Impeachment Questions...

[Doc7505]

This is not a criminal trial it is a political question that desires an answer for discipline if necessary..

You're correct in one aspect.... This is a Political Matter. Trump was a duly elected president by the People of America...
Doubt continues to remain in the minds of a majority of Americans as to if Joey Xi and Kamaltoe Harris were elected legitimately or fraudulently.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

All your answers are here if you really want them.

The House Impeachment Managers Have Already Rebutted Trump’s 'Absurd' Defenses

Trump's main defense is that he can't be tried because he's not in office anymore.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Canon Shooter]

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?

All your answers are here if you really want them.

The House Impeachment Managers Have Already Rebutted Trump’s 'Absurd' Defenses

Trump's main defense is that he can't be tried because he's not in office anymore.

www.huffpost.com

Those aren't answers, they're opinions.

If it's all the same to you, I'm really going to need more than The Huffington Post to convince me...

 

[sealybobo]

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

They want to punish the bad orange man, and they want to provide red meat to their base.

They also want to use Trump as an example to show what they will do to a republican that is willing to fight back.

What we will do to any politician who is as corrupt as Trump. That call to the Ukraine was not perfect. You seem to believe it was. And sending a mob to try and stop the government from making Biden the next president. Hoping Pence was going to do god knows what and when he didn't you went to hang him?

Oh you were just kidding? That's what you always say but we know your mob was not. They were also not kidding when they tried to kidnap my governor. You Republicans truly are deplorables.

What Trump did was criminal. And people died. POLICE DIED! You Republicans suck police dick but suddenly if Trump kills one you don't seem to care.

Trump was right he could murder someone on 5th avenue and not lose one supporter.

 

[Canon Shooter]

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

They want to punish the bad orange man, and they want to provide red meat to their base.

They also want to use Trump as an example to show what they will do to a republican that is willing to fight back.

What we will do to any politician who is as corrupt as Trump. That call to the Ukraine was not perfect. You seem to believe it was. And sending a mob to try and stop the government from making Biden the next president. Hoping Pence was going to do god knows what and when he didn't you went to hang him?

Oh you were just kidding? That's what you always say but we know your mob was not. They were also not kidding when they tried to kidnap my governor. You Republicans truly are deplorables.

What Trump did was criminal. And people died. POLICE DIED! You Republicans suck police dick but suddenly if Trump kills one you don't seem to care.

Trump was right he could murder someone on 5th avenue and not lose one supporter.

Are you on your period?

Heavy flow day?

What did Trump say, and please be specific, which was a call for people to attack the Capitol?

 

[sealybobo]

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?

All your answers are here if you really want them.

The House Impeachment Managers Have Already Rebutted Trump’s 'Absurd' Defenses

Trump's main defense is that he can't be tried because he's not in office anymore.

www.huffpost.com

Those aren't answers, they're opinions.

If it's all the same to you, I'm really going to need more than The Huffington Post to convince me...

You are asking us liberals a question. Now you're not going to accept what us liberals tell you?

I'll cut and paste from that link

The House impeachment brief contains a 25-page rebuttal of the argument that ex-presidents cannot be impeached and tried. This is the longest section of the House brief. And it specifically anticipates that this attempt to dismiss the impeachment trial will be Trump’s main strategy, given “the overwhelming strength of the case against him.”

So one of your question was about trying someone who is no longer in office. Democrats wrote a 25 page reason why that's a bad argument. Do you want to read that? Because why should I explain it if you aren't going to accept it?

 

[Moonglow]

This is not a criminal trial it is a political question that desires an answer for discipline if necessary..

You're correct in one aspect.... This is a Political Matter. Trump was a duly elected president by the People of America...
Doubt continues to remain in the minds of a majority of Americans as to if Joey Xi and Kamaltoe Harris were elected legitimately or fraudulently.

That is not the issue of the trial.

 

[sealybobo]

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

They want to punish the bad orange man, and they want to provide red meat to their base.

They also want to use Trump as an example to show what they will do to a republican that is willing to fight back.

What we will do to any politician who is as corrupt as Trump. That call to the Ukraine was not perfect. You seem to believe it was. And sending a mob to try and stop the government from making Biden the next president. Hoping Pence was going to do god knows what and when he didn't you went to hang him?

Oh you were just kidding? That's what you always say but we know your mob was not. They were also not kidding when they tried to kidnap my governor. You Republicans truly are deplorables.

What Trump did was criminal. And people died. POLICE DIED! You Republicans suck police dick but suddenly if Trump kills one you don't seem to care.

Trump was right he could murder someone on 5th avenue and not lose one supporter.

Are you on your period?

Heavy flow day?

What did Trump say, and please be specific, which was a call for people to attack the Capitol?

You'll never take back our country with weakness.

For years we've been warning you guys that your rhetoric was going to get someone hurt.

So your Republican leaders didn't have anything to do with Gretchen Whitmer's attempted kidnapping? Trump's not guilty for sending a mob to the capitol?

This isn't the first time Republican leadership has done such a thing:

The Brooks Brothers riot was a demonstration at a meeting of election canvassers in Miami-Dade County, Florida, on November 22, 2000, during a recount with the goal of shutting down the recount. After demonstrations and acts of violence, local officials shut down the recount early.

So you guys thought it would work this year too.

Many of the demonstrators were paid Republican operatives. Roger Stone organized the demonstration, and Matt Schlapp was the on-site leader. Republican New York Representative John E. Sweeney gave the signal that started the riot.

People who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Stop the steal? That's exactly what we did when we kicked Trump out of the White House.

 

[sealybobo]

This is not a criminal trial it is a political question that desires an answer for discipline if necessary..

The idiot who started this thread is hilarious. He asks us liberals a question then when I post our position that I find on a liberal website, he says he's not going to accept anything he sees that comes from that site.

So he's probably not accepting anything we have to say either. Just sayin

 

[Canon Shooter]

So your Republican leaders didn't have anything to do with Gretchen Whitmer's attempted kidnapping?

No, they didn't.

I'd love to see you try to prove that they did, though...

 

[Richard-H]

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?

1. We saw how only 10 Republican congress people voted to impeach Trump, yet 144 Republican congress people voted not to punish Rep. Cheney. The reason so many voted against punishing Rep. Cheney was that it was a secret ballot. Republican congress people did not have to worry about threats - they voted their conscience.

So, when Republican Senators vote on whether to convict Trump, if it's an open ballot they will most likely be too scared to vote to convict. But if it's a secret ballot - and they are free to vote their conscience without fear - then almost certainly Trump will be convicted.

2. Government officials can be impeached after they've left office. This has been done many times.

3. Since Trump is not the current President, the chief Justice will not preside over the trial - that's just how the Constitution reads. The Person that presides is chosen according to the Senate rules. Due to the fact that the Senate is a political body, there has probably never been a non-presidential impeachment were the presiding officer was impartial. So there's nothing new here.

4. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate are sworn to do their Constitutional duty. They have no choice other than impeaching Trump and trying him. Anything else would be a dereliction of their duties.

5. He said "PUSSY"

6. Orange man bad!!!!!

Any other questions?

 

[Canon Shooter]

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?

All your answers are here if you really want them.

The House Impeachment Managers Have Already Rebutted Trump’s 'Absurd' Defenses

Trump's main defense is that he can't be tried because he's not in office anymore.

www.huffpost.com

Those aren't answers, they're opinions.

If it's all the same to you, I'm really going to need more than The Huffington Post to convince me...

You are asking us liberals a question. Now you're not going to accept what us liberals tell you?

I'll cut and paste from that link

The House impeachment brief contains a 25-page rebuttal of the argument that ex-presidents cannot be impeached and tried. This is the longest section of the House brief. And it specifically anticipates that this attempt to dismiss the impeachment trial will be Trump’s main strategy, given “the overwhelming strength of the case against him.”

So one of your question was about trying someone who is no longer in office. Democrats wrote a 25 page reason why that's a bad argument. Do you want to read that? Because why should I explain it if you aren't going to accept it?

You believe that, since the democrats wrote it, it's true. The fact is that it's only their opinion, and one which is ultimately up for debate...

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is not a criminal trial it is a political question that desires an answer for discipline if necessary..

So it is a political witch hunt in direct violation of the United States Constitution.

 

[22lcidw]

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

They want to punish the bad orange man, and they want to provide red meat to their base.

They also want to use Trump as an example to show what they will do to a republican that is willing to fight back.

Fighting back is one thing yet mob violence to answer a political cause is not fighting back when you seek to overthrow the US Constitution like Trump was attempting.

Progs overthrew the constitution a long time ago. We are all used to the ways today. But back then men and women were a lot tougher then we are.

 

[Richard-H]

This is not a criminal trial it is a political question that desires an answer for discipline if necessary..

You're correct in one aspect.... This is a Political Matter. Trump was a duly elected president by the People of America...
Doubt continues to remain in the minds of a majority of Americans as to if Joey Xi and Kamaltoe Harris were elected legitimately or fraudulently.

There is no doubt in the minds of the vast majority of Americans that this was a fair and free election.

It's only a small minority of wack jobs that believe anything else.

 

[Canon Shooter]

This is not a criminal trial it is a political question that desires an answer for discipline if necessary..

The idiot who started this thread is hilarious. He asks us liberals a question then when I post our position that I find on a liberal website, he says he's not going to accept anything he sees that comes from that site.

So he's probably not accepting anything we have to say either. Just sayin

Says the guy who believes that the leadership within the Republican party was complicit in the kidnapping plot of Gretchen Whitmer.

You're fucking insane...

 

[Moonglow]

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

They want to punish the bad orange man, and they want to provide red meat to their base.

They also want to use Trump as an example to show what they will do to a republican that is willing to fight back.

Fighting back is one thing yet mob violence to answer a political cause is not fighting back when you seek to overthrow the US Constitution like Trump was attempting.

Progs overthrew the constitution a long time ago. We are all used to the ways today. But back then men and women were a lot tougher then we are.

Oh bullshit.

 

[sealybobo]

So your Republican leaders didn't have anything to do with Gretchen Whitmer's attempted kidnapping?

No, they didn't.

I'd love to see you try to prove that they did, though...

easy

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer suddenly found herself under attack from national Republicans over new restrictions in the state designed to blunt the rapid spread of the coronavirus. Even as cases and hospitalizations spike exponentially, state Republican leaders and members of the Trump administration said the new restrictions were a draconian overreach of Whitmer's authority. Scott Atlas, a science adviser to President Trump and a member of the administration's coronavirus task force, urged people to revolt after the governor’s initial announcement.

“The only way this stops is if people rise up. You get what you accept,” Atlas tweeted, before later claiming that he wasn't trying to incite violence.

In an interview with the news site Bridge Michigan, state Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R) said residents don't need to be told what to do, because they have a personal responsibility to take the necessary steps.

In October Republicans tried to kidnap her. Duh. Don't play stupid.

 

[d0gbreath]

There will be no conviction in the Senate. Democrats do not have enough votes.

What do the democrats hope to gain from this charade?

Personally, I was hoping that Donald's lawyers would finally take this opportunity to prove that the election was stolen. This is their last chance. If they don't even attempt to do that, we know what that means, and Trump fans throughout the country are going to have to recognize that it's been a huge hoax.

 

[sealybobo]

So your Republican leaders didn't have anything to do with Gretchen Whitmer's attempted kidnapping?

No, they didn't.

I'd love to see you try to prove that they did, though...

Who do you think riled up all those nuts?

Lansing mayor says Proud Boys, boogaloo groups planning armed protests at Michigan Capitol

It's unclear how many protesters could arrive, but police are preparing for the worst.

www.mlive.com