Is The Pending Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump UnConstitutional? (Poll)

[DrLove]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

LOL!! Think about what you are reading without the partisan TDS filter. Ready.... Okay, read the words again:
it is limited to office holders
Okay, read the words again:
it is limited to office holders (not former office holders!!)

If that doesn't sink in, then you are one of those stupid democrats that think the island of Guam will capsize.

"Impeached Trump" got 10m more votes in 2020 than the unimpeached Trump got in 2016.
Think about that, now Trump was impeached TWICE!!

Then it should say CURRENT office holders. Sorry, but a second impeachment is perfectly constitutional.

Are you a legal expert? A USSC justice or a law professor? If not, you need to backup your claim with proof, here's Dershowitz:

Dershowitz calls Trump impeachment a 'loaded weapon' that would be 'so dangerous to the Constitution'

Harvard Law professor emeritus and constitutional law scholar Alan Dershowitz said that while he does not believe it would result in a Senate trial, impeaching President Trump over what he said in an address prior to protesters storming the Capitol building on Wednesday would provide a "loaded...

www.foxnews.com

Dershowitz has become a right wing tool. But he's smart enough not to defend Donnie in his second trial.

Alan Dershowitz is ‘not going to be’ part of Trump’s second impeachment defense team

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz now says he will not defend President Trump in his second U.S. Senate impeachment trial.

www.bostonherald.com

Looks like Rump is stuck with Rudy

 

[kyzr]

1. ok
2. You have a reading comprehension issue. Read the thread title again, then the OP and poll questions. Your #2 makes no sense.
3. ok, so you are saying that the senate trial is only about barring Trump from holding future offices. Removal is not a requirement.
4. Nothing after "correct" makes sense. So I'll accept "correct" and move on.
5. I do believe that presidential "impeachment" is only for a sitting president as referenced in the OP via the Cornell Law School link. If you believe that the Constitution allows an impeachment trial for an ex-president just to bar him from future office, that is you "opinion". If it was me, I'd try to find a link proving my assertion.
6. Why isn't your position in the poll? Because I believe its totally implausible, from reading the Constitution and opinions by Law Professors. I hope it happens, it will waste a lot of senate time with no end result except acquittal for Trump.

 

[kyzr]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

LOL!! Think about what you are reading without the partisan TDS filter. Ready.... Okay, read the words again:
it is limited to office holders
Okay, read the words again:
it is limited to office holders (not former office holders!!)

If that doesn't sink in, then you are one of those stupid democrats that think the island of Guam will capsize.

"Impeached Trump" got 10m more votes in 2020 than the unimpeached Trump got in 2016.
Think about that, now Trump was impeached TWICE!!

Then it should say CURRENT office holders. Sorry, but a second impeachment is perfectly constitutional.

Are you a legal expert? A USSC justice or a law professor? If not, you need to backup your claim with proof, here's Dershowitz:

Dershowitz calls Trump impeachment a 'loaded weapon' that would be 'so dangerous to the Constitution'

Harvard Law professor emeritus and constitutional law scholar Alan Dershowitz said that while he does not believe it would result in a Senate trial, impeaching President Trump over what he said in an address prior to protesters storming the Capitol building on Wednesday would provide a "loaded...

www.foxnews.com

Dershowitz has become a right wing tool. But he's smart enough not to defend Donnie in his second trial.

Alan Dershowitz is ‘not going to be’ part of Trump’s second impeachment defense team

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz now says he will not defend President Trump in his second U.S. Senate impeachment trial.

www.bostonherald.com

Looks like Rump is stuck with Rudy

LOL! It won't matter. Trump will be acquitted even if he defended himself.

 

[DrLove]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

LOL!! Think about what you are reading without the partisan TDS filter. Ready.... Okay, read the words again:
it is limited to office holders
Okay, read the words again:
it is limited to office holders (not former office holders!!)

If that doesn't sink in, then you are one of those stupid democrats that think the island of Guam will capsize.

"Impeached Trump" got 10m more votes in 2020 than the unimpeached Trump got in 2016.
Think about that, now Trump was impeached TWICE!!

Then it should say CURRENT office holders. Sorry, but a second impeachment is perfectly constitutional.

Are you a legal expert? A USSC justice or a law professor? If not, you need to backup your claim with proof, here's Dershowitz:

Dershowitz calls Trump impeachment a 'loaded weapon' that would be 'so dangerous to the Constitution'

Harvard Law professor emeritus and constitutional law scholar Alan Dershowitz said that while he does not believe it would result in a Senate trial, impeaching President Trump over what he said in an address prior to protesters storming the Capitol building on Wednesday would provide a "loaded...

www.foxnews.com

Dershowitz has become a right wing tool. But he's smart enough not to defend Donnie in his second trial.

Alan Dershowitz is ‘not going to be’ part of Trump’s second impeachment defense team

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz now says he will not defend President Trump in his second U.S. Senate impeachment trial.

www.bostonherald.com

Looks like Rump is stuck with Rudy

LOL! It won't matter. Trump will be acquitted even if he defended himself.

Nope, minimally there will be bipartisan approval for a ban from holding any elected office. Mitch is ready to ditch the bitch and exorcize MAGA from the Republican Party for eternity.

 

[Aletheia4u]

They cannot impeach him. They are trying to set up another false flag that this attempt to impeach him is to give a motive to those they are going to set up. That those conservatives that are going to Biden's event are the pasties. That they are going to put the blame on them whatever the Dems orchestrated on that day.
But Pres. Trump knows that they cannot impeach him again. That is why he went back to work while they are spreading fake news.

 

[kyzr]

They cannot impeach him. They are trying to set up another false flag that this attempt to impeach him is to give a motive to those they are going to set up. That those conservatives that are going to Biden's event are the pasties. That they are going to put the blame on them whatever the Dems orchestrated on that day.
But Pres. Trump knows that they cannot impeach him again. That is why he went back to work while they are spreading fake news.

LOL! Google "pasties photo" I'd put a photo up but don't want to break any rules.

Trump is impeached already. The question is will the senate hold a trial, which is why I wrote the OP.

 

[Aletheia4u]

They cannot impeach him. They are trying to set up another false flag that this attempt to impeach him is to give a motive to those they are going to set up. That those conservatives that are going to Biden's event are the pasties. That they are going to put the blame on them whatever the Dems orchestrated on that day.
But Pres. Trump knows that they cannot impeach him again. That is why he went back to work while they are spreading fake news.

LOL! Google "pasties photo" I'd put a photo up but don't want to break any rules.

Trump is impeached already. The question is will the senate hold a trial, which is why I wrote the OP.

i only came up with this Patsies.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Other, because it's a fraud to begin with, just as the last time, just as the Russian business, just as the racist business, the grabbing a pussy, the COVID, the riots, the election blah blah blah........

And you know it.

 

[Slade3200]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

There will be no Senate Hearing. There is no law to support convicting a president of a high crime when he's not even president anymore! The whole point of the conviction is to convict to remove him from office. If the Dems try to go forward with this and Roberts goes along, our SCOTUS is now as worthless and political as our other branches and I'll know Robert's tirade in refusing to hear Trump's case was purely political-- -- first Roberts created the dilemma of a riot at the Capitol over the unresolved election he refused to address then preside over an illegal impeachment with no charges, no witnesses, and no hearings that only happened because of his cowardess?

The whole point is not just to remove him from office. Impeachment also strips him of certain presidential privileges and prevents him from running for office again.

 

[kyzr]

They cannot impeach him. They are trying to set up another false flag that this attempt to impeach him is to give a motive to those they are going to set up. That those conservatives that are going to Biden's event are the pasties. That they are going to put the blame on them whatever the Dems orchestrated on that day.
But Pres. Trump knows that they cannot impeach him again. That is why he went back to work while they are spreading fake news.

LOL! Google "pasties photo" I'd put a photo up but don't want to break any rules.

Trump is impeached already. The question is will the senate hold a trial, which is why I wrote the OP.

i only came up with this Patsies.

Correct. Patsies is the word you wanted, but the typo was cute.

 

[kyzr]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

There will be no Senate Hearing. There is no law to support convicting a president of a high crime when he's not even president anymore! The whole point of the conviction is to convict to remove him from office. If the Dems try to go forward with this and Roberts goes along, our SCOTUS is now as worthless and political as our other branches and I'll know Robert's tirade in refusing to hear Trump's case was purely political-- -- first Roberts created the dilemma of a riot at the Capitol over the unresolved election he refused to address then preside over an illegal impeachment with no charges, no witnesses, and no hearings that only happened because of his cowardess?

The whole point is not just to remove him from office. Impeachment also strips him of certain presidential privileges and prevents him from running for office again.

Agreed. But the Constitution doesn't say "remove and/or disqualify from future office". It says:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments....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;..."

So you and Pogo are in the camp of removal doesn't matter, you want him banned. OK, now if only Justice Roberts sees it that way you and the democrats are all set for trial.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

Which he WAS when he committed the acts for which he's been impeached the second time.

Impeachment ALREADY HAPPENED. It's in the history books. All that hasn't yet happened, is the TRIAL.
YOUR OWN THREAD TITLE makes that distinction --- then you tried to pivot to the impeachment.... the previous event. Didn't work.

Fake poll w/ loaded answers, bait thread. As such, dismissed.

1. Impeachment is limited to office holders, period. The House impeached Trump when he was an office holder, but without a hearing, or any recognized legitimate House process. Even so, say the House Impeachment is ruled legitimate by the USSC.
2. When the Senate receives the Articles for trial, President Trump will no longer be the US President.
3. The OP question is: can the senate hold an impeachment trial for a non-president? (not that complex a question)
4. The poll presents several options, you are free to put up your opinion. There is no "bait" just a few options. Put up or shut up.

p.s. you post a lot but don't have much content?! Try putting a post up with real sound ideas for a change, with backup links.

Pogo is an untreated ADHD loon who cannot carry on an adult conversation and stay on topic. You're wasting your life on him.

As I said, the process is legitimate and constitutional, but there is a legitimate question as to whether they can hold a removal trial for a guy no longer in office. It is moot.

 

[Pogo]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

There will be no Senate Hearing. There is no law to support convicting a president of a high crime when he's not even president anymore! The whole point of the conviction is to convict to remove him from office. If the Dems try to go forward with this and Roberts goes along, our SCOTUS is now as worthless and political as our other branches and I'll know Robert's tirade in refusing to hear Trump's case was purely political-- -- first Roberts created the dilemma of a riot at the Capitol over the unresolved election he refused to address then preside over an illegal impeachment with no charges, no witnesses, and no hearings that only happened because of his cowardess?

The whole point is not just to remove him from office. Impeachment also strips him of certain presidential privileges and prevents him from running for office again.

Agreed. But the Constitution doesn't say "remove and/or disqualify from future office". It says:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments....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;..."

So you and Pogo are in the camp of removal doesn't matter, you want him banned. OK, now if only Justice Roberts sees it that way you and the democrats are all set for trial.

See the part that says "shall not extend further than" in your own quote?

 

[2aguy]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

They impeached and tried this guy after he left office...Trump can likely take this crap to the Supreme Court...

On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.

This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.

U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page

404 Error Page

www.senate.gov

Congress impeached and tried my ancestor after he left office. Trump could be next.

I'll leave the legal arguments to the lawyers, but my own last name is proof Congress can impeach and try newly minted private citizens.

news.yahoo.com

 

[kyzr]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

There will be no Senate Hearing. There is no law to support convicting a president of a high crime when he's not even president anymore! The whole point of the conviction is to convict to remove him from office. If the Dems try to go forward with this and Roberts goes along, our SCOTUS is now as worthless and political as our other branches and I'll know Robert's tirade in refusing to hear Trump's case was purely political-- -- first Roberts created the dilemma of a riot at the Capitol over the unresolved election he refused to address then preside over an illegal impeachment with no charges, no witnesses, and no hearings that only happened because of his cowardess?

The whole point is not just to remove him from office. Impeachment also strips him of certain presidential privileges and prevents him from running for office again.

Agreed. But the Constitution doesn't say "remove and/or disqualify from future office". It says:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments....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;..."

So you and Pogo are in the camp of removal doesn't matter, you want him banned. OK, now if only Justice Roberts sees it that way you and the democrats are all set for trial.

See the part that says "shall not extend further than" in your own quote?

"shall not extend further than"
I interpret that to mean he can't be hanged or sent to prison.

What do you think it means?

 

[kyzr]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

They impeached and tried this guy after he left office...Trump can likely take this crap to the Supreme Court...

On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.

This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.

U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page

404 Error Page

www.senate.gov

Congress impeached and tried my ancestor after he left office. Trump could be next.

I'll leave the legal arguments to the lawyers, but my own last name is proof Congress can impeach and try newly minted private citizens.

news.yahoo.com

Correct, Trump has the Constitution and the USSC to stand behind. Poor Belknap didn't.

 

[Slade3200]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

There will be no Senate Hearing. There is no law to support convicting a president of a high crime when he's not even president anymore! The whole point of the conviction is to convict to remove him from office. If the Dems try to go forward with this and Roberts goes along, our SCOTUS is now as worthless and political as our other branches and I'll know Robert's tirade in refusing to hear Trump's case was purely political-- -- first Roberts created the dilemma of a riot at the Capitol over the unresolved election he refused to address then preside over an illegal impeachment with no charges, no witnesses, and no hearings that only happened because of his cowardess?

The whole point is not just to remove him from office. Impeachment also strips him of certain presidential privileges and prevents him from running for office again.

Agreed. But the Constitution doesn't say "remove and/or disqualify from future office". It says:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments....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;..."

So you and Pogo are in the camp of removal doesn't matter, you want him banned. OK, now if only Justice Roberts sees it that way you and the democrats are all set for trial.

It looks to me like the snippet you pasted says exactly what you’re saying it doesn’t say. Removal from office AND disqualification from holding any public office. What am I missing here?

 

[2aguy]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

They impeached and tried this guy after he left office...Trump can likely take this crap to the Supreme Court...

On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.

This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.

U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page

404 Error Page

www.senate.gov

Congress impeached and tried my ancestor after he left office. Trump could be next.

I'll leave the legal arguments to the lawyers, but my own last name is proof Congress can impeach and try newly minted private citizens.

news.yahoo.com

Correct, Trump has the Constitution and the USSC to stand behind. Poor Belknap didn't.

His only chance is the fact they can't pack the Supreme Court before they start the trial........

 

[Slade3200]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

There will be no Senate Hearing. There is no law to support convicting a president of a high crime when he's not even president anymore! The whole point of the conviction is to convict to remove him from office. If the Dems try to go forward with this and Roberts goes along, our SCOTUS is now as worthless and political as our other branches and I'll know Robert's tirade in refusing to hear Trump's case was purely political-- -- first Roberts created the dilemma of a riot at the Capitol over the unresolved election he refused to address then preside over an illegal impeachment with no charges, no witnesses, and no hearings that only happened because of his cowardess?

The whole point is not just to remove him from office. Impeachment also strips him of certain presidential privileges and prevents him from running for office again.

Agreed. But the Constitution doesn't say "remove and/or disqualify from future office". It says:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments....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;..."

So you and Pogo are in the camp of removal doesn't matter, you want him banned. OK, now if only Justice Roberts sees it that way you and the democrats are all set for trial.

See the part that says "shall not extend further than" in your own quote?

"shall not extend further than"
I interpret that to mean he can't be hanged or sent to prison.

What do you think it means?

It means congress can kick a president out of office and disqualify them from serving in public office ever again... no more, like no criminal charges, prison etc

 

[Aletheia4u]

They cannot impeach him. They are trying to set up another false flag that this attempt to impeach him is to give a motive to those they are going to set up. That those conservatives that are going to Biden's event are the pasties. That they are going to put the blame on them whatever the Dems orchestrated on that day.
But Pres. Trump knows that they cannot impeach him again. That is why he went back to work while they are spreading fake news.

LOL! Google "pasties photo" I'd put a photo up but don't want to break any rules.

Trump is impeached already. The question is will the senate hold a trial, which is why I wrote the OP.

i only came up with this Patsies.

Correct. Patsies is the word you wanted, but the typo was cute.