Canon Shooter
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2020
- 17,673
- 14,519
I've got some questions about Trump's impending impeachment trial, and I'm holding out some sliver of hope that those on the left can address these questions reasonably and without their usual "HE SAID PUSSY!" or "ORANGE MAN BAD!" hissy-fits.
For this second trial, do the democrats truly believe they will get a conviction in the Senate?
Any criminal prosecutor will tell you that you don't take something to trial unless you're relatively certain you'll win. Needing a super majority to convict, this isn't the case with Trump. It's pretty much accepted that he'll be acquitted.
Second, there's the question about trying someone who's no longer in office. The end goal of impeachment is to remove someone from office. I get that. In this case, Trump's already gone, so removal is off the table. The left will then say that it's to preclude him from ever holding public office again. While that may or may not be true, it's a fool's errand as there's really no chance of the democrats getting a conviction.
The impeachment of a President is to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Well, John Roberts will not be presiding over this trial, as Trump is not President. The person who will be presiding, Patrick Leahy, has already voiced his support for a conviction, so he can hardly be considered unbiased, which is required for the presiding official. And, while the president pro tempore of the Senate presides over the trials of those who are not President, there's no Constitutional responsibility to preside over the trial of a private citizen, as private citizens cannot be impeached.
Now what comes into play, and this is a major factor, is the fact that the United States Senate cannot punish a private citizen. Even if convicted, a very definite argument can be made that Donald Trump is immune from punishment by the Senate by virtue of the simple fact that he is now a private citizen.
All of this is, of course, pretty academic, simply because the democrats will fail to get the required number of votes for conviction. But the questions remain.
What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?
For this second trial, do the democrats truly believe they will get a conviction in the Senate?
Any criminal prosecutor will tell you that you don't take something to trial unless you're relatively certain you'll win. Needing a super majority to convict, this isn't the case with Trump. It's pretty much accepted that he'll be acquitted.
Second, there's the question about trying someone who's no longer in office. The end goal of impeachment is to remove someone from office. I get that. In this case, Trump's already gone, so removal is off the table. The left will then say that it's to preclude him from ever holding public office again. While that may or may not be true, it's a fool's errand as there's really no chance of the democrats getting a conviction.
The impeachment of a President is to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Well, John Roberts will not be presiding over this trial, as Trump is not President. The person who will be presiding, Patrick Leahy, has already voiced his support for a conviction, so he can hardly be considered unbiased, which is required for the presiding official. And, while the president pro tempore of the Senate presides over the trials of those who are not President, there's no Constitutional responsibility to preside over the trial of a private citizen, as private citizens cannot be impeached.
Now what comes into play, and this is a major factor, is the fact that the United States Senate cannot punish a private citizen. Even if convicted, a very definite argument can be made that Donald Trump is immune from punishment by the Senate by virtue of the simple fact that he is now a private citizen.
All of this is, of course, pretty academic, simply because the democrats will fail to get the required number of votes for conviction. But the questions remain.
What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?