I just think Trump should face a real jury, judge, and penalty over this.

[garybeck]

Perhaps I will be flamed for this.

I understand the reasons for impeachment and agree with the reasons and motivations. But I believe the Senate is not the best place for the evidence to be laid out, a verdict to be reached, and a punishment to be decided.

Everyone says "no one is above the law, not even the President."

Inciting a riot, leading a coup attempt, calling a Secretary of State and telling them to change the election results, these things are illegal and punishable in a regular court. I believe he should be tried by a jury of his peers, with an impartial judge, and face real jail time if convicted.

We are getting none of those in the Senate.

While I agree with the democrats on virtually everything, they are politicians. Their job is to be political. by definition, impeachment is a political act.

Even if convicted in the senate, we will forever hear that it was a political move and the dems just wanted to damage trump for political reasons.

and the political football will go back and forth, next time the republicans are in control of congress with a democratic president, they will take their turn. and we already know, they will search and find some meaningless thing (like lying about having consensual sex) to do it with.

If this was going to take place in a real court, the consequences would be higher. Trump could be placed in jail.

Nothing would stop Congress from having a vote on the 14th amendment and banning him from seeking office in the future. That would be perfect AFTER convicted in a real court. In fact his conviction would be part of the reason he should not be allowed to run/serve again.

I'm also concerned that if Trump is not convicted in the Senate, they will use that as a legal argument of double jeopardy and say he can't face another trial (with a real judge and jury and jail time) for the same charges. I don't know if that legal argument really holds water but it won't stop them from trying.

Another disadvantage of having this happen in the Senate is, that even though they are in the minority, the Republicans will get time on the microphone to rant about how this whole trial is a waste of time and a farce. that would not happen in a real court and a real trial.

So, with my main goals being:
-impartial jury
-real judge
-appropriate punishment
-no air time for republicans to mock the process
-keeping politics out of the story and focusing on the facts

I question the move to impeach Trump in Congress when it will forever be regarded as a political move.

Yes, no one is above the law. Trump must be held to account, and the others who enabled the attack too. I just believe we would be better served if this is done in a regular court of law with an impartial judge, jury of peers, and real consequences if convicted.

ON EDIT:
I would add that Congress SHOULD be conducting investigations and hearings. that is their job. and they can hold hearings. and all the evidence from their investigations and hearings should be used in a real court trial.

[lisa58]

1. Both - one doesn't preclude the otherl

[JimGinPA]

4. +1000

[garybeck]

7. are you sure about that?

don't you think, if he is not convicted in the Senate, that his lawyers would use this in a real court trial? they would probably appeal it to the supreme court just for that alone.

[lisa58]

11. The point of the senate convicting and removal from office

Is so he can be tried criminally- he can be tried criminally today because he is not the sitting President. Removal from office is not based on criminal law

[lagomorph777]

23. 100% sure. It is explicitly written into the Constitution:

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

In other words, according to the text above, impeachment is entirely separate from the judicial process. A sitting or previously-sitting Officer (e.g. the President) can be Indicted, tried, judged, and punished, completely independent of any impeachment conviction or lack of impeachment conviction.

[garybeck]

24. "the party convicted"

did you miss that part? you made it bold.
if he is not convicted by the senate, I don't see any meaning in that statement.

[lagomorph777]

30. OK, let's explain INCLUSIVE versus EXCLUSIVE language:

"the party convicted shall, nevertheless..." means that even if you are convicted, you can ALSO suffer all the legal consequences of your crimes.

If you're not convicted, of course, the impeachment is inherently irrelevant - it's as if it never happened.

So the situations in which you are legally liable, INCLUDE a situation in which you were convicted in an impeachment. Obviously, those situations also INCLUDE the one where no impeachment, or no conviction, took place.

Does that clarify?

[garybeck]

36. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree

That is your interpretation.

It says if you're convicted that you can still be prosecuted, yes. However it doesn't say explicitly what happens if you are not convicted. I would think that there is a legal argument for double jeopardy. If there is a trial and you are not convicted I'm sure any good lawyer would argue that he can't stand trial for the same offense again.

[StarfishSaver]

29. Being acquitted in the Senate would have absolutely no evidentiary value in a criminal court case

[lagomorph777]

31. Right! Impeachment, and/or Conviction, (or lack of) are utterly irrelevant to the criminal case.

[Blue Owl]

2. K&R

[Victory at Yorktown]

3. I totally agree - the Republican Senators are already making this a farce. Take it to real court.

[bluestarone]

5. I'm certain we will ALL feel better

The day he heads to court!!

[wiggs]

6. Good analysis. I vote to do both, however. Start trial in the senate, let the indictments start

rolling in from feds, states concurrently. Indictments will help the trial, putting pressure on gop senators

[Zoonart]

8. Certainly if he is not convicted

In the Senate, the Impeachment managers will have laid the predicate for indictment from the DOJ.

[garybeck]

9. i'm not sure i read it the same way you do

i think if he is not convicted it will jsut be more fodder for republican assholes and his lawyers in a real trial will say over and over again, "he was tried by the senate and not convicted. why are we even having a 2nd trial for the same offenses?"

[PuppyBismark]

14. Who cares what the impeachment trial results are?

The law is the law. He broke a number of laws and MUST stand trial for all of them. The new DOJ needs to do their job or a special prosecutor does their job. Then there should be trials and judgements rendered.

That is the American legal system and he and his party need to learn it!!

[Mr.Bill]

27. Maybe because the evidence presented

in the impeachment Senate trial will show that a good number of those "jurors" are accessories to the crime.

[crickets]

34. This. I have a feeling this aspect of the situation

is going to be a bigger deal than any of the accessories among the jurors would like. Tough, eh?

[wiggs]

10. impeachment is based on the one incitement article and I hope there are

indictments related to that upcoming. But since Trump has been a criminal his entire life I EXPECT many other kinds of indictments and civil suits to happen at some point soon, especially with respect to more recent white collar crime.

[Demsrule86]

16. The problem is that Trump is going to say he was found 'innocent' and claim exoneration.

I wish we were not even having a Senate trial and lead towards censure...the crap he did will still come out during the trials of those indicted. I don't believe we will change minds and the GOP will undoubtedly call witnesses that claim the election was stolen...we don't need to give that lie more publicity.

[Zoonart]

18. Does not matter if he is indicted.

The court will decide that not him or the Senate.

[garybeck]

25. i have yet to be convinced that they can't argue double jeopardy if the Senate doesn't convict. n/t

[StarfishSaver]

32. Double Jeopardy ONLY applies to criminal proceedings. An impeachment is not a criminal proceeding

If double jeopardy applied to impeachment, it would apply whether he's convicted or acquitted - double jeopardy means a person can't be TRIED twice for the same crime, not simply that they can't be tried after being acquitted.

[stillcool]

12. Destroying a Democracy is political

and requires criminal actions to achieve. I don't care about the end results, but I do want every scrap of evidence presented for all to see, and become part of the record. Any crimes committed outside the scope of the articles of impeachment can be brought to a criminal court....but won't that be too political?

[Lock him up.]

13. Could have a pocket pardon...

Not valid in a Senate Trial.

[Midnight Writer]

15. So where do you seat a criminal jury that doesn't have at least one MAGA on it?

The Senate won't convict, but I doubt the courts will do any better.

All Trump needs is a jury trial.

All we can do is the right thing. Charge him, present the evidence in an open trial, and push for justice.

I have no problem with lost causes, as long as they are the right causes.

[Demsrule86]

17. What if the lost causes hurt you politically?

[Midnight Writer]

22. Should a cop not charge a politically powerful person he catches driving drunk?

Should a judge throw out a case against a reliable donor that keeps him in office?

Should a parent ignore the preacher's undue attention to children to preserve his good standing in his church?

Should a worker not report sexual harassment to keep his job?

Should a person not testify in favor of a neighbor who has been accused of a heinous crime because it will taint him?

We don't deal the cards, but we must decide how to play them.

My experience is that doing the right thing and accepting the consequences pays off in the long run.

[Turin_C3PO]

20. Try him in DC.

Only 4% voted Trump. Or Manhattan where 12% voted for him.

[StarfishSaver]

33. I think Mueller and other prosecutors got convictions against every Trump ally they charged

It can be done.

[The Wizard]

19. If charged criminally

will he take the stand and be cross examined by a skilled prosecutor? I once worked for a criminal defense lawyer who said any witness who won't take the stand is probably guilty. Refusing to answer because of fear of self incrimination is damning.

[ecstatic]

21. Either we have a constitution or we don't

It's really that simple.

Try him in the Senate AND the regular courts.

Trust me, DC/NY/etc juries will lock his fat ass up.

I would love if the Atlanta DA tried him in Georgia too. I doubt they'll have the balls/ovaries due to what I've seen with regard to politics in Georgia. But if there were a trial and they called me for jury duty, I would be like, "trump who?? Oh, the nice orange fella. Yeah, I vaguely remember him. I have plenty of free time!" And before anyone judges me for being an impartial juror, trump shitted all over norms, rules and decency. He built this reaction. Karma's a bitch!

[Mr.Bill]

26. I would say that's the long game plan. n/t

[struggle4progress]

28. A painful rash of civil suits would be fun too

[Grins]

35. He still can!

Impeachment is a political process, not judicial.

He could still be charged for insurrection IN A COURT! And face a jury.