Less than a 2/3rds Senate vote to convict has no legal effect, unless Democrats find a way to pack the Senate, that is. Can you think of any reason why our forefathers required a 2/3rd Senate majority to convict? Even then, a conviction against Trump removes him from office. Oh, wait, that has been already been done. What a conviction would do, besides seriously pissing off nearly half the country, is prevent Trump from legally holding public office. Why would Democrats want to prevent Trump from running against historically highly re-electable incumbents as Joe Biden or Kamala Harris will be? Are the Democrats concerned more voters are not going to like the content of planned future Executive Orders and legislation? Are democrats aware that Joe Biden is, or may not make it to the 2024 finish line? Regardless of the above, most people should be able to see through the Democrat intentions of creating political theatre. Hopefully, after Democrats lose their futile effort at attempting to convict Trump again, TDS will finally be out of their system and they will focus on governance for all. Although judging by past performance, I’m not optimistic. How about you? Edit: Ah, a precedence has been cited. Should be interesting then.
To be fair, we don’t need Republicans focusing on governance, either. We need a political party that is responsive to the will of voters. Not the media, big tech, or a political party attempting to “Manufacture consent” of the voter to perform that political party’s pro elite agenda. Ultimately, which political philosophy will prevail, at least for a brief time, will come down to the survival of the fittest, which in today’s world is measured by intelligence. Whether this superior intelligence will be by those internal to American politics or external to American politics remains to be seen. However, the Europeans, or especially the Asians, are pretty damn smart. Edit: By the way, a country is easier to take over if many of the population feel disenfranchised by the current system.
Wrong about what? I said not in office. I was asking about precedent. I don't really care what happens. I don't want him to run again.
You stated impeached after he left office. NOT in office. He was impeached while he was President. How is this so hard a concept for you to understand?
How hard is it for you to undestand... impeachment is also a process in which the senate has to convict. That is what we are talking about here. We already know what the house did.
You're dumb. It's not a process. The trial is for removal. It's analogous to stating Clinton wasn't impeached.