Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Constitution says it's for "Removal" from office.
Trump isn't in office anymore. Thus, removal is a moot point. ...
You know that the pursuit of other judgments would be against a private citizen.Requires an initial conviction of impeachment while in office to pursue the other points. Articles of impeachment in this case were presented to the Senate post-term. There is no case.
It's a floor show. Nothing more.
Either the senate can do that, or they can't.
You even pointed out they can pursue a private citizen.
When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:The chief justice only has to sit for a sitting president.
Cite the Article and Section which spells that out.
I caught part of Chuck Schumers argument, and it proves the senate trial isn't barred by the impeached person no longer being in office.
From the Constitution:
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.
Under Trumps lawyers interpretation, that when the impeached becomes a private citizen the trial becomes unconstitutional. So let's test if this is a legitimate position.
There are two judgments the senate can make. Removal from office, and disqualification from future office. If the first judgement is removal from office, Trumps lawyers position would bar them from imposing a second judgment. Since once the first judgement was rendered, the impeached, having been removed, would at that point be a private citizen, and by Trumps lawyers position, the senate could not continue the trial, or impose an additional judgment.
As the constitution declares the senate can make both judgments, if Trumps lawyers position would prevent that, that means their position must be invalid.
It's clear the constitution requires if the senate renders judgment to remove a sitting president, their second judgment would be on a private citizen. Hence passing judgment on a private citizen must be constitutional.
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:
You realize in effect it says:Yes, and that half said AND. It did not say OR.
It is about removing a person from office AND preventing them from further office. It was obviosly not written in such a way as to give power to prevent private citizens from running for office.
You even pointed out they can pursue a private citizen.
In case you forgot what you posted.Oh? Where?
Requires an initial conviction of impeachment while in office to pursue the other points.
It's chicken shit and you know it. Everybody knows it.I caught part of Chuck Schumers argument, and it proves the senate trial isn't barred by the impeached person no longer being in office.
From the Constitution:
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.
Under Trumps lawyers interpretation, that when the impeached becomes a private citizen the trial becomes unconstitutional. So let's test if this is a legitimate position.
There are two judgments the senate can make. Removal from office, and disqualification from future office. If the first judgement is removal from office, Trumps lawyers position would bar them from imposing a second judgment. Since once the first judgement was rendered, the impeached, having been removed, would at that point be a private citizen, and by Trumps lawyers position, the senate could not continue the trial, or impose an additional judgment.
As the constitution declares the senate can make both judgments, if Trumps lawyers position would prevent that, that means their position must be invalid.
It's clear the constitution requires if the senate renders judgment to remove a sitting president, their second judgment would be on a private citizen. Hence passing judgment on a private citizen must be constitutional.
Republicans are relying on an argument of the trial not being constitutional as a reason to acquit. Without that argument, they have to base it on the evidence. Which is damning.So what? President Trump will be exonerated during the trial, the only President ever to be Twice Exonerated.
Will make a tremendous kickoff for the 2024 Campaign.
It's chicken shit and you know it. Everybody knows it.I caught part of Chuck Schumers argument, and it proves the senate trial isn't barred by the impeached person no longer being in office.
From the Constitution:
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.
Under Trumps lawyers interpretation, that when the impeached becomes a private citizen the trial becomes unconstitutional. So let's test if this is a legitimate position.
There are two judgments the senate can make. Removal from office, and disqualification from future office. If the first judgement is removal from office, Trumps lawyers position would bar them from imposing a second judgment. Since once the first judgement was rendered, the impeached, having been removed, would at that point be a private citizen, and by Trumps lawyers position, the senate could not continue the trial, or impose an additional judgment.
As the constitution declares the senate can make both judgments, if Trumps lawyers position would prevent that, that means their position must be invalid.
It's clear the constitution requires if the senate renders judgment to remove a sitting president, their second judgment would be on a private citizen. Hence passing judgment on a private citizen must be constitutional.
I caught part of Chuck Schumers argument, and it proves the senate trial isn't barred by the impeached person no longer being in office.
From the Constitution:
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.
Under Trumps lawyers interpretation, that when the impeached becomes a private citizen the trial becomes unconstitutional. So let's test if this is a legitimate position.
There are two judgments the senate can make. Removal from office, and disqualification from future office. If the first judgement is removal from office, Trumps lawyers position would bar them from imposing a second judgment. Since once the first judgement was rendered, the impeached, having been removed, would at that point be a private citizen, and by Trumps lawyers position, the senate could not continue the trial, or impose an additional judgment.
As the constitution declares the senate can make both judgments, if Trumps lawyers position would prevent that, that means their position must be invalid.
It's clear the constitution requires if the senate renders judgment to remove a sitting president, their second judgment would be on a private citizen. Hence passing judgment on a private citizen must be constitutional.
He doesn't, CNN, Huffpo, MSNBC, Slate, etc has assured him
He doesn't, CNN, Huffpo, MSNBC, Slate, etc has assured him
Actually the fact that in any impeachment once they convict the impeached office holder, that person become a private citizen. And the senate is empowered to pursue an impeachment judgement against that private citizen.
The constitution actually states thatI tend to think no.
Criminal trial for what was done as President? That has a good ring to it though.
Yes!I caught part of Chuck Schumers argument, and it proves the senate trial isn't barred by the impeached person no longer being in office.
From the Constitution:
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.
Under Trumps lawyers interpretation, that when the impeached becomes a private citizen the trial becomes unconstitutional. So let's test if this is a legitimate position.
There are two judgments the senate can make. Removal from office, and disqualification from future office. If the first judgement is removal from office, Trumps lawyers position would bar them from imposing a second judgment. Since once the first judgement was rendered, the impeached, having been removed, would at that point be a private citizen, and by Trumps lawyers position, the senate could not continue the trial, or impose an additional judgment.
As the constitution declares the senate can make both judgments, if Trumps lawyers position would prevent that, that means their position must be invalid.
It's clear the constitution requires if the senate renders judgment to remove a sitting president, their second judgment would be on a private citizen. Hence passing judgment on a private citizen must be constitutional.
You even pointed out they can pursue a private citizen.In case you forgot what you posted.Oh? Where?
Requires an initial conviction of impeachment while in office to pursue the other points.
Once convicted, the impeached is no longer in office, and becomes a private citizen.
You said they could pursue the other points against that private citizen.
Once convicted, the impeached is no longer in office, and becomes a private citizen.
You said they could pursue the other points against that private citizen.
You answered your question in your thread title.I caught part of Chuck Schumers argument, and it proves the senate trial isn't barred by the impeached person no longer being in office.
From the Constitution:
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.
Under Trumps lawyers interpretation, that when the impeached becomes a private citizen the trial becomes unconstitutional. So let's test if this is a legitimate position.
There are two judgments the senate can make. Removal from office, and disqualification from future office. If the first judgement is removal from office, Trumps lawyers position would bar them from imposing a second judgment. Since once the first judgement was rendered, the impeached, having been removed, would at that point be a private citizen, and by Trumps lawyers position, the senate could not continue the trial, or impose an additional judgment.
As the constitution declares the senate can make both judgments, if Trumps lawyers position would prevent that, that means their position must be invalid.
It's clear the constitution requires if the senate renders judgment to remove a sitting president, their second judgment would be on a private citizen. Hence passing judgment on a private citizen must be constitutional.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office [of a sitting president], and disqualification [of a private citizen] to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States:
Nowhere does it say the person has to be in office in order to be convicted.Additional points would need to be pursued in a timely manner following conviction while still in office. Since there is no conviction while in office, and the subject has since left office, the additional points cannot be pursued.
Except I proved the senate can pursue a judgement against a private citizen. And a former president is a private citizen, hence he is subject to trial by the senate.You answered your question in your thread title.
"Former".
Unconstitutional.
You did no such thing.Except I proved the senate can pursue a judgement against a private citizen. And a former president is a private citizen, hence he is subject to trial by the senate.You answered your question in your thread title.
"Former".
Unconstitutional.
