Justice Roberts says what?

[Sunni Man]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

 

[Pogo]

The impeachment trial process is to remove a sitting president.
Trump is no longer a sitting president, he's a private citizen.
Yes, this really could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Anyone wonder why they didn't impeach Nixon once he resigned????

Nixon was out of office once he resigned, by definition.

Rump was still in office when he was impeached.

And? Trump is out of office now. Are they going to reinstate Trump to remove him.
It's done.

You seem to be operating on the premise that removal from current office is the only remedy an impeachment can bring (?)

Well, the definition of impeachment

• Impeachment, as defined in Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, is the formal process in which Congress brings charges against high-ranking civil officers, such as the president, in a bid to remove them from office.

Impeachment: Meaning, Overview, Examples

Impeachment is the process by which Congress brings charges against high-ranking civil officers (e.g. the president) to remove them from office.

www.investopedia.com

Also, the way your tribe impeaches is really staggering. There wasn't even a lawyer for Trump during this clown show.
No witnesses, just an old butthurt Pelosi with a vendetta. But, let it happen, it will be another stain on your party.

I have no "party" or "tribe" and neither does a POTUS being impeached. An impeachment is cognate to an indictment. A defendant doesn't have a lawyer at an indictment --- he has a lawyer at the trial.

"No witnesses"?? Other than umpteen million who watched it on TV? Other than Senators and Congresscritters who were whisked away to safety? Come on man.

Yanno what, the fact that you have to resort to imagining my "party" and "tribe" reveals your paucity of logical basis. That's a fraud post bro.

 

[Polishprince]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

A huge Trump trial lasting months would take the focus off of the embarrassment which is Sleepy Joe and the Hoe.

And President Trump does love publicity, I can't see him turning down the invitation to speak his piece at length. Although he might decide to negotiate a contract with the networks on this, a Trump Trial would generate massive ratings.

 

[Meister]

The impeachment trial process is to remove a sitting president.
Trump is no longer a sitting president, he's a private citizen.
Yes, this really could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Anyone wonder why they didn't impeach Nixon once he resigned????

Nixon was out of office once he resigned, by definition.

Rump was still in office when he was impeached.

And? Trump is out of office now. Are they going to reinstate Trump to remove him.
It's done.

You seem to be operating on the premise that removal from current office is the only remedy an impeachment can bring (?)

Well, the definition of impeachment

• Impeachment, as defined in Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, is the formal process in which Congress brings charges against high-ranking civil officers, such as the president, in a bid to remove them from office.

Impeachment: Meaning, Overview, Examples

Impeachment is the process by which Congress brings charges against high-ranking civil officers (e.g. the president) to remove them from office.

www.investopedia.com

Also, the way your tribe impeaches is really staggering. There wasn't even a lawyer for Trump during this clown show.
No witnesses, just an old butthurt Pelosi with a vendetta. But, let it happen, it will be another stain on your party.

I have no "tribe" and neither does a POTUS being impeached. An impeachment is cognate to an indictment. A defendant doesn't have a lawyer at an indictment --- he has a lawyer at the trial.

"No witnesses"?? Other than umpteen million who watched it on TV? Other than Senators and Congresscritters who were whisked away to safety? Come on man.

I must have missed their testimony during the proceedings, Pogo. If this isn't your tribe, why in hell would you go along with this type of shenanigans.
You just can't bring yourself to admit it, but your tribe IS the democrats. Come on, man!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's just a little dog and pony show put on for the sheeple.

predictably enough, the sheeple are the only ones defending it.

 

[Crepitus]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

Roberts has lost it. He's become erratic and indecisive. Time for him to step down

 

[Pogo]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> 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. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

 

[Polishprince]

The impeachment trial process is to remove a sitting president.
Trump is no longer a sitting president, he's a private citizen.
Yes, this really could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Anyone wonder why they didn't impeach Nixon once he resigned????

Nixon was out of office once he resigned, by definition.

Rump was still in office when he was impeached.

And? Trump is out of office now. Are they going to reinstate Trump to remove him.
It's done.

You seem to be operating on the premise that removal from current office is the only remedy an impeachment can bring (?)

Well, the definition of impeachment

• Impeachment, as defined in Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, is the formal process in which Congress brings charges against high-ranking civil officers, such as the president, in a bid to remove them from office.

Impeachment: Meaning, Overview, Examples

Impeachment is the process by which Congress brings charges against high-ranking civil officers (e.g. the president) to remove them from office.

www.investopedia.com

Also, the way your tribe impeaches is really staggering. There wasn't even a lawyer for Trump during this clown show.
No witnesses, just an old butthurt Pelosi with a vendetta. But, let it happen, it will be another stain on your party.

I have no "party" or "tribe" and neither does a POTUS being impeached. An impeachment is cognate to an indictment. A defendant doesn't have a lawyer at an indictment --- he has a lawyer at the trial.

"No witnesses"?? Other than umpteen million who watched it on TV? Other than Senators and Congresscritters who were whisked away to safety? Come on man.

Yanno what, the fact that you have to resort to imagining my "party" and "tribe" reveals your paucity of logical basis. That's a fraud post bro.

No witnesses were presented at the House hearing. The "umpteen million" didn't testify, in fact no one did. the speeches were all ARGUMENTS and OPINIONS, not evidence, not testimony, at all.

 

[Meister]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> 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. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

 

[Pogo]

The impeachment trial process is to remove a sitting president.
Trump is no longer a sitting president, he's a private citizen.
Yes, this really could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Anyone wonder why they didn't impeach Nixon once he resigned????

Nixon was out of office once he resigned, by definition.

Rump was still in office when he was impeached.

And? Trump is out of office now. Are they going to reinstate Trump to remove him.
It's done.

You seem to be operating on the premise that removal from current office is the only remedy an impeachment can bring (?)

Well, the definition of impeachment

• Impeachment, as defined in Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, is the formal process in which Congress brings charges against high-ranking civil officers, such as the president, in a bid to remove them from office.

Impeachment: Meaning, Overview, Examples

Impeachment is the process by which Congress brings charges against high-ranking civil officers (e.g. the president) to remove them from office.

www.investopedia.com

Also, the way your tribe impeaches is really staggering. There wasn't even a lawyer for Trump during this clown show.
No witnesses, just an old butthurt Pelosi with a vendetta. But, let it happen, it will be another stain on your party.

I have no "tribe" and neither does a POTUS being impeached. An impeachment is cognate to an indictment. A defendant doesn't have a lawyer at an indictment --- he has a lawyer at the trial.

"No witnesses"?? Other than umpteen million who watched it on TV? Other than Senators and Congresscritters who were whisked away to safety? Come on man.

I must have missed their testimony during the proceedings, Pogo. If this isn't your tribe, why in hell would you go along with this type of shenanigans.
You just can't bring yourself to admit it, but your tribe IS the democrats [sic]. Come on, man!

There have been no proceedings yet.
Where do you get off assigning me your little label-box? That's a clown post, bro. Weak sauce. You ever see me doing that? No. That's why my arguments prevail over yours. I don't dabble in bullshit.

"This type of shenanigans"? "Go along with"? Explain yourself.

 

[Meister]

The impeachment trial process is to remove a sitting president.
Trump is no longer a sitting president, he's a private citizen.
Yes, this really could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Anyone wonder why they didn't impeach Nixon once he resigned????

Nixon was out of office once he resigned, by definition.

Rump was still in office when he was impeached.

And? Trump is out of office now. Are they going to reinstate Trump to remove him.
It's done.

You seem to be operating on the premise that removal from current office is the only remedy an impeachment can bring (?)

Well, the definition of impeachment

• Impeachment, as defined in Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, is the formal process in which Congress brings charges against high-ranking civil officers, such as the president, in a bid to remove them from office.

Impeachment: Meaning, Overview, Examples

Impeachment is the process by which Congress brings charges against high-ranking civil officers (e.g. the president) to remove them from office.

www.investopedia.com

Also, the way your tribe impeaches is really staggering. There wasn't even a lawyer for Trump during this clown show.
No witnesses, just an old butthurt Pelosi with a vendetta. But, let it happen, it will be another stain on your party.

I have no "tribe" and neither does a POTUS being impeached. An impeachment is cognate to an indictment. A defendant doesn't have a lawyer at an indictment --- he has a lawyer at the trial.

"No witnesses"?? Other than umpteen million who watched it on TV? Other than Senators and Congresscritters who were whisked away to safety? Come on man.

I must have missed their testimony during the proceedings, Pogo. If this isn't your tribe, why in hell would you go along with this type of shenanigans.
You just can't bring yourself to admit it, but your tribe IS the democrats [sic]. Come on, man!

There have been no proceedings yet.
Where do you get off assigning me your little label-box? That's a clown post, bro. Weak sauce. You ever see me doing that? No. That's why my arguments prevail over yours. I don't dabble in bullshit.

"This type of shenanigans"? "Go along with"? Explain yourself.

Dude, You are who you are. Your tribe is going to lose this one, and if Trump wants another piece of the pie, he can get his shot at one.
Your tribe does not have the votes.

 

[Pogo]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> 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. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

​

Your fallacious tactic is wholly invalid.

 

[BS Filter]

There's a question about the Constitutionality of a Senate trial for someone who is no longer in office. Democrats once again may have gone too far. Stupid hateful sniveling little bitches.

 

[White 6]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

Not sure Chief Justice Roberts will be able to skirt it, even though it is an Ex- President. I do not see it be acceptable to the Republicans for Vice President Harris to preside, nor Senator Leahy. I wonder if he will slough it off to one of the associate justices. They come to the court by political appointment, but once there (for life) serve and decide presumably with little political partiality, supposedly on the merits of the cases and the constitution. I too would prefer someone not of the caustically partisan divided Senate. It would be a cop out for him to recuse himself, as it is in the District of Columbia and it is in his circuit as well as him being over the Federal circuit, but would be interesting to see it assigned to somebody like Kavanaugh or Kagan. Ruth is looking down chuckling. I suspect Roberts is stuck.

 

[Meister]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> 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. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

 

[Pogo]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> 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. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

And again inserting strawmen ("condoning"). Once again I've posted no value judgments, YOU did; I did not. I've explained the process. But you can't handle that.

Obviously, since you've been repeatedly corrected on this and you persist, you're trolling.
Write yourself up.

 

[Pogo]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

Not sure Chief Justice Roberts will be able to skirt it, even though it is an Ex- President. I do not see it be acceptable to the Republicans for Vice President Harris to preside, nor Senator Leahy. I wonder if he will slough it off to one of the associate justices. They come to the court by political appointment, but once there (for life) serve and decide presumably with little political partiality, supposedly on the merits of the cases and the constitution. I too would prefer someone not of the caustically partisan divided Senate. It would be a cop out for him to recuse himself, as it is in the District of Columbia and it is in his circuit as well as him being over the Federal circuit, but would be interesting to see it assigned to somebody like Kavanaugh or Kagan. Ruth is looking down chuckling. I suspect Roberts is stuck.

I concur.

 

[Meister]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> 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. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

And again inserting strawmen ("condoning"). Once again I've posted no value judgments, I've explained the process. But you can't handle that.

Obviously, since you've been repeatedly corrected on this and you persist, you're trolling.
Write yourself up.

Obviously, you don't know what trolling is.
The republicans are not going to let Pelosi get a win on this. Everyone on the Hill knows it, dems don't care.
It's not justice, it's a vendetta. This will end up in front of the Supreme Court. I'm sure Roberts will be listening.
In the end, no matter what you, and your tribe says, no matter how many funny emogi's you give me.
Trump will run in 2024 if he wishes, I kinda think your tribe is afraid of just that.

 

[Pogo]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> 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. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

And again inserting strawmen ("condoning"). Once again I've posted no value judgments, I've explained the process. But you can't handle that.

Obviously, since you've been repeatedly corrected on this and you persist, you're trolling.
Write yourself up.

Obviously, you don't know what trolling is.
The republicans [sic] are not going to let Pelosi get a win on this. Everyone on the Hill knows it, dems [sic] don't care.
It's not justice, it's a vendetta. This will end up in front of the Supreme Court. I'm sure Roberts will be listening.
In the end, no matter what you, and your tribe says, no matter how many funny emogi's you give me.
Trump will run in 2024 if he wishes, I kinda think your tribe is afraid of just that.

Write yourself up AGAIN, troll.

You have no argument. Just divisive bullshit.

 

[Polishprince]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> 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. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

And again inserting strawmen ("condoning"). Once again I've posted no value judgments, I've explained the process. But you can't handle that.

Obviously, since you've been repeatedly corrected on this and you persist, you're trolling.
Write yourself up.

Obviously, you don't know what trolling is.
The republicans are not going to let Pelosi get a win on this. Everyone on the Hill knows it, dems don't care.
It's not justice, it's a vendetta. This will end up in front of the Supreme Court. I'm sure Roberts will be listening.
In the end, no matter what you, and your tribe says, no matter how many funny emogi's you give me.
Trump will run in 2024 if he wishes, I kinda think your tribe is afraid of just that.

A nationally televised trial with Trump prominently featured for weeks if not months will be a real boon to Trump for his 2024 campaign. This trial is a huge mistake for the D's, but I can't see how they can get out of having it.