MadDog
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2009
- 802
- 431
- 908
You don’t have a clue, do you. Take a look at the legal precedent.
McConnell now supports Trump IMPEACHMENT
- Thread starter Lakhota
- Start date
- Moderator
- #302
I can be very patient, the TRUTH is already coming out. The Sergeants of Arms of both chambers were warned by the Capitol Hill police chief well in advance, like days before the riot, that the FBI had intel from the web that an attack was being planned. Evidently they did nothing. Also the attack started before Trump even spoke to the protesters, So once again, Trump was impeached on a lie. No wonder nazi palousey was in such a hurry, she couldn't allow the facts to come out.
.
- Moderator
- #303
Turtlesoup
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2020
- 15,903
- 16,745
- 2,288
You are self obsessed, stuck on yourself, and childish. Ignore away.
- Moderator
- #305
Impeachment trial for President Trump can happen even after he leaves office
A Majority of the House of Representatives have now voted to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, just days before he is set to leave office.abc17news.com
The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?
There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.
.
- Moderator
- #306
Lol! Impeach Obama for what? Crimes you can't prove?I hope it works out, I really do.
Then, eventually, when the GOP takes office again, maybe they can set a precedent and not only impeach Obama. . . then they can go on and impeach FDR as well!
You could start with thousands of violations of immigration law.
.
- Moderator
- #307
Show me the precedent where a president was tried for impeachment after leaving office and I'll be happy to.
.
MadDog
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2009
- 802
- 431
- 908
There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.Impeachment trial for President Trump can happen even after he leaves office
A Majority of the House of Representatives have now voted to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, just days before he is set to leave office.
The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?
There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.
.
- Moderator
- #309
- Moderator
- #310
There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.Impeachment trial for President Trump can happen even after he leaves office
A Majority of the House of Representatives have now voted to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, just days before he is set to leave office.
The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?
There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.
.
Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.
.
MadDog
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2009
- 802
- 431
- 908
In the case against William Blount, the Senate made the decision not to proceed After initially commencing proceedings. In the case of William Belknap, the Senate conducted a trial and did not convict. It is uncertain where the Supreme Court will go with this, but if Trump loses his 61st case, he’ll REALLY lose big.There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.Impeachment trial for President Trump can happen even after he leaves office
A Majority of the House of Representatives have now voted to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, just days before he is set to leave office.
The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?
There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.
.
Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.
.
The fact that it didn’t make it to the courts isn’t entirely true though because a sitting justice presides over impeachment trials. And precedent can be set when the courts choose NOT act.
- Moderator
- #312
In the case against William Blount, the Senate made the decision not to proceed After initially commencing proceedings. In the case of William Belknap, the Senate conducted a trial and did not convict. It is uncertain where the Supreme Court will go with this, but if Trump loses his 61st case, he’ll REALLY lose big.There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.Impeachment trial for President Trump can happen even after he leaves office
A Majority of the House of Representatives have now voted to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, just days before he is set to leave office.
The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?
There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.
.
Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.
.
The fact that it didn’t make it to the courts isn’t entirely true though because a sitting justice presides over impeachment trials. And precedent can be set when the courts choose NOT act.
You should make a note to self, congressional political actions are NOT legal precedents. LMAO
.
MadDog
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2009
- 802
- 431
- 908
Ah, but they are impeachment precedents. Parse the words any way you want but you can’t change the fact that neither of us can say with absolutely certainty which way this will go. I’ve considered both sides. Sadly, you just choose to parse words and let your arrogance prevail.In the case against William Blount, the Senate made the decision not to proceed After initially commencing proceedings. In the case of William Belknap, the Senate conducted a trial and did not convict. It is uncertain where the Supreme Court will go with this, but if Trump loses his 61st case, he’ll REALLY lose big.There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.Impeachment trial for President Trump can happen even after he leaves office
A Majority of the House of Representatives have now voted to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, just days before he is set to leave office.
The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?
There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.
.
Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.
.
The fact that it didn’t make it to the courts isn’t entirely true though because a sitting justice presides over impeachment trials. And precedent can be set when the courts choose NOT act.
You should make a note to self, congressional political actions are NOT legal precedents. LMAO
.
- Moderator
- #314
Ah, but they are impeachment precedents. Parse the words any way you want but you can’t change the fact that neither of us can say with absolutely certainty which way this will go. I’ve considered both sides. Sadly, you just choose to parse words and let your arrogance prevail.In the case against William Blount, the Senate made the decision not to proceed After initially commencing proceedings. In the case of William Belknap, the Senate conducted a trial and did not convict. It is uncertain where the Supreme Court will go with this, but if Trump loses his 61st case, he’ll REALLY lose big.There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.Impeachment trial for President Trump can happen even after he leaves office
A Majority of the House of Representatives have now voted to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, just days before he is set to leave office.
The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?
There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.
.
Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.
.
The fact that it didn’t make it to the courts isn’t entirely true though because a sitting justice presides over impeachment trials. And precedent can be set when the courts choose NOT act.
You should make a note to self, congressional political actions are NOT legal precedents. LMAO
.
Poor little childish commie, you're the one that claimed "legal precedents" existed, thanks for admitting you LIED.
.
MadDog
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2009
- 802
- 431
- 908
Sadly, you still dont understand. Legal precedents can exist withou direct court action. The Constitution is essentially a framework That lays out two things. Things that MUST happen and things that aren’t prohibited. Basically, anything that ISN’T prohibited in the Constitution is permitted by it. However, Legislative bodies can enact legislation regarding anything else. So it can be argued that if the Constitution doesn’t PROHIBIT an impeachment of someone who has already left office, then such a trial does not go against the Constitution. If that’s the case, then rules adopted by the Senate would be legal and Constitutional.Ah, but they are impeachment precedents. Parse the words any way you want but you can’t change the fact that neither of us can say with absolutely certainty which way this will go. I’ve considered both sides. Sadly, you just choose to parse words and let your arrogance prevail.In the case against William Blount, the Senate made the decision not to proceed After initially commencing proceedings. In the case of William Belknap, the Senate conducted a trial and did not convict. It is uncertain where the Supreme Court will go with this, but if Trump loses his 61st case, he’ll REALLY lose big.There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.Impeachment trial for President Trump can happen even after he leaves office
A Majority of the House of Representatives have now voted to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, just days before he is set to leave office.
The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?
There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.
.
Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.
.
The fact that it didn’t make it to the courts isn’t entirely true though because a sitting justice presides over impeachment trials. And precedent can be set when the courts choose NOT act.
You should make a note to self, congressional political actions are NOT legal precedents. LMAO
.
Poor little childish commie, you're the one that claimed "legal precedents" existed, thanks for admitting you LIED.
.
Try focusing a little less on parsing words and a little more on concepts.
beautress
Always Faithful
Outta the park!
beautress
Always Faithful
Outta the park!
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 65,087
- 59,287
- 3,600
Try admitting Trump will get about 100 million votes if he runs in 2024.Sadly, you still dont understand. Legal precedents can exist withou direct court action. The Constitution is essentially a framework That lays out two things. Things that MUST happen and things that aren’t prohibited. Basically, anything that ISN’T prohibited in the Constitution is permitted by it. However, Legislative bodies can enact legislation regarding anything else. So it can be argued that if the Constitution doesn’t PROHIBIT an impeachment of someone who has already left office, then such a trial does not go against the Constitution. If that’s the case, then rules adopted by the Senate would be legal and Constitutional.Ah, but they are impeachment precedents. Parse the words any way you want but you can’t change the fact that neither of us can say with absolutely certainty which way this will go. I’ve considered both sides. Sadly, you just choose to parse words and let your arrogance prevail.In the case against William Blount, the Senate made the decision not to proceed After initially commencing proceedings. In the case of William Belknap, the Senate conducted a trial and did not convict. It is uncertain where the Supreme Court will go with this, but if Trump loses his 61st case, he’ll REALLY lose big.There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.Impeachment trial for President Trump can happen even after he leaves office
A Majority of the House of Representatives have now voted to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, just days before he is set to leave office.
The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?
There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.
.
Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.
.
The fact that it didn’t make it to the courts isn’t entirely true though because a sitting justice presides over impeachment trials. And precedent can be set when the courts choose NOT act.
You should make a note to self, congressional political actions are NOT legal precedents. LMAO
.
Poor little childish commie, you're the one that claimed "legal precedents" existed, thanks for admitting you LIED.
.
Try focusing a little less on parsing words and a little more on concepts.
- Moderator
- #319
Sadly, you still dont understand. Legal precedents can exist withou direct court action. The Constitution is essentially a framework That lays out two things. Things that MUST happen and things that aren’t prohibited. Basically, anything that ISN’T prohibited in the Constitution is permitted by it. However, Legislative bodies can enact legislation regarding anything else. So it can be argued that if the Constitution doesn’t PROHIBIT an impeachment of someone who has already left office, then such a trial does not go against the Constitution. If that’s the case, then rules adopted by the Senate would be legal and Constitutional.Ah, but they are impeachment precedents. Parse the words any way you want but you can’t change the fact that neither of us can say with absolutely certainty which way this will go. I’ve considered both sides. Sadly, you just choose to parse words and let your arrogance prevail.In the case against William Blount, the Senate made the decision not to proceed After initially commencing proceedings. In the case of William Belknap, the Senate conducted a trial and did not convict. It is uncertain where the Supreme Court will go with this, but if Trump loses his 61st case, he’ll REALLY lose big.There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.Impeachment trial for President Trump can happen even after he leaves office
A Majority of the House of Representatives have now voted to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, just days before he is set to leave office.
The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?
There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.
.
Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.
.
The fact that it didn’t make it to the courts isn’t entirely true though because a sitting justice presides over impeachment trials. And precedent can be set when the courts choose NOT act.
You should make a note to self, congressional political actions are NOT legal precedents. LMAO
.
Poor little childish commie, you're the one that claimed "legal precedents" existed, thanks for admitting you LIED.
.
Try focusing a little less on parsing words and a little more on concepts.
BTW your second lie was Trump lost 60 court cases, he or his campaign didn't file any where close to that many cases.
Also I prefer to focus on the Supreme Law of the Land.
Article II Section 4 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.
Now with three new textualist on SCOTUS, how do you think they'll read it?
But hey keep swallowing the commie propaganda, it's what you chose to do.
.
MadDog
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2009
- 802
- 431
- 908
Do you HONESTLY believe that.
But I doubt he’ll run again. He’ll just keep teasing it to get more attention from time to time. And sadly, that will deprive the Republicans of a chance to develop their 2024 ticket. And that’s the sad thing because for 45 years I was a Republican. Id like to go back but my conscience won’t let me.
But back to your claim of 100 million votes. Just between us, do you REALLY believe that.
Similar threads
