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

Trump is not getting convicted. Nor will he be banned from running. Highly unlikely he runs again, but he will decide who the nominee is in 2024

It is real simple for the Dems; don't want a Trumper winning in 2024, then do a good job running the country the next 4 years and make the economy strong.

Otherwise, the Republicans win back everything by 2024. That is the reality.

 

Maybe, but he gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists. First of all, by failing to tell them to stand down, for several hours, failing to order troops in during that time, expressing his love for them, and then tweeting (paraphrasing) "that's what you get when you steal an election".

It will be interesting to hear the testimony of the aids that were trying to get him to take action for so long.

 

don't care how we do it. just care that he be stopped.

 

Not possible. Biden is already castrated. If he cannot do it through executive order, he cannot do it at all.

 

Wrong. He didn't incite the insurrection to begin with. He neither gave them aid and comfort under legal definition. It doesn't matter because he won't be convicted.

 

If Trump is so bad then why are you so worried?

 

Reread your own post. See if it makes sense to you.

 

as was the prior president and he would have won easily if the election was a year earlier

If the economy is doing well independents, and some moderates will not want a party change

 

What doesn't make sense? If Trump is so bad why does he need to be stopped and stopped from what?

 

Wow. Do people who are 'so bad', need to be stopped or is it people who are so good, that need to be stopped?

 

There are a lot of people that aren't DCP disciples and don't think Trump is bad. That seems to be a hard concept for you to grasp.

 

Arguably, his actions DO meet the legal definition of "aid and comfort":

The U.S. Constitution, Article VIII, Section III, declares, that adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, shall be treason. These words, as they are to be understood in the constitution, have not received a full judicial construction. They import, however, help, support, assistance, countenance, encouragement. The word aid is explained by Lord Coke as comprehending all persons counselling, abetting, plotting, assenting, consenting, and encouraging to do the act, (and he adds, though not applicable to treason; who are not present when the act is done).
https://www.lectlaw.com/def/a173.htm

 

It doesn't meet the definition and it doesn't matter because he won't be convicted.

 

If it meets the definition, he could very well be convicted. I showed how it seems to meet the definition. Explain why you think it doesn't.

 

The evidence does not matter
17 Republicans will not vote to convict.
Some Republicans believe the lies; most just want to stay in power
The rally in Wyoming yesterday was the equivalent to the horse's head scene in the Godfather

 

You did not answer the question in the post you quoted. Don't bother now. I have already figured you out.

 

He didn't incite an insurrection. Where de he tell anyone to attack anything? By not telling them to stop is not aid and comfort.

 

His defense attorneys would certainly argue that he didn't specifically tell them to break into the Capitol. I think the only way prosecution could stick will be if there's evidence he knew in advance that there were plans in place. That's a possibility, since we know the FBI was aware. But I'm waiting to see if there's evidence he was told. Maybe he wasn't, because he was too busy ranting and sulking.

But regarding "aid and comfort", I think there's a better case. He was clearly "countenancing" it while it was taking place. He had advisors begging him to do something, but he didn't. What do you suppose he told those advisors at the time? Their testimony could very well be damning.

I'm not saying it's a certainty, but there really might be a case there.

 

Man Democrats are vindictive when they don't get thier way.

Just imagine what this must look like to ordinary people. An outsider dares enter politics, wins, and forever after they use every trick in the book to try and make that person seem like worse than Hitler and even after that person has left office they continue to go after them.

Talk about elitist snobs.

 

Aide and comfort doesn't mean what you think it means.

Aide as in giving material goods or helping them in some way.

Comfort as in giving them a safe place to avoid capture or punishment.

That is what those things mean. Words, or lack thereof, do not constitute those things.

And it wasn't his job to call in the police or national guard. In fact it was Pelosi et al that initially denied the request for the national guard.

 

Just because Trump did nothing to stop something he didn't start is not giving aid and comfort. The riot started before his speech was over. You're stretching at best. Another question, if the FBI knew then why didn't they do anything to stop it? Was the FBI giving aid and comfort?

 

Fake News.

AND YET, SOMEHOW TRUMP’S SPEECH WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE “INCITED” THIS: Capitol riot: Pipe bombs found on January 6 were placed the night before, FBI says.

 

Actually, the Senate is constitutionally barred from trying anything other than impeachment. For them to try hold him guilty of anything else, would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. How these guys can be in the Senate and be this stupid is a miracle of sorts.

 

This is an inane stretch, even for you.

 

Actually, it's exactly why that particular amendment was written.