OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,611
- 2,220
Which part, lazy ass?What a total crock of shit.First and foremost, I'm never wrong.Wrong.Yes. In the Belknap trial, all but three senators agreed he was guilty, but 24 of the 25 Republicans voted to acquit because:AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict BECAUSE HE DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. The SAME thing happened the last time they tried to convict a private citizen.And AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict because he DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
And you moronic leftists wonder why i call you all authoritarians. Geezus
EVERY Senator had a vote to convict or acquit. One Senator, one vote. McConnell was just too much of a pansy to vote what he knew was right. But, he tried to make up for it by castigating Trump after the vote in the speech he made. Sorry, but them's the facts.
Do you understand now?
On the questions of precedent, Belknap’s lawyers did not claim that the Senate could not try a private citizen — the claim of Republicans today. Rather, they argued that Belknap could not be tried because he had been a private citizen — if only by minutes — when the House impeached him. It was his status at the moment of impeachment that mattered.
So it wasn't for the same reason exactly, but damned convenient.
T****'s conviction vote was the most bipartisan in history. 7 of his own party voted to convict him because he deserved it. The Constitutional bolt hole that has been crafted from a basically mum Constitution on the matter is what allowed Republicans to once again let a crook get away with gross misbehavior without accountability.
Maybe in another 100 years, senators will have evolved enough to put justice before party.
The defense also brought up language in Article I requiring that “[w]hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside[.]” U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 6. Carpenter argued that this text, like the removal clause, demonstrated a presumption that only current officeholders could be impeached.
Belknap’s defense also relied on the latter half of the Article II removal clause, which states that an officer “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Based on this text, Blair maintained that the Senate could only “entertain articles of impeachment” against a person “who can ‘be removed from office on impeachment and conviction of treason,’ &c.
Second, despite all those clever but obscure arguments, even the Constitutional experts at the Federalist Society determined that T**** could be held accountable with a trial. They know a whole lot more about it than I do.
This is nothing but convenient rabbit holes for Republicans to bolt down because they're afraid of the thug they let overtake their party. It would be insane to have a 'January exception.'