Should Trump be impeached?

Pelosi is remembering when Clinton actually got a bounce after impeachment. Not defending her present position but explaining a major concern for congressional Democrats.

Screenshot of this tweet before he deleted it. Too bad we all saw him ask for the FSB to help him get elected on national television.

topcat said:

After conviction by the Senate, "the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" in the regular federal, or state courts.

Click to expand...

It will not get signed by 66 senators. That is why:
TRUMP WANTS TO BE IMPEACHED!

My mistake. I thought you were saying if he's impeached, he cannot be prosecuted (after he leaves office). I know he won't be convicted by the Senate.

topcat said:

My mistake. I thought you were saying if he's impeached, he cannot be prosecuted (after he leaves office). I know he won't be convicted by the Senate.

Click to expand...

As I understand it. The proceedings in the Senate are a trial. If he is acquitted by the Senate then he can't be tried in federal courts for the same crimes.

topcat said:

My mistake. I thought you were saying if he's impeached, he cannot be prosecuted (after he leaves office). I know he won't be convicted by the Senate.

Click to expand...

I did say that. If he is impeached it will be prosecuted by the senate, who will render the entire investigation fruitless. A crime can not be prosecuted twice in the US, this is called double jeopardy. A "valid" acquittal can't be overturned by repeated criminal litigation.

abandonconflict said:

I did say that. If he is impeached it will be prosecuted by the senate, who will render the entire investigation fruitless. A crime can not be prosecuted twice in the US, this is called double jeopardy. A "valid" acquittal can't be overturned by repeated criminal litigation.

Click to expand...

Incorrect as usual.

An impeachment process is used to remove the president from office so that he can then be prosecuted by the authorities.

That's why Speaker Pelosi isn't bothering to do it: She knows she doesn't have the votes in the Senate to remove Trump from office, so the entire thing will be a colossal waste of time and money. To make matters worse, it would also allow Trump to play the victim like he has been for the last two years.

It has nothing to do with double jeopardy because an impeachment process is not a criminal trial. It is a trial for removal from office, nothing more. An actual criminal trial cannot begin until that happens.

The senate "trial" is not in fact a criminal trial. It is simply a trail for removal, so no double jeopardy applies. It's more like a hearing to terminate a police officer or a court martial to discharge a soldier for reprehensible behavior.

I say hell naw...THIS MF NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN..
I would feel like total shit if I casted a vote for this shithead the way he has acted...If OBAMA acted like this I would have been so damn embarrassed...
Fucking 45!!!
Y’all gotta feel like shit for voting (cheating)him in...now eat it

Hempire828 said:

I would feel like total shit if I casted a vote for this shithead the way he has acted...If OBAMA acted like this I would have been so damn embarrassed...

Click to expand...

Well, Obama DID do horrible things while in office. Such as:


I mean, really, Obama? Guilden's Spicy Brown not good enough for you? Seriously, dude?

THE OUTRAGE!!!

Impeachment is political, the possible removal from office, since a sitting president can't (won't) be criminally prosecuted. Even if he was convicted by the Senate, "the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" in the regular federal, or state courts. Granted, that quote is from wikipedia, so it might be incorrect. I don't see acquittal as making a difference in that regard, once he's out of office.

topcat said:

I don't see acquittal as making a difference in that regard, once he's out of office.

Click to expand...

You are correct in that. It doesn't in the grand scheme of things.

But it does carry serious political repercussions. Again, the worst thing about trying to impeach Trump at this stage of the game is simply that it benefits him more than it hurts him.

Trump already looks bad. The only thing that has galvanized his base of lunatics is that he's been playing the victim card the entire time and they believe him. An impeachment proceeding would continue to allow him to do exactly that: keep playing that victim card and keep his base on his side.

Once he gets to the Senate and they acquit him, he'll sell that once again as complete vindication of any wrongdoing and his base will lap that up and it'll make him even stronger than he ever was with those blithering idiots to begin with.

With what Pelosi is doing right now, Trump is becoming his own worst enemy. It's actually he that is making him look bad, not the democratic congress.

It's the smart play. Impeachment is a battle you can't win that empowers your enemy. Trump's team knows that. So does Pelosi. That's why she's refusing to play their game and rightly so.

TacoMac said:

You are correct in that. It doesn't in the grand scheme of things.

But it does carry serious political repercussions. Again, the worst thing about trying to impeach Trump at this stage of the game is simply that it benefits him more than it hurts him.

Trump already looks bad. The only thing that has galvanized his base of lunatics is that he's been playing the victim card the entire time and they believe him. An impeachment proceeding would continue to allow him to do exactly that: keep playing that victim card and keep his base on his side.

Once he gets to the Senate and they acquit him, he'll sell that once again as complete vindication of any wrongdoing and his base will lap that up and it'll make him even stronger than he ever was with those blithering idiots to begin with.

With what Pelosi is doing right now, Trump is becoming his own worst enemy. It's actually he that is making him look bad, not the democratic congress.

It's the smart play. Impeachment is a battle you can't win that empowers your enemy. Trump's team knows that. So does Pelosi. That's why she's refusing to play their game and rightly so.

Click to expand...

Understood. Still, the clause shouldn't even be there, if not to be used. "Treason" requires us to be at war and bribery would be difficult to prove, so there's nothing left.

TacoMac said:

Incorrect as usual.

An impeachment process is used to remove the president from office so that he can then be prosecuted by the authorities.

That's why Speaker Pelosi isn't bothering to do it: She knows she doesn't have the votes in the Senate to remove Trump from office, so the entire thing will be a colossal waste of time and money. To make matters worse, it would also allow Trump to play the victim like he has been for the last two years.

It has nothing to do with double jeopardy because an impeachment process is not a criminal trial. It is a trial for removal from office, nothing more. An actual criminal trial cannot begin until that happens.

The senate "trial" is not in fact a criminal trial. It is simply a trail for removal, so no double jeopardy applies. It's more like a hearing to terminate a police officer or a court martial to discharge a soldier for reprehensible behavior.

Click to expand...

This is so hilarious. So you claim to be a professor at a law school but you don't even know the difference between the house and the Senate. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. The house has the power to impeach. The senate decides what to do with an impeached president. This is basic shit. When Clinton was impeached the senate settled on censure. Impeachment is not removal from office as you suggest. Particularly in your very clear assertion that impeachment proceedings are a trial for removal from office, you've made it clear that you are not in fact a Juris Doctor, much less a fucking law professor.

Get the fuck out of here lol!

"It has nothing to do with double jeopardy because an impeachment process is not a criminal trial. It is a trial for removal from office, nothing more"

I can accept if I'm wrong about the double jeopardy but I did make that assertion. I will stand by it until sufficient evidence is presented. The senate, upon impeachment of the president tries the impeached for his crimes. Therefore it is a criminal trial. That is my assertion. Trial for a crime is a criminal trial. Clinton was acquitted by the senate for the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Those are criminal offenses.

At least I know the difference between the house and the senate unlike our local law professor.

abandonconflict said:

This is so hilarious. So you claim to be a professor at a law school

Click to expand...

You have never in recent history gotten anything right. I never claimed to be a professor at a law school. I teach criminal justice at a police academy.

abandonconflict said:

Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. The house has the power to impeach.

Click to expand...

Yes, they do. But they do not have the final word. They pass the articles of impeachment. It then goes to the senate for finalization.

I'll try to dumb this down to your level since you're obviously challenged:

First off, the House of Representatives and the Senate are collectively known as "The Congress".

An impeachment process can be started by the House of Representatives with a simple majority vote. That vote is really nothing more than an indictment of sorts against the president.

Then, after the House of Representatives votes to impeach, the actual impeachment trial is held by the Senate.

Since the republicans control the senate, the chance of success in an all out impeachment of Trump is pretty much zero.

But since you're going to completely ignore all the facts, I don't know why I bother trying. You're the absolute worst individual I've come across lately. You're worse than even squarepusher with your constant complete nonsensical posting.

Here's a very simple site that MAYBE (but I doubt) you can read that will explain it all for you: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/donald-trump-impeachment.html

TacoMac said:

You have never in recent history gotten anything right. I never claimed to be a professor at a law school. I teach criminal justice at a police academy.

Click to expand...

No you don't. You just revealed that you don't even know the difference between the house and the senate, professor Justice. No wonder the cops don't know shit. They pay idiots like you to post on RIU.

@TacoMac getting fucking schooled again so he insists "you're always wrong"!

Is that how incomplete carriers get launched?

abandonconflict said:

Is that how incomplete carriers get launched?

Click to expand...

You are a sad, pathetic little person. This will be my last post to you.

Ships are almost always launched before completion. It's done to relieve the stress on the hull, which can't support the full weight of a completed ship in dry dock without vast amounts of rigging.

For instance, here is one of the most famous launches in history, the Battleship Bismarck:


Notice there are no guns, no tower structures, no nothing. Just a flat deck.

The ship is then secured to a port slip and finish fitted while floating.

Ships have been finished this way for over a century. If you ever bothered reading a book or two or even watching a few videos you'd know that.

Bye-bye, little boy. Have fun being wrong all the time.

TacoMac said:

You are a sad, pathetic little person. This will be my last post to you.

Ships are almost always launched before completion.

Click to expand...

3 years before completion? So you saw satellite images of a type 002 Chinese carrier? Because that is what you said. I mean before you showed us that you don't know the fucking difference between the house and the senate, professor justice.

SHOW US THE SATELLITE IMAGES!

You were proven absolutely wrong again. They just launched the type 001A, it's still in sea trials, it has steam turbine propulsion and a ski ramp. Just man up and admit you were wrong and you will actually be respected for it. I promise. We'll still make fun of you for not knowing the difference between the house and the senate though.

TacoMac said:

Well, Obama DID do horrible things while in office. Such as:

I mean, really, Obama? Guilden's Spicy Brown not good enough for you? Seriously, dude?

THE OUTRAGE!!!

Click to expand...

All BS aside... Obama know he eat regular mustard..especially . when he on them blunts