How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

[dneal]

The question of whether the trial can take place of a former President, now private citizen, remains subject to challenge. The framers debated the question of process over a sitting President, and at the time, it makes sense that such was their chief concern. In drafting a Constitution, one would generally focus more on the issue of how to impeach and potentially remove a sitting Chief Executive rather than the question of someone who has left office. They were very much close in time to the American Revolution and still very much concerned with the potential for the President to take on despotic measures.

While the Senate is free to do whatever it wants (and it doesn't appear that there are enough votes to "impeach"), and Schumer can make claims of obscure legal theories; there's no way it stands any judicial scrutiny. I can link the Dershowitz "seminar" (as he calls it), but it's clear that the Constitution allows for the impeaching of a President, which Trump is not. It has now become a bill of attainder, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Apparently Trump's lawyers sent a letter to the Senate arguing that point.

[Chuck Naill]

Five people died.

[dneal]

Five people died.

Doesn’t change the law, but at least they can vote Democrat now.

[fountainpenkid]

I truly don't understand this "he can't convict after leaving office" thing. I think Rep. Raskin's argument is as logical as it gets--if we can't convict a president after they've left office, then they could *never* be held accountable for any actions taken in their final days in office, because they will have left the office. And there is precedent for doing it.

[Chuck Naill]

What would happen to me if my words resulted in five people's lives going away?

[fountainpenkid]

What would happen to me if my words resulted in five people's lives going away?

I think it's more than words--he never directly called for a violent storming of the capitol--it's a narrative he started which found support in a whole array of characters--some slimy, some shady, some cynical--who pushed it hard enough to project a false reality onto a disturbingly large subset of the public. I know the feeling of a stinging loss; I felt heartsick in 2016. In all honesty, I would have been easy prey for a fraud narrative like this one if it had been pushed on me. I suspect many currently smug liberals would have been too. Except in 2016, with the exception of some fringe figures, the election results, however horrifying, were accepted by the the leaders of the party. This is what happens when leadership becomes too obsessed with its own power.

[TSherbs]

I truly don't understand this "he can't convict after leaving office" thing. I think Rep. Raskin's argument is as logical as it gets--if we can't convict a president after they've left office, then they could *never* be held accountable for any actions taken in their final days of office, because they will have left the office. And there is precedent for doing it.

They can do it and are doing it. Whether it succeeds or not is a different question, and will be determined by a vote in the Senate. I don't consider it likely, but mostly because of the quite even split of the Senate, not because of the merits of the case.

[TSherbs]

... This is what happens when leadership becomes too obsessed with its own power.

Yup, especially when the leader of the party (incumbent) is an avid conspiracist and populist.

[dneal]

I truly don't understand this "he can't convict after leaving office" thing. I think Rep. Raskin's argument is as logical as it gets--if we can't convict a president after they've left office, then they could *never* be held accountable for any actions taken in their final days in office, because they will have left the office. And there is precedent for doing it.

Impeachment is a political process to remove an office holder. In the case of the President, it's specifically laid out in the Constitution. It's important for the Constitution to address the President specifically, because the entirety of the executive branch and its powers are derived from that office. Any executive branch official, be it a cabinet secretary or military officer, derives their powers from the office of the President.

Fearing the potential for abuse or some pseudo-monarchy, the framers balanced the executive power against the legislative. The legislature, with 2/3rds majority, can remove the executive (and prevent them from holding office again). That's the sole purpose of impeachment. Not sending someone to jail, not fining them, simply removing them. If the person you want to remove does not hold the office you want to remove them from, what are you doing? In the case of Trump, the Democrats want to prevent him from being eligible to run again. I don't know whether that's petty spite, or fear he could run and win again in 2024. I suspect the latter, although I really hate the thought of him running again (particularly at the age he'll be in 2024).

Your question goes to "being held accountable". What does that mean? Accountable for a crime? There's a process for that too. It involves a prosecutor and court with jurisdiction. Pick a hypothetical crime a President committed on their last day of office, and managed to avoid impeachment. Is it still a committed crime? Has the statute of limitations for that crime run out? Is there a prosecutor to press charges, and a court to hear a case? If so, then that's the appropriate avenue for "holding accountable".

Here's Dershowitz's explanation of impeachment of a private citizen. He's definitely a credible authority, and his integrity and motive is unimpeachable (heh, heh).

[dneal]

What would happen to me if my words resulted in five people's lives going away?

You would probably be burned at the stake for witchcraft.

Put down the kool aid. Trump didn't incite a riot. It was already planned, per the FBI. You can't incite something somebody was already going to do. Also, it's some serious avoidance of context, twisting of words and assigning of intent to get to "he incited". Of course people still believe the "nice people" hoax, so why not the "incite" hoax.

Funny how that delusional thing applies to both sides.

[fountainpenkid]

What would happen to me if my words resulted in five people's lives going away?

You would probably be burned at the stake for witchcraft.

Put down the kool aid. Trump didn't incite a riot. It was already planned, per the FBI. You can't incite something somebody was already going to do. Also, it's some serious avoidance of context, twisting of words and assigning of intent to get to "he incited". Of course people still believe the "nice people" hoax, so why not the "incite" hoax.

Funny how that delusional thing applies to both sides.

Let's be clear: without the narrative Trump pushed, the false reality he projected (with the help of his party) onto people, this would not have happened. It does seem the majority of those who stormed the building were planning on doing so before his pathetic pep talk, but their plans originated, ultimately, from his reality-denial.

[dneal]

What would happen to me if my words resulted in five people's lives going away?

You would probably be burned at the stake for witchcraft.

Put down the kool aid. Trump didn't incite a riot. It was already planned, per the FBI. You can't incite something somebody was already going to do. Also, it's some serious avoidance of context, twisting of words and assigning of intent to get to "he incited". Of course people still believe the "nice people" hoax, so why not the "incite" hoax.

Funny how that delusional thing applies to both sides.

Let's be clear: without the narrative Trump pushed, the false reality he projected (with the help of his party) onto people, this would not have happened. It does seem the majority of those who stormed the building were planning on doing so before his pathetic pep talk, but their plans originated, ultimately, from his reality-denial.

Lets also be clear that the "no fraud" is simply another narrative, without which so many people wouldn't have been pissed off and this would not have happened. A fair examination of their claims should have been too easy. If there were no fraud, Trump's support dwindles. Instead, the left doubled down on the "delusional" narrative you see in this thread.

You can only ridicule half of the electorate for so long before they refuse to put up with it. Call 'em "deplorables", and you got Trump for it. Call 'em "delusional conspiracy theorists" and they showed up at the Capitol. The same people who were fine with "mostly peaceful protesting" deluded themselves that the other half of the country would agree with that nonsense. The left is every bit as much to blame in all this as Trump.

[fountainpenkid]

I truly don't understand this "he can't convict after leaving office" thing. I think Rep. Raskin's argument is as logical as it gets--if we can't convict a president after they've left office, then they could *never* be held accountable for any actions taken in their final days in office, because they will have left the office. And there is precedent for doing it.

Impeachment is a political process to remove an office holder. In the case of the President, it's specifically laid out in the Constitution. It's important for the Constitution to address the President specifically, because the entirety of the executive branch and its powers are derived from that office. Any executive branch official, be it a cabinet secretary or military officer, derives their powers from the office of the President.

Fearing the potential for abuse or some pseudo-monarchy, the framers balanced the executive power against the legislative. The legislature, with 2/3rds majority, can remove the executive (and prevent them from holding office again). That's the sole purpose of impeachment. Not sending someone to jail, not fining them, simply removing them. If the person you want to remove does not hold the office you want to remove them from, what are you doing? In the case of Trump, the Democrats want to prevent him from being eligible to run again. I don't know whether that's petty spite, or fear he could run and win again in 2024. I suspect the latter, although I really hate the thought of him running again (particularly at the age he'll be in 2024).

Your question goes to "being held accountable". What does that mean? Accountable for a crime? There's a process for that too. It involves a prosecutor and court with jurisdiction. Pick a hypothetical crime a President committed on their last day of office, and managed to avoid impeachment. Is it still a committed crime? Has the statute of limitations for that crime run out? Is there a prosecutor to press charges, and a court to hear a case? If so, then that's the appropriate avenue for "holding accountable".

Here's Dershowitz's explanation of impeachment of a private citizen. He's definitely a credible authority, and his integrity and motive is unimpeachable (heh, heh).

Impeachment is not about criminality--Trump certainly did not commit a crime on the 6th. It is about violating (as Hamilton puts it iirc) violating the public trust. It is the only legal avenue available for those violations. Like any legal punishment, it does not lose all merit because the person is no longer in the position to continue the abuse.

[dneal]

Impeachment is not about criminality--Trump certainly did not commit a crime on the 6th. It is about violating (as Hamilton puts it iirc) violating the public trust. It is the only legal avenue available for those violations. Like any legal punishment, it does not lose all merit because the person is no longer in the position to continue the abuse.

Then why is the standard "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Why is the justification for impeachment "incitement", and not "violating the public trust"? Because one is a crime and the other isn't.

What is confusing about not being able to remove someone who can't be removed because they don't hold the office you want to remove them from? Did you bother to listen to Dershowitz's explanation?

Trump isn't President anymore. This need for vengeance is petty and unbecoming, further exacerbates the reason Democrats won't get "unity"; and demonstrates that these people shouldn't hold power.

[fountainpenkid]

What would happen to me if my words resulted in five people's lives going away?

You would probably be burned at the stake for witchcraft.

Put down the kool aid. Trump didn't incite a riot. It was already planned, per the FBI. You can't incite something somebody was already going to do. Also, it's some serious avoidance of context, twisting of words and assigning of intent to get to "he incited". Of course people still believe the "nice people" hoax, so why not the "incite" hoax.

Funny how that delusional thing applies to both sides.

Let's be clear: without the narrative Trump pushed, the false reality he projected (with the help of his party) onto people, this would not have happened. It does seem the majority of those who stormed the building were planning on doing so before his pathetic pep talk, but their plans originated, ultimately, from his reality-denial.

Lets also be clear that the "no fraud" is simply another narrative, without which so many people wouldn't have been pissed off and this would not have happened. A fair examination of their claims should have been too easy. If there were no fraud, Trump's support dwindles. Instead, the left doubled down on the "delusional" narrative you see in this thread.

You can only ridicule half of the electorate for so long before they refuse to put up with it. Call 'em "deplorables", and you got Trump for it. Call 'em "delusional conspiracy theorists" and they showed up at the Capitol. The same people who were fine with "mostly peaceful protesting" deluded themselves that the other half of the country would agree with that nonsense. The left is every bit as much to blame in all this as Trump.

I am vacating this thread.
This is too tiresome. "No fraud" (by which I meant simply that the actual outcome of the election was not a 'fraud') is most definitely NOT a narrative. It is a fact. An uncontested fact. A fact not contested by the Trump-appointed Attorney General, not by the Majority leader, not for a second by the Supreme Court, and most importantly, not by all of those Trump supporters responsible for certifying their election's results. Any assertion otherwise is highly deceptive and honestly, nihilistic.

[dneal]

No, it's not an uncontested fact. You're confusing that with your belief. You're presenting your limited "proof" and ignoring the other side's limited "proof"

God exists is an uncontested fact, says the Christian.
God does not exist is an uncontested fact, says the Athiest.
That guy is delusional, says each.

The left has overplayed the "fact checked", "debunked", "hur, dur science" and whatnot, and been caught lying about it too many times. 50% of the populace thinks elections aren't fair. 65% of the populace think the media can't be trusted.

[Chuck Naill]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sPxQEWk5ms

[Chuck Naill]

No, it's not an uncontested fact. You're confusing that with your belief. You're presenting your limited "proof" and ignoring the other side's limited "proof"

God exists is an uncontested fact, says the Christian.
God does not exist is an uncontested fact, says the Athiest.
That guy is delusional, says each.

The left has overplayed the "fact checked", "debunked", "hur, dur science" and whatnot, and been caught lying about it too many times. 50% of the populace thinks elections aren't fair. 65% of the populace think the media can't be trusted.

There has been a poponderance of information from many sources that says the election was won by Biden. Yes, one can contest anything including direct evidence. Contesting something does not mean there is evidence to the contrary.

[dneal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sPxQEWk5ms

Petty, banal and useless. Here, spend some time listening to something insightful and productive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hh3eW9b80Y

There has been a poponderance of information from many sources that says the election was won by Biden. Yes, one can contest anything including direct evidence. Contesting something does not mean there is evidence to the contrary.

The opposite is also true.

There has been a preponderance of information from many sources that says the election was stolen by Biden.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[TSherbs]

I am vacating this thread.
This is too tiresome. "No fraud" (by which I meant simply that the actual outcome of the election was not a 'fraud') is most definitely NOT a narrative. It is a fact....

You've been balanced and reasonable. I don't blame you.