Trump Impeachment Results In Acquittal
- Thread starter SethBullock
- Start date
..
That is ONLY if they can get a jury to criminally charge & convict Trump in a Criminal Court of Law for breaking '18 US Code § 2383'.....by a UNANIMOUS 12-0 criminal jury trial conviction first..........a Federal Court, or the US Senate, can't enforce the 14th Amendment without a conviction......period
A conviction needs to come first.....the US Senate can't just declare that he's was guilty of breaking a criminal law without the 'due process' of a criminal trial.....
..
Show me the part of the 14th Amendment which requires that there first be a conviction.
Squire
Active member
Seth rejoices in the acquittal of his idol Donald Trump. Seth always says he didn't vote for Donald Trump ... but ... but ... but ...
Seth strains credulity.
greggerypeccary
Active member
He can't, coz it doesn't exist.
I actually have no idea what he's going on about.
He's obviously thinking of something else.
DreamRyderX
Active member
The Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, as with all US Law, in order to be enforced, requires 'due process' because a Citizens Rights are potentially at risk....some examples....Freedom (jail term...), Liberty (jail term &/or penalty....Ability to run for office, etc...), Loss of Property (fines, etc...).
See US Code 18 § 2383 (passed by Congress):
The above penalties can only be enforced if a US Citizen is given their 'due process', & found guilty of breaking the law ......incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto......
In the US Justice System it's only after a Jury finds the defendant guilty of a crime via a unanimous guilty verdict, delivered in a criminal court of law, will any penalties come to bear.
..
greggerypeccary
Active member
You're wrong.
DreamRyderX
Active member
Show me where a US Citizen is refused' his/her Right to 'due process' if the 14th amendment is called upon.......
I suggest you check out 5th Amendment, & the 14th Amendment's 'due process' clause....
Try 'Right to Due Process: Overview' on for size while you're at it......
I suggest you check out 5th Amendment, & the 14th Amendment's 'due process' clause....
Try 'Right to Due Process: Overview' on for size while you're at it......
Last edited:
greggerypeccary
Active member
You're wrong.
If they go the 14th Amendment route, the Caligulan will not be denied due process. He will have a "due process" Trial in Congress. This time, a simple majority decides.
greggerypeccary
Active member
Correct.
Why? Trump has gotten away with it with no repercussions. What exactly is there to stop someone smarter and more cunning than Trump from trying the same thing?
only if you forget about Ivanka. If Trump can't run you can almost guarantee Ivanka will put her hand up.......... and the rabid trumpsters will ride her bandwagon.
That is what I worry about. Repugs failed the country.
greggerypeccary
Active member
Ah, Ivanka.
All the charisma and intelligence of a dried up dog turd.
This is the only place her criminal hands should be going.
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
I suggest that it is you who should re-read the 14th and 5th Amendments. Congress is NOT a court of law. The House decides to IMPEACH Trump, or NOT to IMPEACH, by holding a hearing and taking a vote. The Senate decides whether the impeached should be REMOVED FROM OFFICE or not, by holding a hearing and taking a vote. Even if Trump had committed murder on Fox News, Congress would still be limited to only removing him from office. It is the federal and state courts that could try, convict and sentence him for murder. This is only where Trump's due process would be relevant!!
Since the President is immune from Contempt of Congress, or Obstructing Congress(executive privilege), his 5th Amendment rights are irrelevant. Since impeachment is a political/constitutional process, and not a legal process, due process is not a relevant issue. Can you just imagine how long it would take to remove a president from the White house, with all the legal avenues at his disposal? Especially, since the taxpayers would ultimately be paying for it.
Surely, you are smarter than any of Trumps lawyers? Do you really think that Trump's holding the office of Presidency, has anything to do with his private ownership of that office? Do you think that Trump has a private right to stay in the office of presidency? Of course not!! The Office of Presidency is NOT Trump's private property. And, Trump is only a TEMPORARY holder of that office. Subject to the rules of the election and IMPEACHMENT.
The Constitution also says, that Trump can be charged and indicted again in federal courts, regardless of the impeachment outcomes. Clearly signaling a difference in criminal procedures and impeachment procedures. The due process argument is just silly when applied to the President in any impeachment hearings. And, asserting that his 5th, 14th, and 25th Amendments, have being violated is even sillier. There is so much evidence against this "due process" nonsense, that I'm surprised you would even bring it up. Clearly, you can't discern between deepities and bullshit. Even when parroted by Trump's Mayberry RFD legal eagles.
Due-Process Rights Don’t Apply in an Impeachment Trial
Depriving a president of power does not require the same protective measures as when the state deprives a private citizen of life, liberty, or property.
www.theatlantic.com
Is POTUS Actually Entitled to Due Process? - FindLaw
Constitutional scholars disagree on if and how due process rights apply during impeachment. Read more on FindLaw's Law and Daily Life Blog.
blogs.findlaw.com
The Constitution Doesn’t Give Presidents Any Protections During Impeachment
The Constitution doesn't give him any.
fivethirtyeight.com
I was disappointed in the senate outcome. But I was not surprised. I doubt if any republican wanted to be stigmatized as the party with the first president to ever have been removed from office.
pinkeye
Wonder woman
Pink, everyone except the lunatics condemns the actions of those people who stormed the Capitol.
And I think most people think Trump was responsible for setting the conditions that led to that event. Even I do. I have said as much, calling it incredibly irresponsible. As you know, I voted for him. But after that event, I was ready for him to go, and I have said that if he had any real time left on his term, I would support his removal and let Pence finish out Trump's term. I believe that the Senate would have convicted him if he was still in office.
But he's not in office, and that was an issue. I think some of those Senators were asking themselves why this impeachment was necessary. If not to remove the president, then for what? A symbolic gesture? Chief Justice John Roberts didn't want any part of that and refused to preside over the trial. I think a lot of Senators want to reserve impeachment for removal of a President.
Others probably objected to the charge of incitement of the riot. Trump whipped up the crowd, but that's what politicians all do. But he told the crowd to go "peacefully and patriotically", and at no time did he tell them to break in to the Capitol. Had he done that, all of the Senators would have voted to convict, but he didn't do it, and so that charge was weak. McConnell in his speech after the acquittal said Trump was "practically and morally" responsible for the break-in, a statement I largely agree with, and I said so by calling him "incredibly irresponsible". But that is different from being "directly" responsible. Perhaps if the impeachment charge was being "practically and morally responsible" or that he showed "intolerably poor judgement", the result might have been different.
Also, the FBI was warning of something like this happening the day before it happened. If it was being planned before the speech Trump gave, then it wasn't the speech that incited the riot.
And then there was this little bit of drama ... On the final day of the trial, Democrats started pushing to drag the trial out (probably for a long time) so that witnesses could be called. They even held a vote and voted in favor of calling witnesses. But that quickly backfired on them when the Trump legal team threatened to call Nancy Pelosi as a witness to find out what she knew about a possible riot before the riot. They also probably would have called witnesses from the FBI to tell what they knew of the pre-planning of the riot, planning that was happening before January 6th when Trump gave his speech. Suddenly, and with little explanation, the idea of calling witnesses was dropped. If Nancy knew this riot was going to happen, or had good reason to know, why didn't she ask for more security? Why didn't she sound the alarm? The inference is that she wanted it to happen, or that she was negligent and showed poor judgement. So the whole issue of witnesses suddenly and surprisingly disappeared.
So there were a lot of problems with this whole impeachment, and, for various different reasons, couldn't get the needed votes to convict.
I always try to look at things that happen in the long run effect they have rather than the short run. In the short run, emotion rules the day it seems, but it is the long run that really matters. It is the long run that really matters.
And in the long run, this whole series of events is going to have some positive outcomes in my opinion. Maybe that can be a topic for another time.
Seth
greggerypeccary
Active member
To prevent him from running for public office again.
That is not a reason to convict. That is a consequence of being convicted. The underlying charge should be the reason for conviction.
Can you imagine if a juror in a criminal trial used the same logic? “ I don’t care if he’s innocent or guilty. I just want to see him go to jail.”