Conservatives Now Claim You Can't Try A Former President....

Biff_Poindexter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
13,395
Reaction score
4,570
Points
360
Location
USA

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,130
Reaction score
13,584
Points
2,190

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
Are you really dumb enough to confuse impeachment with criminal prosecution?
 

BasicHumanUnit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
16,698
Reaction score
11,094
Points
1,255
Location
Everywhere needed
Don't you just love all that Democrat call now for "UNITY" ???

They've been repeating that since the election.

But, the Left uses the Communist Dictionary - where Unity is defined as "Cessation of opposition voice" - "Do as told and shut up" - "Do Not Question!"
 
Last edited:

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
90,800
Reaction score
21,064
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...

You are a Nazi, a democrat; hence stupid as a fucking brick.

Impeachment is a method of removing an official from office.

The Constitution has no provision for removing people from offices they do not hold. You Nazis are petty, verdictive, and above all stupid. If the Senate under the rule of the Reich were to move to hold a trial, it will go to the SCOTUS, which will rule the act unconstitutional on 5-4 lines, the Robert's leftists vs. the Constitutionalists.

This in no way means that a former president can't be criminally charged - though at this second a crime would be required - subject to change as the Reich flexes it's power.

Obama engaged in treason by corrupting a presidential election and should face prosecution. He won't, the Reich is above the law and the Constitution is held in contempt by our rulers. But he should be as he is unquestionably guilty.

So what have you learned, Herr Himmler? That the political action of impeachment is separate and distinct from criminal law?

Of course not, if you had the intellect requisite to learn, you wouldn't be a Nazi in the first place.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
90,800
Reaction score
21,064
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
Are you really dumb enough to confuse impeachment with criminal prosecution?

Yes, he most certainly is.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,309
Reaction score
17,207
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
Such is the right's hypocrisy.
 
OP
Biff_Poindexter

Biff_Poindexter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
13,395
Reaction score
4,570
Points
360
Location
USA

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
Are you really dumb enough to confuse impeachment with criminal prosecution?
I addressed both.....impeachment "AFTER ONE IS OUT OF OFFICE" has been done before....

And seeking recrimination after someone has left office was the Trump mantra thru-out his entire campaign and presidency....

The fact you dic suckers are hypocrites and I am pointing it out is what you really mad at
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,130
Reaction score
13,584
Points
2,190

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
Are you really dumb enough to confuse impeachment with criminal prosecution?
I addressed both.....impeachment "AFTER ONE IS OUT OF OFFICE" has been done before....

And seeking recrimination after someone has left office was the Trump mantra thru-out his entire campaign and presidency....

The fact you dic suckers are hypocrites and I am pointing it out is what you really mad at
Got a link to someone impeached when out of office?

Not prosecuted, impeached.
 
OP
Biff_Poindexter

Biff_Poindexter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
13,395
Reaction score
4,570
Points
360
Location
USA

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
Are you really dumb enough to confuse impeachment with criminal prosecution?
I addressed both.....impeachment "AFTER ONE IS OUT OF OFFICE" has been done before....

And seeking recrimination after someone has left office was the Trump mantra thru-out his entire campaign and presidency....

The fact you dic suckers are hypocrites and I am pointing it out is what you really mad at
Got a link to someone impeached when out of office?

Not prosecuted, impeached.
So in other words, you didn't read the article nor my post...

You just got your panties in a bunch like a bitch....


1876 -- William Belknap was impeached even tho he resigned......he was tried in the Senate...REPEAT....he was TRIED by the Senate
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,130
Reaction score
13,584
Points
2,190

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
Are you really dumb enough to confuse impeachment with criminal prosecution?
I addressed both.....impeachment "AFTER ONE IS OUT OF OFFICE" has been done before....

And seeking recrimination after someone has left office was the Trump mantra thru-out his entire campaign and presidency....

The fact you dic suckers are hypocrites and I am pointing it out is what you really mad at
Got a link to someone impeached when out of office?

Not prosecuted, impeached.
So in other words, you didn't read the article nor my post...

You just got your panties in a bunch like a bitch....


1876 -- William Belknap was impeached even tho he resigned......he was tried in the Senate...REPEAT....he was TRIED by the Senate
From wikipedia:

Starting on April 5, 1876, Belknap was tried by the Senate.[88] For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned office in March.[89] Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction;[89] the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.
Even then there was a question if it was constitutional, however it never went before the SC, so that hasn't been decided yet.
 
OP
Biff_Poindexter

Biff_Poindexter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
13,395
Reaction score
4,570
Points
360
Location
USA

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
Are you really dumb enough to confuse impeachment with criminal prosecution?
I addressed both.....impeachment "AFTER ONE IS OUT OF OFFICE" has been done before....

And seeking recrimination after someone has left office was the Trump mantra thru-out his entire campaign and presidency....

The fact you dic suckers are hypocrites and I am pointing it out is what you really mad at
Got a link to someone impeached when out of office?

Not prosecuted, impeached.
So in other words, you didn't read the article nor my post...

You just got your panties in a bunch like a bitch....


1876 -- William Belknap was impeached even tho he resigned......he was tried in the Senate...REPEAT....he was TRIED by the Senate
From wikipedia:

Starting on April 5, 1876, Belknap was tried by the Senate.[88] For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned office in March.[89] Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction;[89] the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.
Even then there was a question if it was constitutional, however it never went before the SC, so that hasn't been decided yet.
Being wrong is hard for you huh?

You just stupidly asked when was someone impeached once out of office when the fucking topic of the OP was being "TRIED IN THE SENATE" once they are out of office...which has happened before....

The reason there is little case history for this is because this the first time a fucking sitting president incited an insurrection against their own government......

No matter how many "whataboutisms" you pull out your ass or how much you try to minimize it -- that will not change that fact...period
 

jbrownson0831

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
7,688
Reaction score
5,957
Points
1,908

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
No, go ahead and waste all the time and money you can not supporting the American public its your mantra.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,130
Reaction score
13,584
Points
2,190

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
Are you really dumb enough to confuse impeachment with criminal prosecution?
I addressed both.....impeachment "AFTER ONE IS OUT OF OFFICE" has been done before....

And seeking recrimination after someone has left office was the Trump mantra thru-out his entire campaign and presidency....

The fact you dic suckers are hypocrites and I am pointing it out is what you really mad at
Got a link to someone impeached when out of office?

Not prosecuted, impeached.
So in other words, you didn't read the article nor my post...

You just got your panties in a bunch like a bitch....


1876 -- William Belknap was impeached even tho he resigned......he was tried in the Senate...REPEAT....he was TRIED by the Senate
From wikipedia:

Starting on April 5, 1876, Belknap was tried by the Senate.[88] For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned office in March.[89] Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction;[89] the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.
Even then there was a question if it was constitutional, however it never went before the SC, so that hasn't been decided yet.
Being wrong is hard for you huh?

You just stupidly asked when was someone impeached once out of office when the fucking topic of the OP was being "TRIED IN THE SENATE" once they are out of office...which has happened before....

The reason there is little case history for this is because this the first time a fucking sitting president incited an insurrection against their own government......

No matter how many "whataboutisms" you pull out your ass or how much you try to minimize it -- that will not change that fact...period
Was his impeachment ever ruled on by the SC? The point was moot because the senate did not convict.

Trump was impeached while still in office.

Maybe i used the wrong word. The question is can Trump be removed from office when he is already out of office by term?
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
49,269
Reaction score
10,169
Points
2,070
Location
PNW

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
The impeachment and the trial can put him out of office, since he is already gone, the only reason to continue is to stop him from running for office again. So, we shall see, I would think he'd never get elected again.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
8,274
Reaction score
4,273
Points
893

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
Are you really dumb enough to confuse impeachment with criminal prosecution?
I addressed both.....impeachment "AFTER ONE IS OUT OF OFFICE" has been done before....

And seeking recrimination after someone has left office was the Trump mantra thru-out his entire campaign and presidency....

The fact you dic suckers are hypocrites and I am pointing it out is what you really mad at
Got a link to someone impeached when out of office?

Not prosecuted, impeached.
So in other words, you didn't read the article nor my post...

You just got your panties in a bunch like a bitch....


1876 -- William Belknap was impeached even tho he resigned......he was tried in the Senate...REPEAT....he was TRIED by the Senate
From wikipedia:

Starting on April 5, 1876, Belknap was tried by the Senate.[88] For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned office in March.[89] Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction;[89] the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.
Even then there was a question if it was constitutional, however it never went before the SC, so that hasn't been decided yet.
Being wrong is hard for you huh?

You just stupidly asked when was someone impeached once out of office when the fucking topic of the OP was being "TRIED IN THE SENATE" once they are out of office...which has happened before....

The reason there is little case history for this is because this the first time a fucking sitting president incited an insurrection against their own government......

No matter how many "whataboutisms" you pull out your ass or how much you try to minimize it -- that will not change that fact...period
Was his impeachment ever ruled on by the SC? The point was moot because the senate did not convict.

Trump was impeached while still in office.

Maybe i used the wrong word. The question is can Trump be removed from office when he is already out of office by term?
Removed no.. convicted yes.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,130
Reaction score
13,584
Points
2,190

"Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached [William Belknap 1876]. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "with malice towards none.... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Isn't it funny how the "Lock Her Up" crowd now wants to talk about how it would be wrong to to seek "recriminations" against its predecessor; even when that person incited an insurrection against one branch of it's own government; including that person's own VP...but I assume improperly handling classified emails is much worse than that....

Isn't it funny how the "Obama will be arrested any day now" crowd suddenly wants us to immediately forget shit that happened a couple of weeks ago -- just because Trump is no longer in office -- when I don't recall them deciding not to hold 9 or 10 different Benghazi investigations a full year after "Lock Her Up" Hillary was out of office...These pathetic attempts by those on the right to shield themselves from accountability and excuse away the first insurrection on the US capitol in history should be seen for what it is, bullshit at the highest level...
Are you really dumb enough to confuse impeachment with criminal prosecution?
I addressed both.....impeachment "AFTER ONE IS OUT OF OFFICE" has been done before....

And seeking recrimination after someone has left office was the Trump mantra thru-out his entire campaign and presidency....

The fact you dic suckers are hypocrites and I am pointing it out is what you really mad at
Got a link to someone impeached when out of office?

Not prosecuted, impeached.
So in other words, you didn't read the article nor my post...

You just got your panties in a bunch like a bitch....


1876 -- William Belknap was impeached even tho he resigned......he was tried in the Senate...REPEAT....he was TRIED by the Senate
From wikipedia:

Starting on April 5, 1876, Belknap was tried by the Senate.[88] For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned office in March.[89] Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction;[89] the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.
Even then there was a question if it was constitutional, however it never went before the SC, so that hasn't been decided yet.
Being wrong is hard for you huh?

You just stupidly asked when was someone impeached once out of office when the fucking topic of the OP was being "TRIED IN THE SENATE" once they are out of office...which has happened before....

The reason there is little case history for this is because this the first time a fucking sitting president incited an insurrection against their own government......

No matter how many "whataboutisms" you pull out your ass or how much you try to minimize it -- that will not change that fact...period
Was his impeachment ever ruled on by the SC? The point was moot because the senate did not convict.

Trump was impeached while still in office.

Maybe i used the wrong word. The question is can Trump be removed from office when he is already out of office by term?
Removed no.. convicted yes.
The only thing impeachment does is remove the person from office, they are not "convicted" of anything. That would require a criminal trial, which the impeachment would allow to proceed.

There is also a question, never answered by the SC, if the disbarment from further office applies to elected and appointed offices, or just appointed offices.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top