Replies

To: Alberta's Child

“It actually made a lot of sense. If Trump had been convicted in the Senate, they would have sought to disqualify him from holding Federal office again as the penalty.”

But it wouldn’t have been a valid conviction if the CJ wasn’t presiding. So it was actually pointless from a legal POV - and the Dems (and traitor-publicans like Liz Cheney) knew it from Day One.

The ONLY point was to try to further tarnish Trump’s reputation in the public eye, but IMHO it actually enhanced it. Trump is Teflon - every single thing that he’s accused of falls by the wayside, as he’s innocent. It backs up his claim that, “They’re not after me, they’re after you; I’m just in the way.”

39 posted on 12/11/2023 1:14:13 PM PST by Ancesthntr (“The right to buy weapons is the right to be free.” ― A.E. Van Vogt, The Weapons Shops of Isher)

Read the link at 38.

42 posted on 12/11/2023 1:18:11 PM PST by Sacajaweau ( )

But it wouldn’t have been a valid conviction if the CJ wasn’t presiding.

Legally it probably would have been valid. See the other posts on this point. The CJ only presides over impeachment trials for sitting Presidents. By the time the Senate trial began, Trump was no longer President but was arguably subject to punishment beyond removal from office.

47 posted on 12/11/2023 1:27:34 PM PST by Alberta's Child (If something in government doesn’t make sense, you can be sure it makes dollars.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794