CBO: "Most scholars" conclude that the Senate CAN try a former President

[Slade3200]

After Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted in an interview this 2nd Impeachment is intended to eliminate former President Trump as a political threat to the Democratic party in 2024 and beyond, most scholars and people understand this 2nd Impeachment is a tax payer-funded abuse of the Constitution being conducted only to benefit the Democrat Party and has nothing to do with benefitting the rest of America.

Yes, that’s obviously part of it. The other part is the fact that Trump had been acting completely inappropriately and stoked outrage about a stolen election based on lies which resulted in a mob storming the capital. Sane people understand there was fault there and there should be accountability. I don’t agree with impeachment but I do think there should be accountability

 

[easyt65]

Obama never said he didnt have legal right for DACA.

Stop twisting the argument into something not said.

Barry declared publicly he did not have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to alter Immigration law - DACA.

DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted

President Donald Trump has caught a lot of heat for rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a six-month wind-down. Few people seem aware that he's ending an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal...

www.heritage.org

....but as you know, any law / edict that is UN-Constitutional is NOT legal.

Obama didn’t say that he lacked the right to act. In contrast, he emphasized his authority to set priorities until Congress approved the DREAM Act, a measure that would formalize the legal status of this group of immigrants.

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama said June 15, 2012. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."

The man by-passed Congress to affect Immigration Law and create a new process for Immigration, something that can only be done Constitutionally by the Legislature.

Try to spin it any way you want 100 times over, the SOB admitted he did not have the Constitutional authority to do what he did and then did so.

By Joe Biden's own remarks about EOs, both HE and BARRY were / are 'dictators'.

 

[Slade3200]

Guess those "scholars" cant read English.

Harley, are you seriously in the camp that’s saying the senate can’t try Trump cause he is a private citizen?

They tried to do this to a SoS one time and it ended badly. The Senate voted to not convict because the Constitution doesnt give them the power to convict a private citizen.
Plus, i can read english.

Can I see the case for that? You do know this has been done to politicians in the past. Right?

 

[Slade3200]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

1. The ONLY object of impeachment is to remove a sitting president or "civil Officer" from office, read the Constitution. Article II, Section 4:
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.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

I don’t know what you think you are proving with this. Would you say that a POTUS can do whatever he wants in his final weeks of office, commit any crime, without any possibility of penalty?

 

[easyt65]

After Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted in an interview this 2nd Impeachment is intended to eliminate former President Trump as a political threat to the Democratic party in 2024 and beyond, most scholars and people understand this 2nd Impeachment is a tax payer-funded abuse of the Constitution being conducted only to benefit the Democrat Party and has nothing to do with benefitting the rest of America.

Yes, that’s obviously part of it. The other part is the fact that Trump had been acting completely inappropriately and stoked outrage about a stolen election based on lies which resulted in a mob storming the capital. Sane people understand there was fault there and there should be accountability. I don’t agree with impeachment but I do think there should be accountability

Since when...and for WHO>

The FISA Court exposed the fact that the CIA and FBI have been committing FISA Court crimes and illegally spying on *everyone for DECADES, under both Mueller and Comey.
- Months later the DOJ has taken no action.

FBI documents have been de-classified and released proving FBI Director Wray covered up THOSE crimes, withheld evidence of President Trump's innocence during the Ist Impeachment that would have stopped the Impeachment, and that the FBI - along with the DHS and Treasury Departments - since before the election has had hard, physical financial records and documents proving the Biden Family have engaged in criminal financial scandals that include Influence Peddling, Russian Money Laundering, and that the Bidens took over $1 BILLION from the CCP - making Biden not just a 'compromised' President but a threat to our National Security.

WHEN IS THE 'ACCOUNTABILITY' AND 'EQUAL JUSTICE' BEGIN?

.

 

[TNHarley]

Guess those "scholars" cant read English.

Harley, are you seriously in the camp that’s saying the senate can’t try Trump cause he is a private citizen?

They tried to do this to a SoS one time and it ended badly. The Senate voted to not convict because the Constitution doesnt give them the power to convict a private citizen.
Plus, i can read english.

Can I see the case for that? You do know this has been done to politicians in the past. Right?

Yes. I just spoke of it. He didnt get convicted.
Meet the other American who was impeached and tried after leaving office (nbcnews.com)
(A significant number of senators believed the Senate lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he no longer held office.)

 

[kyzr]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

1. The ONLY object of impeachment is to remove a sitting president or "civil Officer" from office, read the Constitution. Article II, Section 4:
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.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

I don’t know what you think you are proving with this. Would you say that a POTUS can do whatever he wants in his final weeks of office, commit any crime, without any possibility of penalty?

If any citizen commits a crime the DOJ can prosecute him for that crime, except the President, who is immune from prosecution while in-office. So to prosecute a president, first you need to impeach him to remove him from office, then he could be prosecuted just like anyone else.

The DOJ lawyers already reviewed Trump's 1/6 speech and concluded that there is nothing there that can be prosecuted. So that's that. Maybe the partisan DAs in NY or DC can trump something up, but upon appeal it would lose.

You just don't get that there is no crime for the 2nd impeachment as well as the 1st.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

No one gives a shit about your opinion of the purpose of impeachment. The only thing that matters is what the document says. I know you Democrat Reich NAZIs have a hissy fit every time that is pointed out, but nevertheless, that is the purpose of the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

If I understand the constitution correctly (I could be wrong), the primary purpose of the senate trial is to remove the president from office if convicted. After the conviction vote, a separate vote has to be taken to bar that person from holding federal office again. Conviction on the impeachment vote does not automatically result in baring from holding federal office again.

Since Trump is no longer president, could the senate skip the vote to convict and move directly to the vote to bar from holding federal office again? I sure lawyers can make the argument for either yes or no for this question, and which side a lawyer falls on usually depends on which side pays him.

No.

 

[bripat9643]

After Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted in an interview this 2nd Impeachment is intended to eliminate former President Trump as a political threat to the Democratic party in 2024 and beyond, most scholars and people understand this 2nd Impeachment is a tax payer-funded abuse of the Constitution being conducted only to benefit the Democrat Party and has nothing to do with benefitting the rest of America.

Yes, that’s obviously part of it. The other part is the fact that Trump had been acting completely inappropriately and stoked outrage about a stolen election based on lies which resulted in a mob storming the capital. Sane people understand there was fault there and there should be accountability. I don’t agree with impeachment but I do think there should be accountability

That's all horseshit, of course. If Senate Dims believe Trump committed a crime, they an ask the DOJ to file charges. Otherwise they can shut their yaps.

 

[easyt65]

That's all horseshit, of course. If Senate Dims believe Trump committed a crime, they an ask the DOJ to file charges.

 

[Mac-7]

It’s your version of the Russia hoax.

I wish it were a hoax

as of 2020 there is no excuse for democrats to ever lose a national election again

and very few statewide elections

but they dont have to remove republicans from congress entirely to maintain a soviet/CCP/
california style one-party dictatorship

they can leave a few for appearance sake

 

[Blackrook]

This has to be a mistake by the independent CBO, since several anonymous right-wing graduates of the prestigious law school USMB University told me that Trump cannot be convicted:

"The Constitution does not directly address whether Congress may impeach and try a former President for actions taken while in office," the six-page brief said. "Though the text is open to debate, it appears that most scholars who closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office."

PolitiFact | Walker overreaches claiming Senate can’t convict Trump after departure

"Most scholars" can suck dick.

 

[Care4all]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

1. The ONLY object of impeachment is to remove a sitting president or "civil Officer" from office, read the Constitution. Article II, Section 4:
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.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

I don’t know what you think you are proving with this. Would you say that a POTUS can do whatever he wants in his final weeks of office, commit any crime, without any possibility of penalty?

If any citizen commits a crime the DOJ can prosecute him for that crime, except the President, who is immune from prosecution while in-office. So to prosecute a president, first you need to impeach him to remove him from office, then he could be prosecuted just like anyone else.

The DOJ lawyers already reviewed Trump's 1/6 speech and concluded that there is nothing there that can be prosecuted. So that's that. Maybe the partisan DAs in NY or DC can trump something up, but upon appeal it would lose.

You just don't get that there is no crime for the 2nd impeachment as well as the 1st.

It was not one speech, it was weeks and months prior to the speech too.... What brought all those thugs to Washington DC.

Please give a link to the DOJ reviewing his Jan 6th speech and claiming it was nothing....

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

1. The ONLY object of impeachment is to remove a sitting president or "civil Officer" from office, read the Constitution. Article II, Section 4:
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.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

I don’t know what you think you are proving with this. Would you say that a POTUS can do whatever he wants in his final weeks of office, commit any crime, without any possibility of penalty?

If any citizen commits a crime the DOJ can prosecute him for that crime, except the President, who is immune from prosecution while in-office. So to prosecute a president, first you need to impeach him to remove him from office, then he could be prosecuted just like anyone else.

The DOJ lawyers already reviewed Trump's 1/6 speech and concluded that there is nothing there that can be prosecuted. So that's that. Maybe the partisan DAs in NY or DC can trump something up, but upon appeal it would lose.

You just don't get that there is no crime for the 2nd impeachment as well as the 1st.

It was not one speech, it was weeks and months prior to the speech too.... What brought all those thugs to Washington DC.

Please give a link to the DOJ reviewing his Jan 6th speech and claiming it was nothing....

Asking people to come to D.C. is not a crime, dingbat. Otherwise, every Democrat politician would be in prison.

 

[easyt65]

Democrats attempt to use Russian Intelligence Service-authored propaganda delivered by a foreign ex-spy working for Russia, Hillary, and the FBI to remove a President from office, but they won't even reprimand Democrat politicians proven to have facilitated CCP espionage - in one case for DECADES - by hiring CCP spies as part of their staff...and hiding it. No, Democrats appoint 'Manchurian candidates' to the House Intel Committee where its members have access to THE most classified information in this country and refuses to remove them from the committee. THEN they have the 'brass cahonies' to appoint one proven CCP espionage facilitator as head of their 2nd admitted politically partisan and Un-Constitutional Impeachment, this time of a citizen / former President.

H0LY $h!T!

 

[kyzr]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

1. The ONLY object of impeachment is to remove a sitting president or "civil Officer" from office, read the Constitution. Article II, Section 4:
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.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

I don’t know what you think you are proving with this. Would you say that a POTUS can do whatever he wants in his final weeks of office, commit any crime, without any possibility of penalty?

If any citizen commits a crime the DOJ can prosecute him for that crime, except the President, who is immune from prosecution while in-office. So to prosecute a president, first you need to impeach him to remove him from office, then he could be prosecuted just like anyone else.

The DOJ lawyers already reviewed Trump's 1/6 speech and concluded that there is nothing there that can be prosecuted. So that's that. Maybe the partisan DAs in NY or DC can trump something up, but upon appeal it would lose.

You just don't get that there is no crime for the 2nd impeachment as well as the 1st.

It was not one speech, it was weeks and months prior to the speech too.... What brought all those thugs to Washington DC.

Please give a link to the DOJ reviewing his Jan 6th speech and claiming it was nothing....

Don't expect charges against Trump or allies for inciting Capitol siege, say DOJ officials

The Justice Department does not plan on seeking incitement charges against President Trump for his actions at the rally that led up to Wednesday's attack on the Capitol.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Care4all]

It’s your version of the Russia hoax.

I wish it were a hoax

as of 2020 there is no excuse for democrats to ever lose a national election again

and very few statewide elections

but they dont have to remove republicans from congress entirely to maintain a soviet/CCP/
california style one-party dictatorship

they can leave a few for appearance sake

What cheating do you think took place with Democrats and not republicans as well?

You lost this election, because 84 million people, voted to tell Donald J Trump

YOU'RE FIRED!

No one to steal this election, Donald Covid TRUMP, lost it all on his own.

 

[surada]

Obama never said he didnt have legal right for DACA.

Stop twisting the argument into something not said.

Barry declared publicly he did not have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to alter Immigration law - DACA.

DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted

President Donald Trump has caught a lot of heat for rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a six-month wind-down. Few people seem aware that he's ending an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal...

www.heritage.org

....but as you know, any law / edict that is UN-Constitutional is NOT legal.

Obama didn’t say that he lacked the right to act. In contrast, he emphasized his authority to set priorities until Congress approved the DREAM Act, a measure that would formalize the legal status of this group of immigrants.

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama said June 15, 2012. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."

The man by-passed Congress to affect Immigration Law and create a new process for Immigration, something that can only be done Constitutionally by the Legislature.

Try to spin it any way you want 100 times over, the SOB admitted he did not have the Constitutional authority to do what he did and then did so.

By Joe Biden's own remarks about EOs, both HE and BARRY were / are 'dictators'.

Trump NEVER studied any issue before he issued an executive order.. He just went with his hunches since he knows more than generals, doctors, scientists, intelligence officers and Constitutional scholars.

You know Hillary was a private citizen when she she sat for hours and hours of Benghazi hearings.. i think they should go ahead and have Trump attend hearings about the attack on the Capitol.

 

[easyt65]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

1. The ONLY object of impeachment is to remove a sitting president or "civil Officer" from office, read the Constitution. Article II, Section 4:
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.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

I don’t know what you think you are proving with this. Would you say that a POTUS can do whatever he wants in his final weeks of office, commit any crime, without any possibility of penalty?

If any citizen commits a crime the DOJ can prosecute him for that crime, except the President, who is immune from prosecution while in-office. So to prosecute a president, first you need to impeach him to remove him from office, then he could be prosecuted just like anyone else.

The DOJ lawyers already reviewed Trump's 1/6 speech and concluded that there is nothing there that can be prosecuted. So that's that. Maybe the partisan DAs in NY or DC can trump something up, but upon appeal it would lose.

You just don't get that there is no crime for the 2nd impeachment as well as the 1st.

It was not one speech, it was weeks and months prior to the speech too.... What brought all those thugs to Washington DC.

Please give a link to the DOJ reviewing his Jan 6th speech and claiming it was nothing....

Sorry, the Articles of impeachment accuse him of inciting an Insurrection at the Capitol, whish is a lie. And when the Transcripts proved they were clearly wrong they then switched to claiming EVERYTHING he said, whenever he said it, caused it....while still ignoring their criminal hypocrisy of ignoring VP Harris' actual support of / advocating Insurrection.

The Up-coming Impeachment will not investigate / cover how the Capitol Police aided violent rioters by moving barricades to give them access to the Capitol, how they stood by and did nothing to prevent the violence, and how they acted as a guide leading the rioters to politicians' offices and Chambers.

The Up-Coming Impeachment will not cover how foreign-funded Democrat-supported domestic terrorists Antifa and BLM were there, how witnesses report they instigated the initial violence and whipped people into a mob mentality riot and were in the Capitol illegally as well.

The Up-Coming Impeachment will not cover how Antifa and BLM members USED TWITTER AND FACEBOOK - not Parlor - to plan their part in the 'Insurrection'