, aren't  enough. 

 

Republicans in the Senate know this is entirely a political impeachment. There's already legal issues about if they can even try a President who's gone, but I presume, against logic, that the trial proceeds. With the current evidence now which is entirely the same as the bad faith cherry picking of "fine people" combined with the presumption of the worst intent possible, Republicans are absolutely toast if they vote to convict Trump.

 

Even being the corrupt massive swamp things the vast majority of Republicans are (I also believe Democrats are too but Republicans are the focus here for purposes of Senate conviction), they at least are self preserving in respect to their position and the pressure they feel back home from an overwhelming consensus demanding they do the right thing. Those who aren't self-preserving in respect to their job, or believe they have that much of a psychological stranglehold over their constituents, are the most likely to vote convict. We know that if there was *no* repercussion whatsoever, out of sheer corruption and/or personal animus, they'd unanimously vote to convict. But because their careers are over if they do, extremely few will vote convict. They will be judged by how they *legally* look at this case, which is to say, as of this point there is no legal basis. We know what incitement is in the legal realm for American citizens, even those with power and/or influence, and recurring is the theme of the thing this current alliance of deranged segments hate, the first amendment along with the presumption of innocence. Those two things alone bury this in any sane legal look at what we've seen as of now, that these vague at worst public speeches were incitement. They do not remotely reach the level where Trump would be responsible for their actions and no person arguing outside the presumption of guilt could reasonably say Trump incited anyone, when current evidence points to the opposite. And in any legal scrutiny of this its not a simple preponderance but beyond reasonable doubt. Stretching, embellishing, kicking and screaming and insisting Trump incited people because one subjectively wants to interpret it in the worst way goes nowhere. There has to be an actual connection, a deliberate call to do something imminently, and nowhere did Trump directly tell people to riot and invade Congress. What Trump says and intends is what matters in the legal and rational realm not what any given supporter who got in trouble says, nor political opposition think it means. One could unequivocally say that not only was Sullivan rioting but he was inciting too.. he was directly promoting the actions happening and encouraging people to participate in the riot (with him). Trump was not. 

 

So, which Republicans would vote to convict? They need 17+. I think the worst case for Trump given what's out now is McConnell, Murkowski, Romney, Collins, Toomey, Sasse. That's it. 6 is far short of 17 and while it's hard to predict what would happen to Murkowski, Collins, and Toomey, I'm very positive McConnell, Romney, and Sasse's careers are over if they do and so unless they plan on retiring already they are unlikely to vote that way. Sasse I think is the lowest odds of those three. Romney might be a lost cause already in Utah so might not care. McConnell was just re-elected so might be retiring (or dead) and may not care. So I think realistically no more than 4 or 5 Republicans. 

 

So I'm not worried at all of conviction with what we see now. Democrats I'm sure know this too regardless of their public facing PR because this isn't the point. 

 

Rather, the point of this is trying to interfere in future elections. These people are scared to death of populism and Trump due to his success. They can't legally stop him from running without this or with their buddies in law enforcement going after Trump and this is how they'd do it without their backup. 

 

So to me the only real issue here is whether they can try to bar Trump from office absent a conviction. 

 

I also know that if this roll of the dice fails these NeverTrumpers still have their backup they're very likely to try to lawfare him into submission as a private citizen. 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

[laylalex 7,261]

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

So many layers there. 

 

[nykolos 711]

16 hours ago, Dashinka said:

I disagree he was the worst to hold the office, there are a lot of many worse examples.  He was probably the most unrefined politician to hold the office, and people like to be lied to by ‘nice’ people I guess.

Trump beat out 17 Republicans because he's wasn't a politician, that what they don't get, It comes down to one thing, they would rather have a politically correct 40 year failure as president than a successful trash talking New Yorker whos improved the lives of millions of Americans and businesses over the last 4 years. 

 

Difference between Trump and Biden is that Trump has integrity, Joe Biden has NONE, Biden can look into a teleprompter, read words of someone else that he doesn't believe, look directly in the camera and convey it with conviction,  its all an act to win over the gullible who cant see through his BS.

[Dashinka 23,371]

19 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    That's why I phrased it specifically. I don't think he's the worst president in terms of outcomes, but I meant as a person. Worst was not the best choice of words I guess. I probably should have said the most flawed person to hold office. 

That is tough to really say though.  A lot of very refined politicians are really terrible people on the inside, but of course they hide it very well.  Personally, I like to know what we are getting into but others prefer to be more in the dark.  Trump is not a bad person overall, but he is very bad at how he communicated his message.  He had flashes of being very good, and if he had only maintained that, he probably would have won 2020 easily, but he tends to drop back into his fighting mode which makes him look at times very bad and gives plenty of ammunition for all those refined elitists in DC. 

[Dashinka 23,371]

2 hours ago, nykolos said:

Trump beat out 17 Republicans because he's wasn't a politician, that what they don't get, It comes down to one thing, they would rather have a politically correct 40 year failure as president than a successful trash talking New Yorker whos improved the lives of millions of Americans and businesses over the last 4 years. 

 

Difference between Trump and Biden is that Trump has integrity, Joe Biden has NONE, Biden can look into a teleprompter, read words of someone else that he doesn't believe, look directly in the camera and convey it with conviction,  its all an act to win over the gullible who cant see through his BS.

A great example is good old Mit and his stance on the upcoming Senate trial.  The Constitution seems pretty clear relative to acting against a sitting President, and not a private citizen, but Mit does not seem to get that.  I am still waiting to hear what John Roberts will be doing, but if I were him, I would not even entertain presiding over this farce.  I also think Trump should simply ignore anything from the Senate at this time as I don't see anything that compels him to actually defend himself in a political trial in the Senate, and any action they may take is certainly something that could be challenged.

[Dashinka 23,371]

14 hours ago, laylalex said:

Ultimately though we are only "witnesses" to what happened. We are not the judge or jury, either in a Senate trial or court trial. We don't get to decide "this was/wasn't incitement of a riot." We can have our own opinions, sure, and we can carry them with us when we vote and speak up in other ways. But we have no power to decide whether he incited a riot. I have seen decent arguments on both sides of the question. The evidence will lead the trial(s) and that's where the decision will be made. Let's say he is not convicted in the Senate, and there is no court trial, or the court trial comes out saying "no incitement." There are always going to be people who think that's incorrect, but that's just an opinion, one of many.

Isn't politics simply a matter of opinion with respect to the voting public?  At this point, Trump is a private citizen, so any actual action by the Senate will most likely be challenged and quite possibly found unconstitutional.  If the Senate is able to get away with doing anything, what would stop them in the future of doing this to any other private citizens that happened to at one time hold a public office?  I heard Jimmy Carter pardoned Jefferson Davis, wasn't JD a seditionists?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

A great example is good old Mit and his stance on the upcoming Senate trial.  The Constitution seems pretty clear relative to acting against a sitting President, and not a private citizen, but Mit does not seem to get that.

This has been covered already in this forum, it is not clear that you must be "sitting" to be tried, a Secretary of war sat trial after the civil. So it does not seem pretty clear.

 

Removal from office is not the only remedy that impeachment gives, so why would you need to be in office?

 

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

 

  I