• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Basically that is like an acquittal.

    Not really. He has still been impeached, it’s just his own party chose not to remove him from office over the impeachment.

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes we knew that. The point is legally he has been acquitted. Fair or not he has not been officially convicted and thus this can not be used to eliminate him from running for office.

      I know people here don’t agree with it. I wish he was convicted myself. But it’s is not grey. It is ‘not really’. Your either convicted or acquitted and he was the latter because that is how the constitution works. Now use your vote should it come to that.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But it isn’t an acquittal, and he has officially been impeached.

        It’s more like he was found guilty but then given no punishment at sentencing.

        • Zippy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That absolutely is not what impeachments is. Look it up. Impeachments is equivalent to charging someone only. It then basically comes to the house to investigate it and decide if he is guilty. Guilty meaning removed from office. I don’t understand why people do not know this.

          Ya I think he is slimy and likely should have been revoved from office. That that takes 2/3 of the Senate vote. But not getting 2/3 of the vote does not mean he is innocent.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That absolutely is not what impeachments is.

            I wasn’t trying to say that was what impeachment is, rather that is what impeachment is like.

            Impeachment is inredibly serious and rare. What we have faced is nothing like anything the founding fathers could have predicted. As such, any textual analysis would be flawed - the Founding Fathers could not - and WOULD NOT - have allowed Trump.

            Trump has already far surpassed this line in the sand, not just from my own personal viewpoint but from the view point of almost every point of reasoning. I can confidently say that Trump instigated insurrection and is guilty of such far beyond the justification of any reasonable proceedings, such that I can do so without any real fear of reprecussions from the legal system - Donald Trump is objectively proven to be a criminal and a conman.

            People who deny this fact are simply delusionsal and have no bases beyond being bitter losers to say otherwise.

            Donald Trump is a loser, and his supporters are merely gullible losers who are also poor.

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The point is legally he has been acquitted.

        No he hasn’t. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. He hasn’t been legally charged yet, though that process is in the works. It’s taking a long time, because the seditious conspiracy plot was insanely large and wide-reaching. It’s the largest criminal conspiracy in the history of the nation, absolutely dwarfing Watergate which took 3.5 years.

        Impeachment is a political remedy more akin to being fired than criminally charged, and is not required to invoke the 14th.