If Trump Loses In November, What Do You Think Happens Next

[Atocep]

It's almost impossible to track how many different directions Q split into once Trump wasn't inaugurated, but one of the beliefs is that the Biden that was inaugurated and is currently President is not the real Joe Biden and is an actor put forth by the deep state.

[ISiddiqui]

I am convinced this Castor guy Trump found is an even worse lawyer than Guiliani. This is... Awful.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Nonsense arguments are nonsense.

[GrantDawg]

Trump next lawyer: "I may be a simple unfrozen caveman..."

[GrantDawg]

TIL that "disqualification from future office" as a punishment for a guilty verdict is actually unconstitutional.

Contrary to, you know, the text of the Constitution.

Who knew? (Certainly not the Framers)

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) February 9, 2021

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I am convinced this Castor guy Trump found is an even worse lawyer than Guiliani. This is... Awful.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

They had to buffer against this attack dog Schoen.

I love the extortion warning that if the Republicans are ever in charge again, they'll be vindictive...as if that is different then what they are now.

[NobodyHere]

So is impeachment even constitutional without John Roberts?

Originally Posted by The Constitution

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:

What is the legal definition of "shall"?

Can he be compelled or perhaps impeached himself for failing to do his duty?

Does he have defacto veto power?

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So is impeachment even constitutional without John Roberts?



What is the legal definition of "shall"?

Can he be compelled or perhaps impeached himself for failing to do his duty?

Does he have defacto veto power?

Whelp, if Turtle had brought back the Senate when the House voted to impeach (while Fat Donny was in office)...then yes.

But, since Fat Donny is no longer the sitting president, John Roberts doesn't have to sit in.

[Qwikshot]

Also, Senate just voted it was constitutional, though Turtle voted no on the constitutionality, even though he was the one responsible for how this was set up.

6 Republicans supported; all Democrats supported.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Whelp, if Turtle had brought back the Senate when the House voted to impeach (while Fat Donny was in office)...then yes.

But, since Fat Donny is no longer the sitting president, John Roberts doesn't have to sit in.

Yeah, good point. I guess it hasn't sunk in yet that Trump is no longer President.

[JPhillips]

The Shaggy defense is going to take over the GOP.

“That wasn’t Trump’s people. That’s been a hoax from day one. That was all prearranged,” Shirkey, state Senate’s top Republican, said of the riot. “It was arranged by somebody who was funding it. … It was all staged.” https://t.co/mROEoCiJRk

— Detroit Metro Times (@metrotimes) February 9, 2021

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Shaggy defense is going to take over the GOP.

“That wasn’t Trump’s people. That’s been a hoax from day one. That was all prearranged,” Shirkey, state Senate’s top Republican, said of the riot. “It was arranged by somebody who was funding it. … It was all staged.” https://t.co/mROEoCiJRk

— Detroit Metro Times (@metrotimes) February 9, 2021

So none of this surprises, the GOP/Trump party is scared of losing power and will do everything it can to subvert and destroy the very fabric that held this country (albeit loosely) together. And that's not hyperbole.

The Louisiana GOP is already condemning Senator Cassidy for actually listening to what was presented and voted for the constitutional legality of the impeachment. He was the surprise vote from the usual suspects.

Trump will be acquitted of the impeachment. But everything I've seen shows a maddening thrust of people disgusted and concerned enough to be active voters even during non-Presidential elections (granted the Qidiots and Racists will be there enmasse too, but their numbers will probably stay static). There will be more voter suppression and disinformation to continue deflecting and destroying the basic trust of what was once a banal trite exercise of casting a vote.

I think more people know it matters now, all the time, and there is more information out there on the candidates, it won't get rid of the garbage, but it does cause scrutiny.

I don't think the Republican party will splinter, it cannot afford it. So they have to toe the line with Trump unless he dies/imprisoned. Even then, expect a fierce rebuttal and reworking of his legacy.

Sadly, I've never seen such a disgusting figure in American history and a more disgusting group of enablers who fed on racism, globalism fears and privileges, still be dumbfounded as to why their angry racist voices should matter when they refuse to adapt, accept or accede to reality and on the idea that they matter just because they're white Evangelical Americans, that they matter more and should be given preference.

It is really the fall of a society.

[miami_fan]

I need to add "baselessly claims" to my euphemism go to list.

[GrantDawg]

I still believe that Trump is going to directly destroy the Republican party by forming his own. I think he wants the ego-stroke, and he largely hates Republicans. The Senate trial has been the only thing stalling it, because he wants the threat of primarying Senators that vote against him. Once conviction is off the table, then it will be no holds barred.

[albionmoonlight]

Trump's too lazy to start his own party. He only got as far as he did by the grace of the GOP.

He'll shitpost on whatever social media platforms haven't banned him. And he'll threaten to start a new party and to run again, etc.

But it'll all be lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.

[JPhillips]

What's the point of starting a new party when you already control 2/3 or more of the GOP?

[sterlingice]

It's the egotistical force versus the lethargic object. This is a man who likes to spray his name on anything he can get his hands on, like a dog whizzing on every skyscraper he can bankrupt. But he also is allergic to hard work, instead preferring to belittle people until he gets what he wants.

SI

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Trump next lawyer: "I may be a simple unfrozen caveman..."

I thought he was a combination of caveman lawyer and Matlock in severe mental decline. Except instead of a seersucker, he was wearing the mafia suit.

[CrimsonFox]

Your honor, I may, I say, I say, I may just be a simple country rooster, but I say I think my client is in a finger lickin' bucket o' trouble!

[Lathum]

I was listening to Trumps lawyer in the car with my wife. I turned it off and my wife was surprised, saying I always want to listen to this stuff. I told her it was impossible to even make sense of what he was saying. What a shitshow, and it is sad that none of it will matter because the republicans are a bunch of cowards.

[miami_fan]

Hey! This is daytime TV. We can't have the kiddos listening to this type of language. Where is that email address for the FCC?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It's the egotistical force versus the lethargic object. This is a man who likes to spray his name on anything he can get his hands on, like a dog whizzing on every skyscraper he can bankrupt. But he also is allergic to hard work, instead preferring to belittle people until he gets what he wants.

SI

What work? He says "new party" and all his pathetic sycophants are the ones that do the work. He just gets the ego stroke. He starts a new party and immediately has 100+ congress members, a dozen or so Senators, and several Governors. The new party could control several state houses from the get go. They will do all the work forming the organizations and getting on ballots. What exactly will he be doing? Were would be his hard work, other than as the symbolic Dear Leader?

[GrantDawg]

dola: Lindsey Graham has already said that if any Republicans vote for conviction, it will be the end of the Republican party. I really do think he means that quite literally.

[Thomkal]

So which is it Lindsey-vote for Trump in 2016, or vote for convinction of Trump in 2021? Somehow the Party did not die in 2016, so unlikely it will in 2021.

[sterlingice]

Just because it deserves to be restated

If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) May 3, 2016

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

What work? He says "new party" and all his pathetic sycophants are the ones that do the work. He just gets the ego stroke. He starts a new party and immediately has 100+ congress members, a dozen or so Senators, and several Governors. The new party could control several state houses from the get go. They will do all the work forming the organizations and getting on ballots. What exactly will he be doing? Were would be his hard work, other than as the symbolic Dear Leader?

So if he renamed them, say, The Trumpets. What happens when he dies in the next (god willing) couple to 20ish years? Is it just a realignment where the Trumpets take over what the GOP used to be?

SI

[GrantDawg]

It is really hard to predict what happens. The Republican party could collapse. It is also possible that severe mis-mamgment of the Trump party could have it on survive a couple if elections and then collapse. It maybe that fewer than expected defect away, or it could be even more. It would be expected that the Democrats would benefit greatly, but then maybe it won't be such a great windfall.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[ISiddiqui]

Wow, Officer Goodman may have saved Romney's life. He was walking the wrong way when Goodman running past told him to turn around and guided him to safety.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Flipped over to Fox News just now so I could see their fair and partial coverage. They have The Five on talking about the Mavs not playing the anthem before games anymore. What a disgrace.

[Edward64]

Didn't watch it and don't know if we know all the details about Mike Lee and the inaccurate characterization. Apparently it was from a single source (Deseret News). The managers should have anticipated this and maybe get multiple sources. But whatever.

Trump called Lee on Jan. 6, the day of the Capitol insurrection, but had meant to call Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). Lee recounted to the Deseret News last month the call from Trump and said he had passed off the phone to Tuberville when he realized Trump had dialed him by mistake. Trump‘s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani also left a voicemail meant for Tuberville that day to corral support for Trump‘s election disputes, but he‘d also accidentally dialed Lee.

House impeachment managers cited the Deseret News account during their presentation on Wednesday, casting it as another piece of evidence that Trump tried to undermine the election. But Lee said the characterization of that phone call was untrue.

The chamber grew tense as Lee and Democratic leadership began heatedly arguing over the nature of Lee’s request and how to proceed according to Senate rules.

[sterlingice]

Except it was from the primary source. It was from an interview Mike Lee /himself/ gave to the Deseret News:
How President Trump misdialed Utah Sen. Mike Lee while the Capitol was under siege - Deseret News

Lee didn't like how it was portrayed but you notice he didn't dispute the actual facts, just the "characterization"
Mike Lee objects to House manager’s narrative about Trump phone call - Deseret News

"Sure, it's what happened but I don't like how it makes Trump look so get rid of it"

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/u...-mulligan.html
I mean, this is a Senator who, 2 days ago, said about Trump's insurrection: “Look, everyone makes mistakes, everyone is entitled to a mulligan once in a while,” he said. “And I would hope — I would expect that each of those individuals would take a mulligan on each of those statements.” Like Trump had a bad day at the office or accidentally backed into another car in a parking lot.

SI

[Swaggs]

I am no lawyer, but I thought it was inappropriate for Lee to do that. He is essentially acting as a juror. If he was unhappy with the "characterization," in the media, he should have clarified that with the facts beforehand in the media.

If he and Tuberville have that big of a dispute, they should recuse themselves and volunteer to be sworn in and testify. It doesn't seem like it is that important to the case and it seems like the evidence from the voicemail from Rudy would indicate that it is pretty plausible that it happened (if not word for word, with the same intent).

[kingfc22]

I think we need a new poll on just how dark Trump and his followers will take this green card to do whatever the eff they want moving forward

[Ksyrup]

The only reason I wish we hadn't gone through this second impeachment is how pissed and disillusioned I am with our country. It was bad, getting worse, but this is just outrageous. We've become a nation of sound bites where someone literally says the exact opposite of what is plainly obvious as if it is truth, and that's the justification for how they act. I say this like every week - we're doomed. Canada 2030.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The only reason I wish we hadn't gone through this second impeachment is how pissed and disillusioned I am with our country. It was bad, getting worse, but this is just outrageous. We've become a nation of sound bites where someone literally says the exact opposite of what is plainly obvious as if it is truth, and that's the justification for how they act. I say this like every week - we're doomed. Canada 2030.

I'm expecting to hear something like "I think Trump incited the riot but I voted to not impeach him because it's unconstitutional" from at least 10 Republicans in an effort to save face with whomever they think they need to save face with.

[RainMaker]

Not going to link it but the new conspiracy is that the officer who died was from natural causes or murdered by someone trying to make Trump look bad.

[BYU 14]

does that surprise you at all?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Didn't watch it and don't know if we know all the details about Mike Lee and the inaccurate characterization. Apparently it was from a single source (Deseret News). The managers should have anticipated this and maybe get multiple sources. But whatever.

Oh, hey, and apparently there's nothing suspicious about this either

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/11/polit...ers/index.html

A trio of Republican senators allied with former President Donald Trump met with his defense team Thursday evening, in the middle of an impeachment trial in which they will vote on whether to convict Trump and potentially bar him from holding public office again.

Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah were spotted going into a room in the US Capitol that Trump's lawyers were using to prepare for their arguments.

SI

[Mota]

Originally Posted by rjolley

I'm expecting to hear something like "I think Trump incited the riot but I voted to not impeach him because it's unconstitutional" from at least 10 Republicans in an effort to save face with whomever they think they need to save face with.

Shouldn't the argument about constitutional vs. non-constitutional be the primary conversation, and then would have to be completely disregarded once that has been settled? I don't understand how this could affect their decision once it has already been deemed to be constitutional.

[albionmoonlight]

Some GOPers agree with Trump (a larger group than the media thinks)

Some GOPers don't agree with Trump and they want him to go away but they don't want to come off as anti-Trump b/c they don't want to alienate his base.

Some GOPers don't agree with Trump and they are willing to say that publicly.

I am still surprised that Group 3 hasn't worked with Group 2 to get rid of Trump in a way that lets Group 2 save face with the MAGA base. They have had months to figure this out.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Some GOPers agree with Trump (a larger group than the media thinks)

Some GOPers don't agree with Trump and they want him to go away but they don't want to come off as anti-Trump b/c they don't want to alienate his base.

Some GOPers don't agree with Trump and they are willing to say that publicly.

I am still surprised that Group 3 hasn't worked with Group 2 to get rid of Trump in a way that lets Group 2 save face with the MAGA base. They have had months to figure this out.

I am not. Even a hint of that, and they lose their next primary. There are very few states right now that a Republican can win a primary if they are considered a betrayer of Trump. That number might increase in two years, but it is not likely, especially as things stand right now. So the safest bet for the second crowd is "this is all troubling, but we can't constitutionally convict a non-sitting president." It is a bs argument, but one the Trump part of the party firmly believes.

[bob]

Dumb question, but if this isn't constitutional, then why isn't someone (Trump I guess) filing an emergency suit to stop it? Don't courts decide constitutionality, not Congress?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bob

Dumb question, but if this isn't constitutional, then why isn't someone (Trump I guess) filing an emergency suit to stop it? Don't courts decide constitutionality, not Congress?

Courts probably aren't going to tell Congress how to do its business regardless, but in this case, there's no question as to the constitutionality or precedent of the trial. I'm sure you could find a handful of judges that would rule differently, but almost all the federal courts would be done with a challenge in short order.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by bob

Dumb question, but if this isn't constitutional, then why isn't someone (Trump I guess) filing an emergency suit to stop it? Don't courts decide constitutionality, not Congress?

Great question.

The Supreme Court has said that impeachment is different in kind. Because impeachment is the Constitution's way of holding the judicial and executive branches accountable via the legislative branch. Thus, for the courts to step in, they would be assuming a power expressly given to another branch.

Nixon v. United States - Wikipedia

(Just to be confusing, this is a case about impeachment and someone named Nixon, but it is a Judge Nixon unrelated to the former President).

[JPhillips]

This defense is a Newsmax series of grievances.

[kingfc22]

GOP loves to throw the term "First Amendment" around as if it is some sort of magic cure for anything.

Collusion. First Amendment
Insurrection. First Amendment
Cancer. First Amendment
COVID. First Amendment
Whooping cough. First Amendment

Take two twice a day and you'll be fine.

[miami_fan]

I think I have become addicted to reading stories about the followers of QAnon and the effects they have on their families who are not believers. I must admit it started off as a joke but now I am kind of obsessed with the stories. It really is sad and something that I am really trying understand but am struggling to do so. I can't imagine having a relationship with a parent or sibling that is a QAnon follower. I had an aunt suffered with mental illness and believed she was married to Michael Jackson among other things until her death but she was diagnosed with mental illness. The diagnosis made things make sense. I read an article today that had this quote.

The belief that she must be uneducated is a dangerous misunderstanding of how people fall into QAnon — which in many cases has less to do with intelligence than with circumstantial vulnerability.

This is one of the areas where I am stuck. What is the circumstantial vulnerability? I don't think it is any of the -isms because people have been believing in those for centuries without a need to add pedophilia and devil worship to the mix. Same with politics. I go back and forth with mental illness as either a reason or an excuse. What is the vulnerability that leads one down this path?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

This is one of the areas where I am stuck. What is the circumstantial vulnerability? I don't think it is any of the -isms because people have been believing in those for centuries without a need to add pedophilia and devil worship to the mix. Same with politics. I go back and forth with mental illness as either a reason or an excuse. What is the vulnerability that leads one down this path?

I was reading an article recently from a woman talking about how she had grown up in a tiny cult of personality that was just her and her mom following a man around the country who had convinced them that he was part of some secret government program keeping them safe from "them" and how it eventually fell apart, especially when that guy died and all of his 'predictions' immediately fell apart when he wasn't there to manipulate the background....but this woman's mother went on believing anyway, for like 20 more years.

...the whole point of which is that at some point some 'expert' in some discipline (of what I can't remember) was quoted as saying cases like this aren't necessarily based around mental illness so much as a very strong personality asserting direct influence over a very weak personality(s). What that strength or weakness refers to explicitly is hard to define, but it's more than what we simply define as 'smart' or 'crazy'.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Mota

Shouldn't the argument about constitutional vs. non-constitutional be the primary conversation, and then would have to be completely disregarded once that has been settled? I don't understand how this could affect their decision once it has already been deemed to be constitutional.

I agree and that makes sense, but that's what I've heard said in one form or another by some of the senators.

While this trial has already been decided as I don't see how there are enough votes to convict, I am glad they are having the trial. Maybe it's enough to discourage this from happening again. Only time will tell.

[Ksyrup]

A lot of disappointment with the Lincoln Project with bad news upon bad news recently, and now it's over.