• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Upchurch said:
Funny story: Obstruction of justice, bribery, extortion, and abuse of power are, in fact, crimes.
Click to expand...

Indeed they are.

Let's see if the House Managers mention it. (I think it's the House Managers that present the "prosecution" case, right?)



What I'm getting at is that so many people are absolutely certain that Trump has committed not just one, but multiple crimes. Let's see if the House Managers figure that's worth mentioning.


Because that word really is magic. If you can convince the majority of the American people that DJT has committed real, honest to goodness, go to jail sorts of crimes, he will be convicted in the Senate, or at the very least there will be 10 or so Republican crossovers to vote for conviction, and his chance of re-election will be very slim.

Short of a real, go to jail, sort of crime, it's a real uphill climb. Technically, you don't need a crime to convict, but if you don't have one, it's just a lot harder to persuade people that he ought to go.
 
Meadmaker said:
If you can convince the majority of the American people that DJT has committed real, honest to goodness, go to jail sorts of crimes, he will be convicted in the Senate, or at the very least there will be 10 or so Republican crossovers to vote for conviction, and his chance of re-election will be very slim.
Click to expand...



Convincing people that refuse to listen is not an appropriate standard.
 
Meadmaker said:
Indeed they are.

Let's see if the House Managers mention it. (I think it's the House Managers that present the "prosecution" case, right?)



What I'm getting at is that so many people are absolutely certain that Trump has committed not just one, but multiple crimes. Let's see if the House Managers figure that's worth mentioning.
Click to expand...
It’d be surprising if the didn’t, as they are used in the articles of impeachment. Merely reiterating the charges will make it happen.


Meadmaker said:
Because that word really is magic. If you can convince the majority of the American people that DJT has committed real, honest to goodness, go to jail sorts of crimes, he will be convicted in the Senate, or at the very least there will be 10 or so Republican crossovers to vote for conviction, and his chance of re-election will be very slim.

Short of a real, go to jail, sort of crime, it's a real uphill climb. Technically, you don't need a crime to convict, but if you don't have one, it's just a lot harder to persuade people that he ought to go.
Click to expand...
No one word is magic. There are many ways of saying the same thing. You are merely preemptively moving the goalposts. Fortunately, it’s not an issue, since the articles of impeachment include several crimes already, with plenty of publicly available evidence to support it.

I think you overestimate a good percentage of the American electorate. There are Trump supporters who can look at all the evidence and declare it fake news because it doesn’t fit with their opinions.
 
Tuesday the Impeachment Trial starts in earnest. Monday is the third anniversary of "The Biggest Inauguration In History!!!" I am anticipating with great delight the reading of the multiple all caps Tweets from The PDJT that day before. I am also dreading the thought of what drastic measure he will take this time to distract from the Tuesday event.
 
Meadmaker said:
Indeed they are.

Let's see if the House Managers mention it. (I think it's the House Managers that present the "prosecution" case, right?)



What I'm getting at is that so many people are absolutely certain that Trump has committed not just one, but multiple crimes. Let's see if the House Managers figure that's worth mentioning.


Because that word really is magic. If you can convince the majority of the American people that DJT has committed real, honest to goodness, go to jail sorts of crimes, he will be convicted in the Senate, or at the very least there will be 10 or so Republican crossovers to vote for conviction, and his chance of re-election will be very slim.

Short of a real, go to jail, sort of crime, it's a real uphill climb. Technically, you don't need a crime to convict, but if you don't have one, it's just a lot harder to persuade people that he ought to go.
Click to expand...
So I guess the great American public will also accept that someone who is a thief, kidnapper, murderer or baby-raper is not really a "criminal" because the word "crime" may not be mentioned at any time in the legal proceedings of any of those offenses. Even though they are real, honest to goodness, go to jail sorts of crimes. :rolleyes:

To be honest, that sort of thinking smacks of that freeman-on-the-land magic-words sort of nonsense. That certainly doesn't wash in the legal sphere, and neither does this "not calling it a crime" sort of thing.

If Trump does indeed get convicted by the Senate of the offenses he has now been officially charged with, he will be an official criminal. No matter what the great American public may or may not think of that.
 
Cabbage said:
Convincing people that refuse to listen is not an appropriate standard.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your goal.

A big win would be Trump getting convicted and removed from office.

A big enough win would be Trump losing re-election.

A consolation prize would be Trump gets elected, but the GOP takes a drubbing and the Democrats gain a clear majority in the Senate.


A totally pathetic spectacle would be, "We proved he's a crook, but the American people were too stupid to understand."
 
I have one further question (maybe it has been answered before).

Is the number of votes required to convict Trump different to the number of votes required to eject him from office?

For example, if the vote was 60-40 to convict, that is clearly a big majority of the Senate including Republicans convinced he is guilty of the charges. But it is not enough to have him ejected from the position of president. So in one sense, that would leave a convicted criminal legally in the Oval Office. (Trump, of course, would crow that he was "perfectly exonerated" or some such.)

So what happens then?
 
I have one further question (maybe it has been answered before).

Is the number of votes required to convict Trump different to the number of votes required to eject him from office?

For example, if the vote was 60-40 to convict, that is clearly a big majority of the Senate including Republicans convinced he is guilty of the charges. But it is not enough to have him ejected from the position of president. So in one sense, that would leave a convicted criminal legally in the Oval Office. (Trump, of course, would crow that he was "perfectly exonerated" or some such.)

So what happens then?
 
Norman Alexander said:
I have one further question (maybe it has been answered before).

Is the number of votes required to convict Trump different to the number of votes required to eject him from office?
Click to expand...

No.

Conviction by the Senate means a 2/3 vote, and the only penalty is removal from office. *

For example, if the vote was 60-40 to convict, that is clearly a big majority of the Senate including Republicans convinced he is guilty of the charges. But it is not enough to have him ejected from the position of president. So in one sense, that would leave a convicted criminal legally in the Oval Office. (Trump, of course, would crow that he was "perfectly exonerated" or some such.)

So what happens then?
Click to expand...

He stays President, and he isn't a convicted criminal. As many people point out, you don't need a criminal charge to convict a president. The corollary is that a convicted president isn't thereby a criminal, much less a person who wasn't convicted, regardless of how many votes against him. After removal from office, he would be a private citizen accused of crimes, and a prosecutor could then press charges if he had jurisdiction and the case seemed compelling, and a regular criminal trial could commence.

*ETA: And a lifetime ban on holding further offices.

*ETA2 It is my opinion that if there were 60 votes to convict, he could not manage to win re-election, but that's a judgement about politics, not law.
 
Last edited:
The lifetime ban is optional -- the Senate can remove him from office without banning him. He could continue his current campaign and be back in office Jan 2021.


Also, a bit of nit-picking: It requires 2/3's of those Senators present to convict, not 2/3's of all Senators. A cheap way out for Republicans who don't want to vote to convict, but can't abide letting PDJT get away with his actions, would be to invent an emergency at home that keeps them from voting.
 
High Crimes are, generally, worse that what Meadmaker calls "real" crimes.
I wouldn't care much if a President was caught shoplifting.
I care very much about Abuse of Power.
 
Meadmaker said:
A totally pathetic spectacle would be, "We proved he's a crook, but the American people were too stupid to understand."
Click to expand...


As pathetic a spectacle it would be, there's unfortunately a very real chance of it becoming reality.

For some reason, however, you seem fixated on presenting it in a way that will backfire against those of us against Trump ("Look, Trump supporters: He called you stupid!"). Are you so ignorant of reality that you refuse to acknowledge many Trump supporters do, in fact, turn a blind eye/make unrealistic excuses to protect their image of Trump?

Turning a blind eye to them turning a blind eye just makes us collectively more blind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom