The Official "Damned Trump" Thread

[Brian37]

Today's vote on trial doesn't look good for conviction, even though the trial will take place in the Senate.

My question is, can the state or DC prosecutors still indict him and put him on trial? I say yes. Because we still are talking about independent government entities, and this trial in the Senate isn't a criminal charge that could put him in prison, but just a Statement of guilt and possible barring of holding public office again. I am not saying any criminal charge in a state case will happen, but just that the DOJ and Senate issue are separate types of trials.

I think what the assholes in the GOP Senate are trying to do is pull a fallacy so that if state  prosecutor or DC prosecutor wanted to make charges against Trump, they can say, "He wasn't convicted by the Senate". This would be akin to OJ getting off then claiming you cant sue him in a civil court, which is what happened and OJ was found legally liable for Nicole and Ron's deaths.

I bet if a no name layperson incited others to attack a DC police officer, or make threats to a congressperson or the Vice President, that person would be charged by a court. 

But regardless, it is fucking astounding that this isn't cut and dry for enough of the GOP. If Obama or Hillary had done the same the GOP would be calling for their heads.

Yes, he can be tried in other courts even after being acquitted by the Senate for the same offenses. The US Constitution is very clear on that:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indict­ ment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.

No matter what crime a President commits while in office, the most a Senate conviction can do is to remove him and prevent him from holding office again. If Trump were to have walked onto the floor of the House and shot Nancy Pelosi between the eyes in front of 400 witnesses, the Senate couldn’t send him to prison for it. That’s why he’s subject to trial and conviction after leaving office.

Boru

That is my point. But when you read the "DOJ"  recommendation, "you can't indict a sitting President". They were talking about criminal indictment which could land a a no name on trial and criminally responsible.

There is no way Trump is not criminally responsible for what he incited. The KKK back in the 70s and 80s had leaders not only civilly liable financially, but members and leaders were held criminally liable too. 

The point of convicting him in the Senate is about sending a message to any politician, of any party that you cant let people in position of power get away with what is clearly what would be a slam dunk if a no name did the same.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yes, he can be tried in other courts even after being acquitted by the Senate for the same offenses. The US Constitution is very clear on that:


No matter what crime a President commits while in office, the most a Senate conviction can do is to remove him and prevent him from holding office again. If Trump were to have walked onto the floor of the House and shot Nancy Pelosi between the eyes in front of 400 witnesses, the Senate couldn’t send him to prison for it. That’s why he’s subject to trial and conviction after leaving office.

Boru

That is my point. But when you read the "DOJ"  recommendation, "you can't indict a sitting President". They were talking about criminal indictment which could land a a no name on trial and criminally responsible.

There is no way Trump is not criminally responsible for what he incited. The KKK back in the 70s and 80s had leaders not only civilly liable financially, but members and leaders were held criminally liable too. 

The point of convicting him in the Senate is about sending a message to any politician, of any party that you cant let people in position of power get away with what is clearly what would be a slam dunk if a no name did the same.

Right, you can’t indict a sitting president, but that’s not what you asked earlier.

It’s moot - Trump is no longer a sitting president (which is why John Roberts isn’t presiding at the upcoming trial) and can be indicted for whatever a grand jury decides to indict him for.

Boru

[Angrboda]

The last tally I saw was that 31 senators are on record as opposing conviction. That's enough for acquittal. Setting aside that senators are setting aside their oath to be impartial jurors by prejudging things, the question is what this is going to do to the midterms if Republicans acquit Trump a second time.

[Rev. Rye]

The last tally I saw was that 31 senators are on record as opposing conviction. That's enough for acquittal. Setting aside that senators are setting aside their oath to be impartial jurors by prejudging things, the question is what this is going to do to the midterms if Republicans acquit Trump a second time.

I just did the numbers and it’s not. 100 senators-31 opposing conviction=69 who are willing to convict. Supermajority needed for conviction: 67. Unless we’re expecting seven senators to not bother voting. And looking it up, it looks like conviction requires only a supermajority of those present and not the entire body.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The last tally I saw was that 31 senators are on record as opposing conviction.  That's enough for acquittal.  Setting aside that senators are setting aside their oath to be impartial jurors by prejudging things, the question is what this is going to do to the midterms if Republicans acquit Trump a second time.

Are you sure that number’s right? 31 voting to acquit would mean 69 voting to convict, two more than needed. But yeah - those 31 should be disqualified.

Boru

Ninja’d by Rev

[Brian37]

That is my point. But when you read the "DOJ"  recommendation, "you can't indict a sitting President". They were talking about criminal indictment which could land a a no name on trial and criminally responsible.

There is no way Trump is not criminally responsible for what he incited. The KKK back in the 70s and 80s had leaders not only civilly liable financially, but members and leaders were held criminally liable too. 

The point of convicting him in the Senate is about sending a message to any politician, of any party that you cant let people in position of power get away with what is clearly what would be a slam dunk if a no name did the same.

Right, you can’t indict a sitting president, but that’s not what you asked earlier.

It’s moot - Trump is no longer a sitting president (which is why John Roberts isn’t presiding at the upcoming trial) and can be indicted for whatever a grand jury decides to indict him for.

Boru

Again, the DOJ wording was never part of the Constitution, it wasn't even a congressional law, it was merely a "recommendation".

I don't think we are in disagreement then. I was asking if Trump can be indicted and tried in a criminal trial. My take is yes. That is different than will he be convicted.

It is sad though from my perspective, that it would make it far easier to indict in a criminal trial outside the Senate if the GOP was willing to do the right thing.

Roberts isn't which is fucked up, and makes him a coward as far as I am concerned, but dumping it into the hands of a Democrat in congress to preside. The idea of a trial in senate is not to have a member of congress as judge, but an actual judge. Senator Pat Leahy isn't a sitting judge. Basically Roberts used a bullshit procedural move to put Pat in the position of making the entire event look political.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Right, you can’t indict a sitting president, but that’s not what you asked earlier.

It’s moot - Trump is no longer a sitting president (which is why John Roberts isn’t presiding at the upcoming trial) and can be indicted for whatever a grand jury decides to indict him for.

Boru

Again, the DOJ wording was never part of the Constitution, it wasn't even a congressional law, it was merely a "recommendation".

I don't think we are in disagreement then. I was asking if Trump can be indicted and tried in a criminal trial. My take is yes. That is different than will he be convicted.

It is sad though from my perspective, that it would make it far easier to indict in a criminal trial outside the Senate if the GOP was willing to do the right thing.

Roberts isn't which is fucked up, and makes him a coward as far as I am concerned, but dumping it into the hands of a Democrat in congress to preside. The idea of a trial in senate is not to have a member of congress as judge, but an actual judge. Senator Pat Leahy isn't a sitting judge. Basically Roberts used a bullshit procedural move to put Pat in the position of making the entire event look political.

Actually, the Chief Justice was following the constitution, not some ‘bullshit procedural move’ - he has no legal authority to preside at this trial.

To your other point - yes, Trump can now be indicted and tried.

Boru

[Angrboda]

My bad.  Guess who majored in mathematics in college.

[Brian37]

My bad.  Guess who majored in mathematics in college.  

OH OH OH, 

Trump! 81 million is less than 75 million!

[Bucky Ball]

That is my point. But when you read the "DOJ"  recommendation, "you can't indict a sitting President". They were talking about criminal indictment which could land a a no name on trial and criminally responsible.

There is no way Trump is not criminally responsible for what he incited. The KKK back in the 70s and 80s had leaders not only civilly liable financially, but members and leaders were held criminally liable too. 

The point of convicting him in the Senate is about sending a message to any politician, of any party that you cant let people in position of power get away with what is clearly what would be a slam dunk if a no name did the same.

Right, you can’t indict a sitting president, but that’s not what you asked earlier.

It’s moot - Trump is no longer a sitting president (which is why John Roberts isn’t presiding at the upcoming trial) and can be indicted for whatever a grand jury decides to indict him for.

Boru

There is nothing in US law that says you can't indict a sitting president. It's merely a DOJ "memo". 
Someone should get off their ass, and write a new memo.