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

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,296
Reaction score
19,444
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
They won't leave the union, gasbag. Not over a criminal pig like Trump.
You Nazis are inciting violence on a wide scale. You impose your draconian and authoritarian edicts in order to spur a response from those who still support our Constitution. Quid Pro is corrupt to the bone, but the actions of the Nazi party go beyond mere corruption. The savaging of energy sector jobs on day one show the deep contempt the Reich has for the proles.

You are engaged in an attempt to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. You seek a totalitarian Maoist dictatorship under the tutelage of Communist China.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,296
Reaction score
19,444
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
44,546
Reaction score
10,800
Points
2,040
Nobody is calling for unity with tRump and his insurrectionists.
Bring it, Nazi fuck.
Whaddya gonna do, capslock me to death?
I use proper capitalization, Nazi.

And I am an advocate of Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand, I never INITIATE violence.

But you Nazis sure do.
You just initiated violence.

It was just a couple of posts ago, did you forget already?
 

Godboy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
20,329
Reaction score
6,010
Points
280

"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 is.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,296
Reaction score
19,444
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
You don't understand your own threats?
Haven't you been following his posts? He seems to understand very little. I'd debate him on the OP, but what would be the point?
I defeated your moronic ass on the OP 5 pages back.

You retards can't grasp the difference between impeachment and a criminal action.

It's why you're Nazis, because you're fucking stupid.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
56,506
Reaction score
13,148
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.
I suppose.. Why not just fired them unless they actually commit a crime like extortion or blackmail or inciting to overthrow the government.
Again, it's in case the executive doesn't want to get rid of them, and you can get a majority of the house and a supermajority of the senate to say the person has to go.

Checks and balances.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
33,467
Reaction score
19,641
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona

"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...
Hillary had the FBI investigating her for actual crimes. Not that they were ever going going to press charges anyway.

I don’t recall anyone claiming to lock up or arrest the Hussein. The Benghazi investigations weren’t criminal investigations, they were Congressional ones to determine what went wrong and how such a thing could be prevented, and to provide information to the American people, which is did.

Trying to impeach a President for the actions of a few hundred protesters is ridiculous and unconstitutional.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top