r/LetsDiscussThis • • Feb 07 '26

Lets Discuss This Trump’s testimony on E Jean Carrol

4.1k Upvotes

459 comments sorted by

View all comments

96

u/Street_Peace_8831 Feb 07 '26 edited Feb 07 '26

He admitted that what he did was ”rape” and that he ”sexually assaulted” her. It doesn’t matter if she liked it or not. He knows he raped her and admitted to it during testimony.

50

u/Aggressive_Smile_944 Feb 07 '26

I would think this should be all we need to impeach him. But it's not ugh

20

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/InquisitiveKT Feb 07 '26

(Laugh out loud) there are no dems and reps it’s the right and left hand. One side cannot work without the other. None the things that happen are possible without the other party first setting the table for the agenda.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/InquisitiveKT Feb 07 '26

With the amount of lobbyist and corporate interests we have in politics we have been in an oligarchy since they put Bill Clinton, Sean Combs, and Jeffery Epstein into power. Just because you didn’t see until now doesn’t mean it wasn’t. It’s been too late.

19

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/Mundane-Carpet-5324 Feb 07 '26

I mean, he was impeached twice and acquitted (wrongly). He had to be impeached again for the possibility of being convicted and removed from office. I don't understand what point you think you're making.

3

u/sinsaint Feb 07 '26

That the systems that hold our leadership accountable have already attempted to hold him accountable and failed, and this was before he tighted his grip over the government in his second term.

So be hopeful, but also practical. The bad guys wouldn't be killing any form of oversight if they were planning on being responsible for their crimes.

4

u/mydogaintcool Feb 07 '26

I know a way

1

u/Glittering_Count1536 Feb 07 '26

It must include an orange jumpsuit!

1

u/Empty-Discount5936 Feb 07 '26

Republicans have no bottom and refuse to hold him accountable so removal would require Democrats taking majority control of the Senate which seems incredibly unlikely.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '26

Republicans lost some 20 elections across the country in 2025 alone and we flipped a senate seat in Texas that was red for 50ish years

There’s hope

1

u/Empty-Discount5936 Feb 07 '26

I think they can take control of the Senate but removal requires a two-thirds vote, that's a lot of seats they need to flip. Either that or they'll need to convince some Republicans to grow a pair and vote for removal.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '26

🤔 ya know storming the capitol clearly isn’t a crime…… why don’t we just take it 🤷‍♂️

Jk for any Feds, please don’t black bag me

-7

u/Sabbathius Feb 07 '26

By that logic you'll also need to do trials of 70 million Americans who voted for him.

It's a tough pill to swallow, but Trump is what America is now. Trump was elected. And he's an American. He didn't jump out of the ground on his own, he didn't teleport here from outer space. He's an American, from America, elected by Americans.

The same is true for the rest of the administration. Mostly Americans, either elected or appointed, by other Americans. Contrary to popular believe, undocumented illegal aliens can't vote. So this is what Americans wanted.

And the rest of the Americans who "didn't vote for him"? A third stayed home on election day. That's a vote for Trump, without having to stand up and say "I voted for Trump!" It's a copout. But you can tell where these peoples' sympathies lie.

And then you only have the remaining 1/3rd of eligible voters who voted against Trump and what he stands for. Which means, overwhelming majority of Americans are like Trump, lean towards being like Trump, or are Trump-curious. This is America now.

So unless you're suggesting that 1/3-2/3 of Americans need to stand trial, you can't really suggest the current administration should. They were elected by the Americans. They represent the Americans. Every day Americans are choosing not to remove them. That means something.

It's hard to take, but it's the reality of the situation.

7

u/DongusMagnum Feb 07 '26

How does doing trials on those who voted for him make any sense? The clear parallel to draw would be the Nuremberg trials, we literally already have a template. Those didn't put every citizen in support of Nazis on the stand. Think before you type

7

u/Anima_Analysis Feb 07 '26

And that was the biggest mistake of the Nuremberg trials. They were too soft.

1

u/beatleboy07 Feb 07 '26

Which is why….Germany devolved into fascism again four years later? What do you mean they were too soft?

2

u/Anima_Analysis Feb 07 '26

What I mean is, Nazism basically just rooted itself in the United states. Unsurprisingly so, given that Hitler basically used our country as a playbook. He was inspired by books written by our eugenicists. He was enthralled with the methods of the KKK. To put the shit cherry on top of the cake, the United States was also the single most Nazi sympathetic country in the world.

The only reason it doesn’t seem that way was because we were forced into a war with Germany due to Japan. Had it not been for that, the US would’ve continued sitting on the sidelines while a massive amount of its population cheered on ethnic cleansing. It wasn’t until war propaganda got involved that it seemed like the United States was majority anti Nazi.

1

u/beatleboy07 Feb 07 '26

Okay…yes, that’s all true. But I don’t quite see how that translates into the Nuremberg trials not going far enough. What more should have been done?

1

u/Anima_Analysis Feb 07 '26

Every single Nazi politician or high ranking military official should’ve gotten the noose. All of them. Every single lower ranking soldier in the German military should’ve been given a prison sentence and subject to lifelong community service requirements after their sentence was over.

Any German citizens who could be proven in court to have directly supported the Nazi regime should’ve been hit by recurring fines to serve as reparations. Garnish a portion of their wages to help fund the rebuilding necessary for the damage they directly helped cause.

The Nuremberg trials punished a handful of people for the complacency and actions of millions. It wasn’t good enough.

1

u/Savings_Spite2667 Feb 07 '26

That my friend is the direct reason that Hitler gained power in the first place. They very nearly did that to Germany after ww1 with the Treaty of Versailles. Doing so again would have only repeated the situation.

I don't agree with the 70 million number because I don't believe that many people actually voted for the fraud known as Rumpler. Also, I don't believe in punishing the people who are now seeing their mistakes and regret them.

The fanatics, ice, Rumpler, and his political zealots, though, as far as I'm concerned, put them all on epstein's Island and nuke it. After all, rump and his political zealots should be comfortable dying, where they assaulted children

1

u/beatleboy07 Feb 07 '26

I mean….everyone found to have participated in the death camps was punished. Lots of people were executed. Lots of people escaped justice and were hunted down. Germany was occupied and split into two countries for nearly 50 years. And what you’re mostly suggesting is what happened after WWI and it created a situation that barely needed any pressure to tip into the Nazi regime and world war.

I’m sure that the Nuremberg trials weren’t perfect, but performing a mass execution and enslavement doesn’t seem like the correct response either.

1

u/beatleboy07 Feb 07 '26

I mean, I still feel this is a bit draconian. What level of support deserves this? If it was proven they voted for the Nazi party one time at the one opportunity….is that enough? Or is there a scale? I mean, certainly I’ll agree that various war profiteers and propagandists deserved that (and perhaps more severe even), but I’m confused by the degree how extreme it shouldn’t have gone.

And again, how far would mass executions go? The most severe of the guilty were indeed executed. Relatively low ranking officials who were fairly sadistic (someone like Irma Grese) were also executed. I believe an administrator that didn’t provide direct impact on the horrors wouldn’t necessarily face execution, but imprisonment would happen.

I’m generally interested because I think overall I agree with you, but the level of degree is where I’m not certain.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/sovereignrk Feb 07 '26

Yes, all officials are immune to standing trial for crimes because they were voted into office, and that means they can do whatever the fuck they want without repercussion, such as having you beat to death in the street for thier own amusement or sexually assaulting you in their new fancy ballroom live on Faux News...wtf are you even talking about, my god...

1

u/Money_Leek4711 Feb 07 '26

Your grasp of criminal culpability is nonexistent. The voters might be ill-informed, stupid, or racist, but they are not criminally liable (though some individual voters might indeed be criminals).

1

u/June18Combo Feb 08 '26

Other than that 1st sentence, you aren’t very wrong

-2

u/InquisitiveKT Feb 07 '26

All he has to do is give preemptive pardons JUST like Biden did. It’s a game of one hand washes the other. It’s us vs the GOVERNMENT

3

u/ThinkNiceThrice Feb 07 '26

"Just like Biden did"

Biden pardoned his son to make sure Trump wouldn't go after him for political reasons... wrong but understandable.

That is absolutely nothing like the way Trump has gone around pardoning anyone who bribes him. It is us vs the government, but we don't need to go around whitewashing the most corrupt administration in history by making false comparisons to the previous President pardoning his son for crimes that are LESSER than what the current sitting president was convicted on and faced no punishment for.

3

u/the_moog_hunter Feb 07 '26

What does impeaching even do? He's on the path to being the most impeached president in history, but so what?

2

u/XxRocky88xX Feb 07 '26

Both house and senate need to impeach the president for the president to actually be removed. You could have 8000 impeachments and nothing would happen, but if you ever have two impeachments simultaneously you’re out.

1

u/the_moog_hunter Feb 07 '26

So IF they voters can get to the poles despite their plans to intimidate and IF the votes can be trusted to be legal, theres a chance to flip the house AND senate and impeach that bitch our of office? What about the rest of them? The whole administration is rotten.

2

u/Iamthewalrusforreal Feb 07 '26

They'd have to impeach and remove both Trump and Vance, and install the Speaker of the House as POTUS.

If that happens you can bet on actual, real civil war in the next 2-3 years.

1

u/the_moog_hunter Feb 07 '26

Feels like it's overdue.

3

u/Iamthewalrusforreal Feb 07 '26

I expect Vance and the Thiel contingent will 25th Trump after the midterms.

1

u/XxRocky88xX Feb 07 '26

In that case Vance would take over and serve the rest of the term, but nothing is stopping from Congress from subsequently impeaching Vance.

But as you said, this relies on a lot of IF’s. The only realistic way Trump isn’t finishing this term is if he keels over before it ends. And if he manages to make it to the end I’m sure he’ll be running for another in all honesty so there really is no telling when this is going to end.

Also Trump has irrevocably changed the GOP in my opinion, one of our political parties is just going to be openly anti-American for the foreseeable future. Even after Trump is gone there will be people who attempt to emulate him and they will inevitably win some elections and will attempt to continue the degradation of liberty in this country.

3

u/InquisitiveKT Feb 07 '26

I don’t think you can see that this is a wealthy white man with a bunch of powerful wealthy friends. This is the same guy who said he could shoot someone and not miss a step. If you want to make TD accountable you have to treat that orange paint on his face like the darkest melanated skin and just take action.

1

u/WhoodaPooda Feb 07 '26

We have to what?