Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

The trials and tribulations of an ex-president (including SCOTUS on the 14th amendment)

145791058

Comments

  • There’s been plenty of polling - here’s some from Vox showing Republican voters still overwhelmingly support Trump:
    Poll: 69 percent of Republicans are less likely to vote for a senator who convicts Trump
  • Dave W wrote: »
    There’s been plenty of polling - here’s some from Vox showing Republican voters still overwhelmingly support Trump:
    Poll: 69 percent of Republicans are less likely to vote for a senator who convicts Trump

    That's not necessarily the stat you need. There are also non-Republican voters in each district...
  • As I point out (in a sort of obvious) post a month or so ago, without knowing the methodology "69% of GOP" is difficult to translate into numbers. Is it registered (ca. 22% of eligible voters, and shrinking), self-identified, or how they voted in the previous election, and then, the various ways that a question can be phrased.

    The real test for most GOP senators is not facing the voters, but trying to make it through the primaries, where the radicalised base can make its numbers a real threat to a senator perceived as being less than a true believer.

    As to @Hugal's question, "Was it not worth sending [Trump] straight to NYC ?" that timing would be up to the Attorney General of New York and the District Attorney of New York County, so it's not up to any federal body to "send" him to New York.
  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    Dave W wrote: »
    There’s been plenty of polling - here’s some from Vox showing Republican voters still overwhelmingly support Trump:
    Poll: 69 percent of Republicans are less likely to vote for a senator who convicts Trump

    That's not necessarily the stat you need. There are also non-Republican voters in each district...

    That's true but the Dem voters will all vote against the R Senator and they're in the minority as their candidate didn't win the seat. So the R voters' opinions are what count in a first past the post system. It may depend on how much a Senator won by and how long until their next election.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited February 2021
    Oh it has to be done, it would be a dereliction of civilized moral, not just political duty, but as stetson said, backing up my absolute certainty of the way the world works, it will make no difference at all.

    One can easily imagine at least 20% of the population (and double it) delighted to see a mob being able to storm a bastion of power and that feelgood factor remaining for a generation.

    There is hope, the biggest hit on Netflix is Queen's Gambit.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    There’s been plenty of polling - here’s some from Vox showing Republican voters still overwhelmingly support Trump:
    Poll: 69 percent of Republicans are less likely to vote for a senator who convicts Trump

    That's not necessarily the stat you need. There are also non-Republican voters in each district...

    That's true but the Dem voters will all vote against the R Senator and they're in the minority as their candidate didn't win the seat. So the R voters' opinions are what count in a first past the post system. It may depend on how much a Senator won by and how long until their next election.

    Nope. As @Pangolin Guerre said it depends on definitions. Moreover districts are not made up of just 2 groups.

    There are those who:
    1) voted Republican
    2) voted Democrat
    3) didn't vote.

    But more importantly those who voted Republican are not all registered Republicans. Many are independents.

    Let's say Smith is a Senator that won his seat 55-45. A good size win. But of that 55% only 40% are registered Republicans. So of those apparently 2/3rds are less likely to vote GOP is the Senator votes to convict. That doesn’t mean they all will but maybe he loses a good chunk of his support - even a quarter of registered Republicans. That would drop his figures but it's very unlikely they'd vote Democrat so it's actually only ~5% drop in support. Hence it becomes a 52.5/47.5 win. Still a good win.

    OTOH, those independent voters are much more like to switch party...that's the election!

    As noted above, the primary challenge is the greater risk but that's not a reason not to maintain the pressure and make any support of Trumpism unelectable.

    The 69% stat is important but translating it to election results is not as simple as implied.

    AFZ
  • Day 5 of the second Senate trial Donald Trump is now livestreaming here.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    There’s been plenty of polling - here’s some from Vox showing Republican voters still overwhelmingly support Trump:
    Poll: 69 percent of Republicans are less likely to vote for a senator who convicts Trump

    That's not necessarily the stat you need. There are also non-Republican voters in each district...

    Possibly relevant story from the New York Times*:
    In the days after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, the phone lines and websites of local election officials across the country were jumping: Tens of thousands of Republicans were calling or logging on to switch their party affiliations.

    In California, more than 33,000 registered Republicans left the party during the three weeks after the Washington riot. In Pennsylvania, more than 12,000 voters left the G.O.P. in the past month, and more than 10,000 Republicans changed their registration in Arizona.

    An analysis of January voting records by The New York Times found that nearly 140,000 Republicans had quit the party in 25 states that had readily available data (19 states do not have registration by party). Voting experts said the data indicated a stronger-than-usual flight from a political party after a presidential election, as well as the potential start of a damaging period for G.O.P. registrations as voters recoil from the Capitol violence and its fallout.

    <snip>

    The biggest spikes in Republicans leaving the party came in the days after Jan. 6, especially in California, where there were 1,020 Republican changes on Jan. 5 — and then 3,243 on Jan. 7. In Arizona, there were 233 Republican changes in the first five days of January, and 3,317 in the next week. Most of the Republicans in these states and others switched to unaffiliated status.

    There seems to be a limit to what some (former) Republicans will put up with from their party.


    *The New York Times has a paywall that limits the number of articles non-subscribers can access in a calendar month. Only click through if you're willing to use one of your monthly Times clicks on an article about former Republicans fleeing their political party.
  • And the Senate just voted to allow the subpœnaing of witnesses and documents.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    And the Senate just voted to allow the subpœnaing of witnesses and documents.

    That is big.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    And the Senate just voted to allow the subpœnaing of witnesses and documents.

    That is big.

    Or, as they say in Yonkers, "This is Yuge."
  • Wesley JWesley J Circus Host
    We're back on track. Apparently, they've agreed on just reading the witness statement, and having it registered as a document.

    Raskin is back on with his final plea.

    Funnily enough, when Castor went up to the mic earlier, which I think wasn't quite working, he said quite audibly, 'this is all fucked up.'

    Quite.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    There’s been plenty of polling - here’s some from Vox showing Republican voters still overwhelmingly support Trump:
    Poll: 69 percent of Republicans are less likely to vote for a senator who convicts Trump

    That's not necessarily the stat you need. There are also non-Republican voters in each district...
    It's the one you need to care about if you're wondering whether you're going to survive the next primary.
    As I point out (in a sort of obvious) post a month or so ago, without knowing the methodology "69% of GOP" is difficult to translate into numbers. Is it registered (ca. 22% of eligible voters, and shrinking), self-identified, or how they voted in the previous election, and then, the various ways that a question can be phrased.
    You could try following the link I provided, you know.
  • Wesley JWesley J Circus Host
    edited February 2021
    Oh dear - aquitted. Bollocks! :(

    57 guilty vs 43 not guilty; 34 votes needed to aquit.
  • 7 honest Republican Senators.

    More than expected.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Well that’s depressing but unsurprising.
  • Wesley JWesley J Circus Host
    edited February 2021
    NYT has this in their live chat:
    Trump just issued a statement through his office.

    Nowhere in it does he acknowledge the violence on Jan. 6.

    Instead, he describes himself as the victim of a long witch hunt and says, “It is a sad commentary on our times that one political party in America is given a free pass to denigrate the rule of law, defame law enforcement, cheer mobs, excuse rioters, and transform justice into a tool of political vengeance, and persecute, blacklist, cancel and suppress all people and viewpoints with whom or which they disagree.”

    Now, that's interesting, ... as it describes exactly what the ex-President himself and his supporters did and are doing. - How on earth can anyone fall for that!
  • The GOP is the biggest projection booth in the world.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Who's running the projector?
  • No one worthy even to run a toilet brush over spilled diarrhea, that's for sure.

    Today will go down as one of the blackest days in the history of this country.

    Dare we pin our hopes on Georgia and New York?
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Who's running the projector?

    Rupert Murdoch
  • Wesley J wrote: »
    Oh dear - aquitted. Bollocks! :(

    57 guilty vs 43 not guilty; 34 votes needed to aquit.

    I guess that means he is innocent....Or 43 senators think that he is innocent

  • Or 43 senators thought it was in their best interest to vote to acquit.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Wesley J wrote: »
    Oh dear - aquitted. Bollocks! :(

    57 guilty vs 43 not guilty; 34 votes needed to aquit.

    I guess that means he is innocent....Or 43 senators think that he is innocent

    Or 43 senators are making sure they still have their job in 2, 4 or 6 years.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    Telford wrote: »
    Wesley J wrote: »
    Oh dear - aquitted. Bollocks! :(

    57 guilty vs 43 not guilty; 34 votes needed to aquit.

    I guess that means he is innocent....Or 43 senators think that he is innocent
    This was not a criminal proceeding, but with that caveat in mind, a verdict of “not guilty” doesn’t mean a finding of innocent. It means guilt has not been proven to the necessary standard of proof.

    I am quite sure quite a few, if or most or all, of those 43 know he is guilty, but they’re too cowardly to say so for fear of the effect it may have on their own political futures.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Wesley J wrote: »
    Oh dear - aquitted. Bollocks! :(

    57 guilty vs 43 not guilty; 34 votes needed to aquit.

    I guess that means he is innocent....Or 43 senators think that he is innocent
    This was not a criminal proceeding, but with that caveat in mind, a verdict of “not guilty” doesn’t mean a finding of innocent. It means guilt has not been proven to the necessary standard of proof.

    I am quite sure quite a few, if or most or all, of those 43 know he is guilty, but they’re too cowardly to say so for fear of the effect it may have on their own political futures.

    Would it be possible to convict him in a criminal trial bearing in mind that his legal reps would argue that it would be unfair to have the trial in a city where most people voted against him. If the jury was split among political lines, you wouldn't get a conviction either

  • Telford wrote: »
    Wesley J wrote: »
    Oh dear - aquitted. Bollocks! :(

    57 guilty vs 43 not guilty; 34 votes needed to aquit.

    I guess that means he is innocent....Or 43 senators think that he is innocent

    Or 43 senators are making sure they still have their job in 2, 4 or 6 years.

    They are only hoping they can make it through the Republican primaries in the next 2, 4, or six years. It will be a hard slog for many of them to win the general elections.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Wesley J wrote: »
    Oh dear - aquitted. Bollocks! :(

    57 guilty vs 43 not guilty; 34 votes needed to aquit.

    Bah
  • Don't fret; political oblivion awaits him.
  • Well, it sucks, but it was foreseeable and foreseen, and now we move forward. Which for him means living under the specter of a zillion criminal investigations here, there, and everywhere (no, "they didn't vote for me in this county" won't be enough to get a change of venue") as well as civil suits (and I'm looking forward to him trying to find enough lawyers willing to take on his cases, given that he stiffs them regularly, as well as tarnishing their reputations). And though we didn't get a conviction, he remains the one and only president to get impeached twice--which is a historical distinction he is most worthy of.

    The other good thing is that decision-makers in cases in criminal or civil court, whether judges or jury, will be held to a very different standard than the political process of impeachment. A much stricter one that actually takes account of evidence.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Jared and Ivanka reportedly recently warned him that he might grab defeat out of the jaws of victory. (Was in the news a few days ago.)

    Will he be able to absorb and follow their advice? No.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Wesley J wrote: »
    Oh dear - aquitted. Bollocks! :(

    57 guilty vs 43 not guilty; 34 votes needed to aquit.

    I guess that means he is innocent....Or 43 senators think that he is innocent

    It does not mean that. In theory, it means that 43 Senators were not satisfied that they were not satisfied on the evidence that he was guilty - the same as an acquittal in a criminal trial. What it means in practice is something very different.

    Can a US Shippie please advise whether it's a beyond reasonable doubt test or balance of probabilities? Also comments on the 7 who voted for conviction.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Can a US Shippie please advise whether it's a beyond reasonable doubt test or balance of probabilities?
    Probably not. This wasn’t a court of law, this was an impeachment trial, which is a political, not legal, proceeding. The standard is whatever each Senator decides it is.

    But FWIW, the three most common standards in American trials are preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    Thanks. Only reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities here. I don't know what difference either of your first 2 would make here as virtually all civil cases are now judge-only. Defamation is the only real exception, and these days quite a few plaintiffs seem to be choosing to sue for that in the jury-free Federal Court.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    Gee D wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Wesley J wrote: »
    Oh dear - aquitted. Bollocks! :(

    57 guilty vs 43 not guilty; 34 votes needed to aquit.

    I guess that means he is innocent....Or 43 senators think that he is innocent

    It does not mean that. In theory, it means that 43 Senators were not satisfied that they were not satisfied on the evidence that he was guilty - the same as an acquittal in a criminal trial. What it means in practice is something very different.

    Can a US Shippie please advise whether it's a beyond reasonable doubt test or balance of probabilities? Also comments on the 7 who voted for conviction.

    Actually, it doesn't even mean that. It only means that 43 senators chose not to vote for his conviction for reasons of their own, which need not have anything to do with his guilt or innocence--as we have seen. And they are allowed to do that. Our only remedy is to vote the bastards out--unless there is something so clearly egregiously corrupt as Trump handing out checks on the Senate floor, with TV cameras rolling, in which case the rest of the Senate would probably oust them. Short of that, we're stuck.

    Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one, and thus it's not a matter of either "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "balance of probabilities"--it's "Have we convinced this senator to vote for conviction/acquittal?" Which requires appealing to morality and etc. in the case of decent senators, and to self-interest (think what history will say of you, think what precedent this sets for the future) in the case of indecent senators.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    There’s been plenty of polling - here’s some from Vox showing Republican voters still overwhelmingly support Trump:
    Poll: 69 percent of Republicans are less likely to vote for a senator who convicts Trump

    That's not necessarily the stat you need. There are also non-Republican voters in each district...
    It's the one you need to care about if you're wondering whether you're going to survive the next primary.
    As I point out (in a sort of obvious) post a month or so ago, without knowing the methodology "69% of GOP" is difficult to translate into numbers. Is it registered (ca. 22% of eligible voters, and shrinking), self-identified, or how they voted in the previous election, and then, the various ways that a question can be phrased.
    You could try following the link I provided, you know.

    You're right. After seeing citations of x% of Republicans, y% of Republicans, z% of Republicans in the Vox article, I got weary - I should have caught "likely Republican voters" more than halfway through the piece.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    Gee D wrote: »
    It does not mean that. In theory, it means that 43 Senators were not satisfied that they were not satisfied on the evidence that he was guilty - the same as an acquittal in a criminal trial. What it means in practice is something very different.

    Can a US Shippie please advise whether it's a beyond reasonable doubt test or balance of probabilities? Also comments on the 7 who voted for conviction.

    Actually, it doesn't even mean that. It only means that 43 senators chose not to vote for his conviction for reasons of their own, which need not have anything to do with his guilt or innocence--as we have seen. And they are allowed to do that. Our only remedy is to vote the bastards out--unless there is something so clearly egregiously corrupt as Trump handing out checks on the Senate floor, with TV cameras rolling, in which case the rest of the Senate would probably oust them. Short of that, we're stuck.

    Hence my "in theory".

    Corrected quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • America has incurred the wrath of most of the rest of the thinking world by letting Trump off scot free.
  • rhubarb wrote: »
    America has incurred the wrath of most of the rest of the thinking world by letting Trump off scot free.

    I'm not sure why you'd say "wrath". It's not like Trump was accused of doing anything to foreigners in this case. The people with the most right to be angry about this are Americans themselves.

    Now, if you wanna say America has incurred "bemusement", "mockery", or "eternal gratitude for the best unintentional comedy ever" from the rest of the world, I might go along with that.
  • Trump handing out checks on the Senate floor,

    What kind of fool would you have to be to accept a cheque from Trump? Even if he paid cash I'd want to make it wasn't forged.
  • Trump handing out checks on the Senate floor,

    What kind of fool would you have to be to accept a cheque from Trump? Even if he paid cash I'd want to make it wasn't forged.

    Well, and ain't that the truth.

    Not that I'd say the senators who acquitted him are any too bright...
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    A cartoon on the editorial page of a Sydney newspaper last week: Trump in the witness box (although it may have been meant as the dock) - I was only ordering followers.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited February 2021
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Don't fret; political oblivion awaits him.

    How? His base is more secure than ever, his proud boys showed them swamp dwellers! All Republican senators with anything to lose acquitted him as they would be deselected and worse put in their place. Fascism is hovering in the wings. Trump is going to have the time of his life for the next four years. With his wingmen Cruz and Hawley.
  • Yeah if oblivion awaits Trump, it's on the far side of a hell of a lot of damage.
  • I'm watching "The Trump Show - Downfall". Nearly didn't because it was introduced by Trump's apology for a British supporter, the loathesome Farage.
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    edited February 2021
    The whole world saw it happen live on television and yet the senate find him ‘not guilty’.

    Utterly incomprehensible.

    The ex Vice President came this // close to being killed. I wonder what the story would be now if that had happened?
  • No, I've had to delete it, despite it possibly having some useful information about the last days of the last president, because Farage kept popping up, and I will not have him in the house. What the BBC was doing engaging him for this task I can't imagine.
  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    edited February 2021
    Boogie wrote: »
    The whole world saw it happen live on television and yet the senate find him ‘not guilty’.

    Utterly incomprehensible.

    The ex Vice President came this // close to being killed. I wonder what the story would be now if that had happened?

    It's not incomprehensible. There's the politics of course, but even besides that.

    As much as it pains me to even consider that Mitch McConnell might have a point, I can genuinely see that it's unclear that impeachment makes sense as a process for someone who is no longer in office.

    Especially given everyone seemed to agree that barring Trump from running again would be a separate vote from impeachment. So what, precisely, was impeachment actually supposed to achieve in practice (as opposed to symbolically)? If it couldn't achieve anything in practice then I think there's a real question about the process. The law doesn't normally like that sort of thing.

    An actual criminal trial might be quite a different matter. The question is whether anyone is going to have the fortitude to press charges - either for what happened in Washington DC or for the pressure he put on Georgia.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Don't fret; political oblivion awaits him.

    I am not convinced - I want to be, but I'm not.
Sign In or Register to comment.