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

OP
Biff_Poindexter

Biff_Poindexter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
4,028
Points
360
Location
USA
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.
No matter how much you fragile cucks keep self projecting....


Guys like this keep being on your side.....
Neo-Nazis-US-Capitol-Building-940x492.jpg
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,044
Reaction score
19,247
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
WOW, nobody has gone after people for questioning the election.
:wow: You of the Reich have declared that to question the massive irregularities of the the election is sedition and insurrection. For MONTHS you Nazis have claimed that to question the legitimacy of Xi's man in any way is sedition.


{ . One recurring refrain is particularly disturbing — that lawyers, members of Congress, and state attorneys general who supported post-election litigation are guilty of sedition. At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.” }


The Reich has criminalized any and all dissent, using violence against peaceful protests in places where violence raged unanswered all summer, in a show that the Reich is the only law in the nation.

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.
Funny, you had no problem with democrat Brown Shirts engaging in insurrection for 10 fucking months, including storming the white house to try to kill the president back in July.
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
17,664
Reaction score
5,815
Points
345
I am sorry but helping a Prog is to our own detriment. you see one in trouble, let them die or whatever happens. We are living more and more in a dystopian environment. It does not mean you have to be a bad neighbor.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,044
Reaction score
19,247
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.
No matter how much you fragile cucks keep self projecting....


Guys like this keep being on your side.....
View attachment 446558

I'll call you and raise;

1611263082718.png
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,044
Reaction score
19,247
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
7,822
Reaction score
4,003
Points
930
At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.” }
We did not try to silence the lawyers, as they stood outside the courtroom spewing lies about massive voter fraud. That's protected speech under the 1st amendment.

But when they file frivolous lawsuits, wasting the time of the courts, and the money of the taxpayer, we think they should be sanctioned for their disgraceful actions they knew they couldn't win. And were only filed to delay the transition of power.
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
6,141
Reaction score
1,350
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
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
I'd have to see a reference on that to credit it; I don't recall that at all. Dershowitz says that at the time the Constitution was written, some states DID allow for impeachment after a term of state office ended. So the Founders knew about this, but they chose not to include it, and he cited the passage and showed that indeed, it is not in there.

So I think they'll let it go.

I could be wrong. The left may try it on, out of sheer malice. Probably Dershowitz isn't wrong, though.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,044
Reaction score
19,247
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.” }
We did not try to silence the lawyers, as they stood outside the courtroom spewing lies about massive voter fraud. That's protected speech under the 1st amendment.

But when they file frivolous lawsuits, wasting the time of the courts, and the money of the taxpayer, we think they should be sanctioned for their disgraceful actions they knew they couldn't win. And were only filed to delay the transition of power.

You are of course lying.

You of the Reich have violently suppressed speech that is contrary to the party and seek retribution against any who would suppose that the United States Constitution still exists.
 

Dr Grump

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
30,040
Reaction score
5,659
Points
1,130
Location
From the Back of Beyond
At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.” }
We did not try to silence the lawyers, as they stood outside the courtroom spewing lies about massive voter fraud. That's protected speech under the 1st amendment.

But when they file frivolous lawsuits, wasting the time of the courts, and the money of the taxpayer, we think they should be sanctioned for their disgraceful actions they knew they couldn't win. And were only filed to delay the transition of power.
Do these nimrods not find it weird that with all of Giuliani's spewing to the public outside the porn shop, that when he came in front of a judge, he said fuck-all? There is a reason for that. For despite current Rudi seemingly looking unhinged, he is a smart man. He knows better than to lie in front of a judge. Wouldn't you put everything on the table - evidence, the whole kit and caboodle - in front of judge? They didn't. There is a reason for that. They have none. And if the likes of Uncensored want to be a fiddle and be played, that's on them. Normal, intelligent folk don't go for schtick.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
56,469
Reaction score
13,134
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.
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
Did they quote the constitution for that or some law?

If you are going to ask me about it, you need to give me what you claim was attempted to be applied.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
56,469
Reaction score
13,134
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.
You're gagging on a gnat. An appointed official can just be fired.
Actually cabinet members can also be impeached, it's a check on the executive in case they refuse to remove someone who the legislature thinks should be removed.

Who, besides U.S. presidents, can be impeached? - Quora

If you are going to comment on something noob, at least know the facts.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
6,393
Points
1,918
Like hell if you can't.
The only reason to even try to do so is to HARASS a former president and to prevent the People from deciding who they want to be their politicians.

Keep your shit up and I see first Texas and then several other states leaving the union.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
4,799
Reaction score
2,623
Points
893
At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.” }
We did not try to silence the lawyers, as they stood outside the courtroom spewing lies about massive voter fraud. That's protected speech under the 1st amendment.

But when they file frivolous lawsuits, wasting the time of the courts, and the money of the taxpayer, we think they should be sanctioned for their disgraceful actions they knew they couldn't win. And were only filed to delay the transition of power.
Do these nimrods not find it weird that with all of Giuliani's spewing to the public outside the porn shop, that when he came in front of a judge, he said fuck-all? There is a reason for that. For despite current Rudi seemingly looking unhinged, he is a smart man. He knows better than to lie in front of a judge. Wouldn't you put everything on the table - evidence, the whole kit and caboodle - in front of judge? They didn't. There is a reason for that. They have none. And if the likes of Uncensored want to be a fiddle and be played, that's on them. Normal, intelligent folk don't go for schtick.
Lying to the judge is huge mistake.. That's why Trump's lawyers didn't lie to the judges in his 60 election challenges. Trump will lie nonstop to the public, but he won't lie to the judges either.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,563
Reaction score
5,880
Points
280
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!"
Interesting to note that they said nary a peep about unity when it actually could mean something, ie, they could get along with the majority.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
4,799
Reaction score
2,623
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.
Actually cabinet members can also be impeached, it's a check on the executive in case they refuse to remove someone who the legislature thinks should be removed.

Who, besides U.S. presidents, can be impeached? - Quora

If you are going to comment on something noob, at least know the facts.
I suppose.. Why not just fired them unless they actually commit a crime like extortion or blackmail or inciting to overthrow the government.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
44,359
Reaction score
10,692
Points
2,040
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!"
Nobody is calling for unity with tRump and his insurrectionists.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
4,799
Reaction score
2,623
Points
893
Like hell if you can't.
The only reason to even try to do so is to HARASS a former president and to prevent the People from deciding who they want to be their politicians.

Keep your shit up and I see first Texas and then several other states leaving the union.
They won't leave the union, gasbag. Not over a criminal pig like Trump.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top