Trump's 2nd impeachment will backfire on the left

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

So now, according to the Right, holding someone accountable "backfires". Ok. And trump will be presenting no such evidence of election fraud.....none whatsoever

Violating the Constitution will backfire, for sure.

Wut?? How was the Constitution violated?

Having a trial for a Private Citizen is a violation, as well as having the trial presided by a political hack instead of the Chief Justice as prescribed by the Constitution.

Uh, no it's not. The Constitution authorizes the senate to try "ALL" impeachments...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

Congress can't bar private citizens from running from office. Only a conviction in a court of law can do that.

Does not apply. They could have barred the last POTUS from running for office, not a "private citizen".

Absolutely applies. Impeachment is for removal of an elected representitive, not for barring a private citizen from running for office. The Constitution is very specific in regards to impeachment.

Sure is. So was the article of impeachment, which was generated on January 13. Guess who was in office then.

I gives you a hint.

It rhymes with "Dump".

The trial didn't start until after 20 January. Guess who was a private citizen after that date.

That matters not.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

The Senate can't bar a private citizen from running for office.

Of course they can. Where'd you come up with such a ridiculous notion?

First of all, there's the 14th Amendment which in part states...

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.​

According to you, the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional even though it's in the Constitution.

Secondly, there's 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection...

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.​

Again, according to you, a private citizen could violate that law and the Senate can bar them for holding an office even though that law specifically forbids it.

What you your mind invalidates section 3 of the 14th Amendment and 18 U.S. Code § 2383....?

The 14th Amendment applies to a person who's been convicted of treason, or insurrection in a court of law. It doesn't give Congress the authority to bar a private citizen from running for office. Doing so would be a bill of attainder and bills of attainder are prohibted by The Constitution.

Now you're adding verbiage to the Constitution which isn't really there. Nothing in that amendment says anything about "private citizens." It applies to all citizens, both private and public. The only stipulation along those lines is that they had to have been a federal or state legislature or officer when rebelling or giving comfort or aid to those who do.

And in terms of the office of the president, the Congress decides whether or not to certify an election. Meaning even if Trump were to run again and win the election, no one can prevent Congress from objecting to certifying the election on those grounds, should they choose to do so.

And, they have to been convicted of treason, or insurrection in a court of law.

There are two parts of The Constitution that say so:

1. "Article I, Section 9, Clause 3", which states,
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

2. 'The 5th Amendment", which states, "
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury", except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Barring a private citizen from office isn't "due process of the law" because the law specifically states that "no bill of attainder shall be passed".

I'm not adding anything. I'm quoting the exact verbage of The Constitution.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Says who?

The Constitution.

Quote it saying a president can't be tried by the Senate once they're out of office.....

Quote the part of The Constitution that says a private citizen can be removed from office, once he's out of office.

Thanks for admitting the Republicans in the Senate lied about it being unconstitutional to try Trump as an excuse just so they could give him a pass. And thanks for admitting Trump really did incite that seditious insurrection on the Capitol as Republicans voted nay because of what they considered a technicality and not because they thought he was not guilty.

As far as the Constitution saying a private citizen can be removed from office once they're out of office...

That matters not since that is merely one of the potential punishments. That's like saying no court of law can try an individual because they can't be incarcerated because they can't be found. Which of course is absurd because such people can still be tried in abstentia. And in Trump's case, there's also another potential penalty he could have faced. According to the traitorous right, it's ok to commit a crime as long as you can't be punished for it. This also means a president can now commit any crime they want during the end of their first term and they can still run again for office. That makes sense to you, doesn't it?

But most most salient, the Constitution authorizes the Senate to try "ALL" impeachments. It doesn't state the Senate can try all impeachments except in cases where the person is now a private citizen.

Which is why it's absurd to claim it's unconstitutional to try a person who leaves office in between being impeached and being tried. Even worse, there's already precedence to hold such a trial. William Belknap thought he could avoid his looming impeachment trial by resigning from office. He couldn't as the Senate held a trial anyway.

Then you have the hurdle of the Senate voting on that very question and deciding it is constitutional to try someone impeached even if they left office.

Then you have Republicans who voted nay to that question, but then tried him anyway.

This was a case of jury nullification in which Republicans decided to give Trump a pass for no reason other than Trump is a Republican like themselves. And sadly for the country, they did so in a case where the president committed an act of treason.

The Constitution prohibits Congress from prosecuting a private citizen.

WTF?? Impeachment isn't a "prosecution." It's a political process to keep people who violate the public's trust out of office.

The Senate trial is absolutely a prosecution. Hence they use the terms "convict" and "acquit".

Impeachment is "prosecuted" in the same sense a war is "prosecuted". Neither leads to a finding of criminality. Criminal cases are also "prosecuted". Not everything "prosecuted" is a criminal trial. The fact that they use similar terms doesn't make them the same thing.

Congress doesn't have the power to bar a private citizen from running for office.

 

[DrLove]

My question is what will happen to Biden if the election fraud evidence is proven to be legitimate evidence?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Try execution by firing squad for high treason.

Oh - I'd almost forgotten about your promised "military tribunals"

 

[DrLove]

The Senate just opened the door for any past President to be impeached. Look out Obama, look out Slick Willy. But, when the military acts and throws out this whole illegitmate pile of Corporate crap (the CORPORATION has already been dissolved) and replaces it all with the ORIGINAL REPUBLIC, no precedent set by ANY corporate entity will still be in effect.

What bullshit. Obama wasn't impeached by the House prior to leaving office. And Clinton wasn't convicted for lying about a blow job. You're beliefs about what the military is going to do is tin foil material.

 

[DrLove]

That has already been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Watch the video from Lindell ... the military has that same exact data. That data is absolute undeniable proof. All that remains is for the military to act to totally defeat this insurrection.

Sorry - Not gonna sit through three hours of MrPillow. But I understand he included Rudy's drunk witness Melissa Carone. That's funny!

 

[DrLove]

Nice. I completely disagree with your batshit ideology,, and have been a registered Independent for 20+ years.. I'll go one step further into saying I believe you're completely, totally, like all-in full of shit. Always have. Always will.

But you do you, dumb ass

Cultists gonna cult!

 

[DrLove]

Scroll ahead to 8:59 for the important part of this video. I believe him, you may not, but do not call me names because I exercise my right to believe a source as credible as any other ... if you do you will find yourself IGNORED just as fast as I can push the button. This is only ONE of MANY sources that convince me he is 100% correct.

Patriot Street Fighter, Scott Mckay & Sheila Holm ~ Don't Freak, Trust The Plan!!

EVEN ATTACKS BY MEANS OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS CANNOT STOP THE TRUTH TO BE EXPOSED ================================================================================ ENGLISH https://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2021/02/scott-mckay-patriot-stre…

www.bitchute.com

Most of us are not susceptible to RW clickbait. Take it to Stormfront please!

 

[Pogo]

Says who?

The Constitution.

Quote it saying a president can't be tried by the Senate once they're out of office.....

Quote the part of The Constitution that says a private citizen can be removed from office, once he's out of office.

Thanks for admitting the Republicans in the Senate lied about it being unconstitutional to try Trump as an excuse just so they could give him a pass. And thanks for admitting Trump really did incite that seditious insurrection on the Capitol as Republicans voted nay because of what they considered a technicality and not because they thought he was not guilty.

As far as the Constitution saying a private citizen can be removed from office once they're out of office...

That matters not since that is merely one of the potential punishments. That's like saying no court of law can try an individual because they can't be incarcerated because they can't be found. Which of course is absurd because such people can still be tried in abstentia. And in Trump's case, there's also another potential penalty he could have faced. According to the traitorous right, it's ok to commit a crime as long as you can't be punished for it. This also means a president can now commit any crime they want during the end of their first term and they can still run again for office. That makes sense to you, doesn't it?

But most most salient, the Constitution authorizes the Senate to try "ALL" impeachments. It doesn't state the Senate can try all impeachments except in cases where the person is now a private citizen.

Which is why it's absurd to claim it's unconstitutional to try a person who leaves office in between being impeached and being tried. Even worse, there's already precedence to hold such a trial. William Belknap thought he could avoid his looming impeachment trial by resigning from office. He couldn't as the Senate held a trial anyway.

Then you have the hurdle of the Senate voting on that very question and deciding it is constitutional to try someone impeached even if they left office.

Then you have Republicans who voted nay to that question, but then tried him anyway.

This was a case of jury nullification in which Republicans decided to give Trump a pass for no reason other than Trump is a Republican like themselves. And sadly for the country, they did so in a case where the president committed an act of treason.

The Constitution prohibits Congress from prosecuting a private citizen.

WTF?? Impeachment isn't a "prosecution." It's a political process to keep people who violate the public's trust out of office.

The Senate trial is absolutely a prosecution. Hence they use the terms "convict" and "acquit".

Impeachment is "prosecuted" in the same sense a war is "prosecuted". Neither leads to a finding of criminality. Criminal cases are also "prosecuted". Not everything "prosecuted" is a criminal trial. The fact that they use similar terms doesn't make them the same thing.

Congress doesn't have the power to bar a private citizen from running for office.

Actually, in those circumstances --- and several others --- the Constitution already does.

Or have you forgotten the whole Birtherism Bullshit?

 

[DrLove]

So now, according to the Right, holding someone accountable "backfires". Ok. And trump will be presenting no such evidence of election fraud.....none whatsoever

Violating the Constitution will backfire, for sure.

Yep, when the military finally act, all of those will be tried for treason. RIP. It is going to be a very hard lesson.

Please use your default posting forum loon.

Conspiracy Theories

Jesse Ventura is welcome here

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[DrLove]

When they act, there will be 24/7 broadcasts on the emergency civil service platforms, in loop fashion to bring the public up to speed on what is going on. There is MUCH the public has to be educated on besides simply the proof of a fraudulent election. They are not going to let us know in advance. Why would they be so stupid as to let the enemy know exactly when they will strike?.

I don't understand your particular flavor of crazy, but I do admire your total commitment to it.

 

[DrLove]

Trump's 2nd impeachment will backfire on the left. For his defense Trump is going to present evidence of election fraud. That screws the left. We all know there is no way in hell they will get the requisite 2/3 vote to impeach him. So the left is doing nothing but screw themselves. If they allow the election fraud evidence to be broadcast, they just incriminate themselves and in effect impeach themselves ... if the media blocks that information from being aired they destroy all credibility in themselves and also prove there was election fraud because the public will see right through it and know they are hiding it because it is the truth.

Unfortunately for you, bigly font Boi, a reckoning for inciting a mob to storm the Capitol and shut down its Constitutional process has nothing even to do with "left" or "right". I'm aware you wish it did but it doesn't. It has to do with the fucking Constitution and a public official's Oath thereto. Ain't nuttin' in that Oath, or that Constitution, about "right or left".

Most simplistically lame post of the day.

Oh and speaking of uninformed there is no need for a 2/3 vote to impeach. Impeachment ALREADY HAPPENED, January 13. Go take a civics class that doesn't involve a Honda.

Babble on, thou with panties all in a bunch. I just now IGNORED you. Reason: lack of intelligence.

Sarah Palin defends Trump.

[video]

There that stupid, ignorant interviewer goes spouting the MSM media mantra that there has been no proven election fraud. BECAUSE NO COURT HAS EVEN HEARD THE FREAKING EVIDENCE OR EVER EVEN LOOKED AT IT. Believe me, the military IS looking at it and it PROVES ELECTION FRAUD. It doesn't matter a bit what the media thinks, all that matters is what the military thinks. Buckle up, a whole lot of people are going to get a triple helping of hard reality.

I can't wait.. When will the military reveal its findings?

When they act, there will be 24/7 broadcasts on the emergency civil service platforms, in loop fashion to bring the public up to speed on what is going on. There is MUCH the public has to be educated on besides simply the proof of a fraudulent election. They are not going to let us know in advance. Why would they be so stupid as to let the enemy know exactly when they will strike?.

LOLOL

Sidney Powell’s key ‘military intelligence expert’ never served - TheGrio : TheGrio

We will have the last laugh. Sydney Powell very well be prosecuting in many of the upcoming military tribunals.

Don't make a fool of yourself.

Sidney Powell's code-named election fraud witness never ...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sidney-po

...
Dec 12, 2020 · | December 12, 2020 10:40 AM Sidney Powell said her secret witness who can prove the election was stolen from President Trump was a former military intelligence official in court filings, but...

Well your link results in "Page not found", but I wouldn't believe anything published in the Washington Examiner, just another propaganda rag. The only fool here is you.

The Examiner isn't loony enough for you, so you go to Gateway Pundit and PoopChute?

Washington Examiner - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Says who?

The Constitution.

Quote it saying a president can't be tried by the Senate once they're out of office.....

Quote the part of The Constitution that says a private citizen can be removed from office, once he's out of office.

Thanks for admitting the Republicans in the Senate lied about it being unconstitutional to try Trump as an excuse just so they could give him a pass. And thanks for admitting Trump really did incite that seditious insurrection on the Capitol as Republicans voted nay because of what they considered a technicality and not because they thought he was not guilty.

As far as the Constitution saying a private citizen can be removed from office once they're out of office...

That matters not since that is merely one of the potential punishments. That's like saying no court of law can try an individual because they can't be incarcerated because they can't be found. Which of course is absurd because such people can still be tried in abstentia. And in Trump's case, there's also another potential penalty he could have faced. According to the traitorous right, it's ok to commit a crime as long as you can't be punished for it. This also means a president can now commit any crime they want during the end of their first term and they can still run again for office. That makes sense to you, doesn't it?

But most most salient, the Constitution authorizes the Senate to try "ALL" impeachments. It doesn't state the Senate can try all impeachments except in cases where the person is now a private citizen.

Which is why it's absurd to claim it's unconstitutional to try a person who leaves office in between being impeached and being tried. Even worse, there's already precedence to hold such a trial. William Belknap thought he could avoid his looming impeachment trial by resigning from office. He couldn't as the Senate held a trial anyway.

Then you have the hurdle of the Senate voting on that very question and deciding it is constitutional to try someone impeached even if they left office.

Then you have Republicans who voted nay to that question, but then tried him anyway.

This was a case of jury nullification in which Republicans decided to give Trump a pass for no reason other than Trump is a Republican like themselves. And sadly for the country, they did so in a case where the president committed an act of treason.

The Constitution prohibits Congress from prosecuting a private citizen.

WTF?? Impeachment isn't a "prosecution." It's a political process to keep people who violate the public's trust out of office.

The Senate trial is absolutely a prosecution. Hence they use the terms "convict" and "acquit".

Impeachment is "prosecuted" in the same sense a war is "prosecuted". Neither leads to a finding of criminality. Criminal cases are also "prosecuted". Not everything "prosecuted" is a criminal trial. The fact that they use similar terms doesn't make them the same thing.

Congress doesn't have the power to bar a private citizen from running for office.

Actually, in those circumstances --- and several others --- the Constitution already does.

Or have you forgotten the whole Birtherism Bullshit?

The Constitution does it. Not Congress. See the difference?

 

[Pogo]

Says who?

The Constitution.

Quote it saying a president can't be tried by the Senate once they're out of office.....

Quote the part of The Constitution that says a private citizen can be removed from office, once he's out of office.

Thanks for admitting the Republicans in the Senate lied about it being unconstitutional to try Trump as an excuse just so they could give him a pass. And thanks for admitting Trump really did incite that seditious insurrection on the Capitol as Republicans voted nay because of what they considered a technicality and not because they thought he was not guilty.

As far as the Constitution saying a private citizen can be removed from office once they're out of office...

That matters not since that is merely one of the potential punishments. That's like saying no court of law can try an individual because they can't be incarcerated because they can't be found. Which of course is absurd because such people can still be tried in abstentia. And in Trump's case, there's also another potential penalty he could have faced. According to the traitorous right, it's ok to commit a crime as long as you can't be punished for it. This also means a president can now commit any crime they want during the end of their first term and they can still run again for office. That makes sense to you, doesn't it?

But most most salient, the Constitution authorizes the Senate to try "ALL" impeachments. It doesn't state the Senate can try all impeachments except in cases where the person is now a private citizen.

Which is why it's absurd to claim it's unconstitutional to try a person who leaves office in between being impeached and being tried. Even worse, there's already precedence to hold such a trial. William Belknap thought he could avoid his looming impeachment trial by resigning from office. He couldn't as the Senate held a trial anyway.

Then you have the hurdle of the Senate voting on that very question and deciding it is constitutional to try someone impeached even if they left office.

Then you have Republicans who voted nay to that question, but then tried him anyway.

This was a case of jury nullification in which Republicans decided to give Trump a pass for no reason other than Trump is a Republican like themselves. And sadly for the country, they did so in a case where the president committed an act of treason.

The Constitution prohibits Congress from prosecuting a private citizen.

WTF?? Impeachment isn't a "prosecution." It's a political process to keep people who violate the public's trust out of office.

The Senate trial is absolutely a prosecution. Hence they use the terms "convict" and "acquit".

Impeachment is "prosecuted" in the same sense a war is "prosecuted". Neither leads to a finding of criminality. Criminal cases are also "prosecuted". Not everything "prosecuted" is a criminal trial. The fact that they use similar terms doesn't make them the same thing.

Congress doesn't have the power to bar a private citizen from running for office.

Actually, in those circumstances --- and several others --- the Constitution already does.

Or have you forgotten the whole Birtherism Bullshit?

The Constitution does it. Not Congress. See the difference?

BOTH are involved, one being a functioning division of government and the other being the framework on which it operates.

Where the Constitution provides for an impeachment, the Congress executes it. The latter derives its power from the former The Congress cannot write the framework and the Constitution cannot execute the function. The Constitution cannot "do" anything.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Says who?

The Constitution.

Quote it saying a president can't be tried by the Senate once they're out of office.....

Quote the part of The Constitution that says a private citizen can be removed from office, once he's out of office.

Thanks for admitting the Republicans in the Senate lied about it being unconstitutional to try Trump as an excuse just so they could give him a pass. And thanks for admitting Trump really did incite that seditious insurrection on the Capitol as Republicans voted nay because of what they considered a technicality and not because they thought he was not guilty.

As far as the Constitution saying a private citizen can be removed from office once they're out of office...

That matters not since that is merely one of the potential punishments. That's like saying no court of law can try an individual because they can't be incarcerated because they can't be found. Which of course is absurd because such people can still be tried in abstentia. And in Trump's case, there's also another potential penalty he could have faced. According to the traitorous right, it's ok to commit a crime as long as you can't be punished for it. This also means a president can now commit any crime they want during the end of their first term and they can still run again for office. That makes sense to you, doesn't it?

But most most salient, the Constitution authorizes the Senate to try "ALL" impeachments. It doesn't state the Senate can try all impeachments except in cases where the person is now a private citizen.

Which is why it's absurd to claim it's unconstitutional to try a person who leaves office in between being impeached and being tried. Even worse, there's already precedence to hold such a trial. William Belknap thought he could avoid his looming impeachment trial by resigning from office. He couldn't as the Senate held a trial anyway.

Then you have the hurdle of the Senate voting on that very question and deciding it is constitutional to try someone impeached even if they left office.

Then you have Republicans who voted nay to that question, but then tried him anyway.

This was a case of jury nullification in which Republicans decided to give Trump a pass for no reason other than Trump is a Republican like themselves. And sadly for the country, they did so in a case where the president committed an act of treason.

The Constitution prohibits Congress from prosecuting a private citizen.

WTF?? Impeachment isn't a "prosecution." It's a political process to keep people who violate the public's trust out of office.

The Senate trial is absolutely a prosecution. Hence they use the terms "convict" and "acquit".

Impeachment is "prosecuted" in the same sense a war is "prosecuted". Neither leads to a finding of criminality. Criminal cases are also "prosecuted". Not everything "prosecuted" is a criminal trial. The fact that they use similar terms doesn't make them the same thing.

Congress doesn't have the power to bar a private citizen from running for office.

Actually, in those circumstances --- and several others --- the Constitution already does.

Or have you forgotten the whole Birtherism Bullshit?

The Constitution does it. Not Congress. See the difference?

BOTH are involved, one being a functioning division of government and the other being the framework on which it operates.

Where the Constitution provides for an impeachment, the Congress executes it. The latter derives its power from the former The Congress cannot write the framework and the Constitution cannot execute the function. The Constitution cannot "do" anything.

The Constitution doesn't allow Congress to bar a private citizen from running for office, however. The Constitution does execute a function: it prohibits and allows actions by the government. One of the actions it prohibits is Congress barring a private citizen from running for office.

 

[Pogo]

Says who?

The Constitution.

Quote it saying a president can't be tried by the Senate once they're out of office.....

Quote the part of The Constitution that says a private citizen can be removed from office, once he's out of office.

Thanks for admitting the Republicans in the Senate lied about it being unconstitutional to try Trump as an excuse just so they could give him a pass. And thanks for admitting Trump really did incite that seditious insurrection on the Capitol as Republicans voted nay because of what they considered a technicality and not because they thought he was not guilty.

As far as the Constitution saying a private citizen can be removed from office once they're out of office...

That matters not since that is merely one of the potential punishments. That's like saying no court of law can try an individual because they can't be incarcerated because they can't be found. Which of course is absurd because such people can still be tried in abstentia. And in Trump's case, there's also another potential penalty he could have faced. According to the traitorous right, it's ok to commit a crime as long as you can't be punished for it. This also means a president can now commit any crime they want during the end of their first term and they can still run again for office. That makes sense to you, doesn't it?

But most most salient, the Constitution authorizes the Senate to try "ALL" impeachments. It doesn't state the Senate can try all impeachments except in cases where the person is now a private citizen.

Which is why it's absurd to claim it's unconstitutional to try a person who leaves office in between being impeached and being tried. Even worse, there's already precedence to hold such a trial. William Belknap thought he could avoid his looming impeachment trial by resigning from office. He couldn't as the Senate held a trial anyway.

Then you have the hurdle of the Senate voting on that very question and deciding it is constitutional to try someone impeached even if they left office.

Then you have Republicans who voted nay to that question, but then tried him anyway.

This was a case of jury nullification in which Republicans decided to give Trump a pass for no reason other than Trump is a Republican like themselves. And sadly for the country, they did so in a case where the president committed an act of treason.

The Constitution prohibits Congress from prosecuting a private citizen.

WTF?? Impeachment isn't a "prosecution." It's a political process to keep people who violate the public's trust out of office.

The Senate trial is absolutely a prosecution. Hence they use the terms "convict" and "acquit".

Impeachment is "prosecuted" in the same sense a war is "prosecuted". Neither leads to a finding of criminality. Criminal cases are also "prosecuted". Not everything "prosecuted" is a criminal trial. The fact that they use similar terms doesn't make them the same thing.

Congress doesn't have the power to bar a private citizen from running for office.

Actually, in those circumstances --- and several others --- the Constitution already does.

Or have you forgotten the whole Birtherism Bullshit?

The Constitution does it. Not Congress. See the difference?

BOTH are involved, one being a functioning division of government and the other being the framework on which it operates.

Where the Constitution provides for an impeachment, the Congress executes it. The latter derives its power from the former The Congress cannot write the framework and the Constitution cannot execute the function. The Constitution cannot "do" anything.

The Constitution doesn't allow Congress to bar a private citizen from running for office, however. The Constitution does execute a function: it prohibits and allows actions by the government. One of the actions it prohibits is Congress barring a private citizen from running for office.

Anyone can RUN for any office they want. They just can't HOLD ONE in specific circumstances.

I'm sure this must have been posted before but read it again. Amendment XIV Section 3:

>> No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. <<​

This is specifically barring anyone who has taken the Oath and violated it. I've never held a public office but if I were to go spend the afternoon engaging in insurrection against the US or give aid/comfort to those who do ---- I would be barred from ever holding one. Unless two-thirds of the Congress were to give me a pass.

 

[Rumpboogie]

The Senate just opened the door for any past President to be impeached. Look out Obama, look out Slick Willy. But, when the military acts and throws out this whole illegitmate pile of Corporate crap (the CORPORATION has already been dissolved) and replaces it all with the ORIGINAL REPUBLIC, no precedent set by ANY corporate entity will still be in effect.

What bullshit. Obama wasn't impeached by the House prior to leaving office. And Clinton wasn't convicted for lying about a blow job. You're beliefs about what the military is going to do is tin foil material.

Looks to me like you're going to be eating a lot of "tin foil".
Due to the Democrat's corrupt insanity and the presedents set by Pelosi and the Senate, any past president can be impeached just for wearing the wrong color of socks, no crime needed, just make one up.

 

[Rumpboogie]

Trump's 2nd impeachment will backfire on the left. For his defense Trump is going to present evidence of election fraud. That screws the left. We all know there is no way in hell they will get the requisite 2/3 vote to impeach him. So the left is doing nothing but screw themselves. If they allow the election fraud evidence to be broadcast, they just incriminate themselves and in effect impeach themselves ... if the media blocks that information from being aired they destroy all credibility in themselves and also prove there was election fraud because the public will see right through it and know they are hiding it because it is the truth.

Unfortunately for you, bigly font Boi, a reckoning for inciting a mob to storm the Capitol and shut down its Constitutional process has nothing even to do with "left" or "right". I'm aware you wish it did but it doesn't. It has to do with the fucking Constitution and a public official's Oath thereto. Ain't nuttin' in that Oath, or that Constitution, about "right or left".

Most simplistically lame post of the day.

Oh and speaking of uninformed there is no need for a 2/3 vote to impeach. Impeachment ALREADY HAPPENED, January 13. Go take a civics class that doesn't involve a Honda.

Babble on, thou with panties all in a bunch. I just now IGNORED you. Reason: lack of intelligence.

Sarah Palin defends Trump.

[video]

There that stupid, ignorant interviewer goes spouting the MSM media mantra that there has been no proven election fraud. BECAUSE NO COURT HAS EVEN HEARD THE FREAKING EVIDENCE OR EVER EVEN LOOKED AT IT. Believe me, the military IS looking at it and it PROVES ELECTION FRAUD. It doesn't matter a bit what the media thinks, all that matters is what the military thinks. Buckle up, a whole lot of people are going to get a triple helping of hard reality.

I can't wait.. When will the military reveal its findings?

When they act, there will be 24/7 broadcasts on the emergency civil service platforms, in loop fashion to bring the public up to speed on what is going on. There is MUCH the public has to be educated on besides simply the proof of a fraudulent election. They are not going to let us know in advance. Why would they be so stupid as to let the enemy know exactly when they will strike?.

LOLOL

Sidney Powell’s key ‘military intelligence expert’ never served - TheGrio : TheGrio

We will have the last laugh. Sydney Powell very well be prosecuting in many of the upcoming military tribunals.

Don't make a fool of yourself.

Sidney Powell's code-named election fraud witness never ...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sidney-po

...
Dec 12, 2020 · | December 12, 2020 10:40 AM Sidney Powell said her secret witness who can prove the election was stolen from President Trump was a former military intelligence official in court filings, but...

Well your link results in "Page not found", but I wouldn't believe anything published in the Washington Examiner, just another propaganda rag. The only fool here is you.

The Examiner isn't loony enough for you, so you go to Gateway Pundit and PoopChute?

Washington Examiner - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Look up your own poop chute.

 

[Faun]

Says who?

The Constitution.

Quote it saying a president can't be tried by the Senate once they're out of office.....

Quote the part of The Constitution that says a private citizen can be removed from office, once he's out of office.

Thanks for admitting the Republicans in the Senate lied about it being unconstitutional to try Trump as an excuse just so they could give him a pass. And thanks for admitting Trump really did incite that seditious insurrection on the Capitol as Republicans voted nay because of what they considered a technicality and not because they thought he was not guilty.

As far as the Constitution saying a private citizen can be removed from office once they're out of office...

That matters not since that is merely one of the potential punishments. That's like saying no court of law can try an individual because they can't be incarcerated because they can't be found. Which of course is absurd because such people can still be tried in abstentia. And in Trump's case, there's also another potential penalty he could have faced. According to the traitorous right, it's ok to commit a crime as long as you can't be punished for it. This also means a president can now commit any crime they want during the end of their first term and they can still run again for office. That makes sense to you, doesn't it?

But most most salient, the Constitution authorizes the Senate to try "ALL" impeachments. It doesn't state the Senate can try all impeachments except in cases where the person is now a private citizen.

Which is why it's absurd to claim it's unconstitutional to try a person who leaves office in between being impeached and being tried. Even worse, there's already precedence to hold such a trial. William Belknap thought he could avoid his looming impeachment trial by resigning from office. He couldn't as the Senate held a trial anyway.

Then you have the hurdle of the Senate voting on that very question and deciding it is constitutional to try someone impeached even if they left office.

Then you have Republicans who voted nay to that question, but then tried him anyway.

This was a case of jury nullification in which Republicans decided to give Trump a pass for no reason other than Trump is a Republican like themselves. And sadly for the country, they did so in a case where the president committed an act of treason.

The Constitution prohibits Congress from prosecuting a private citizen.

WTF?? Impeachment isn't a "prosecution." It's a political process to keep people who violate the public's trust out of office.

The Senate trial is absolutely a prosecution. Hence they use the terms "convict" and "acquit".

prosecution

1: the act or process of prosecuting
specifically : the institution and continuance of a criminal suit involving the process of pursuing formal charges against an offender to final judgment

2: the party by whom criminal proceedings are instituted or conducted

3 obsolete : PURSUIT

prosecute

transitive verb
1: to follow to the end : pursue until finished
// prosecute a war

2: to engage in : PERFORM

3a: to bring legal action against for redress or punishment of a crime or violation of law
b: to institute legal proceedings with reference to
// prosecute a claim

intransitive verb
: to institute and carry on a legal suit or prosecution

 

[Faun]

So now, according to the Right, holding someone accountable "backfires". Ok. And trump will be presenting no such evidence of election fraud.....none whatsoever

Violating the Constitution will backfire, for sure.

Wut?? How was the Constitution violated?

Having a trial for a Private Citizen is a violation, as well as having the trial presided by a political hack instead of the Chief Justice as prescribed by the Constitution.

Uh, no it's not. The Constitution authorizes the senate to try "ALL" impeachments...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

Congress can't bar private citizens from running from office. Only a conviction in a court of law can do that.

Does not apply. They could have barred the last POTUS from running for office, not a "private citizen".

Absolutely applies. Impeachment is for removal of an elected representitive, not for barring a private citizen from running for office. The Constitution is very specific in regards to impeachment.

Sure is. So was the article of impeachment, which was generated on January 13. Guess who was in office then.

I gives you a hint.

It rhymes with "Dump".

The trial didn't start until after 20 January. Guess who was a private citizen after that date.

That matters not.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

The Senate can't bar a private citizen from running for office.

Of course they can. Where'd you come up with such a ridiculous notion?

First of all, there's the 14th Amendment which in part states...

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.​

According to you, the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional even though it's in the Constitution.

Secondly, there's 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection...

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.​

Again, according to you, a private citizen could violate that law and the Senate can bar them for holding an office even though that law specifically forbids it.

What you your mind invalidates section 3 of the 14th Amendment and 18 U.S. Code § 2383....?

The 14th Amendment applies to a person who's been convicted of treason, or insurrection in a court of law. It doesn't give Congress the authority to bar a private citizen from running for office. Doing so would be a bill of attainder and bills of attainder are prohibted by The Constitution.

Now you're adding verbiage to the Constitution which isn't really there. Nothing in that amendment says anything about "private citizens." It applies to all citizens, both private and public. The only stipulation along those lines is that they had to have been a federal or state legislature or officer when rebelling or giving comfort or aid to those who do.

And in terms of the office of the president, the Congress decides whether or not to certify an election. Meaning even if Trump were to run again and win the election, no one can prevent Congress from objecting to certifying the election on those grounds, should they choose to do so.

And, they have to been convicted of treason, or insurrection in a court of law.

There are two parts of The Constitution that say so:

1. "Article I, Section 9, Clause 3", which states,
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

2. 'The 5th Amendment", which states, "
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury", except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Barring a private citizen from office isn't "due process of the law" because the law specifically states that "no bill of attainder shall be passed".

I'm not adding anything. I'm quoting the exact verbage of The Constitution.

Of course you're adding. Nothing in there says anything about a private citizen. You added that. And you're talking about crimes whereas I'm talking about political process. Trump hasn't been charged with any crimes. Yet. So the 5th Amendment doesn't apply. Yet. Again, in terms of the office of president, since that's this discussion, nothing can prevent Congress from denying Trump from holding that office again should they decide the the 14th Amendment applies in his case.

 

[Faun]

Says who?

The Constitution.

Quote it saying a president can't be tried by the Senate once they're out of office.....

Quote the part of The Constitution that says a private citizen can be removed from office, once he's out of office.

Thanks for admitting the Republicans in the Senate lied about it being unconstitutional to try Trump as an excuse just so they could give him a pass. And thanks for admitting Trump really did incite that seditious insurrection on the Capitol as Republicans voted nay because of what they considered a technicality and not because they thought he was not guilty.

As far as the Constitution saying a private citizen can be removed from office once they're out of office...

That matters not since that is merely one of the potential punishments. That's like saying no court of law can try an individual because they can't be incarcerated because they can't be found. Which of course is absurd because such people can still be tried in abstentia. And in Trump's case, there's also another potential penalty he could have faced. According to the traitorous right, it's ok to commit a crime as long as you can't be punished for it. This also means a president can now commit any crime they want during the end of their first term and they can still run again for office. That makes sense to you, doesn't it?

But most most salient, the Constitution authorizes the Senate to try "ALL" impeachments. It doesn't state the Senate can try all impeachments except in cases where the person is now a private citizen.

Which is why it's absurd to claim it's unconstitutional to try a person who leaves office in between being impeached and being tried. Even worse, there's already precedence to hold such a trial. William Belknap thought he could avoid his looming impeachment trial by resigning from office. He couldn't as the Senate held a trial anyway.

Then you have the hurdle of the Senate voting on that very question and deciding it is constitutional to try someone impeached even if they left office.

Then you have Republicans who voted nay to that question, but then tried him anyway.

This was a case of jury nullification in which Republicans decided to give Trump a pass for no reason other than Trump is a Republican like themselves. And sadly for the country, they did so in a case where the president committed an act of treason.

The Constitution prohibits Congress from prosecuting a private citizen.

WTF?? Impeachment isn't a "prosecution." It's a political process to keep people who violate the public's trust out of office.

The Senate trial is absolutely a prosecution. Hence they use the terms "convict" and "acquit".

Impeachment is "prosecuted" in the same sense a war is "prosecuted". Neither leads to a finding of criminality. Criminal cases are also "prosecuted". Not everything "prosecuted" is a criminal trial. The fact that they use similar terms doesn't make them the same thing.

Congress doesn't have the power to bar a private citizen from running for office.

That's true. Anybody can run for office. The Constitution only establishes who can hold federal offices.