What to do with Trump between now and when Biden takes over

[BDKJMU]

He was condemning it during the riots. But Twitter and FB had blocked him and none of the networks would cover him. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good burning at the stake.

I certainly might have missed it since I don't twitter, but I haven't seen anything he put out yesterday that I would call condemning the riots. I have seen a couple tweets that said be nice to the cops and stay peaceful, but I wouldn't call that condemning them (I guess the rioters weren't checking their tweets - just heard on the news that a cop died from his injuries during the riot). He wasn't blocked from the social media sites until fairly late in the day.

I don't think a FB post or tweet is how a president should communicate with the people during an event like yesterday, but it's Trump so that would have at least been something if he had condemned them in a tweet. And numerous reporters said that they had been trying to get information from the White House all day. I hate to be that guy, but do you have a link to something about the networks refusing to give him air time yesterday?

You know, for a guy who says he thinks Trump is a POS but his policies are better than Biden's so you held your nose and voted for him, you sure do defend him a lot on this site.

[AshevilleApp]

Take away his twitter privileges for two weeks.

[AshevilleApp]

Lock him in a room and play an endless loop of election night coverage.

[houndawg]

#3. 25th amendment or impeachment with less than 2 weeks to go would just be dumping gas on a fire.

I tend to agree. Trump has already abdicated his role. Biden, like him or not, has stepped up to fill the leadership vacuum. Who was trying to calm everyone down yesterday? Biden. Trump records a message and then gives his tacit support to all the insurrectionists. With the GOP now against him, for the most part, and his own government resigning, he's more powerless today than he was when he woke up yesterday morning.

The 25th could still take some time and an impeachment isn't going to happen. Couldn't Trump fight against the 25th being executed and delay it?


We watched POTUS incite an insurrection against his own government. He violated his oath and that was just a chilly Wednesday morning! Maybe it's time to send a message that regardless of how much time is left, that's inexcusable and we're kicking you out. Drive him out in shame.


Question - if he resigns or removed, does a President still get SS protection and the pension?

Yes, that's why Nixon resigned. (Kind of funny actually, to think of Trump's SS detail arriving at a dingy warehouse on the waterfront to make sure its safe for one of his crooked real estate deals.)

[houndawg]

What I was mainly thinking of was Inauguration Day and not inviting anymore uprisings to disrupt the transfer of power.

Trump’s already said he isn’t attending....

But you know what liars junkies are.

[houndawg]

Please elaborate. Because I think what you saw yesterday is just a precursor if they try to go full force after him in his last 12 days.

I think you’re 100% spot on. The Proud Boys have already said there is more to come. Any love against Trump will inflame the situation and these traitors will only become more dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And Neville Chamberlain showed us what happens if you waste time talking with fascists instead of killing them.

[houndawg]

I hope the left tries the 25th. Do it!

Its the VP and cabinet who do the 25th, you stupid cunt.

[Ibanez]

That’s what you come back with? No facts? No well thought out defense? You’ve got nothing.

Neither do you. All you have is the he "incited an insurrection"

I have a fact. You have a trope about drinking kool aid.

I have video and photographic evidence of Trump, over weeks, fanning the flames with lies and conspiracy theories and telling groups like the Proud Boys to " stand ready." You have rationalizing criminal behavior b/c someone else did it.

It's a lost cause, BDK.

[Ibanez]

I certainly might have missed it since I don't twitter, but I haven't seen anything he put out yesterday that I would call condemning the riots. I have seen a couple tweets that said be nice to the cops and stay peaceful, but I wouldn't call that condemning them (I guess the rioters weren't checking their tweets - just heard on the news that a cop died from his injuries during the riot). He wasn't blocked from the social media sites until fairly late in the day.

I don't think a FB post or tweet is how a president should communicate with the people during an event like yesterday, but it's Trump so that would have at least been something if he had condemned them in a tweet. And numerous reporters said that they had been trying to get information from the White House all day. I hate to be that guy, but do you have a link to something about the networks refusing to give him air time yesterday?

You know, for a guy who says he thinks Trump is a POS but his policies are better than Biden's so you held your nose and voted for him, you sure do defend him a lot on this site.

So instead of going on National TV to calm everyone ( like his successor did), he goes Twitter to tell them to go hope and that they're very special. He doesn't condemn them or condemn the acts. He tells them they're very special people. OH, and he continues his lies and conspiracy that he lost. What a joke. He's not a leader. He's a failure.


THEN after his Twitter is unlocked, he goes on again to finally do what he should've done minutes after his supporters first broke the law and start an insurrection.

For a man with media savvy, he sure did screw the pooch. He should've release a statement ASAP and then been on National TV to condemn it, tell his supporters to lay down the for the police. Instead he tells them they're special and that he loves them.

[Ibanez]

He was condemning it during the riots. But Twitter and FB had blocked him and none of the networks would cover him. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good burning at the stake.

I certainly might have missed it since I don't twitter, but I haven't seen anything he put out yesterday that I would call condemning the riots. I have seen a couple tweets that said be nice to the cops and stay peaceful, but I wouldn't call that condemning them (I guess the rioters weren't checking their tweets - just heard on the news that a cop died from his injuries during the riot). He wasn't blocked from the social media sites until fairly late in the day.

I don't think a FB post or tweet is how a president should communicate with the people during an event like yesterday, but it's Trump so that would have at least been something if he had condemned them in a tweet. And numerous reporters said that they had been trying to get information from the White House all day. I hate to be that guy, but do you have a link to something about the networks refusing to give him air time yesterday?

You know, for a guy who says he thinks Trump is a POS but his policies are better than Biden's so you held your nose and voted for him, you sure do defend him a lot on this site.

I wonder how much of this is true, but knowing Trump, I would say it's pretty accurate.

President Donald Trump initially resisted taping his video message acknowledging his election loss but agreed to after the White House counsel warned him he could face legal charges for stoking the mob.

The Justice Department said Thursday it would not rule out pursuing charges against President Trump for his possible role in encouraging the insurgents that ransacked the Capitol.

'We are looking at all actors, not only the people who went into the building,' Michael Sherwin, the U.S. attorney in Washington, said at a press conference.

Trump agreed to the Thursday night statement after White House counsel Pat Cipollone warned him of the legal risk, The New York Times reported. Aides had been pressing the president to publicly denounce the pro-Trump mob.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... risks.html

What a coward. A failed leader.

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, it looked like a hostage video. Pence and a handful of the cabinet were probably standing behind the camera ready to decapitate his presidency should he fail to read his statement.

[Winterborn]

I heard that too, but the optics of that irony wouldn't be a good thing for the Dems - let's punish GOP members who voted for objections to the certifications, i.e. the votes of the people, by throwing out these GOP members, i.e. overturn the votes of the people who sent Cruz et al there in the first place. If you really want to punish those guys (and gals) then censure is likely the way to go. It won't get anywhere, though, due to the razor thin margins in both chambers. Not worth it for the Dems - the crazy left will blame them for not making it happen even if they tried and the crazy right will say "see, they're stealing the election again". We need more dignity, more honor, not more retribution.

Should we punish Trump and his supporters like they did Germany after WWI or should we offer them a hand up like they did Germany after WWII? Which approach proved more successful?

This is a very interesting question. I have no idea what the Democrats are going to do but I do hope they at least try to extend an olive branch (and the Republicans accept it) otherwise 2021 is going to be telling 2020 to hold my beer.

[kalm]

Should we punish Trump and his supporters like they did Germany after WWI or should we offer them a hand up like they did Germany after WWII? Which approach proved more successful?

This is a very interesting question. I have no idea what the Democrats are going to do but I do hope they at least try to extend an olive branch (and the Republicans accept it) otherwise 2021 is going to be telling 2020 to hold my beer.

Does option 2 preserve Nuremberg type trials for the principles?

[GannonFan]

This is a very interesting question. I have no idea what the Democrats are going to do but I do hope they at least try to extend an olive branch (and the Republicans accept it) otherwise 2021 is going to be telling 2020 to hold my beer.

Does option 2 preserve Nuremberg type trials for the principles?

I'm sure Donny would issue the pardons before leaving that would get around that.

[Gil Dobie]

At the very least, Trump should be banned from running for a public office and banned from aiding another person running for a public office, for the rest of his natural life.

[GannonFan]

At the very least, Trump should be banned from running for a public office and banned from aiding another person running for a public office, for the rest of his natural life.

How do you go about that latter part? Heck, for the first part you need to do the impeachment and the removal from office to even get that punishment, but even then I think that just cover the federal level, doesn't do anything at the state or local level. As for "aiding" (for whatever that is, that definition would take forever to settle on), you're slipping into 1st amendment territory there and absent an actual crime that gets prosecuted and convicted through the courts I don't think you can just arbitrarily revoke someone's 1st amendment rights, no matter how unsavory that person is.

[kalm]

At the very least, Trump should be banned from running for a public office and banned from aiding another person running for a public office, for the rest of his natural life.

It sounds like post-term impeachment is a legal grey area which is why it should happen now.

[kalm]

At the very least, Trump should be banned from running for a public office and banned from aiding another person running for a public office, for the rest of his natural life.

How do you go about that latter part? Heck, for the first part you need to do the impeachment and the removal from office to even get that punishment, but even then I think that just cover the federal level, doesn't do anything at the state or local level. As for "aiding" (for whatever that is, that definition would take forever to settle on), you're slipping into 1st amendment territory there and absent an actual crime that gets prosecuted and convicted through the courts I don't think you can just arbitrarily revoke someone's 1st amendment rights, no matter how unsavory that person is.

What about felons?

[Gil Dobie]

At the very least, Trump should be banned from running for a public office and banned from aiding another person running for a public office, for the rest of his natural life.

How do you go about that latter part? Heck, for the first part you need to do the impeachment and the removal from office to even get that punishment, but even then I think that just cover the federal level, doesn't do anything at the state or local level. As for "aiding" (for whatever that is, that definition would take forever to settle on), you're slipping into 1st amendment territory there and absent an actual crime that gets prosecuted and convicted through the courts I don't think you can just arbitrarily revoke someone's 1st amendment rights, no matter how unsavory that person is.

Tell him there won't be charges brought against him if he agrees to sign a document outlining certain restrictions, similar to a non-compete clause.

[GannonFan]

How do you go about that latter part? Heck, for the first part you need to do the impeachment and the removal from office to even get that punishment, but even then I think that just cover the federal level, doesn't do anything at the state or local level. As for "aiding" (for whatever that is, that definition would take forever to settle on), you're slipping into 1st amendment territory there and absent an actual crime that gets prosecuted and convicted through the courts I don't think you can just arbitrarily revoke someone's 1st amendment rights, no matter how unsavory that person is.

Tell him there won't be charges brought against him if he agrees to sign a document outlining certain restrictions, similar to a non-compete clause.

Certainly no legal grey area there, especially if he pardons himself on the way out the door. We're really good at settling legal matters in record time in this country so I'm sure none of this will take that long to unravel and come up with a crystal clear outcome that will be unassailable.

[GannonFan]

How do you go about that latter part? Heck, for the first part you need to do the impeachment and the removal from office to even get that punishment, but even then I think that just cover the federal level, doesn't do anything at the state or local level. As for "aiding" (for whatever that is, that definition would take forever to settle on), you're slipping into 1st amendment territory there and absent an actual crime that gets prosecuted and convicted through the courts I don't think you can just arbitrarily revoke someone's 1st amendment rights, no matter how unsavory that person is.

What about felons?

What about felons?

[kalm]

What about felons?

What about felons?

Can they always run for office or vote? (What Gil was getting at).

[GannonFan]

What about felons?

Can they always run for office or vote? (What Gil was getting at).

I'm sure it varies from state to state and at the federal level as well. But at least if you're a felon you went through the judicial process and had your day in court. I don't think the impeachment process, the one we're talking about for Trump, would extend to anything other than the federal level in terms of holding office, and even that would needed to be voted on separately after the decision to remove him from office is passed - it's not automatic. And there's nothing there to say that he can't aid someone else for running for office as Gil is suggesting. And again, all of that is federal-related, doesn't apply to the states at all. There's nothing in the Constitution that would allow the removal of 1st amendment rights for someone who is impeached and removed from office - you would need to go through the courts and have a trial before you could start doing anything like that.

[UNI88]

What about felons?

What about felons?

The White House and Congress are filled with them. They just haven't been charged or convicted yet.

[BDKJMU]

Neither do you. All you have is the he "incited an insurrection"

I have a fact. You have a trope about drinking kool aid.

I have video and photographic evidence of Trump, over weeks, fanning the flames with lies and conspiracy theories and telling groups like the Proud Boys to " stand ready." You have rationalizing criminal behavior b/c someone else did it.

It's a lost cause, BDK.

"Incited an insurrection" is an opinion. "Fanning the flames" is an opinion. Just like 'stole an election', if not proven in court, it didn't happen...am I right?