Do you think one day Donald Trump will be sorry he didn't resign?

He would do it again and a lot of people know he would do it again so I think he will be charged so he never gets that chance again. I also think that after tomorrows hearing he will summon his goonies to try and interfere with the hearings because he never learned his lesson. Cheers!

I think after the hearings he won't even get the republican ticket to run again. Cheers!

The only way he is not the Rep nominee is if he decides not to run.

Or if they decide to nominate someone who has a prayer of actually winning.
Nobody wanted Biden, a career politician and a stuffed shirt who is already showing clear signs of losing it. He won because he wasn't Trump. The Dems could have nominated a hat rack and it would have won.
Kamala will most likely lead the Democrats into the next election - and if it's against Trump, she'll win it without breaking a sweat. This post was edited by Slartibartfast at June 13, 2022 4:24 AM MDT

And Biden did not win.  And we are fixing the things that allowed the steal in 2020.  It will not happen again in 2024. 

As I said if Trump runs he will get the nomination...there is only one other possible candidate who would give him a challenge.  And DeSantis has said he will not run if Trump is running.

He did win, the election wasn't "stolen" and you're flogging a dead horse. The lawsuits are umpteen to zero. Hillary won the popular vote as well, it was only the gerrymander built in to the EC that kept her out of the WH.
Trump is more hated than any individual in the US living or dead. If he manages to slither out of yet another conviction and buy another nomination, he'll lose. Again.

1. The lawsuits were not upteen to zero. 
2. Most were dismissed on technicalities not the merits of the cases
3. People are being arrested and going to jail for their roles in the steal. 
4.  A gerrymander CANNOT be done in a statewide election.  The state lines do NOT move.  A gerrymander is when they move the district lines to make it easier for incumbents to keep their seats. 
5. Love him or hate him...he will be the Rep nominee for POTUS in 2024 and with new laws securing our elections...he will win. 

6. Primaries yesterday are prime example.  Trump endorsed 13 and won 12 of those 13.  And a solidly blue district in TX (border) flipped to Red.  Get ready because the MAGA wave is coming.  

4. One vote in Wyoming equals seven votes in California. That's a functional gerrymander, the state lines themselves favour those states with smaller populations (which are traditionally red).
6. The ridiculous "winner takes all" method of distributing EC delegates means that one district has zero meaning. Case in point, Florida in 2000. The GOP won the State (or stole it) by a bee's d**k, a sane system sends 14 Republican and 13 Democrat electors to the College - that's how the State voted. Bush got all 27 and won by less than that.

That is not because of any gerrymander (that is when district lines are moved to make it easier for a particular party to keep a seat...state lines do not move.)

It is because Congress passed a law that capped the number of Representatives in the House of Reps to the 435.  And every state should have at least 1 Rep in the House. The EC:voter ratio will not change until they lift the cap.  EC votes are given to each state based on its number of Congress (the 2 Senators + the number House members) Each state gets a minimum of 3 EC votes and DC gets whatever the smallest state gets (currently 3). States themselves are free to decide how they wish to distribute their EC votes. Most do Winner takes All.  Maine and Nebraska being the only exceptions. I personally would be mad if my state changed from Winner takes all. 

Personally, I think they should take the smallest state's population of citizens and use that as the base for Representative distribution.  I think currently that is Wyoming.  Doing it this way would put 574 members in the House.  Making the EC 677. This post was edited by my2cents at June 20, 2022 4:05 PM MDT

Perhaps you'd care to post the parts that clear the defendant.

Video played by the committee edited out where Trump said specifically "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." 
That is willfully withholding exonerating evidence and editing the evidence like that in court would result in disbarring of the PA. 

It is about 70 min into his speech on Jan 6th. 

They did the same thing during the 2nd impeachment.  Even liberal snopes admits it. 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-peacefully-and-patriotically/

You seem to forget all the other things he said in that speech to incite the mob - many more things than just this one sentence.  But, I'm sure that doesn't count because it isn't what you want to believe.  I understand.  Really, I do.

You did not listen to the speech. I did on Jan 6th and it did nothing to cause a riot. 

A riot would/did not help Trump. It helped the Dems. It stopped the debate about contesting the 5 states that were in question. (AZ, GA, PN, WI and MI) Reps had both House and Sen members ready for each state before the riot. 

The "peacefully and patriotically " sentence is not the only sentence he said about going to the Capitol.  He also said "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women." 
In another part he talked about PRIMARYING the weak Reps who would not stand up for election integrity.   Voting them out not rioting or violently throwing them put.   
There was no call to violence by Trump. 

Those are exonerating evidence and any PA editing them out would be disbarred for it. 

There is only one sentence that can be even remotely twisted to claim  violence. And if we are going to condemn politicians for talking like that then we will need to get rid of them all. 
I count the whole speech in its entirely.  

He is active. As long as he stays that way, he will serve his full term starting in 2025.