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

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
6,141
Reaction score
1,350
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
Like hell if you can't.
It was Dershowitz; I read his piece in the Wall Street Journal today. He's a major constitutional scholar, and it looked like a sound reading to me.
 
OP
Biff_Poindexter

Biff_Poindexter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
12,725
Reaction score
4,050
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
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.
Let's read what a so-called famous Constitutional scholar said about impeaching former officials -- (before he contradicted himself in order to simp for Trump).....

EsBSYiBXEAILb1e.jpg



This was from a one Professor Johnathan Turley.....
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
56,498
Reaction score
13,145
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.
Let's read what a so-called famous Constitutional scholar said about impeaching former officials -- (before he contradicted himself in order to simp for Trump).....

View attachment 446517
Lets look at the actual wording of the impeachment process:

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.
Does Office mean appointed or elected, or both?

That's the question that has never been answered.
 

Dr Grump

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
30,044
Reaction score
5,661
Points
1,130
Location
From the Back of Beyond

"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...
In my 14 years on this board I have never seen a conservative take responsibility for anything. Ironic in that being responsible for one's actions is one of their main planks.
 
OP
Biff_Poindexter

Biff_Poindexter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
12,725
Reaction score
4,050
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
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.
Let's read what a so-called famous Constitutional scholar said about impeaching former officials -- (before he contradicted himself in order to simp for Trump).....

View attachment 446517
Lets look at the actual wording of the impeachment process:

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.
Does Office mean appointed or elected, or both?

That's the question that has never been answered.
Speaking of wording of the Constitution......

Show me in the Constitution that a Vice President can overturn an election in favor of his party's president; or in Al Gore's case, himself...

A Trumper can't tell me SHIT ABOUT ADHERING TO THE CONSTITUTION
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
5,001
Reaction score
2,776
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.
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.
Let's read what a so-called famous Constitutional scholar said about impeaching former officials -- (before he contradicted himself in order to simp for Trump).....

View attachment 446517
Lets look at the actual wording of the impeachment process:

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.
Does Office mean appointed or elected, or both?

That's the question that has never been answered.
You're gagging on a gnat. An appointed official can just be fired.
 
OP
Biff_Poindexter

Biff_Poindexter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
12,725
Reaction score
4,050
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
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.
Let's read what a so-called famous Constitutional scholar said about impeaching former officials -- (before he contradicted himself in order to simp for Trump).....

View attachment 446517
Lets look at the actual wording of the impeachment process:

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.
Does Office mean appointed or elected, or both?

That's the question that has never been answered.
You're gagging on a gnat. An appointed official can just be fired.
They want a authoritarian dictator so bad that they are actually arguing that presidents should be able to do whatever they want while in office with no consequences as long as they resign.....
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
5,001
Reaction score
2,776
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.
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.
Let's read what a so-called famous Constitutional scholar said about impeaching former officials -- (before he contradicted himself in order to simp for Trump).....

View attachment 446517
Lets look at the actual wording of the impeachment process:

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.
Does Office mean appointed or elected, or both?

That's the question that has never been answered.
Speaking of wording of the Constitution......

Show me in the Constitution that a Vice President can overturn an election in favor of his party's president; or in Al Gore's case, himself...

A Trumper can't tell me SHIT ABOUT ADHERING TO THE CONSTITUTION
Pence couldn't overturn the Electoral College legally no matter how much Trump insulted him and claimed he could. Trump is without a doubt the dumbest SOB that was ever elected to office.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
5,001
Reaction score
2,776
Points
893
Antifa, short for anti-facists, is an umbrella description for a broad group of people whose political beliefs often fall to the far left but do not conform with the Democratic Party. Antifa members stand against what they view as authoritarian, homophobic and racist systems, according to The New York Times. Across America | News | 4h
What Is Antifa: 5 Things To Know About The Movement ...
patch.com/us/across-america/what-antifa-5-things-know-movement

patch.com/us/across-america/what-antifa-5-things-know-movement
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,154
Reaction score
19,319
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Yep. Inciting insurrection to overthrow an election is serious stuff.
Wow, you take mental retardation to new heights.

Should any and all who question the election be imprisoned by the Reich for insurrection?

Or perhaps mass executions are what you're gunning for? Question the legitimacy of the steal, be executed?
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
7,878
Reaction score
4,052
Points
930
Like hell if you can't.
It was Dershowitz; I read his piece in the Wall Street Journal today. He's a major constitutional scholar, and it looked like a sound reading to me.
I believe Dershowitz wrote a case for impeaching Bill Clinton after he left office, for the pardon of Marc Rich. Dershowitz seems to have FLEXIBLE opinions
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
7,878
Reaction score
4,052
Points
930
Does Office mean appointed or elected, or both?

That's the question that has never been answered.
You're gagging on a gnat. An appointed official can just be fired.
Impeachment is an act of congress. If somebody commits crimes that the president either supports or ignores, he is not going to remove the person. That's where congress comes in, removing bad people that the president will not.
 
Last edited:

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,154
Reaction score
19,319
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Should any and all who question the election be imprisoned by the Reich for insurrection?
Nope, only those storming the capitol looking for a vice president to hang.
Given nothing like that has ever happened, I suspect you Nazis are looking to violently suppress any and all dissent against the Reich.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
7,878
Reaction score
4,052
Points
930
Should any and all who question the election be imprisoned by the Reich for insurrection?

Or perhaps mass executions are what you're gunning for? Question the legitimacy of the steal, be executed?
WOW, nobody has gone after people for questioning the election. In fact all those lawsuits were welcomed by both sides. They wanted a public airing of evidence, and in the end it was clear there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. That was just propaganda, that died at the courts doorsteps.

What is objectionable is turning to insurrection against the government because you're crying over losing an election.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top