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

[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?

No. Were saying democrats can commit any crime without any possibility of penalty.

Haha. Oh ok, well thanks for letting me know. Hope you feel better

 

[Mac-7]

How is it not governing?

"ruling" is a better term

The way a king or a tinpot dictator rules over the masses

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

CBO as in the congressional budget office?

Number crunches?


Hahaha

Exactly! What a stupid use of a logical fallacy, the classic appeal to authority which is never
a bright option to take.

In any event the issue is moot. John Roberts wants no part of the circus and senate leaders are
already calling for a censure or some other form of their displeasure, as if their opinions are valued
anyway.

 

[Slade3200]

How is it not governing?

"ruling" is a better term

The way a king or a tinpot dictator rules over the masses

How so?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."

I missed the part where it says, "If the Chief Justice is busy doing something more important, they can just give it to some old, fat political hack from Vermont."

I wonder what "most scholars" would say about that.

The Chief Justice wants no part of this Kangaroo Court. For good reasons.

The democrats are turning America into a banana republic

I’m not a fan of all the policies but at least the Dems are governing. It’s the Yahoo’s yelling sham and fake election fraud claims that are making a mockery of our country.

You believe signing 40 EOs and bypassing congress is governing?. No wonder this country is so screwed up.

How is it not governing?

Take a civics class.

 

[Mac-7]

How so?

by bypassing the legislative process that give the people a say in what the government is doing

 

[Slade3200]

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."

I missed the part where it says, "If the Chief Justice is busy doing something more important, they can just give it to some old, fat political hack from Vermont."

I wonder what "most scholars" would say about that.

The Chief Justice wants no part of this Kangaroo Court. For good reasons.

The democrats are turning America into a banana republic

I’m not a fan of all the policies but at least the Dems are governing. It’s the Yahoo’s yelling sham and fake election fraud claims that are making a mockery of our country.

You believe signing 40 EOs and bypassing congress is governing?. No wonder this country is so screwed up.

How is it not governing?

Take a civics class.

Done. What’s your point?

 

[Slade3200]

How so?

by bypassing the legislative process that give the people a say in what the government is doing

The legislative process is still there for law making. The executive manages several departments so doing EOs to progress the elected presidents agenda seems to be part of their duties. Did you have these same issues with EOs when trump was doing them?

 

[B. Kidd]

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

Who funds these scholars that pays their salaries? Gov't grants, PAC's, and dark money? Did I leave out corporatists, many who fund BLM and other identity political groups?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, we shat our pants when Biden "won". I don't personally know any who have recovered enough to worry about, let alone shit their pants over 2024.

I was referring to republican politicians, not your cult.

 

[Burgermeister]

Actually, we shat our pants when Biden "won". I don't personally know any who have recovered enough to worry about, let alone shit their pants over 2024.

I was referring to republican politicians, not your cult.

I see. I don't care what anybody says about those assclowns. Carry on.

 

[DJT for Life]

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."

I missed the part where it says, "If the Chief Justice is busy doing something more important, they can just give it to some old, fat political hack from Vermont."

I wonder what "most scholars" would say about that.

The Chief Justice wants no part of this Kangaroo Court. For good reasons.

Exactly. Thus an impeachment trial without the Chief Justice running the show, is not a valid trial. (It's Unconstitutional).

Without the Chief Justice there...the trial can be appealled to SCOTUS. The vote will be 6-3.

Appealed on what grounds???

It was unconstitutional. The Chief Justice is to preside over Presidential impeachments

 

[Care4all]

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."

I missed the part where it says, "If the Chief Justice is busy doing something more important, they can just give it to some old, fat political hack from Vermont."

I wonder what "most scholars" would say about that.

The Chief Justice wants no part of this Kangaroo Court. For good reasons.

Exactly. Thus an impeachment trial without the Chief Justice running the show, is not a valid trial. (It's Unconstitutional).

Without the Chief Justice there...the trial can be appealled to SCOTUS. The vote will be 6-3.

Appealed on what grounds???

It was unconstitutional. The Chief Justice is to preside over Presidential impeachments

Preside over the senate impeachment trials of Presidents....nothing mentioned on former presidents.... I still would like to see Roberts preside over the trial.

The purpose of the chief justice presiding is because the President of the Senate, would be the President' s VP.... and the VP has a conflict of interest presiding over a trial that could benefit the VP, as he could become the President, if the sitting president is convicted.

There is no conflict with the sitting VP as President of the Senate, when a former President is in an impeachment trial.

 

[BertramN]

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

Yes, with the trump Nazis' inherent knowledge of all things, how can so many legal scholars have the unmitigated gall to contradict the trump Nazis' law expertise?

There must be a law suit in this affront.


.

 

[my2¢]

Just because they can doesn't mean they should. If there any judgement to be made I'd like to see it handled through our courts and not by congress.

 

[DJT for Life]

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."

I missed the part where it says, "If the Chief Justice is busy doing something more important, they can just give it to some old, fat political hack from Vermont."

I wonder what "most scholars" would say about that.

The Chief Justice wants no part of this Kangaroo Court. For good reasons.

Exactly. Thus an impeachment trial without the Chief Justice running the show, is not a valid trial. (It's Unconstitutional).

Without the Chief Justice there...the trial can be appealled to SCOTUS. The vote will be 6-3.

Appealed on what grounds???

It was unconstitutional. The Chief Justice is to preside over Presidential impeachments

Preside over the senate impeachment trials of Presidents....nothing mentioned on former presidents.... I still would like to see Roberts preside over the trial.

The purpose of the chief justice presiding is because the President of the Senate, would be the President' s VP.... and the VP has a conflict of interest presiding over a trial that could benefit the VP, as he could become the President, if the sitting president is convicted.

There is no conflict with the sitting VP as President of the Senate, when a former President is in an impeachment trial.

There is NO protocol for an impeachment trial of a "former" President.

 

[Care4all]

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."

I missed the part where it says, "If the Chief Justice is busy doing something more important, they can just give it to some old, fat political hack from Vermont."

I wonder what "most scholars" would say about that.

The Chief Justice wants no part of this Kangaroo Court. For good reasons.

Exactly. Thus an impeachment trial without the Chief Justice running the show, is not a valid trial. (It's Unconstitutional).

Without the Chief Justice there...the trial can be appealled to SCOTUS. The vote will be 6-3.

Appealed on what grounds???

It was unconstitutional. The Chief Justice is to preside over Presidential impeachments

Preside over the senate impeachment trials of Presidents....nothing mentioned on former presidents.... I still would like to see Roberts preside over the trial.

The purpose of the chief justice presiding is because the President of the Senate, would be the President' s VP.... and the VP has a conflict of interest presiding over a trial that could benefit the VP, as he could become the President, if the sitting president is convicted.

There is no conflict with the sitting VP as President of the Senate, when a former President is in an impeachment trial.

There is NO protocol for an impeachment trial of a "former" President.

There is no impeachment exception for the last month a president serves, in the Constitution.