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.He's not a former president. He's still president, therefore, once he leaves office, there is still unfinished business. I said he would be impeached today, and there will be a conviction in the senate after he is gone. Stay tuned.And he willl never be convicted. Dims are wasting their time on this show trial.Do a little more reading. an impeachment is an indictment, not a trial. If that weren’t the case, why are Johnson, Clinton, and Trump on record as having been impeached.Wrong. Plus your statement was as to Senate and MCConnel who are the entity that conveys impeachment. The house merely sends it over for a vote but we know you fact absent liberals must hang onto your feeling that a charge is the same thing as a conviction.You apparently don’t know what impeachment means. If the House passes the articles of impeachment, then Trump has been impeached again, regardless of when it moves to trial.Did not take longCheck back later. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. Would you do the same?
Where is your admission of fail?
Plus your dishonesty over failing to concede error as you stated you would not 20 minutes ago may be a new USMB record
Word parse fail by you.
the House impeached (indicts) and the Senate conducts the trial. The House today will indict.
It will never be tried, there is no provision in the Constitution for impeaching a former president.
So show me in the Constitution were an impeachment trial is provided for a former president. Once a president leaves office the accusations made by the house are moot. But hey, feel free to show me in the text where I'm wrong.
.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.
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.
A day after a mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, President-elect Joe Biden spoke about/> <meta name=