And so it has begun

[Bene Futuis]

The only thing saving Trump from criminal prosecution for any number of crimes he's committed while in office is executive immunity. The only thing potentially saving Trump from being impeached by the House is --- well, nothing. I bet he's fucked there (again). The only thing saving him from being removed from office after his trial by the Senate (or the Senate voting after Biden starts his term to complete the impeachment process with 2/3 vote) is the craven nature of the worthless Republicans in office. As of now, there is nothing saving Trump from crimes committed while not in office, assuming no statute of limitations issues.

Edit: The lying moron has been impeached again by the House.

Edit 2: If I had to guess whether he would be convicted on a charge of incitement based on the evil that a) always spews forth from his anus of a mouth or, b) the evil that spewed forth from his mouth on January 6th, I would guess that he would be acquitted. Still, that has nothing to do with whether he could or should be impeached.

[revo]

Ah, if you're saying that election fraud can't be proven under a legal standard, then I agree. I thought you meant that Trump's "They stole the election" canard was causally linked to the riot and that Trump by making that statement, under law, caused the riot. That part, as I said, should he have a lawyer smarter than a potato or Rudy (and that might be insulting to the potato), will be an easy win for Trump in a court. I'm sure the Dems will still impeach him, but if someone tries to go after Trump in a real court of law, they'll get stomped like bug on that charge.

Oh, just the election fraud nonsense. As far as proving if *he* caused the riots, I'm sure a crafty lawyer could get him out of it. The real question is, what lawyers would touch him? Seems like just the Rudy Giuliani/Lin Wood/Sidney Powell's of the world.

[chancellor]

Are you saying that you don't think Trump caused/incited the riot, or just that you think he would get off legally on a technicality were he subject to the ordinary process of law?

He'd get off legally. Wouldn't even be a technicality. Heck, if it were a jury trial, the judge would give a directed not guilty verdict.

[Bene Futuis]

Heck, if it were a jury trial, the judge would give a directed not guilty verdict.

I seriously doubt that.

[chancellor]

How is it a political loser when 57% want him removed from office? And Biden is a bit preoccupied to be wading in this cesspool.

Simple - he'll be removed from office in a week. And the case is a loser. Loser case, waste of time, gone before you know it. That's not a formula for political success.

[The Feral Slasher]

Simple - he'll be removed from office in a week. And the case is a loser. Loser case, waste of time, gone before you know it. That's not a formula for political success.

I don't think anyone is discussing political success. Ok someone was, lol

[Kevin Seitzer]

He'd get off legally. Wouldn't even be a technicality. Heck, if it were a jury trial, the judge would give a directed not guilty verdict.

The point of my question was to find out what you actually think about Trump's speech on January 6 and the events that followed at the Capitol, not for you to make a debate point. You make a lot of clever points in this forum, but I don't know what you actually stand FOR. I get that wordplay and cleverness is a thing we do here. I do it, too. Guys like Feral Slasher do a lot of it. But I also know what Feral cares about and what his principles are. I know, despite his "I disagree" schtick and other stuff like that, that he bemoans the extent to which our country worships the military and feeds the defense budget to the result of constant war and empire around the world, for instance.

I feel like during the Trump admin that you haven't talked here about what you actually believe in and care deeply about, that you've come to make clever points and little comments here and there. Which is fine if you want to engage with this forum that way. It isn't like Hot Button Topics is the United States Congress or the British parliament, or something of that import. But I don't know how to take your comments seriously when you don't ever take a stand for anything heartfelt or principled, and it's just about adding some little zinger or comeback to something someone else posted.

[GwynnInTheHall]

and two more off duty cops arrested for their part.

[chancellor]

The point of my question was to find out what you actually think about Trump's speech on January 6 and the events that followed at the Capitol, not for you to make a debate point.

First off, I apologize, since I apparently came off that way. I read your question as a pretty direct one and a pretty much either/or answer. I misunderstood, and my answer must have appeared snarky. That was not my intent.

You make a lot of clever points in this forum, but I don't know what you actually stand FOR.

You are correct that I post little in depth in here anymore. Stopped circa 2017 on that; the toxicity just wasn't worth it.

[GwynnInTheHall]

he's just here for baseball




and snark.