Will Trump be convicted in the senate next week?

[easyliving45]

I read something different. Obviously he isn’t going to be removed. What I read is that since he is now out of office and has those things, some things wouldn’t automatically be lost and it would require a separate vote, but not require a supermajority. I’d be interested to read what you are reading to get a better understanding. Can you cite your source?

This is my understanding from what i have read as well.

 

[SamSpade]

Well, there's different degrees of clarity ......... with regard to President Trump's recent impeachment.

Usually your long explanations are worth slogging through to find insight. This really wasn't one. It's easy to find SOMEONE who will make a claim on one side of an argument - but I don't think I am succumbing to confirmation bias when I say that holding an impeachment trial AFTER a man leaves office isn't Constutional unless one argues from the - as I see it - absurd liberal idea that what the Constitution strictly says isn't important. I don't ascribe to the idea of "well it doesn't say you CAN'T, so there".

I generally have the attitude about law that- it says what it says, and if it doesn't, it doesn't. I believe that way about the Bible, too - my old Church's basic tenet with the Bible was to speak where it speaks but to be silent where it is silent - that if they go beyond what's written, fine, but don't claim it's biblical.

With law there's also - precedent.

With the Constution there's also - the arguments. The Federalist Papers. The Congressional Record. As in, what was MEANT. For example, I think it was clearly unconstitutional to try to evict Trump from office by invoking the 25th Amendment. If the 25th was EVER MEANT to do that, we would never ever need an impeachment. It was clearly created and argued because of the need to have the VP step in should the President be unable to discharge the duties of his office OTHER than being dead.

THAT said -

They may yet try to convict him CRIMINALLY for inciting to riot. But not in the Senate.

 

[easyliving45]

Usually your long explanations are worth slogging through to find insight. This really wasn't one. It's easy to find SOMEONE who will make a claim on one side of an argument - but I don't think I am succumbing to confirmation bias when I say that holding an impeachment trial AFTER a man leaves office isn't Constutional unless one argues from the - as I see it - absurd liberal idea that what the Constitution strictly says isn't important. I don't ascribe to the idea of "well it doesn't say you CAN'T, so there".

I generally have the attitude about law that- it says what it says, and if it doesn't, it doesn't. I believe that way about the Bible, too - my old Church's basic tenet with the Bible was to speak where it speaks but to be silent where it is silent - that if they go beyond what's written, fine, but don't claim it's biblical.

With law there's also - precedent.

With the Constution there's also - the arguments. The Federalist Papers. The Congressional Record. As in, what was MEANT. For example, I think it was clearly unconstitutional to try to evict Trump from office by invoking the 25th Amendment. If the 25th was EVER MEANT to do that, we would never ever need an impeachment. It was clearly created and argued because of the need to have the VP step in should the President be unable to discharge the duties of his office OTHER than being dead.

THAT said -

They may yet try to convict him CRIMINALLY for inciting to riot. But not in the Senate.

Many people disagree with your assessment based on the following:

No president has ever been impeached after leaving office, but there is one legal precedent that may be important.
In 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap was investigated by the House for corruption. Just minutes before the House was set to vote on his impeachment, he raced to the White House and handed his resignation to President Ulysses Grant.
The House went ahead and impeached him anyway, and the Senate proceeded to have a trial. A majority voted to convict, but not the two-thirds required, so he was acquitted. The scholars in the second camp point to this example to bolster their argument that even after leaving office, a president could be convicted and barred from holding future federal office.
Could Trump sue to stop a Senate trial? He could try, but it would be a tough case to win, because the Constitution says the Senate shall have "the sole power to try all impeachments."

A Senate impeachment trial after Trump leaves office? Some experts say yes

 

[SamSpade]

Many people disagree with your assessment based on the following:

No president has ever been impeached after leaving office, but there is one legal precedent that may be important.
In 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap was investigated by the House for corruption. Just minutes before the House was set to vote on his impeachment, he raced to the White House and handed his resignation to President Ulysses Grant.
The House went ahead and impeached him anyway, and the Senate proceeded to have a trial. A majority voted to convict, but not the two-thirds required, so he was acquitted. The scholars in the second camp point to this example to bolster their argument that even after leaving office, a president could be convicted and barred from holding future federal office.
Could Trump sue to stop a Senate trial? He could try, but it would be a tough case to win, because the Constitution says the Senate shall have "the sole power to try all impeachments."

A Senate impeachment trial after Trump leaves office? Some experts say yes

Wow. I did not know that. So while there's not a Constitutional argument, there actually IS precedent, albeit a very old one.
There is at least the distinction of the fact he resigned to avoid impeachment.

I really don't see what it accomplishes. He won't be convicted. But it will drag things out.
Under the administration of someone who claims he wants to unite the nation, they will do something guaranteed to enrage them.

There are actually those on the Hill who think stomping Trump under their foot is necessary to "unite" people, once again proving they don't know what it means.

 

[Tilted]

Usually your long explanations are worth slogging through to find insight. This really wasn't one. It's easy to find SOMEONE who will make a claim on one side of an argument - but I don't think I am succumbing to confirmation bias when I say that holding an impeachment trial AFTER a man leaves office isn't Constutional unless one argues from the - as I see it - absurd liberal idea that what the Constitution strictly says isn't important. I don't ascribe to the idea of "well it doesn't say you CAN'T, so there".

I generally have the attitude about law that- it says what it says, and if it doesn't, it doesn't. I believe that way about the Bible, too - my old Church's basic tenet with the Bible was to speak where it speaks but to be silent where it is silent - that if they go beyond what's written, fine, but don't claim it's biblical.

With law there's also - precedent.

With the Constution there's also - the arguments. The Federalist Papers. The Congressional Record. As in, what was MEANT. For example, I think it was clearly unconstitutional to try to evict Trump from office by invoking the 25th Amendment. If the 25th was EVER MEANT to do that, we would never ever need an impeachment. It was clearly created and argued because of the need to have the VP step in should the President be unable to discharge the duties of his office OTHER than being dead.

THAT said -

They may yet try to convict him CRIMINALLY for inciting to riot. But not in the Senate.

People can take the position that post-office impeachment trials aren't allowed; there are plausible arguments for that position. But there are just as plausible arguments - indeed, probably somewhat better arguments - on the other side. The Constitution gives the power to try all impeachments to the Senate, and it doesn't condition that power on whether the impeached person has left the office they previously held. To think such trials aren't allowed, we have to read something into the Constitution that isn't there. Maybe that's reasonable to do, but it isn't clear that it's the right interpretation.

But, as I indicated, there's precedent for such trials being within the Senate's powers.

That said, the big picture context for understanding and assessing the impeachment powers is that impeachment is by its nature a political process meant as a remedy for (among other things) political offenses, not a criminal process meant as a remedy for (only) criminal offenses.

Regarding a criminal conviction for President Trump: I don't think a successful criminal prosecution (for what happened at the Capitol) is at all likely. I don't see how a prosecutor could prove the elements needed in order for the incitement to imminent lawless action exception to the First Amendment to apply. If it doesn't, then his speech is protected. Maybe there's some recording of him saying how he hopes to rile up the crowd and have them storm the Capitol. But I doubt it, and it would take something like that to be able to prove what a prosecutor would need to prove.

 

[easyliving45]

People can take the position that post-office impeachment trials aren't allowed; there are plausible arguments for that position. But there are just as plausible arguments - indeed, probably somewhat better arguments - on the other side. The Constitution gives the power to try all impeachments to the Senate, and it doesn't condition that power on whether the impeached person has left the office they previously held. To think such trials aren't allowed, we have to read something into the Constitution that isn't there. Maybe that's reasonable to do, but it isn't clear that it's the right interpretation.

But, as I indicated, there's precedent for such trials being within the Senate's powers.

That said, the big picture context for understanding and assessing the impeachment powers is that impeachment is by its nature a political process meant as a remedy for (among other things) political offenses, not a criminal process meant as a remedy for (only) criminal offenses.

Regarding a criminal conviction for President Trump: I don't think a successful criminal prosecution (for what happened at the Capitol) is at all likely. I don't see how a prosecutor could prove the elements needed in order for the incitement to imminent lawless action exception to the First Amendment to apply. If it doesn't, then his speech is protected. Maybe there's some recording of him saying how he hopes to rile up the crowd and have them storm the Capitol. But I doubt it, and it would take something like that to be able to prove what a prosecutor would need to prove.

Apparently Trump cant find anyone willing to represent him at the moment so its unclear if the trial can even move forward until he does.

I think a case could be made by a good lawyer that statemnets like #stopthesteal "January 6th is the last chance for Pence to do the right thing" are completely baseless but i don't think the rise to the level of criminal.

Some of the other members of the GOP perhaps especially Gohmert and Guliani certainly do but they are not on trial yet.

Incitement: a timeline of Trump's inflammatory rhetoric before the Capitol riot

The president, his family and his allies made no shortage of disturbing remarks in the run-up t0 Wednesday’s siege

www.theguardian.com

 

[easyliving45]

Wow. I did not know that. So while there's not a Constitutional argument, there actually IS precedent, albeit a very old one.
There is at least the distinction of the fact he resigned to avoid impeachment.

I really don't see what it accomplishes. He won't be convicted. But it will drag things out.
Under the administration of someone who claims he wants to unite the nation, they will do something guaranteed to enrage them.

There are actually those on the Hill who think stomping Trump under their foot is necessary to "unite" people, once again proving they don't know what it means.

I think Mcconell views it as an opportunity to pretend he never supported Trump and rebrand the republican party and more centrist. . He sees that Trumps term saw the loss of the House, presidency and finally the senate. I think he would like to convict and then vote to have him barred from public office in the future, Apparently they haven't spoken since Thanksgiving so I don't think Mcconell feels beholden to Trump in any way and has just been reelected for 6 years at which point he will retire so he has nothing to lose by trying to pivot from Trump.

 

[SamSpade]

Regarding a criminal conviction for President Trump: I don't think a successful criminal prosecution (for what happened at the Capitol) is at all likely. I don't see how a prosecutor could prove the elements needed in order for the incitement to imminent lawless action exception to the First Amendment to apply. If it doesn't, then his speech is protected. Maybe there's some recording of him saying how he hopes to rile up the crowd and have them storm the Capitol. But I doubt it, and it would take something like that to be able to prove what a prosecutor would need to prove.

What I hate about that - is what I hated about the last impeachment. They're going to vote down party lines no matter how convincing any argument is. The votes are in already - the trial is just for show. Even if they feel otherwise they know a vote against their party WILL carry repercussions.

I don't think there's any case at all for incitement. The Capitol was breached while Trump WAS STILL TALKING. I don't find a single remark he made in that rather long address inflammatory. The Dems don't see it that way - ANYTHING that insults them is an egregrious assault they can't tolerate. They may try to make the case that - SOMEHOW - by suggesting the election was stolen (frankly - I do believe it was, but whatever) - that it somehow spontaneously created this movement to invade the Capitol. There's no logic in that, unless remarks on the LEFT could be used to explain Scalise being shot at, or the myriad violent protests over the last few years.

Otherwise it is impossible that a single person who heard him speak could have entered the Capitol.

 

[SamSpade]

I think Mcconell views it as an opportunity to pretend he never supported Trump and rebrand the republican party and more centrist. . He sees that Trumps term saw the loss of the House, presidency and finally the senate. I think he would like to convict and then vote to have him barred from public office in the future, Apparently they haven't spoken since Thanksgiving so I don't think Mcconell feels beholden to Trump in any way and has just been reelected for 6 years at which point he will retire so he has nothing to lose by trying to pivot from Trump.

I've never liked McConnell, but I wouldn't want him to be replaced by a Democrat.
Can't say I didn't think HIS re-election wasn't - suspicious.

Earliest opportunity they're yanking him as leader of the GOP in the Senate.

I think he grossly underestimates the support Trump had and still has.

 

[easyliving45]

I've never liked McConnell, but I wouldn't want him to be replaced by a Democrat.
Can't say I didn't think HIS re-election wasn't - suspicious.

Earliest opportunity they're yanking him as leader of the GOP in the Senate.

I think he grossly underestimates the support Trump had and still has.

As i said from his view Trump lost the House, Presidency and senate and his supporters attempted a harebrained inept but nonetheless deadly insurrection.

I think his assumption is he can peel off the Trump supporters and still keep the majority of people who will vote along party lines no matter what.
It stands to reason there is nothing to lose as Trumpism didn't deliver many wins in terms of remaining in power,

 

[SamSpade]

As i said from his view Trump lost the House, Presidency and senate and his supporters attempted a harebrained inept but nonetheless deadly insurrection.

I think his assumption is he can peel off the Trump supporters and still keep the majority of people who will vote along party lines no matter what.
It stands to reason there is nothing to lose as Trumpism didn't deliver many wins in terms of remaining in power,

Disagree. You know how many votes the "GOP establishment" got in 2008? 59 million
In 2012? 61 million
BOTH of them less than Dubya got in 2004.

In 2016 and 2020? 66 and then 75 million votes.
And increased the House in 2016.
Lost the House in 2018 - not unusual.
And managed to increase the House in 2020, even though he lost.

I don't think he realizes that Trump added voters to the party that weren't there before or who didn't give a crap about McCain or Romney.

No, I think he is making a huge mistake. Just like the estab types who fought against the Tea Party.
I'm guessing he is retiring in 2026 because he's gone.

 

[easyliving45]

Disagree. You know how many votes the "GOP establishment" got in 2008? 59 million
In 2012? 61 million
BOTH of them less than Dubya got in 2004.

In 2016 and 2020? 66 and then 75 million votes.
And increased the House in 2016.
Lost the House in 2018 - not unusual.
And managed to increase the House in 2020, even though he lost.

I don't think he realizes that Trump added voters to the party that weren't there before or who didn't give a crap about McCain or Romney.

No, I think he is making a huge mistake. Just like the estab types who fought against the Tea Party.
I'm guessing he is retiring in 2026 because he's gone.

I agree Trump brought out many people who never voted before. However Biden got more votes than any candidate in history and the general feeling from most dems about him was apathy. I think the pandemic and tribalism brought out more voters on both sides who never bothered to participate before.

But where is the tea party now? It's gone. And at one point it seemed like a viable part of the republican party. I think many voters who support Trump will be happy to go on vacation and tour Mar a lago. Buy a hat, shake Trumps hand and never involve themselves in politics again given they believe "it is rigged" or the election "was stolen" They had no interest in politics before Trump and without him I don't think their interest will continue.

I'm not sure i understand your last sentence. He's gone.....?

 

[SamSpade]

I agree Trump brought out many people who never voted before. However Biden got more votes than any candidate in history and the general feeling from most dems about him was apathy. I think the pandemic and tribalism brought out more voters on both sides who never bothered to participate before.

But where is the tea party now? It's gone. And at one point it seemed like a viable part of the republican party. I think many voters who support Trump will be happy to go on vacation and tour Mar a lago. Buy a hat, shake Trumps hand and never involve themselves in politics again given they believe "it is rigged" or the election "was stolen" They had no interest in politics before Trump and without him I don't think their interest will continue.

I'm not sure i understand your last sentence. He's gone.....?

I have no explanation for why the most boring, uncharismatic Presidential candidate since Dukakis who could not generate any enthusiasm among Democrats SOMEHOW managed to collect more votes than any other candidate in history - beating even Hillary by about 15 MILLION votes. Beating out OBAMA - and even HE couldn't beat 2008. Thus, somehow racking up a much greater change in one election cycle than has almost ever been done before - and that includes the HUGE enthusiasm given to Obama over the likes of John Kerry.

Typically, one election to the next gains about 8-10 million more votes per cycle. Sometimes it's less. Sometimes it DROP. Two million FEWER voters voted in 2012 than 2008.

But it doesn't go up by 21 million. That - is weird. It's weird that the increase went to a man so dull he can't get people to show up and see him.
They can't claim to have ever heard him give a speech and have no idea what he campaigned on.

Is it possible the increase came SOLELY from the increase in mail-in ballots? Sure. It just strikes me as strange.

I don't know a single Republican or conservative who is pleased with McConnell. Like Boehner - and Ryan - he's a GOP leader the Republican voters dislike the most.

Yeah, I think one way or another - he will either be primaried in 2026 or urged to retire. This is his last term.

 

[stgislander]

I have no explanation for why the most boring, uncharismatic Presidential candidate since Dukakis who could not generate any enthusiasm among Democrats SOMEHOW managed to collect more votes than any other candidate in history - beating even Hillary by about 15 MILLION votes. Beating out OBAMA - and even HE couldn't beat 2008. Thus, somehow racking up a much greater change in one election cycle than has almost ever been done before - and that includes the HUGE enthusiasm given to Obama over the likes of John Kerry.

The ONLY explanation besides cheating is that Dems and Indys came out of hiding to vote against Trump.

 

[Louise]

If I may ...


Convicted of what? You bloody waste from a menstrual cycle. The US Constitution does not allow for the impeachment of a non-sitting President. Also known as a ex-President. GFYS with an unlubricated red brick and stop with the idiotic non sequiturs.

Your reference to menstrual cycle was uncalled for. I wish you could experience that just once, carry a child for 9 months, and then give birth. I have to say,..if I may,..your comparison in your post #25 is one of the dumbest posts I have ever seen on this forum.

 

[Louise]

I've never liked McConnell, but I wouldn't want him to be replaced by a Democrat.
Can't say I didn't think HIS re-election wasn't - suspicious.

Earliest opportunity they're yanking him as leader of the GOP in the Senate.

I think he grossly underestimates the support Trump had and still has.

And, now he is being censored, too, by Kentucky. There is no question that he has connections to China, as well; considering who he is married to.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Your reference to menstrual cycle was uncalled for. I wish you could experience that just once, carry a child for 9 months, and then give birth. I have to say,..if I may,..your comparison in your post #25 is one of the dumbest posts I have ever seen on this forum.

Well, I have said much much worse in the past. And what I said was a prefect use of a reference calling out that idiot. And do not assume that I do not have respect for the woman, and what she went through, that gave me my kids. Or any woman. My post may have been dumb to you, but at least it wasn't directed at you. Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever directed any nastiness towards you ... ever. Hummm

 

[Louise]

If I may ...


Well, I have said much much worse in the past. And what I said was a prefect use of a reference calling out that idiot. And do not assume that I do not have respect for the woman, and what she went through, that gave me my kids. Or any woman. My post may have been dumb to you, but at least it wasn't directed at you. Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever directed any nastiness towards you ... ever. Hummm

If I may...

Yes, it was dumb. No, it wasn’t directed at me. You are trying to deflect on what you posted. Squiggle much? My reply wasn’t meant to be nasty, either. It is my opinion. I have one; as you do. Happy foruming.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Yes, it was dumb. No, it wasn’t directed at me. You are trying to deflect on what you posted. Squiggle much? My reply wasn’t meant to be nasty, either. It is my opinion. I have one; as you do. Happy foruming.

There have been many instances of those warning the consequences of interacting with you over the years and the futility of it. Now I now why.

 

[easyliving45]

I have no explanation for why the most boring, uncharismatic Presidential candidate since Dukakis who could not generate any enthusiasm among Democrats SOMEHOW managed to collect more votes than any other candidate in history - beating even Hillary by about 15 MILLION votes. Beating out OBAMA - and even HE couldn't beat 2008. Thus, somehow racking up a much greater change in one election cycle than has almost ever been done before - and that includes the HUGE enthusiasm given to Obama over the likes of John Kerry.

Typically, one election to the next gains about 8-10 million more votes per cycle. Sometimes it's less. Sometimes it DROP. Two million FEWER voters voted in 2012 than 2008.

But it doesn't go up by 21 million. That - is weird. It's weird that the increase went to a man so dull he can't get people to show up and see him.
They can't claim to have ever heard him give a speech and have no idea what he campaigned on.

Is it possible the increase came SOLELY from the increase in mail-in ballots? Sure. It just strikes me as strange.

I don't know a single Republican or conservative who is pleased with McConnell. Like Boehner - and Ryan - he's a GOP leader the Republican voters dislike the most.

Yeah, I think one way or another - he will either be primaried in 2026 or urged to retire. This is his last term.

Yes and as I said i think he is well aware and plans to retire in 6 years so he has nothing to lose cutting off the most radical part of the republican party who he believes cares more about Trump as a personality then politics or Republican values.

I think that during a pandemic its not strange that there were many more mail in votes and I definitely don't think it is strange that a man who believes in school distancing and had mostly virtual, mobile and socially distanced rallies wouldn't attract large crowds.


I also think time will prove you wrong about Paul Ryan as well. After passing the tax act he ducked out of Washington. I think this was a strategic move on his part to distance himself from Trump. I think he will come back in and attempt to lead the portion of the Republican part not beholden strictly to Trump but to the values Republicans have traditionally ascribed to. I wouldn't be surprised if he runs again in 2024 as more of a moderate middle fo the road republican.