Pelosi Says She Will Impeach President Trump If He Doesn’t Resign “Immediately”

[Circe]

She thinks she can get the Senate to vote 2/3 for removal in 11days? Good luck with that!

Before they are even a Dem Senate? I don't think they could do it afterward, either. Besides, she can't do it if she waits, IMO.

 

[meaner gene]

She thinks she can get the Senate to vote 2/3 for removal in 11days? Good luck with that!

Before they are even a Dem Senate? I don't think they could do it afterward, either. Besides, she can't do it if she waits, IMO.

There are two ways. You can either raise the bridge or lower the water.

Presuming you have 50 democrats to vote guilty, you need either 17 republicans to vote guilty, or for 25 republicans to not be in attendance the day of the vote.

 

[Circe]

There are two ways. You can either raise the bridge or lower the water.

Presuming you have 50 democrats to vote guilty, you need either 17 republicans to vote guilty, or for 25 republicans to not be in attendance the day of the vote.

Good ---- I did hear somewhere, don't know if it's true, that the votes for impeachment are not counted by the whole Senate or House, but just the members present at the time. And as we speak, both House and Senate are in recess till the 20th. So . . . . . could they finesse this by just getting, say 20 or so Senators and maybe 60 congresscritters in the Capitol to vote at 2 AM some night next week? It would certainly solve some political problems for people who don't want all this on their records.

 

[Pogo]

It appears that the House and Senate can prevent a President from ever being able to hold elected office in the U.S. government again if they see that person as a threat to the country because of their actions. If the House and Senate pass it, it becomes law. I doubt they would have it in the articles of impeachment if it was not constitutional.

They can't prevent anything unless Trump was committed of a crime while in office. You need 2/3 of the Senate for that during an impeachment.

Impeaching Trump now could bar him from public office in the future.

While it may seem pointless to impeach a president just as he is about to leave office, there could be real consequences for Mr. Trump beyond the stain on his record. If he were convicted, the Senate could vote to bar him from ever holding office again. Following a conviction, the Constitution says the Senate can consider “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Only a simple majority of senators would have to agree to successfully disqualify Mr. Trump, who is contemplating another run for president in 2024, an appealing prospect not just to Democrats but to many Republicans who are eyeing their own runs.

How Congress Could Impeach Trump Before His Term Ends (msn.com)



More importantly, the house can wait until the new Senators are seated after Biden is inaugurated to start the trail against Trump in the Senate. They need just 17 Republicans out of 50 to vote with them to convict Trump. Then after that, they just need a simple majority in the House and Senate to disqualify Trump from ever being able to hold elected office in the federal government ever again!

Hey moron, you cannot impeach someone who is no longer in office. Must you always prove what a dipshit you are?

Come on Admiral, what do you think?

How Congress Could Impeach Trump Before His Term Ends (msn.com)

In the link you'll find that Trump can indeed be impeached after his time in office.

It appears that the House and Senate can prevent a President from ever being able to hold elected office in the U.S. government again if they see that person as a threat to the country because of their actions. If the House and Senate pass it, it becomes law. I doubt they would have it in the articles of impeachment if it was not constitutional.

They can't prevent anything unless Trump was committed of a crime while in office. You need 2/3 of the Senate for that during an impeachment.

Impeaching Trump now could bar him from public office in the future.

While it may seem pointless to impeach a president just as he is about to leave office, there could be real consequences for Mr. Trump beyond the stain on his record. If he were convicted, the Senate could vote to bar him from ever holding office again. Following a conviction, the Constitution says the Senate can consider “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Only a simple majority of senators would have to agree to successfully disqualify Mr. Trump, who is contemplating another run for president in 2024, an appealing prospect not just to Democrats but to many Republicans who are eyeing their own runs.

How Congress Could Impeach Trump Before His Term Ends (msn.com)



More importantly, the house can wait until the new Senators are seated after Biden is inaugurated to start the trail against Trump in the Senate. They need just 17 Republicans out of 50 to vote with them to convict Trump. Then after that, they just need a simple majority in the House and Senate to disqualify Trump from ever being able to hold elected office in the federal government ever again!

Hey moron, you cannot impeach someone who is no longer in office. Must you always prove what a dipshit you are?

That is incorrect. Read the following:



Trump can still be impeached as an ex-president.

History gives little guide on the question of whether a president can be impeached once he leaves office, and House lawyers were racing to understand the legal and constitutional issues.

There is precedent for doing so in the case of other high government officers. In 1876, the House impeached President Ulysses S. Grant’s war secretary for graft, even after he resigned from his post. The Senate at the time considered whether it still had jurisdiction to hear the case of a former official, and determined that it did. Ultimately, the secretary was acquitted.

Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional scholar at the University of North Carolina who testified in the last impeachment proceedings, wrote on Friday that he saw no reason Congress could not proceed.

“It would make no sense for former officials, or ones who step down just in time, to escape that remedial mechanism,” he wrote. “It should accordingly go without saying that if an impeachment begins when an individual is in office, the process may surely continue after they resign or otherwise depart.”

How Congress Could Impeach Trump Before His Term Ends (msn.com)


So what do you think Admiral? Wouldn't that be AWESOME if Trump was disqualified from ever holding elected office again?

You found ONE person who claims to be a Constitutional Scholar that agree with your idiocy. Remember Obama was a Constitutional Scholar who was overruled by SCOTUS more that any President in history. That just proves you can be a Constitutional Scholar and a complete moron.


Article II, Section 4 provides:

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.[2]

How can you remove someone from office if they are no longer President? I deal in facts. You deal in libtard fantasies.

There is precedent for doing so in the case of other high government officers. In 1876, the House impeached President Ulysses S. Grant’s war secretary for graft, even after he resigned from his post. The Senate at the time considered whether it still had jurisdiction to hear the case of a former official, and determined that it did. Ultimately, the secretary was acquitted.

They were wrong, as proven by the Senate vote to acquit. What would they have done to him, rolled the paper it was written on and poked him in the eye?

That does not prove they were wrong to impeach and attempt to convict someone who was out of office. It only means the Senate did not convict of them crime they were accused of.

A person who is no longer in office can be prosecuted by the DOJ. They cannot be impeached. It is a simple fact but so complicated that you are and MSN's scholar cannot grasp the concept because you are both morons.

"you are and MSN's scholar"?

OK I'm stumped. I invent words myself sometimes but I make sure they're comprehensible first.

 

[meaner gene]

Good ---- I did hear somewhere, don't know if it's true, that the votes for impeachment are not counted by the whole Senate or House, but just the members present at the time. And as we speak, both House and Senate are in recess till the 20th. So . . . . . could they finesse this by just getting, say 20 or so Senators and maybe 60 congresscritters in the Capitol to vote at 2 AM some night next week? It would certainly solve some political problems for people who don't want all this on their records.

Senate rules are it requires a quorum of 51 members to do any business. So you need at least 51 senators to vote on impeachment.
So if between 1 and 25 republican senators show up, it would take 50 democrats for 25 republicans showing up, and if all but 1 republican sits out the vote, it would only take 34 democratic votes.

 

[Pogo]

She thinks she can get the Senate to vote 2/3 for removal in 11days? Good luck with that!

Before they are even a Dem Senate? I don't think they could do it afterward, either. Besides, she can't do it if she waits, IMO.

There are two ways. You can either raise the bridge or lower the water.

Presuming you have 50 democrats to vote guilty, you need either 17 republicans to vote guilty, or for 25 republicans to not be in attendance the day of the vote.

As I just said to citygator --- the point is not whether you can see it through or how the process works. The point is to ACT in RESPONSE. That is, to make the statement in no uncertain terms that you can't just incite a riot on the United States Capitol and not get some blowback.

 

[Circe]

Good ---- I did hear somewhere, don't know if it's true, that the votes for impeachment are not counted by the whole Senate or House, but just the members present at the time. And as we speak, both House and Senate are in recess till the 20th. So . . . . . could they finesse this by just getting, say 20 or so Senators and maybe 60 congresscritters in the Capitol to vote at 2 AM some night next week? It would certainly solve some political problems for people who don't want all this on their records.

Senate rules are it requires a quorum of 51 members to do any business. So you need at least 51 senators to vote on impeachment.
So if between 1 and 25 republican senators show up, it would take 50 democrats for 25 republicans showing up, and if all but 1 republican sits out the vote, it would only take 34 democratic votes.

Excellent! I was worrying about the quorum issue, but hadn't looked it up. I wonder if the House has a similar quorum rule. Oh, yeah, they could finesse this and let a lot of people sit it out.

 

[Circe]

As I just said to citygator --- the point is not whether you can see it through or how the process works. The point is to ACT in RESPONSE. That is, to make the statement in no uncertain terms that you can't just incite a riot on the United States Capitol and not get some blowback.

What, not to appease? To show everyone that an attack will get an equal hostile response? These are two of the things Trump taught me these five years. And that was valuable.

So okay.

 

[citygator]

She thinks she can get the Senate to vote 2/3 for removal in 11days? Good luck with that!

Before they are even a Dem Senate? I don't think they could do it afterward, either. Besides, she can't do it if she waits, IMO.

There are two ways. You can either raise the bridge or lower the water.

Presuming you have 50 democrats to vote guilty, you need either 17 republicans to vote guilty, or for 25 republicans to not be in attendance the day of the vote.

As I just said to citygator --- the point is not whether you can see it through or how the process works. The point is to ACT in RESPONSE. That is, to make the statement in no uncertain terms that you can't just incite a riot on the United States Capitol and not get some blowback.

Moral victories. Great. We Democrats have tons of worthless moral victories. Add this one to the list.

 

[meaner gene]

Excellent! I was worrying about the quorum issue, but hadn't looked it up. I wonder if the House has a similar quorum rule. Oh, yeah, they could finesse this and let a lot of people sit it out.

The Constitution requires that a quorum, defined as a majority of the House, be present on the floor when the House transacts business.

The democrats have 222 members, with a quorum of 218

 

[Pogo]

She thinks she can get the Senate to vote 2/3 for removal in 11days? Good luck with that!

Before they are even a Dem Senate? I don't think they could do it afterward, either. Besides, she can't do it if she waits, IMO.

There are two ways. You can either raise the bridge or lower the water.

Presuming you have 50 democrats to vote guilty, you need either 17 republicans to vote guilty, or for 25 republicans to not be in attendance the day of the vote.

As I just said to citygator --- the point is not whether you can see it through or how the process works. The point is to ACT in RESPONSE. That is, to make the statement in no uncertain terms that you can't just incite a riot on the United States Capitol and not get some blowback.

Moral victories. Great. We Democrats have tons of worthless moral victories. Add this one to the list.

Again ---- "political parties" are irrelevant to this. If some Republican introduces a motion to impeach it would be equally based on reason, the same reason. Like this guy:

​

And btw Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has called for Rump's resignation too.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That could be the second question on a voting qualification quiz.

1) Who had the largest inaugural attendance in history?
2) Was there massive voter fraud in the 2020 election?

Which would be stupid because that has nothing to do with basic knowledge of polices or country. Number 2 is a matter of opinion, and asking people what opinion they value is not a test on a rudimentary knowledge of our Republic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Once AGAIN for the illiterate: There is no such thing as "my party". I don't have one, never did, and don't see any point in it. START THERE and quit painting your own fantasy world because you can't deal with the real.

Y'all slavish dichotomists give me the urge to regurge. You actually sit there and believe the entire universe is made up of "Democrats and Republicans". What the **** is wrong with y'all?? FYI there are more of my non-party than there are of EITHER of yours.

Perhaps, but people who are actually non-party agree with some things on both sides as well as disagree on other things on both sides. As long as I've been reading your posts, they are all one side. You are just a Democrat who's too embarrassed to admit it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And often they claim they can do something that is not possible under law. Knowing they're throwing out bullshit is a reason not to vote for them. But only if you know enough to figure out if they can actually do what they are selling.

Not really. Even if they can't do it, their opinion kind of tells you where their mind is at. Trump said he wanted to ban everybody from mid-east terrorist countries. We knew he couldn't do that, but we liked the way he thought. We knew Mexico would not pay for the wall, but that was irrelevant. Who paid for it was not an issue for us. Our issue is that somebody will actually erect the wall.

Contrast that with opponents who welcome everybody regardless if they are from a terrorist country or not, or perhaps somebody that talks open about virtual open borders. You only have two choices. If you vote for Trump, you have a chance at getting these things, or at least close. If you vote Hillary, she's against those things and promises a welcome mat to outsiders who we don't want here.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There are two ways. You can either raise the bridge or lower the water.

Presuming you have 50 democrats to vote guilty, you need either 17 republicans to vote guilty, or for 25 republicans to not be in attendance the day of the vote.

Good ---- I did hear somewhere, don't know if it's true, that the votes for impeachment are not counted by the whole Senate or House, but just the members present at the time. And as we speak, both House and Senate are in recess till the 20th. So . . . . . could they finesse this by just getting, say 20 or so Senators and maybe 60 congresscritters in the Capitol to vote at 2 AM some night next week? It would certainly solve some political problems for people who don't want all this on their records.

The Constitution provides that a majority of the Senate constitutes a quorum to do business.

Standing Rules of the United States Senate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Constitution requires that a quorum, or a simple majority of the Members, is to be present on the floor when the House of Representatives transacts business.

VOTING AND QUORUM PROCEDURES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

This was designed to prevent exactly what you propose.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It appears that the House and Senate can prevent a President from ever being able to hold elected office in the U.S. government again if they see that person as a threat to the country because of their actions. If the House and Senate pass it, it becomes law. I doubt they would have it in the articles of impeachment if it was not constitutional.

They can't prevent anything unless Trump was committed of a crime while in office. You need 2/3 of the Senate for that during an impeachment.

Impeaching Trump now could bar him from public office in the future.

While it may seem pointless to impeach a president just as he is about to leave office, there could be real consequences for Mr. Trump beyond the stain on his record. If he were convicted, the Senate could vote to bar him from ever holding office again. Following a conviction, the Constitution says the Senate can consider “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Only a simple majority of senators would have to agree to successfully disqualify Mr. Trump, who is contemplating another run for president in 2024, an appealing prospect not just to Democrats but to many Republicans who are eyeing their own runs.

How Congress Could Impeach Trump Before His Term Ends (msn.com)



More importantly, the house can wait until the new Senators are seated after Biden is inaugurated to start the trail against Trump in the Senate. They need just 17 Republicans out of 50 to vote with them to convict Trump. Then after that, they just need a simple majority in the House and Senate to disqualify Trump from ever being able to hold elected office in the federal government ever again!

Hey moron, you cannot impeach someone who is no longer in office. Must you always prove what a dipshit you are?

Come on Admiral, what do you think?

How Congress Could Impeach Trump Before His Term Ends (msn.com)

In the link you'll find that Trump can indeed be impeached after his time in office.

It appears that the House and Senate can prevent a President from ever being able to hold elected office in the U.S. government again if they see that person as a threat to the country because of their actions. If the House and Senate pass it, it becomes law. I doubt they would have it in the articles of impeachment if it was not constitutional.

They can't prevent anything unless Trump was committed of a crime while in office. You need 2/3 of the Senate for that during an impeachment.

Impeaching Trump now could bar him from public office in the future.

While it may seem pointless to impeach a president just as he is about to leave office, there could be real consequences for Mr. Trump beyond the stain on his record. If he were convicted, the Senate could vote to bar him from ever holding office again. Following a conviction, the Constitution says the Senate can consider “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Only a simple majority of senators would have to agree to successfully disqualify Mr. Trump, who is contemplating another run for president in 2024, an appealing prospect not just to Democrats but to many Republicans who are eyeing their own runs.

How Congress Could Impeach Trump Before His Term Ends (msn.com)



More importantly, the house can wait until the new Senators are seated after Biden is inaugurated to start the trail against Trump in the Senate. They need just 17 Republicans out of 50 to vote with them to convict Trump. Then after that, they just need a simple majority in the House and Senate to disqualify Trump from ever being able to hold elected office in the federal government ever again!

Hey moron, you cannot impeach someone who is no longer in office. Must you always prove what a dipshit you are?

That is incorrect. Read the following:



Trump can still be impeached as an ex-president.

History gives little guide on the question of whether a president can be impeached once he leaves office, and House lawyers were racing to understand the legal and constitutional issues.

There is precedent for doing so in the case of other high government officers. In 1876, the House impeached President Ulysses S. Grant’s war secretary for graft, even after he resigned from his post. The Senate at the time considered whether it still had jurisdiction to hear the case of a former official, and determined that it did. Ultimately, the secretary was acquitted.

Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional scholar at the University of North Carolina who testified in the last impeachment proceedings, wrote on Friday that he saw no reason Congress could not proceed.

“It would make no sense for former officials, or ones who step down just in time, to escape that remedial mechanism,” he wrote. “It should accordingly go without saying that if an impeachment begins when an individual is in office, the process may surely continue after they resign or otherwise depart.”

How Congress Could Impeach Trump Before His Term Ends (msn.com)


So what do you think Admiral? Wouldn't that be AWESOME if Trump was disqualified from ever holding elected office again?

You found ONE person who claims to be a Constitutional Scholar that agree with your idiocy. Remember Obama was a Constitutional Scholar who was overruled by SCOTUS more that any President in history. That just proves you can be a Constitutional Scholar and a complete moron.


Article II, Section 4 provides:

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.[2]

How can you remove someone from office if they are no longer President? I deal in facts. You deal in libtard fantasies.

There is precedent for doing so in the case of other high government officers. In 1876, the House impeached President Ulysses S. Grant’s war secretary for graft, even after he resigned from his post. The Senate at the time considered whether it still had jurisdiction to hear the case of a former official, and determined that it did. Ultimately, the secretary was acquitted.

They were wrong, as proven by the Senate vote to acquit. What would they have done to him, rolled the paper it was written on and poked him in the eye?

That does not prove they were wrong to impeach and attempt to convict someone who was out of office. It only means the Senate did not convict of them crime they were accused of.

A person who is no longer in office can be prosecuted by the DOJ. They cannot be impeached. It is a simple fact but so complicated that you are and MSN's scholar cannot grasp the concept because you are both morons.

"you are and MSN's scholar"?

OK I'm stumped. I invent words myself sometimes but I make sure they're comprehensible first.

Thank you! It should read, "you and your MSN scholar".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They seem to be taxing your intelligence, since the tax cuts didn't produce Reagans economy. Uncontrolled government spending, and tripling the national debt, did it.
When George H.W. Bush turned off the wild spending, the economy stalled.

The economy was better than Reagan's. I was a young man during Reagan and the recession he presided over. I didn't know much about politics at the time (I didn't get into politics until my early 30's) but I was out of work, and you couldn't even get a job at McDonald's. Reagan eventually created a great economy, however I never remember a time in my life where the US had 1.5 million more jobs than Americans who could work them which happened under President Trump.

The spending under Bush was mostly war time spending after we suffered the largest attack on our soil in history. New government safety measures had to be taken, particularly at the airports and post office. He created new agencies and policies to deal with the problem. When the Republican Congress started to get out of hand with the spending thereafter, they lost our support. The House went back to Democrat control.

 

[meaner gene]

1) Who had the largest inaugural attendance in history?
2) Was there massive voter fraud in the 2020 election?

Which would be stupid because that has nothing to do with basic knowledge of polices or country. Number 2 is a matter of opinion, and asking people what opinion they value is not a test on a rudimentary knowledge of our Republic.

No 2 isn't opinion, it's a legally established fact, just like No 1 is an established fact.

Now add question 3

3) Where was Barack Obama born?

 

[meaner gene]

Even if they can't do it, their opinion kind of tells you where their mind is at. Trump said he wanted to ban everybody from mid-east terrorist countries. We knew he couldn't do that, but we liked the way he thought. We knew Mexico would not pay for the wall, but that was irrelevant. Who paid for it was not an issue for us. Our issue is that somebody will actually erect the wall.

Actually Trump said he would enact a muslim ban. He said nothing about terrorists nations. That was what he tried after the first muslim ban was over turned.

And mexico paying fo the wall was key to Trumps wall. Had he said he wanted to tax Americans to build his wall, people would have said no.

 

[OldLady]

That's a great argument IF you trust that Trump hasn't got more mischief in mind. 12 days is plenty of time. Twitter just permabanned him, so it may slow him down a little, or it may make him so angry that he explodes.

You mean like order a nuclear strike on Twitter?
The pentagon admitted they still give the president the nuclear launch codes.

No, of course not. I have no idea what he would do, but he's angry, he's devious, and he thinks like a thug. He's already pretty much taken back his pretty speech yesterday by his tweets today (now taken down). He's not done, unless we make him be done.

You may be right that what's happened has made him a harmless nobody, but HE doesn't think so, and that's what matters, imo.