Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

L L wrote:

Why would you put aside disqualifying him from running for office again?

That’s a very important point you are dismissing.

LL - I am not dismissing that at all. I wanted to isolate the "convict and removed from Office." The disqualification will occur after convict and removal from Office.

Precedent. On 3 cases, officials were convinced after they left. You can bark all you want but there it is. And in the case of West Humphreys, they also disqualified him from ever holding office again. Also, no comparison to Nixon here since Congressional leaders decided it was best not to proceed with the trial and put the whole thing behind them.

new coll wrote:

L L wrote:

In your example you have 64 votes to convict plus 5 senators not casting a vote at all.

That's 64 + 5 = 69 senators not voting to convict.

69 > 67

Maybe not 67 votes, but you need 67 senators to prevent an acquittal.

You are counting abstentions as NO votes. That is not how it works. You do not need 100 Senators as the demoniator in for any vote.

100 Senators

95 cast YES or NO votes

5 voting Abstain or not showing up

64 Voting YES

64/95 = 67.3% > 2/3rds

This is how it works. The absentions are removed from the math, meaning they do not count as YES or No.

In effect, many Rs could decide to sit it out and give the vote of Senate Dems that much more weight, more easily tipping the scale to 2/3.

Trollminator, this is what you wrote: "Also, no comparison to Nixon here since Congressional leaders decided it was best not to proceed with the trial and put the whole thing behind them."

Focus on "Congressional leaders decided it was best to not proceed with the trial." Dude, Nixon was NEVER impeached. Congressional leaders never had the opportunity to proceed with the trial or not to proceed with the trial. HE WAS NEVER IMPEACHED.

Trollminator wrote:

new coll wrote:

You are counting abstentions as NO votes. That is not how it works. You do not need 100 Senators as the demoniator in for any vote.

100 Senators

95 cast YES or NO votes

5 voting Abstain or not showing up

64 Voting YES

64/95 = 67.3% > 2/3rds

This is how it works. The absentions are removed from the math, meaning they do not count as YES or No.

In effect, many Rs could decide to sit it out and give the vote of Senate Dems that much more weight, more easily tipping the scale to 2/3.

This is an unusual, and not typical. There are always Senate votes falling short of 100 actual Yes or No votes.

A mass of republicans abstaining, or not showing up for the final vote, is a possible reason McConnell is okay with a Senate trial and vote becuase Republican senators have multiple options. McConnell and others in the Senate know all of the voting math games. Democrats will work hard to help Manchin vote no while still convicting Trump. Impeachment is foremost a politically calculated process. Yes, no, or abstentions are kept track of before any votes are cast. That is why McConnell doesn't bring something to a vote he does not like when he "doesn't have the votes" for the result to be what he likes.

Republicans who abstain: "Thank goodness I did not have to vote yes or no."

Manchin: "Thank goodness I did not have to vote yes. I can campaign on the next election of my seat on that. I am a true centrist."

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Precedent. On 3 cases, officials were convinced after they left. You can bark all you want but there it is. And in the case of West Humphreys, they also disqualified him from ever holding office again. Also, no comparison to Nixon here since Congressional leaders decided it was best not to proceed with the trial and put the whole thing behind them.

Trollminator, this is what you wrote: "Also, no comparison to Nixon here since Congressional leaders decided it was best not to proceed with the trial and put the whole thing behind them."

Focus on "Congressional leaders decided it was best to not proceed with the trial." Dude, Nixon was NEVER impeached. Congressional leaders never had the opportunity to proceed with the trial or not to proceed with the trial. HE WAS NEVER IMPEACHED.

No a$$hole I brought up Nixon because I figured you’d try to throw him into the argument. The only comparison is to the 3 officials who were impeached and tried after they left. Focus on that you cretin.

Sally Vix wrote:

TTH wrote:

There's two potential punishments you babbling boob.

Please enlighten me then. "Convict and removed from Office" go hand in hand. Not separate. You convict then you remove. That is one thing. So what are the two potential punishments? Removal is NOT one.

I might read a bit more into this if I were you. As usual, you're clueless......and in this case it is right in front of you.

Silly sad Sally troll ??

Trollminator wrote:

No a$$hole I brought up Nixon because I figured you’d try to throw him into the argument. The only comparison is to the 3 officials who were impeached and tried after they left. Focus on that you cretin.

Many statutes have language like this (numbers are arbitrary examples): "Punishment not to exceed five years in prison and $50,000."

That "and" does not mean both will automatically be applied; it gives the sentencing entity the option to impose a prison sentence OR a fine OR both. Five years in prison does not have to be imposed before a fine may be levied; prison time may be required without a fine's being imposed.

Similarly, the Constitution stipulates the limits of the punishments available for a conviction in an impeachment trial: "not [to] extend further than to removal from Office, AND disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office[.]" [Emphasis mine.]

The "and" there does not mean that both punishments must be imposed, or that one punishment's imposition is a prerequisite for the other to be imposed, and this distinction is made even even more distinct by the comma that follows "removal from Office"--making it clear that the punishments are two different categories that may be imposed independently.

Period.

Trollminator wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator, this is what you wrote: "Also, no comparison to Nixon here since Congressional leaders decided it was best not to proceed with the trial and put the whole thing behind them."

Focus on "Congressional leaders decided it was best to not proceed with the trial." Dude, Nixon was NEVER impeached. Congressional leaders never had the opportunity to proceed with the trial or not to proceed with the trial. HE WAS NEVER IMPEACHED.

No a$$hole I brought up Nixon because I figured you’d try to throw him into the argument. The only comparison is to the 3 officials who were impeached and tried after they left. Focus on that you cretin.

Why the anger? You got it handled to you and you responded like the little punk that you are. Game set and Match to Sally. Trollminator to the showers.

Anyone else think they are setting the stage to assassinate Biden and pin it on someone on the right?

I mean, the right isn't doing much to prevent the possibility, but...

Steve Martin wrote:

Anyone else think they are setting the stage to assassinate Biden and pin it on someone on the right?

I mean, the right isn't doing much to prevent the possibility, but...

THEY!!!!!!!!

agip wrote:

Steve Martin wrote:

Anyone else think they are setting the stage to assassinate Biden and pin it on someone on the right?

I mean, the right isn't doing much to prevent the possibility, but...

THEY!!!!!!!!

THEY ARE COMING!!!!!!

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

new coll wrote:

You are counting abstentions as NO votes. That is not how it works. You do not need 100 Senators as the demoniator in for any vote.

100 Senators

95 cast YES or NO votes

5 voting Abstain or not showing up

64 Voting YES

64/95 = 67.3% > 2/3rds

This is how it works. The absentions are removed from the math, meaning they do not count as YES or No.

In floor voting, abstentions are not absentees...totally different.

100 present, 2/3 is 67, if 40 abstain, you cannot make it 2/3 of 60...you still need 67, which would be impossible.

I am Sam wrote:

new coll wrote:

You are counting abstentions as NO votes. That is not how it works. You do not need 100 Senators as the demoniator in for any vote.

100 Senators

95 cast YES or NO votes

5 voting Abstain or not showing up

64 Voting YES

64/95 = 67.3% > 2/3rds

This is how it works. The absentions are removed from the math, meaning they do not count as YES or No.

In floor voting, abstentions are not absentees...totally different.

100 present, 2/3 is 67, if 40 abstain, you cannot make it 2/3 of 60...you still need 67, which would be impossible.

Your error is counting no shows and abstentions as no votes, and demaning 100 votes. Members "Present" with abstentions not included in the math.

"Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively."

Here you boys go. Look up ANY Senate vote and look at the results. Yeas + Nays = 100% EVEN if less that 100 members cast a vote.

For example, Senate Vote #283 in 2020. Below that is a list of ALL the votes taken by the Senate in 2020.

Yea 82 votes = 92% (82/ 89)

Nays 7 votes = 8% (7/89)

Votes cast = 89

Not voting = 11

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2020/s283

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes#session=304&chamber[]=1

Answer this:

Can Trump be convicted if 34 senators vote to acquit, regardless of how many senators are present?

Yes, Trunoncan do whatever he wants, and rightfully so. Florida may send him to the Senate

L L wrote:

Answer this:

Can Trump be convicted if 34 senators vote to acquit, regardless of how many senators are present?

Nope, not under any current scenario. If 34 vote to acquit, he *cannot* be convicted.

At least now. When DC becomes a state, if 34 voted to acquit and all of the other 68 voted to convict, he'd be SOL.