Trump's 2nd impeachment will backfire on the left

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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.

Great, another conspiracy nut job. The Republican part is on trial in the Senate. If these Senators look past the lies, deceit, the hate speeches, the threats, and infantile behavior that defines Trump, then they will go down on the wrong side of history. Especially the weakest worms like Graham, Hawley, and Ted "the Weasel" Cruz. The Democrats were left for dead about a year ago, but then the bumbling bloated orangeball, blundered Covid and lied about election fraud which gave the Dems new life. The only reason Trump didn't die from Covid is because God didn't want him.

Says the “ rookie”.

Hey, platinum dizzy one, our own Lady Blah Blah, HE WAS ACQUITTED. The stupid left hung themselves before any election fraud stuff even needed to be brought forth. I was right, HE WAS NOT IMPEACHED.
View attachment 457416

Now stay tuned for coming attractions.

THE MILITARY IS IN CHARGE JOE

🔥 Get The Best Portable Heater On The Market 🔥 http://www.thecoldkiller.com Get Up to 50% OFF By Clicking The Link ABOVE ^^^^ As high strangeness continues in our nation's capitol, researcher and radio host Brent Johnson returns to SGT Report t…

www.bitchute.com

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, acquittal doesn't wash away the stain of impeachment. He was still impeached. Twice.

Impeachment is meaningless without conviction. It's known as "innocent until proven guilty" and it's what our system is based upon.

 

[Pogo]

Says who?

The Constitution.

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

Actually where it deals with impeachment trial, the Constitution refers to the defendant as a "person", not a "President".

You mean this part?...

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Nope. I specifically said the impeachment trial. What you have here is the impeachment.

No I mean such as Article 1 Section 3:

>> The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

"Person" and "Party" (as in person, not political party --- they were still capitalizing nouns in the 18th century)

Now since this section of the Constitution is specifically referring to a Presidential impeachment, they could have said "No President shall be convicted..." and "the President convicted shall nevertheless....".
They did not. They said "Person" and "Party".

They were also well aware of Britain's impeachment of Warren Hastings going on at the same time the Constitution was being written --- Hastings being impeached two years after his resignation from office. From the Congressional Research Service:

>> As an initial matter, a number of scholars have argued that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention appeared to accept that former officials may be impeached for conduct that occurred while in office. This understanding also tracks with certain state constitutions predating the Constitution, which allowed for impeachments of officials after they left office. It also accords with the British impeachment of Warren Hastings two years after his resignation as the governor general of Bengal. The impeachment occurred during the Convention debates and was noted expressly by the delegates without expressing disapproval of the timing. While the Framers were aware of the British and state practices of impeaching former officials, scholars have noted that they chose not to explicitly rule out impeachment after an official leaves office. <<​

 

[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.....

Actually where it deals with impeachment trial, the Constitution refers to the defendant as a "person", not a "President".

You mean this part?...

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Nope. I specifically said the impeachment trial. What you have here is the impeachment.

No I mean such as Article 1 Section 3:

>> The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

"Person" and "Party" (as in person, not political party --- they were still capitalizing nouns in the 18th century)

Now since this section of the Constitution is specifically referring to a Presidential impeachment, they could have said "N President shall be convicted..." and "the President convicted shall nevertheless....". They did not. They said "Person" and "Party".

They were also well aware of Britain's impeachment of Warren Hastings going on at the same time the Constitution was being written --- two years after his resignation from office. From the Congressional Research Service:

>> As an initial matter, a number of scholars have argued that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention appeared to accept that former officials may be impeached for conduct that occurred while in office. This understanding also tracks with certain state constitutions predating the Constitution, which allowed for impeachments of officials after they left office. It also accords with the British impeachment of Warren Hastings two years after his resignation as the governor general of Bengal. The impeachment occurred during the Convention debates and was noted expressly by the delegates without expressing disapproval of the timing. While the Framers were aware of the British and state practices of impeaching former officials, scholars have noted that they chose not to explicitly rule out impeachment after an official leaves office. <<​

This is from Article 2 and is applicable:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Nothing there about private citizens being convicted by the Senate and barred from running for office.

 

[Pogo]

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. What's next? Impeachment and Senate convictions of citizens before they're elected?

Of course they can. Considering that the remedies attached to impeachment conviction are (a) removal from office and (b) restriction from holding office in the future, that's exactly what it's doing. First you remove the official from office, at which moment he's a private citizen --- THEN you bar him from future office.

You couldn't do it in the reverse order, because then you'd be barring an official from being an official ---- WHILE HE IS AN OFFICIAL.

 

[Pogo]

Says who?

The Constitution.

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

Actually where it deals with impeachment trial, the Constitution refers to the defendant as a "person", not a "President".

You mean this part?...

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Nope. I specifically said the impeachment trial. What you have here is the impeachment.

No I mean such as Article 1 Section 3:

>> The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

"Person" and "Party" (as in person, not political party --- they were still capitalizing nouns in the 18th century)

Now since this section of the Constitution is specifically referring to a Presidential impeachment, they could have said "N President shall be convicted..." and "the President convicted shall nevertheless....". They did not. They said "Person" and "Party".

They were also well aware of Britain's impeachment of Warren Hastings going on at the same time the Constitution was being written --- two years after his resignation from office. From the Congressional Research Service:

>> As an initial matter, a number of scholars have argued that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention appeared to accept that former officials may be impeached for conduct that occurred while in office. This understanding also tracks with certain state constitutions predating the Constitution, which allowed for impeachments of officials after they left office. It also accords with the British impeachment of Warren Hastings two years after his resignation as the governor general of Bengal. The impeachment occurred during the Convention debates and was noted expressly by the delegates without expressing disapproval of the timing. While the Framers were aware of the British and state practices of impeaching former officials, scholars have noted that they chose not to explicitly rule out impeachment after an official leaves office. <<​

This is from Article 2 and is applicable:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Nothing there about private citizens being convicted by the Senate and barred from running for office.

Correct. And once they're removed, they're no longer in office; they're private citizens.

 

[Rumpboogie]

Boy, does this thread ever have the lefties' pantys in a wad.
I hope they all learn to walk bow-legged because that's the only help they are going to get.
This is just like the impeachment sham ... they were all adamant that Trump was going down, then when Pelosi got it rammed up her ass they fell dead silent ... excep a very few totally blind ones like Faun.
On this military ass-ramming, when it happens their silence is going to be deafening.
And Trump is going to be laughing his ass off.

 

[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.

 

[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....?

 

[Faun]

Says who?

The Constitution.

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

Actually where it deals with impeachment trial, the Constitution refers to the defendant as a "person", not a "President".

You mean this part?...

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Nope. I specifically said the impeachment trial. What you have here is the impeachment.

No I mean such as Article 1 Section 3:

>> The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

"Person" and "Party" (as in person, not political party --- they were still capitalizing nouns in the 18th century)

Now since this section of the Constitution is specifically referring to a Presidential impeachment, they could have said "N President shall be convicted..." and "the President convicted shall nevertheless....". They did not. They said "Person" and "Party".

They were also well aware of Britain's impeachment of Warren Hastings going on at the same time the Constitution was being written --- two years after his resignation from office. From the Congressional Research Service:

>> As an initial matter, a number of scholars have argued that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention appeared to accept that former officials may be impeached for conduct that occurred while in office. This understanding also tracks with certain state constitutions predating the Constitution, which allowed for impeachments of officials after they left office. It also accords with the British impeachment of Warren Hastings two years after his resignation as the governor general of Bengal. The impeachment occurred during the Convention debates and was noted expressly by the delegates without expressing disapproval of the timing. While the Framers were aware of the British and state practices of impeaching former officials, scholars have noted that they chose not to explicitly rule out impeachment after an official leaves office. <<​

This is from Article 2 and is applicable:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Nothing there about private citizens being convicted by the Senate and barred from running for office.

Where does that state they can't be tried? According to you, a president can incite an insurrection against our nation which threatens the lives of no less than the vice president and the speaker of the House ... and then hold that same office again to do it all over again at some point in the future.

That makes sense to you? That's what you think the Founders had in mind when they drafted the Constitution? Take Trump out of the equation and replace him with Obama inciting an attack against his own government before answering this.

 

[Faun]

Boy, does this thread ever have the lefties' pantys in a wad.
I hope they all learn to walk bow-legged because that's the only help they are going to get.
This is just like the impeachment sham ... they were all adamant that Trump was going down, then when Pelosi got it rammed up her ass they fell dead silent ... excep a very few totally blind ones like Faun.
On this military ass-ramming, when it happens their silence is going to be deafening.
And Trump is going to be laughing his ass off.
View attachment 457684
View attachment 457686

Thanks for letting me know I get under your skin.

Oh, and how do you know what I'm talking about if you really did have me on ignore? Now I know you're really reading my posts and using the lie that you're ignoring me just so you can cowardly avoid replying to the beatdowns I've been handing you. What a pussy you are, huh? And no, the military is not gonna come rescue your cowardly ass.

 

[Pogo]

Boy, does this thread ever have the lefties' pantys in a wad.
I hope they all learn to walk bow-legged because that's the only help they are going to get.
This is just like the impeachment sham ... they were all adamant that Trump was going down, then when Pelosi got it rammed up her ass they fell dead silent ... excep a very few totally blind ones like Faun.
On this military ass-ramming, when it happens their silence is going to be deafening.
And Trump is going to be laughing his ass off.
View attachment 457684
View attachment 457686

Thanks for letting me know I get under your skin.

Oh, and how do you know what I'm talking about if you really did have me on ignore? Now I know you're really reading my posts and using the lie that you're ignoring me just so you can cowardly avoid replying to the beatdowns I've been handing you. What a pussy you are, huh? And no, the military is not gonna come rescue your cowardly ass.

It's a special-kind-of-irony-day when some wag posting in great big massive HEY LOOKA ME fonts wants to designate somebody else has having said panties in a wad. Self-awareness must be too expensive.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.....

Actually where it deals with impeachment trial, the Constitution refers to the defendant as a "person", not a "President".

You mean this part?...

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Nope. I specifically said the impeachment trial. What you have here is the impeachment.

No I mean such as Article 1 Section 3:

>> The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

"Person" and "Party" (as in person, not political party --- they were still capitalizing nouns in the 18th century)

Now since this section of the Constitution is specifically referring to a Presidential impeachment, they could have said "N President shall be convicted..." and "the President convicted shall nevertheless....". They did not. They said "Person" and "Party".

They were also well aware of Britain's impeachment of Warren Hastings going on at the same time the Constitution was being written --- two years after his resignation from office. From the Congressional Research Service:

>> As an initial matter, a number of scholars have argued that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention appeared to accept that former officials may be impeached for conduct that occurred while in office. This understanding also tracks with certain state constitutions predating the Constitution, which allowed for impeachments of officials after they left office. It also accords with the British impeachment of Warren Hastings two years after his resignation as the governor general of Bengal. The impeachment occurred during the Convention debates and was noted expressly by the delegates without expressing disapproval of the timing. While the Framers were aware of the British and state practices of impeaching former officials, scholars have noted that they chose not to explicitly rule out impeachment after an official leaves office. <<​

This is from Article 2 and is applicable:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Nothing there about private citizens being convicted by the Senate and barred from running for office.

Where does that state they can't be tried? According to you, a president can incite an insurrection against our nation which threatens the lives of no less than the vice president and the speaker of the House ... and then hold that same office again to do it all over again at some point in the future.

That makes sense to you? That's what you think the Founders had in mind when they drafted the Constitution? Take Trump out of the equation and replace him with Obama inciting an attack against his own government before answering this.

It states it right here...

"Article I, Section 9, Clause 3

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

 

[Pogo]

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.

Correct --- impeachment doesn't do that. Criminal law does that. Two different things.

Impeachment (again) is not for establishing a violation of law, but for establishing a violation of office.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Faun]

Says who?

The Constitution.

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

Actually where it deals with impeachment trial, the Constitution refers to the defendant as a "person", not a "President".

You mean this part?...

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Nope. I specifically said the impeachment trial. What you have here is the impeachment.

No I mean such as Article 1 Section 3:

>> The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

"Person" and "Party" (as in person, not political party --- they were still capitalizing nouns in the 18th century)

Now since this section of the Constitution is specifically referring to a Presidential impeachment, they could have said "N President shall be convicted..." and "the President convicted shall nevertheless....". They did not. They said "Person" and "Party".

They were also well aware of Britain's impeachment of Warren Hastings going on at the same time the Constitution was being written --- two years after his resignation from office. From the Congressional Research Service:

>> As an initial matter, a number of scholars have argued that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention appeared to accept that former officials may be impeached for conduct that occurred while in office. This understanding also tracks with certain state constitutions predating the Constitution, which allowed for impeachments of officials after they left office. It also accords with the British impeachment of Warren Hastings two years after his resignation as the governor general of Bengal. The impeachment occurred during the Convention debates and was noted expressly by the delegates without expressing disapproval of the timing. While the Framers were aware of the British and state practices of impeaching former officials, scholars have noted that they chose not to explicitly rule out impeachment after an official leaves office. <<​

This is from Article 2 and is applicable:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Nothing there about private citizens being convicted by the Senate and barred from running for office.

Where does that state they can't be tried? According to you, a president can incite an insurrection against our nation which threatens the lives of no less than the vice president and the speaker of the House ... and then hold that same office again to do it all over again at some point in the future.

That makes sense to you? That's what you think the Founders had in mind when they drafted the Constitution? Take Trump out of the equation and replace him with Obama inciting an attack against his own government before answering this.

It states it right here...

"Article I, Section 9, Clause 3

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Non-sequitur.

I didn't ask you can Congress pass a bill of attainer. I asked you where the Constitution declares an impeached individual, even if they become a private citizen prior to trial, can't be tried in the Senate. Again, the Constitution gives the Senate the authority to try "ALL" impeachments. It offers no exceptions.

And again, there's precedence that they can be tried as evidenced by the Senate trial of William Belknap. And now there's more precedence as evidenced by the Senate trial of Donald Trump.

 

[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".

 

[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.