If impeachment fails,14th Amendment Section3.1 for Trump removal.

Repugnant and repulsive but far from being crimes.

 

Actually that is not true. People end up on juries all the time despite admitting to preconceived feelings about the guilt or innocence of the accused. The counsels of the accused and the prosecutors sometimes do not object to having them because the they realize that if they can sway a juror with preconceived ideas to their side it will carry a lot of weight with the other jurors.

I remember the rape trial of William Kennedy Smith. One of the men chosen for the jury openly said before his selection that he thought Smith was "probably guilty". Note that Smith was ultimately acquitted.

 

How many times must you be reminded impeachment does not require an illegal act?

 

Bribery, Treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors are all criminal acts. That is what is required for impeachment. The DCP has now changed the precedent to " because we can because we have the votes".

 

He is an X president.

 

It won't be. Almost every thing in his economic plan amounts to little more than trying to buy voters with other people's money, or a promise of jobs tomorrow if we **** can all the job already available. It has the makings of an economic disaster of the sort not seen since 1929

 

How many times do you have to be reminded that if you don't have actual provable crimes the likelihood of getting seventeen Republicans to vote to convict the biggest Republican vote getter in history is essentially nil. You might also wish to note that the southern circuit of New York seems at this time wholly uninterested in pursuing charges against Trump.

 

That doesn't make sense. He needs to be stopped because he's bad.

 

The better question is why are they wasting government resources chasing after a man who is out of power. I suspect this is the "show" that they present to the country for distraction purposes while they empty the safe outside of the public's view.

 

Require? No but it would be nice and more politically viable to actually be able to accuse someone of a crime if you're going to punish them.

 

This simply means that you and 61falcon need to get a clue on what insurrection means.

 

Here's a news flash for you, Trump is not president anymore! What does he need to be stopped from? You also understand that 1/2 the country doesn't see Trump as being bad but do see Traitor Joe as being bad.

 

There's likely something in that but it probably has more to do with keeping Biden out of the public eye as much as possible though the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

He needs to be stopped from holding elected office again. Nobody should get away with inciting a riot on the Capitol and create as much division and derision as he has and it doesn't go away just because he did it in the final weeks of his presidency.

Here's a news flash for you. Clearly, it is LESS than half because he lost the election.

 

Nearly everyone in this country did nothing to stop the insurrection after it started. Trump stands out from the rest of us in that he had the RESPONSIBILITY (and resources) to stop it, because he was commander-in-chief. That is the case, and it will be strengthened if his advisors testify that they tried to convince him to take action, but he refused. Will they? I don't know, but suppose they do - and then provide your defense.

I acknowledged that he probably couldn't be convicted of instigating the insurrection. I focused on "aid and comfort".

My niece, an FBI agent, reminds me that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is an investigative agency not a combat team. All they do is provide information. Their information would have gone up to the Attorney General. It would be his job to notify the President, ideally with recommendations on response. It will be interesting to find out what happened - and I'm making no predictions, just pointing out there's a possibility Trump knew about the potential in advance, and chose to let nature take its course.

 

Trump didn't incite a riot and it's up to the people whether or not he should hold office in the future.

 

Even if he did it's still doesn't qualify as giving aide and comfort. You're grasping at straws for something that didn't happen. He won't be convicted in the senate or prosecuted by anyone else anyway.

 

Trump did incite a riot.

People are deciding whether or not he should hold office in the future. That's what the second impeachment is about.

 

Trump did not incite a riot. Trump will not be convicted in an unconstitutional trial in the senate.

 

Rinse and repeat. Trump did incite a riot.

Regardless, the process has to happen so current/future POTUSes know they can't cause havoc and get away with it.

 

Agreed. But not because he isn't guilty.

 

When exactly did Trump say anything to incite a riot?

 

Incorrect.

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job (as president) in this constitutional republic if this body determines your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” Graham says of Clinton in the nearly 20-year-old clip.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article217126395.html

 

Are you going to show proof of inciting a riot or not? Where in any of that BS Communist News Network clip did it show Trump calling for riots?