• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

2020 US Presidential Election

Status
Not open for further replies.

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
Again I'm not sure appeasing them is the right approach. They've already stormed the US Capitol and whilst most of them were perhaps just out for a 'good time' it seems quite clear that some of them were very prepared to take hostages and I think we know how that would have ended. Quite apart from the explosive devices recovered at both the RNC and DNC offices (drawing away precious Capitol police resources at the moment they were needed at the Capitol).
I wouldn't suggest appeasement, but the Republicans warning that impeachment will just cause further division are actually correct. It's just going to give the nutjobs more reason to feel aggrieved and do things like we saw last week.
A more measured response, rounding up the idiots who stormed Capitol and punishing them, and then dealing with Trump later would stand more chance of putting the fire out. It would also make clear that Trump is an irrelevance. I bet he's just loving all of this free campaigning that he's getting.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
It is, no doubt about that - but surely the need is to set something in stone from a legal sense. Double impeachments are indeed a stain on the record but that provides absolutely zero certainty of stopping him running again. Something stronger is required.
It will be the reason for the impeachment: Article 14, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or treason.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I wouldn't suggest appeasement, but the Republicans warning that impeachment will just cause further division are actually correct. It's just going to give the nutjobs more reason to feel aggrieved and do things like we saw last week.
There might be value in flushing them out.
I bet he's just loving all of this free campaigning that he's getting.
Reports are exactly the opposite - he's apparently in a apoplectic rage.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
I really wish that people wouldn't see the first impeachment as failed. Yes, the Senate refused to hold a trial, so he didn't get removed from office, but he was impeached, that's a stain on his record that will never go away. And he's likely to go down in history as the only president to be impeached twice.

Importantly, if the Senate refuses to return early to hold the trial I've been led to believe that the articles of impeachment will survive into the new Congress and Kamala Harris will get to cast the deciding vote on if to bar him from holding an office of the United States in the future, since that only requires a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote.

There seems to be some talk that the House could impeach Trump next week - while he is still in office, but then wait a couple of months before sending the papers to the Senate for the trial. The rationale would be to avoid the Senate getting bogged down in an impeachment trial just at the point where Biden takes office and will be most needing Congress to be focused on implementing his policy agenda.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
It will be the reason for the impeachment: Article 14, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or treason.

I have to admit I wasn't aware that the Democrats were pursuing the 14th Amendment route in this new impeachment. It makes sense to use it (per my post #1912) considering the last week and it would do the job, so to speak.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I have to admit I wasn't aware that the Democrats were pursuing the 14th Amendment route in this new impeachment. It makes sense to use it (per my post #1912) considering the last week and it would do the job, so to speak.
Yes. There is a single article of impeachment - Incitement of Insurrection - which both aligns with the federal offence (carrying a jail term of up to ten years) and with the 14th amendment.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
Again I'm not sure appeasing them is the right approach. They've already stormed the US Capitol and whilst most of them were perhaps just out for a 'good time' it seems quite clear that some of them were very prepared to take hostages and I think we know how that would have ended. Quite apart from the explosive devices recovered at both the RNC and DNC offices (drawing away precious Capitol police resources at the moment they were needed at the Capitol).

Meanwhile the FBI are warning of further armed protests:




But sure, let's not do anything now about what happened last week and play the long game. I'm sorry but that just doesn't wash, when you've had a terrorist attack on the seat of government with quite strong overturns of it being an attempted coup (a stupid one to be sure but still) you don't just sit back and play the long game and try to avoid 'adding fuel to the fire'. They're adding more then enough fuel on their own. Appeasing them in the hopes that they'll behave is not going to work.

Didn't mean nothing as such, I've just re-read what I wrote and I wasn't very clear on what I meant. I just don't think rushing to impeach him is going to help matters at all is what I was more trying to say. Impeachment is only one of the many channels that could be used.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
I think it's highly possible that impeachment proceedings will get voted for by both houses - there is a dawning realisation by even the dimmest of Republicans that there only hope of becoming a credible political party again in the next decade for the non-aligned is to ditch Trump, Trumpism, and all those trumped-up allegations of voter fraud. Personally, on the latter front, I suspect that a thoroughgoing investigation might reveal many,many cases of Republican voter fraud.

Should Trump ever face proceedings in the highest criminal court for the full scale of his monstrous, treacherous behaviour, then I wonder what his gaol sentence should be, assuming conviction. Given the U.S. propensity for staggeringly overblown jail sentences, I'd consider justice would have been served by a term of precisely 666 years. However, I don't think he'll be around to see the inside of a court, unfortunately in one way if not another.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Personally, on the latter front, I suspect that a thoroughgoing investigation might reveal many,many cases of Republican voter fraud.
AFAIK, the only proven cases of voter fraud in the the last three election cycles (2016, 2018 and 2020) were all committed by Republican voters.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
AFAIK, the only proven cases of voter fraud in the the last three election cycles (2016, 2018 and 2020) were all committed by Republican voters.

This document lists quite a few instances of individual voter fraud, some of them by Democrats, quite a few with no party allegiance stated. It's by the heritage foundation, an influential conservative thinktank, and I'm not sure how much I trust the Heritage Foundation in general, but this particular document seems quite factual, and googling a couple of the cases on it seemed to confirm what it says.

(For the avoidance of doubt: Even though the document cites numerous individual cases of fraud, they still collectively amount to an insignificant % of total voters - so, not enough to significantly impact the results of a Presidential election).
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Even though the document cites numerous individual cases of fraud, they still collectively amount to an insignificant % of total voters - so, not enough to significantly impact the results of a Presidential election
Also, having gone through the first 20 pages or so, none of the cases relate to the 2016, 2018 or 2020 general elections.

******

Edit: I've got as far as the bottom of Iowa and I've only found three cases that relate to the 2016, 2018 or 2020 general elections. Two of them specifically mention that the voting fraud was in favour of the GOP candidate, the other does not specify. Particularly interesting was this one from the 2016 election:

Terri Lynn Rote pleaded guilty to an election fraud charge stemming from her attempt to vote twice in the 2016 presidential election. Rote cited fears that the election was rigged to justify her attempt to cast two absentee ballots for Donald Trump. She is awaiting sentencing

Source: http://www.bit.ly/2sLzmxV

Which pretty much sums up the situation with the 2020 election - Trump can say "I know the election was full of fraud because I told them to go commit it".
 
Last edited:

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
It looks like at least 20 Republicans are open to turning on Trump and voting for impeachment.


The US House of Representatives is expected to hold a vote to impeach President Donald Trump over his role in last week's storming of Congress.
Democrats accuse the president of encouraging his supporters to attack the Capitol building. Five people died.
Members of Mr Trump's Republican party say they will join Democrats to impeach him on Wednesday, formally charging the president with inciting insurrection.
President Trump has rejected any responsibility for the violence.
The riot last Wednesday happened after Mr Trump told supporters at a rally in Washington DC to "fight like hell" against the result of November's election.

As Democrats hold a majority in the House, the vote is likely to pass. The case will then head for the Senate, where a trial will be held to determine the president's guilt.
A two-thirds majority would be needed to convict Mr Trump, meaning at least 17 Republicans would have to vote for conviction. As many as 20 Senate Republicans are open to convicting the president, the New York Times reports.
The timeline of when a trial could be held is not known but it is unlikely it could be finished before Mr Trump leaves office on 20 January, when Joe Biden will be sworn in as president.
The Senate could also use an impeachment trial to hold a vote blocking Mr Trump from ever running for office again. He has indicated he plans to campaign for president in 2024.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
It looks like at least 20 Republicans are open to turning on Trump and voting for impeachment.
For historical context, that is what did it for Nixon. He was prepared to fight the pending impeachment but when he got a call from the GOP leadership to say that they weren't going to unite behind him he chose to resign rather than suffer the indignity of possibly being removed from office.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,834
A programme* on Radio 4 yesterday described the result in the 1960 election, when Kennedy beat Nixon to the presidency.

Kennedy won the electoral college by 303 to 219, but the popular vote was much closer, at 49.7% to 49.5% in favour of JFK. Because some areas were so close, there was a possibility of recounts overturning their results, but Nixon refused to back them, stating that avoiding plunging the country into a constitutional crisis was more important than his winning the presidency.

It's quite an achievement of Trump's, to make even Tricky Dicky look like an exemplary moral and principled statesman by comparison!

*(If Then by Jill Lepore, episode 2 broadcast 09.45 on Tue 12th, the last two minutes, still available on BBC Sounds)
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
Just heard that if the resolution passes the House the intention is to apparently pass this immediately to the Senate. No waiting for the Dem majority but a recall from recess. Wonder if the Dems believe the numbers are there?
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,488
Location
Kent
Edit: I've got as far as the bottom of Iowa and I've only found three cases that relate to the 2016, 2018 or 2020 general elections. Two of them specifically mention that the voting fraud was in favour of the GOP candidate, the other does not specify.
I started from the bottom, there is evidence of voter fraud - in Small Town America - buying votes for, usually, Sheriff, ironically. I can't remember anything related to those elections and even those relating to any general election was typically someone voting for a relative who had passed on, so one vote. Trump would need an awful lot of those. Others were people registering to vote so they could claim unemployment or residence, falsifying signatures on recall petitions, one chap voted in two places to show how easy it was to do so - and was caught. The worst case involved an organisation employing people who registering those like the homeless, who should not be on the register, because they got a bonus for registering certain numbers. There was no evidence given that a single one of these actually voted.

If this is the best that they can come up with, they have nothing. As the Georgia Secretary of State said, voter fraud happens in all elections but on nothing like the scale that is required.

Kennedy won the electoral college by 303 to 219, but the popular vote was much closer, at 49.7% to 49.5% in favour of JFK. Because some areas were so close, there was a possibility of recounts overturning their results, but Nixon refused to back them, stating that avoiding plunging the country into a constitutional crisis was more important than his winning the presidency.
If I remember right, Nixon was expected to win and was pretty sore about losing, but still put his country first. Maybe a reminder to Republicans, move on!
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
5,756
Location
Wilmslow
I started from the bottom, there is evidence of voter fraud - in Small Town America - buying votes for, usually, Sheriff, ironically. I can't remember anything related to those elections and even those relating to any general election was typically someone voting for a relative who had passed on, so one vote. Trump would need an awful lot of those. Others were people registering to vote so they could claim unemployment or residence, falsifying signatures on recall petitions, one chap voted in two places to show how easy it was to do so - and was caught. The worst case involved an organisation employing people who registering those like the homeless, who should not be on the register, because they got a bonus for registering certain numbers. There was no evidence given that a single one of these actually voted.

If this is the best that they can come up with, they have nothing. As the Georgia Secretary of State said, voter fraud happens in all elections but on nothing like the scale that is required.

If I remember right, Nixon was expected to win and was pretty sore about losing, but still put his country first. Maybe a reminder to Republicans, move on!
You started from the bottom, and you're right. Trump started from the top, and that was never going to work, he worked out the result he wanted to achieve and then attempted to work back down from that. In other words, getting from an invalid election to its cause being voter fraud is nonsensical; starting with widespread fraud (which there wasn't) and ending up with an invalid election is conceivable, but not supported by the facts.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,044
Location
Birmingham
It's quite an achievement of Trump's, to make even Tricky Dicky look like an exemplary moral and principled statesman by comparison!
Yes though Nixon was a fascinating character, lots of shades of grey compared to the cartoons we seem to get these days.
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,463
You started from the bottom, and you're right. Trump started from the top, and that was never going to work, he worked out the result he wanted to achieve and then attempted to work back down from that. In other words, getting from an invalid election to its cause being voter fraud is nonsensical; starting with widespread fraud (which there wasn't) and ending up with an invalid election is conceivable, but not supported by the facts.

Trump’s approach is a classic narcissistic trait.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,391
And it would appear trump will indeed be impeached for a second time, still got the senate hearing, but so far 10 republicans at the time of posting going against trump.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,539
Location
Redcar
If this is the best that they can come up with, they have nothing. As the Georgia Secretary of State said, voter fraud happens in all elections but on nothing like the scale that is required.
In some respects, considering a US Presidential election year will easily have over 100m voters, it would be more suspicious if you couldn't find any sign of fraud at all! It would be to neat!!
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,463
Must admit I’m still shaking my head that 139 House Republicans voted against accepting the result of an election that has been proven both free and fair. Even without last Wednesday’s affront against decent democratic society, it’s appalling. In a ‘normal’ election, is there ever a group that votes against the result or is it usually 100% in favour of the result.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,391
Well Trump is now the bigliest at something, yeah getting impeached. Would have loved to see more than 10 Republicans voting to impeach trump but given what we saw last week I bet some are running scared, at least 10 was more than expected.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
Must admit I’m still shaking my head that 139 House Republicans voted against accepting the result of an election that has been proven both free and fair. Even without last Wednesday’s affront against decent democratic society, it’s appalling. In a ‘normal’ election, is there ever a group that votes against the result or is it usually 100% in favour of the result.

Objections being raised are pretty rare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Joint_session_of_Congress has 6 elections in which it occurred. The interesting ones are in the 19th century, when objections were actually sustained and electoral college votes were removed.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
Also, having gone through the first 20 pages or so, none of the cases relate to the 2016, 2018 or 2020 general elections.

******

Edit: I've got as far as the bottom of Iowa and I've only found three cases that relate to the 2016, 2018 or 2020 general elections. Two of them specifically mention that the voting fraud was in favour of the GOP candidate, the other does not specify. Particularly interesting was this one from the 2016 election:

Source: http://www.bit.ly/2sLzmxV

Which pretty much sums up the situation with the 2020 election - Trump can say "I know the election was full of fraud because I told them to go commit it".

Haha, yes, the irony in that story!

OK, fair enough, in that case, it does seem possible that the only proven fraud in the last 3 elections was by Republicans, although historically it was both sides.

Objections being raised are pretty rare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Joint_session_of_Congress has 6 elections in which it occurred. The interesting ones are in the 19th century, when objections were actually sustained and electoral college votes were removed.

From what I gather, large scale fraud - on a scale that was big enough to potentially turn elections - was actually not that uncommon in those days (perhaps not too surprising given in it was a country that was only just recovering from a civil war, Democracy was still a relatively new concept practiced by very few countries, and of course there was also widespread deliberate disenfranchisement and intimidation to stop blacks voting) so it's probably not too surprising that objections were sometimes sustained. Completely different World from today, obviously.

Well Trump is now the bigliest at something, yeah getting impeached. Would have loved to see more than 10 Republicans voting to impeach trump but given what we saw last week I bet some are running scared, at least 10 was more than expected.

Yes, I'm very disappointed that the numbers of Republicans voting to impeach were so low. If you can only get 10 out of over 200 Republican Representatives supporting impeachment, it doesn't bode well for the chances of his being found guilty - which requires the votes of 17 out of 50 Republican senators. It also suggests that (a) Trump still has huge sway over the Republicans, and (b) a lot of Republicans don't respect Democracy. Very bad news for Democracy in the US (although with one possible silver lining: Potentially good news for the Democrats in the 2022 elections if the Republicans can't dissociate themselves from Trump and his insurrection)
 
Last edited:

OuterDistant

Member
Joined
25 Oct 2010
Messages
548
Location
North Staffordshire
Possibly one for a new "weird Trump-related dreams" thread, but I thought it was better in here:

A couple of nights ago, I had a dream in which our family invited Donald Trump and a few of his family over for dinner. Our house was nothing like anywhere we've ever lived, but there were about a dozen of us around the table. While we were eating Trump started started rambling, and my wife had to stand between me and him because I was stifling laughter and was about to spill my wine over my lap (I don't drink wine).

Trump got more and more ridiculously boastful. Eventually we were all desperately trying not to laugh, until he eventually got so agitated that he stood up and yelled to my dad something like "I will TOWER over you!". At that point we all (except Trump's family) burst into hysterical laughter.

I thought it summed up the current situation pretty well!
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,488
Location
Kent
In some respects, considering a US Presidential election year will easily have over 100m voters, it would be more suspicious if you couldn't find any sign of fraud at all! It would be to neat!!
I am sure Bashar al-Assad would say that there is absolutely no fraud in the Syrian elections. After all, he got less than 90% last time round.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Yes, I'm very disappointed that the numbers of Republicans voting to impeach were so low. If you can only get 10 out of over 200 Republican Representatives supporting impeachment, it doesn't bode well for the chances of his being found guilty - which requires the votes of 17 out of 50 Republican senators.
It won't be an issue for this Senate but for the next, and they're not going to take it up immediately. The priority is going to be Covid relief and stimulus. Nice fat $2,000 cheques provided by Biden where Trump/McConnel struggled to provide $600 may well remove some of the pressure for Republicans to be seen supporting Trump.

Something else I've read (but need to confirm) is that conviction requires a 2/3 majority vote, not that 2/3 of senators vote to convict. So some Republican senators may find that they are unable to attend on the day the vote is held...
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
5,756
Location
Wilmslow
Something else I've read (but need to confirm) is that conviction requires a 2/3 majority vote, not that 2/3 of senators vote to convict. So some Republican senators may find that they are unable to attend on the day the vote is held...
Wikipedia (I know) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artic...s_Constitution#Clause_6:_Trial_of_Impeachment) quotes:
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
A better source: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top