LogFAQs > #949466969

xp1337 posted...

Yes. Full stop.

~~~

Weird detail thing on the trial. The Chief Justice only presides when POTUS is tried... but does that apply when it's an ex-President? We're gonna find out all sorts of things I guess.

if they go for the trial he might show up just to eliminate having to deal with that question. technically the senate has ruled before that they've got jurisdiction on someone who resigned though obviously the actual courts would need to determine if that's valid or not. but internally, it should be "okay." since that guy was never convicted though no actual case to be made there. really does just come down to if they vote to convict or not. if they do, to the supreme court. if they don't, nothing mattered.

masterplum posted...

I don't think most Democrats or Independents took Trump seriously in 2016. Once it was obvious it was serious Trump lost convincingly

he lost convincingly electorally.
but that margin for votes was fucking tiny and needed 1) race wars, 2) a depression, and 3) a global pandemic, all in the same year, with multiple fuck ups on all 3 of them. he was legitimately the strongest candidate we've ever had and only lost because everything collapsed around him and he was too incompetent to pick any of it back up. he does one or two things right, he wins. that ain't "convincing," that's "mind who he picks as the chosen one."

---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.