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.
Until the Supreme Court (or perhaps federal court) says the act is useless....The senate can bar Trump from running again.Roberts and the court have a Constitutional duty to put the Nazis back into their place.
No. The Constitution is not worded that way that a power exists until explicitly forbidden. The Constitution is written to expressly enumerate what powers the Senate has, and as written, forbidding an officer from ever running for office again is a power ascribed to AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES UPON CONVICTION OF IMPEACHMENT which can only be done:
The Senate has the power to ascribe punishment to an officer of the government including barring from running for office up to impeachment upon conviction of a crime. Since Trump holds no office, he cannot be convicted by the Senate, cannot be punished by the senate. Whatever the democrats have in mind is to torture the law much as they did during the election and in the last impeachment. IMO, the Congress must first pass an amendment expressly empowering them to be able to pursue people out of office which they will never get passed as it would essentially award the Senate virtually unlimited legal power (which is kind of what Nancy is going for).
- To an Officer of the United States (Trump is a civilian).
- As a result of conviction of crimes or misdemeanor (the Senate cannot convict private citizens of crimes ), Non bis in idem.
The bitch be slapped down. Fuck her.
No, he just knows that he does not want to be blackmailed over whatever the Dims hold over him to control himit is first sign that Roberts might have a tiny backbone
The reason the chief justice presides over presidential impeachment, is because the normal person presiding over impeachment is the President of the Senate, which is the vice president.
The vice president of a sitting president being impeached, presiding over this kind of impeachment of his partner and boss, is a known conflict of interest.
Since the President is no longer a sitting president, and his own vice pres is no longer the President of the Senate, the chief justice is no longer needed.
Should be?The reason the chief justice presides over presidential impeachment, is because the normal person presiding over impeachment is the President of the Senate, which is the vice president.
The vice president of a sitting president being impeached, presiding over this kind of impeachment of his partner and boss, is a known conflict of interest.
Since the President is no longer a sitting president, and his own vice pres is no longer the President of the Senate, the chief justice is no longer needed.
So Commiela should preside...right?
NoYou may be correct; however, for your point to be adjudicated, the senate would have to convict trump and bar him from holding federal office so that he could adjudicate the action in court. Until then, the senate will do what it wants to do, constitutional or not.I don't think so. As per Article Two Section Four, the Senate cannot bar Trump without a conviction of a crime, and the Senate has no power to convict a civilian who is not an acting officer of the United States.Sure, it can bar Trump from running for president again,
This is yet one more lawless bullshit maneuver by the democrats.
No. As per the Constitution, just being out of office and no longer POTUS frees all courts automatically to pursue any civil actions they might want to engender. The POTUS is only protected from legal actions while in office because otherwise, that could compromise the office, endangering national security.
Since he is no longer President he cannot be “impeached” as if he was still President
Oh they will try and run a media aided shit show that they call impeachment,
Trump was i
Trump was impeached while he was President. So the impeachment is valid.He is doing his job. The Senate can't try any civilian and Trump is now a civilian.He shows backbone by refusing to do his job? the man is a cowardit is first sign that Roberts might have a tiny backbone
CORRECT. Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The Constitution also allows for involuntary removal from office of the president, vice president, Cabinet secretaries, and other executive officers, as well as judges, who may be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate.
Any official convicted by the Senate is immediately removed from office, and the Senate may also order, by a simple majority, that the removed official be forever disqualified from holding any federal office.
The Constitution makes no allowance for impeaching a person from office who HOLDS NO OFFICE and is not a civil officer of the United States. Period. End of story.
Before Nancy can have her pound of flesh, she would need to have an amendment ratified to the Constitution first making allowance for the Senate to try civilians and FORMER officers of the United States, which they cannot do as this would create a legal quandary of giving the Senate unlimited power to cross legal boundaries into civilian courts.
Totally different situation. Impeachment is censure. The purpose of conviction is for removing from office of a chargeable crime rather than mere whim of the House. The constitution is explicit that the Senate can only convict OFFICERS of the government. Blount was a senator not a president and was guilty of treason, and the senate even then in doing so tortured the law setting up a legal conflict many took great issue with.
You might want to tell that to your senators.You may be correct; however, for your point to be adjudicated, the senate would have to convict trump and bar him from holding federal office so that he could adjudicate the action in court. Until then, the senate will do what it wants to do, constitutional or not.I don't think so. As per Article Two Section Four, the Senate cannot bar Trump without a conviction of a crime, and the Senate has no power to convict a civilian who is not an acting officer of the United States.Sure, it can bar Trump from running for president again,
This is yet one more lawless bullshit maneuver by the democrats.
No. As per the Constitution, just being out of office and no longer POTUS frees all courts automatically to pursue any civil actions they might want to engender. The POTUS is only protected from legal actions while in office because otherwise, that could compromise the office, endangering national security.
NoYou may be correct; however, for your point to be adjudicated, the senate would have to convict trump and bar him from holding federal office so that he could adjudicate the action in court. Until then, the senate will do what it wants to do, constitutional or not.I don't think so. As per Article Two Section Four, the Senate cannot bar Trump without a conviction of a crime, and the Senate has no power to convict a civilian who is not an acting officer of the United States.Sure, it can bar Trump from running for president again,
This is yet one more lawless bullshit maneuver by the democrats.
No. As per the Constitution, just being out of office and no longer POTUS frees all courts automatically to pursue any civil actions they might want to engender. The POTUS is only protected from legal actions while in office because otherwise, that could compromise the office, endangering national security.
Since he is no longer President he cannot be “impeached” as if he was still President
Oh they will try and run a media aided shit show that they call impeachment,
That's not what I said. Trump is already impeached, but cannot be convicted as punishment because the Senate's prosecutorial power is limited to officers of the government as per the constitution. Trump is a civilian now, unprotected from civil law and can and must be charged, tried and convicted according to civil law.
Should be?The reason the chief justice presides over presidential impeachment, is because the normal person presiding over impeachment is the President of the Senate, which is the vice president.
The vice president of a sitting president being impeached, presiding over this kind of impeachment of his partner and boss, is a known conflict of interest.
Since the President is no longer a sitting president, and his own vice pres is no longer the President of the Senate, the chief justice is no longer needed.
So Commiela should preside...right?
She is.
Should be?The reason the chief justice presides over presidential impeachment, is because the normal person presiding over impeachment is the President of the Senate, which is the vice president.
The vice president of a sitting president being impeached, presiding over this kind of impeachment of his partner and boss, is a known conflict of interest.
Since the President is no longer a sitting president, and his own vice pres is no longer the President of the Senate, the chief justice is no longer needed.
So Commiela should preside...right?
She is.
I thought it was Leahy.
Should be?The reason the chief justice presides over presidential impeachment, is because the normal person presiding over impeachment is the President of the Senate, which is the vice president.
The vice president of a sitting president being impeached, presiding over this kind of impeachment of his partner and boss, is a known conflict of interest.
Since the President is no longer a sitting president, and his own vice pres is no longer the President of the Senate, the chief justice is no longer needed.
So Commiela should preside...right?
She is.
I thought it was Leahy.
Leaky Leahy will lead the lynching..
The lynching is led by lying louse leaky Leahy..
Unless that coward Roberts puts a stop to the whole thing.
Most Democrat Ensign PulverTrump was i
He is doing his job. The Senate can't try any civilian and Trump is now a civilian.He shows backbone by refusing to do his job? the man is a cowardit is first sign that Roberts might have a tiny backbone
CORRECT. Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The Constitution also allows for involuntary removal from office of the president, vice president, Cabinet secretaries, and other executive officers, as well as judges, who may be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate.
Any official convicted by the Senate is immediately removed from office, and the Senate may also order, by a simple majority, that the removed official be forever disqualified from holding any federal office.
The Constitution makes no allowance for impeaching a person from office who HOLDS NO OFFICE and is not a civil officer of the United States. Period. End of story.
Before Nancy can have her pound of flesh, she would need to have an amendment ratified to the Constitution first making allowance for the Senate to try civilians and FORMER officers of the United States, which they cannot do as this would create a legal quandry of giving the Senate unlimited power to cross legal boundaries into civilian courts.
Trump was impeached while he was President. So the impeachment is valid.
Once impeached the Senate must put him on trial. It's up to the Senate when to schedule the trial.
The fact that he is no longer President is not relevant.
When Sen. Blount was impeached in 1797, the fact that he had already been expelled from the Senate was deemed not relevant.
U.S. Senate: Blount Expulsion
Most Democrat Voters do not understand that their first impeachment was totally bogus, and that this impeachment is even worse.Trump was i
He is doing his job. The Senate can't try any civilian and Trump is now a civilian.He shows backbone by refusing to do his job? the man is a cowardit is first sign that Roberts might have a tiny backbone
CORRECT. Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The Constitution also allows for involuntary removal from office of the president, vice president, Cabinet secretaries, and other executive officers, as well as judges, who may be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate.
Any official convicted by the Senate is immediately removed from office, and the Senate may also order, by a simple majority, that the removed official be forever disqualified from holding any federal office.
The Constitution makes no allowance for impeaching a person from office who HOLDS NO OFFICE and is not a civil officer of the United States. Period. End of story.
Before Nancy can have her pound of flesh, she would need to have an amendment ratified to the Constitution first making allowance for the Senate to try civilians and FORMER officers of the United States, which they cannot do as this would create a legal quandry of giving the Senate unlimited power to cross legal boundaries into civilian courts.
Trump was impeached while he was President. So the impeachment is valid.
Once impeached the Senate must put him on trial. It's up to the Senate when to schedule the trial.
The fact that he is no longer President is not relevant.
When Sen. Blount was impeached in 1797, the fact that he had already been expelled from the Senate was deemed not relevant.
U.S. Senate: Blount Expulsion
1 Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. He just asked about Biden's crimes in the Ukraine.
2 Trump DID NOT incite an insurrection.
The problem seems to be that the Dem voter's hate is about 10x stronger than their minds.
Liberals seem to lack any sense of shame because they also lack a conscience.
They do not understand how bad that they look to reasonable people.
The Democrat Party is based on hate.
No they have not because they cannot . Other adjudicary entities can or may be able to.The
Until the Supreme Court (or perhaps federal court) says the act is useless....The senate can bar Trump from running again.Roberts and the court have a Constitutional duty to put the Nazis back into their place.
No. The Constitution is not worded that way that a power exists until explicitly forbidden. The Constitution is written to expressly enumerate what powers the Senate has, and as written, forbidding an officer from ever running for office again is a power ascribed to AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES UPON CONVICTION OF IMPEACHMENT which can only be done:
The Senate has the power to ascribe punishment to an officer of the government including barring from running for office up to impeachment upon conviction of a crime. Since Trump holds no office, he cannot be convicted by the Senate, cannot be punished by the senate. Whatever the democrats have in mind is to torture the law much as they did during the election and in the last impeachment. IMO, the Congress must first pass an amendment expressly empowering them to be able to pursue people out of office which they will never get passed as it would essentially award the Senate virtually unlimited legal power (which is kind of what Nancy is going for).
- To an Officer of the United States (Trump is a civilian).
- As a result of conviction of crimes or misdemeanor (the Senate cannot convict private citizens of crimes ), Non bis in idem.
The bitch be slapped down. Fuck her.
The Senate has tried people after they have left office several times. This is nothing new.
YOU be slapped down. FUCK YOU!!!
He was charged and referred but never impeached.NoYou may be correct; however, for your point to be adjudicated, the senate would have to convict trump and bar him from holding federal office so that he could adjudicate the action in court. Until then, the senate will do what it wants to do, constitutional or not.I don't think so. As per Article Two Section Four, the Senate cannot bar Trump without a conviction of a crime, and the Senate has no power to convict a civilian who is not an acting officer of the United States.Sure, it can bar Trump from running for president again,
This is yet one more lawless bullshit maneuver by the democrats.
No. As per the Constitution, just being out of office and no longer POTUS frees all courts automatically to pursue any civil actions they might want to engender. The POTUS is only protected from legal actions while in office because otherwise, that could compromise the office, endangering national security.
Since he is no longer President he cannot be “impeached” as if he was still President
Oh they will try and run a media aided shit show that they call impeachment,
That's not what I said. Trump is already impeached, but cannot be convicted as punishment because the Senate's prosecutorial power is limited to officers of the government as per the constitution. Trump is a civilian now, unprotected from civil law and can and must be charged, tried and convicted according to civil law.
The
Until the Supreme Court (or perhaps federal court) says the act is useless....The senate can bar Trump from running again.Roberts and the court have a Constitutional duty to put the Nazis back into their place.
No. The Constitution is not worded that way that a power exists until explicitly forbidden. The Constitution is written to expressly enumerate what powers the Senate has, and as written, forbidding an officer from ever running for office again is a power ascribed to AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES UPON CONVICTION OF IMPEACHMENT which can only be done:
The Senate has the power to ascribe punishment to an officer of the government including barring from running for office up to impeachment upon conviction of a crime. Since Trump holds no office, he cannot be convicted by the Senate, cannot be punished by the senate. Whatever the democrats have in mind is to torture the law much as they did during the election and in the last impeachment. IMO, the Congress must first pass an amendment expressly empowering them to be able to pursue people out of office which they will never get passed as it would essentially award the Senate virtually unlimited legal power (which is kind of what Nancy is going for).
- To an Officer of the United States (Trump is a civilian).
- As a result of conviction of crimes or misdemeanor (the Senate cannot convict private citizens of crimes ), Non bis in idem.
The bitch be slapped down. Fuck her.
The Senate has tried people after they have left office several times. This is nothing new.
YOU be slapped down. FUCK YOU!!!
That’s right he said cheer some and not some and lib loon media controlled Dems have portrayed that as an order to destroyThe
Until the Supreme Court (or perhaps federal court) says the act is useless....The senate can bar Trump from running again.Roberts and the court have a Constitutional duty to put the Nazis back into their place.
No. The Constitution is not worded that way that a power exists until explicitly forbidden. The Constitution is written to expressly enumerate what powers the Senate has, and as written, forbidding an officer from ever running for office again is a power ascribed to AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES UPON CONVICTION OF IMPEACHMENT which can only be done:
The Senate has the power to ascribe punishment to an officer of the government including barring from running for office up to impeachment upon conviction of a crime. Since Trump holds no office, he cannot be convicted by the Senate, cannot be punished by the senate. Whatever the democrats have in mind is to torture the law much as they did during the election and in the last impeachment. IMO, the Congress must first pass an amendment expressly empowering them to be able to pursue people out of office which they will never get passed as it would essentially award the Senate virtually unlimited legal power (which is kind of what Nancy is going for).
- To an Officer of the United States (Trump is a civilian).
- As a result of conviction of crimes or misdemeanor (the Senate cannot convict private citizens of crimes ), Non bis in idem.
The bitch be slapped down. Fuck her.
The Senate has tried people after they have left office several times. This is nothing new.
YOU be slapped down. FUCK YOU!!!
FUCK YOU. They were not trying to convict an ex-president. And not for so specious and nebulous a thing as his telling a crowd to go CHEER the Senate. That is NOT a crime.
Should be?The reason the chief justice presides over presidential impeachment, is because the normal person presiding over impeachment is the President of the Senate, which is the vice president.
The vice president of a sitting president being impeached, presiding over this kind of impeachment of his partner and boss, is a known conflict of interest.
Since the President is no longer a sitting president, and his own vice pres is no longer the President of the Senate, the chief justice is no longer needed.
So Commiela should preside...right?
She is.
I thought it was Leahy.
Leaky Leahy will lead the lynching..
The lynching is led by lying louse leaky Leahy..
Unless that coward Roberts puts a stop to the whole thing.
So back to my post that the other poster replied to with bad information...why isn’t CommieLa presiding?
The Constitution explicitly states that a President can be impeached and tried by the Senate.
However, the Constitution explicitly states that a President can be impeached and tried by the Senate.
Trump is guilty of incitement to Insurrection
FUCK YOU. They were not trying to convict an ex-president. And not for so specious and nebulous a thing as his telling a crowd to go CHEER the Senate. That is NOT a crime.
JUST IN: Chief Justice Roberts Will Not Preside Over Trump Senate Impeachment Trial
JUST IN: Chief Justice Roberts Will Not Preside Over Trump Senate Impeachment Trial (thegatewaypundit.com)
25 Jan 2021 ~~ By Cristina Laila
Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.
If was previously reported that Roberts was eager to avoid presiding over the sham impeachment of Trump because he doesn’t want to become a political lightning rod.
Senate President Pro Tempore, Pat Leahy (VT) will preside over the sham trial instead.
The Hill reported:
A Senate source said Leahy, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is expected to preside at the trial.A spokesman for Leahy said the decision on presiding over the trial is up to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
There is also talk that Republican senators may choose a secret ballot so their voting base will not know how each member voted.
If they do that the party is over. It’s already floundering after House leaders Kevin McCarthy and Liz Cheney blamed President Trump for the violence in the US Capitol on January 6th.
The Democrats are also floating barring Donald Trump from ever running for office.
Comment:
Damn the law and the Constitution, Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrats will use any means to destroy Trump and American Conservatism.
Chief Justice Roberts realizes that the sham trial of former President Trump is Un-Constitional.
Attorneys Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley both agree that the impeachment trial is not only wrong but violates the tenets of the U.S. Constitution....
Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commies and their quisling media have hit the ground running to reverse Trump' s policies. They'll soon begin to CLEANSE Trump supporters too. It's the Marxist communist wet dream come true.
The Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists by their actions have proved that President Trump is actually the president now because they're trying like "Hell" to impeach him.
The majority of Americans do not believes that China Joey Xi was legitimately elected. Especially after he said, while signing 29 FAKE executive orders, that he obviously didn't even know what he was signing, but his Marxist handlers told him to sign it anyway. So as a good puppet he followed orders and signed the Executive Orders.
Americans that resist and pledge to restore America must Stay The Course.
