Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

[MadDog]

Glad you finally comprehend any trial now is unconstitutional

Why isn’t Trump challenging the constitutionality? Why not file suit to stop the trial?

 

[MadDog]

He is getting out of the way and letting Dimwingers expose what idiots they are.

Then he’s conceding the constitutionality. Not much of a strategy.

 

[postman]

Because Trump cannot be impeached because he isn't president and Justice Powell will not go along with the farce (making the impeachment doubly illegal) and Leahy is not sure he should be participating either.

It's in Trump's interests to let the farce play out.

The Latches Doctrine is a legal common law defense in an equitable action that “bars recovery by the plaintiff because of the plaintiff's undue delay in seeking relief.” This doctrine is based on the idea that the courts should not aid those who take an inordinate amount of time to raise their claims.

If Trump doesn't object now, let him forever hold his peace.

 

[Nostra]

He is getting out of the way and letting Dimwingers expose what idiots they are.

Then he’s conceding the constitutionality. Not much of a strategy.

Nope.

 

[Nostra]

Because Trump cannot be impeached because he isn't president and Justice Powell will not go along with the farce (making the impeachment doubly illegal) and Leahy is not sure he should be participating either.

It's in Trump's interests to let the farce play out.

The Latches Doctrine is a legal common law defense in an equitable action that “bars recovery by the plaintiff because of the plaintiff's undue delay in seeking relief.” This doctrine is based on the idea that the courts should not aid those who take an inordinate amount of time to raise their claims.

If Trump doesn't object now, let him forever hold his peace.

Dimwingers told us during the first Shampeachment that it was OK to deny Trump due process because it wasn’t a court, it was political.

Now this clown wants to bring in common law rules from unrelated situations.

Too fucking funny.

 

[postman]

Now this clown wants to bring in common law rules from unrelated situations.

Too fucking funny.

You have to remember the Pennsylvania mail-in ballot case, objecting to an unconstitutional legal change, that was thrown out because republicans had a chance to object to the change in the law for the primaries, but didn't. They didn't object until the general election, and their case was thrown out, because they should have objected sooner, and not waiting until they got an outcome they didn't like.

 

[dudmuck]

Because Trump cannot be impeached because he isn't president and Justice Powell will not go along with the farce (making the impeachment doubly illegal) and Leahy is not sure he should be participating either.

It's in Trump's interests to let the farce play out.

The Latches Doctrine is a legal common law defense in an equitable action that “bars recovery by the plaintiff because of the plaintiff's undue delay in seeking relief.” This doctrine is based on the idea that the courts should not aid those who take an inordinate amount of time to raise their claims.

If Trump doesn't object now, let him forever hold his peace.

Dimwingers told us during the first Shampeachment that it was OK to deny Trump due process because it wasn’t a court, it was political.

Now this clown wants to bring in common law rules from unrelated situations.

Too fucking funny.

Due process protects the life, liberty, and property of private citizens. It does not create a right to occupy the White House.

The word deprived implies that the individual possessed something to which he or she was entitled. No one is entitled to hold elective office.

The Constitution similarly says an official can be both impeached and criminally prosecuted for the same act—indicating that impeachment is no substitute for a criminal trial.

 

[Nostra]

Now this clown wants to bring in common law rules from unrelated situations.

Too fucking funny.

You have to remember the Pennsylvania mail-in ballot case, objecting to an unconstitutional legal change, that was thrown out because republicans had a chance to object to the change in the law for the primaries, but didn't. They didn't object until the general election, and their case was thrown out, because they should have objected sooner, and not waiting until they got an outcome they didn't like.

So?

 

[Nostra]

Because Trump cannot be impeached because he isn't president and Justice Powell will not go along with the farce (making the impeachment doubly illegal) and Leahy is not sure he should be participating either.

It's in Trump's interests to let the farce play out.

The Latches Doctrine is a legal common law defense in an equitable action that “bars recovery by the plaintiff because of the plaintiff's undue delay in seeking relief.” This doctrine is based on the idea that the courts should not aid those who take an inordinate amount of time to raise their claims.

If Trump doesn't object now, let him forever hold his peace.

Dimwingers told us during the first Shampeachment that it was OK to deny Trump due process because it wasn’t a court, it was political.

Now this clown wants to bring in common law rules from unrelated situations.

Too fucking funny.

Due process protects the life, liberty, and property of private citizens. It does not create a right to occupy the White House.

The word deprived implies that the individual possessed something to which he or she was entitled. No one is entitled to hold elective office.

The Constitution similarly says an official can be both impeached and criminally prosecuted for the same act—indicating that impeachment is no substitute for a criminal trial.

So?

 

[postman]

The Constitution similarly says an official can be both impeached and criminally prosecuted for the same act—indicating that impeachment is no substitute for a criminal trial.

Impeachment is not a "punishment" which means it does not cause double jeopardy. And the constitution specifically says that the impeached and convicted will still face indictment, trial, conviction, and incarceration.

 

[postman]

So?

It means if Trump waits until after the trial is over to object to it's constitutionality, his case may be thrown out just because he didn't raise objection in a timely manner.

 

[j-mac]

Can the Senate now, going forward, hold impeachment proceedings for any former official? Point that out please in the constitution

The house can only impeach officers of the US. So a former official would not be subject to impeachment.

But remember, that's a bar on impeachment, not a bar on the senate trying the impeachments presented to it.

Postman, the two are tied together in the Constitution...

Article 2 section 4 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. "

I don't see in there where the Impeachment in the house, is seperated in the Senate...In fact this remedy was constructed to remove a sitting President, VP, or civil officer...NOT to go after a political enemy AFTER they have left office...

If the Democrats truly think that President Trump incited the violence on Jan 6, then at this point their remedy is to send a request to the DoJ for prosecution....What they are doing here is nothing but a clown show.

 

[Circe]

You don’t have an answer to my question, do you?

Why won’t Trump file suit to prevent the trial?

Do you have an answer?

Well, I'm not in Trump's confidence ------- maybe he will! Somebody should, certainly, I agree. It's a wrongful trial, you can't really impeach someone who is no longer prez.

 

[Nostra]

Can the Senate now, going forward, hold impeachment proceedings for any former official? Point that out please in the constitution

The house can only impeach officers of the US. So a former official would not be subject to impeachment.

But remember, that's a bar on impeachment, not a bar on the senate trying the impeachments presented to it.

Postman, the two are tied together in the Constitution...

Article 2 section 4 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. "

I don't see in there where the Impeachment in the house, is seperated in the Senate...In fact this remedy was constructed to remove a sitting President, VP, or civil officer...NOT to go after a political enemy AFTER they have left office...

If the Democrats truly think that President Trump incited the violence on Jan 6, then at this point their remedy is to send a request to the DoJ for prosecution....What they are doing here is nothing but a clown show.

These idiots don’t care. They are Fascist who only want to go after someone who doesn’t agree with them politically.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The Constitution similarly says an official can be both impeached and criminally prosecuted for the same act—indicating that impeachment is no substitute for a criminal trial.

That depends entirely on what someone is being impeached for.
The idea that Trump so inflamed his supporters that they illegally broke into the Capitol (though there is
some proof many protestors where allowed to enter) is specious at best.

The percentage of people at the rally that broke into the Capitol out of the crowd in general is
very small indicating that it wasn't Trump's rhetoric that triggered most people there.

And a radical element used Trump's speech as cover for what they did (pipe bombs were located at RNC and DNC headquarters indicating anarchists, like Antifa, at work).

 

[postman]

Postman, the two are tied together in the Constitution...

Article 2 section 4 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. "

I don't see in there where the Impeachment in the house, is seperated in the Senate...In fact this remedy was constructed to remove a sitting President, VP, or civil officer...NOT to go after a political enemy AFTER they have left office...

In fact the two are totally separate acts. And the founding fathers knew this, as the house and senate can stand in recess at different times, so an impeachment may languish for days, weeks, or months before a trial commences. And with such long routine delays, they could easily see where such delays would bar continuing under a scenario where the person could run out the clock, or resign in order to escape judgment.

 

[MadDog]

Well, I'm not in Trump's confidence ------- maybe he will! Somebody should, certainly, I agree. It's a wrongful trial, you can't really impeach someone who is no longer prez.

Check out the link in my signature. About 150 conservative and libertarian legal experts disagree with you.

 

[j-mac]

Ok, so you agree that the house process was irregular. Now, show me where a private citizen can be tried by the Senate. Also, if it is an impeachment trial, why isn’t the Chief Justice going to be the presiding officer, and what is the punishment on conviction.

A former office holder, VP, or president can be impeached, not for things done after leaving office or as a private citizen, but for what they did while sitting in office.

We have done it before a couple of times... the latest was in 2010, for a former federal judge. And Also, we impeached and tried a former Secretary of War, William Belknap.

In 2010, when former federal Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached, Senate President Pro Tempore Daniel Inouye presided over the trial.


- the Chief justice, I just read in a fact check, was never even asked to preside over the impeachment because the President is no longer the sitting President.

The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president, there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved.

Newsweek found no evidence that Roberts refused or was even asked to preside over the trial, nor does he have any legal obligation to do so.

The chief justice is required to preside over impeachment trials involving only sitting presidents.

Fact Check: Did Chief Justice Roberts Refuse to Preside Over Trump's Trial?

Donald Trump's first impeachment trial, which concluded in early 2020, was presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts. Trump's unprecedented second impeachment trial will be presided over by Patrick Leahy (D- Vt.), the Senate President pro tempore.

www.newsweek.com

Impeachments are political proceedings, not criminal so there are no physical punishments like incarceration or fines if convicted.

If still sitting in office, there are two political punishments.

1- Removal from office
2- A ban on ever holding office again, if the majority votes to do so

These punishments are two separate votes.

- If a former office holder the political punishment after conviction in an impeachment trial is limited to #2, Ban on holding office again.

Sorry to tell you, but you are simply wrong on that....

1. First, 2/3ds of the Senate has to vote to remove. (Trump is already gone, so it seems stupid to remove him from nothing)

2. A seperate vote would have to be held to ban him from office....

Neither of those two are likely to happen.

 

[bripat9643]

He is getting out of the way and letting Dimwingers expose what idiots they are.

Then he’s conceding the constitutionality. Not much of a strategy.

No he's not conceding the constitutionality, you fucking NAZI dumbass.

 

[Circe]

Check out the link in my signature. About 150 conservative and libertarian legal experts disagree with you.

Yeah, even my husband does, and he's pro-Trump. I guess we'll have to just wait and see which variant of history is landed on us.
Anyway, it's plain that Justice Roberts agrees with me, so how wrong can I really be??!