Guilty for what? He is subject to criminal prosecution if he commits a crime. There has to be proof.Would it be considered double jeopardy to have the Feds try Trump in a court of law once he has been acquitted in an impeachment trial? Is this apples and oranges? Anyone know?
It would not. Impeachment is a civil procedure for removal from office, not a criminal trial.Would it be considered double jeopardy to have the Feds try Trump in a court of law once he has been acquitted in an impeachment trial? Is this apples and oranges? Anyone know?
Guilty for what? He is subject to criminal prosecution if he commits a crime. There has to be proof.
Would it be considered double jeopardy to have the Feds try Trump in a court of law once he has been acquitted in an impeachment trial? Is this apples and oranges? Anyone know?
They would actually have to supply evidence that he did something wrong in the first place.Would it be considered double jeopardy to have the Feds try Trump in a court of law once he has been acquitted in an impeachment trial? Is this apples and oranges? Anyone know?
Seeing as he had nothing to do with an insurrection, that actually never happened. Your post is missing some necessary points on it's reasoning.he won't be punished for the insurrection. however, we can punish his party at the polls. show up every election day to vote. it's going to take a lot of election cycles to flush the insurrectionists the right way.
Oh I will be very surprised if he isn't punished.he won't be punished for the insurrection. however, we can punish his party at the polls. show up every election day to vote. it's going to take a lot of election cycles to flush the insurrectionists the right way.
You mean like they did in tbe Senate where 58 people agreed be was guilty??.They would actually have to supply evidence that he did something wrong in the first place.
Otherwise it's just going to be another dog and pony show for the media to fawn over.
The only issue here is that when all of this is said and done. Those trying to harm Trump are mostly going to actually set precedent against themselves for future cases.Oh I will be very surprised if he isn't punished.
It may or may not happen in criminal court, but he has a shit load of civil suits headed his way.
Remember OJ was found not guilty but he lost EVERYTHING down to the rings on his fingers and bells on his toes...
58 seconds senators who were there disagree...Seeing as he had nothing to do with an insurrection, that actually never happened. Your post is missing some necessary points on it's reasoning.
They didn't even manage to convince 2/3 that he was guilty. A jury trial requires unanimous juror agreement to convict. They're not going to get anywhere.You mean like they did in tbe Senate where 58 people agreed be was guilty??.
It does not take evidence for someone to agree to something. The first impeachment trial was the same way, and seeing as the democrats had to practically threaten their own members to vote in step with the party. I wouldn't be surprised if much of that same tactic was going on here.You mean like they did in tbe Senate where 58 people agreed be was guilty??.
Nobody is afraid of trump anymore, his fangs have been pulled and be will spend the rest of his sad life in court and doing fundraisers trying to fund his defense team...The only issue here is that when all of this is said and done. Those trying to harm Trump are mostly going to actually set precedent against themselves for future cases.
If that's all you have as a response. Then you've become less capable at debate than usual.58 seconds senators who were there disagree...
I don't recall anyone other then the democrats, being afraid of Trump. So you're statement is falling on a sour note at this point.Nobody is afraid of trump anymore, his fangs have been pulled and be will spend the rest of his sad life in court and doing fundraisers trying to fund his defense team...
They didn't even manage to convince 2/3 that he was guilty. A jury trial requires unanimous juror agreement to convict. They're not going to get anywhere.
Citation please.Actually a lot more were convinced, they just didn't want to lose their jobs.
12 people with nothing to lose is a slam dunk...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?