Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

Resolutions introduced through the hopper that directly call for
an impeachment are referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, whereas
resolutions merely calling for a committee investigation with a view
toward impeachment are referred to the Committee on Rules. Deschler Ch
14 Sec. Sec. 5.10, 5.11. In the 105th Congress the House adopted a
privileged resolution reported by the Committee on Rules referring a
communication from an independent counsel alleging certain impeachable
offenses to the Committee on the Judiciary. Later, the House adopted a
privileged resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary
authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee. Manual Sec. 603.
All impeachments to reach the Senate since 1900 have been based on
resolutions reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Before that
committee's creation in 1813, impeachments were referred to a special
committee for investigation. Manual Sec. 603; 6 Cannon Sec. 657.


Sec. 7 . Committee Investigations

Committee impeachment investigations are governed by those
portions of Rule XI relating to committee investigative and hearing
procedures, and by any rules and special procedures adopted by the
House and by the committee for the inquiry. Manual Sec. 605; Deschler
Ch 14 Sec. 6.3. The House may by resolution waive or supplement a
requirement of these rules in a particular case. In several recent
instances, the House agreed to a resolution authorizing the counsel to
the Committee on the Judiciary to take depositions of witnesses in an
impeachment investigation and waiving the provision of Rule XI that
requires at least two committee members to be present during the
taking of such testimony. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 6.3; 105-2, H. Res. 581,
Oct. 8, 1998, p 24679; 110-2, H. Res. 1448, Sept. 17, 2008, p 19502;
111-1, H. Res. 424, May 12, 2009, p __. Authorities to conduct an
inves


And....


The House Judiciary Committee was who introduced the article of impeachment.

So what rules were violated again? And you have yet to show me any constitutional requirements that weren't met.
 
What the reporting said when they heard that he wouldn't preside...is that he simply didn't want to be in the middle of this.

He wasn't happy to have had to preside over the first Impeachment. In either case he has no real role.
So now you are claiming he is not fulfilling his Constitutional duties.

You're obviously confused. Roberts is under no obligation to preside over the impeachment of Trump. As Trump isn't President.

Why isn’t Nazi impeaching Roberts for violating his oath?

Failing to obey the mandates of your imaginination isn't a 'violation of his oath'. Remember, your imagination obligates no one to do anything.

Keep running, Troll.
Inspection again you are having to ignore the Constituion based on you being backed into a corner.

I merely have to ignore your imagination about you think the Constitution says. I can quote the ACTUAL constitution all day long. Watch:

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation."

There's no 'private citizen' limit on the Senate's authority to try all impeachments. You imagined that. And ignoring your imaginary pseudo-legal horseshit is not ignoring the constitution.

As you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
It is, Dummy.

Show me where impeachment is for former Presidents.

Impeachment trials are not for former Presidents either, Halfwit.

You lose again.
You're half right. Impeachments are for President/Vice President, and officers of the US only.

Impeachment trials are for anybody who was impeached.
Not according to the Constitution. Try reading it.
Dumbfuck, nothing in the Constitution indicates Twice Impeached Trump can't stand trial in the Senate. You're just too brain-dead to know any better.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

So, just like the hurt Democrat children in the congress, you're making it up as you go....It won't stand.
LOL

Imbecile, I didn't make that up -- I copied & pasted that italicized text from the Constitution.

Hey, I didn't call you names asshole...While you may have copied a portion of text from the Constitution, you left out much of it, and distorted the meaning.
Don't be an imbecile and I won't call you one. I left out nothing that affects that sentence. What part of "ALL" is too confusing for you??

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.

Let me put in the context you refuse to....

" The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. "

I got news for ya, Donald Trump is NOT the President of the United States, and Chief Justice Roberts refuses to preside...
These clowns have him as President one post, and the next he isn’t President. Thats how they are trying to ignore the Constitution

Oh I know....They are making it up as they go...And as usual being total assholes while doing such...The thing they don't get is that Sen. Paul's point of order today acted as a preliminary vote, and they don't have the votes to convict....So, another clown show thrown out...

Trump's conviction is highly unlikely. But Trump's impeachment trial is definitely going to happen.

You people do seem to love your Kangaroo lynch mobs don't you?

And by 'Kangaroo', you mean constitutionally delegated authority?

No, I mean Kangaroo...No due process, false charges based on nothing but emotional nonsense, you know how Democrats operate...

Couldn't get the chief Justice, so you put in a partisan Democrat to ensure the fix...pathetically transparent...

What due process was denied, specifically?

Were there hearings that I missed in the house? Witnesses? Trump's chance to refute? NO! It was a knee jerk vote brought with none of that...A sad display.

Where are those hearings a requirement of the impeachment process in the constitution?

Here it is:


Show me.
House rules. The Speaker can’t unilaterally change or ignore House rules.

1) Show us that Pelosi lacks the authority to do what she did.

2) Show us where in the constitution its prohibited.

As you're not citing anything but yourself. And your source is laughably inadequate to carry your argument.
Any change in House rules must be debated and voted on at the beginning of each Congress.
Basic stuff that you are obviously ignorant of.

What 'changes' were required? Remember, it was the Judiciary Committee that introduced the article of impeachment.

Maybe you could cite your imagination again? Or pretend to be Justice Roberts? Maybe make up more imaginary restrictions to the Senates power of impeachment trials?
 
What the reporting said when they heard that he wouldn't preside...is that he simply didn't want to be in the middle of this.

He wasn't happy to have had to preside over the first Impeachment. In either case he has no real role.
So now you are claiming he is not fulfilling his Constitutional duties.

You're obviously confused. Roberts is under no obligation to preside over the impeachment of Trump. As Trump isn't President.

Why isn’t Nazi impeaching Roberts for violating his oath?

Failing to obey the mandates of your imaginination isn't a 'violation of his oath'. Remember, your imagination obligates no one to do anything.

Keep running, Troll.
Inspection again you are having to ignore the Constituion based on you being backed into a corner.

I merely have to ignore your imagination about you think the Constitution says. I can quote the ACTUAL constitution all day long. Watch:

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation."

There's no 'private citizen' limit on the Senate's authority to try all impeachments. You imagined that. And ignoring your imaginary pseudo-legal horseshit is not ignoring the constitution.

As you have no idea what you're talking about.
There is a limitation because it specifically list only a few government officials subject to impeachment, you blithering idiot.
 
What the reporting said when they heard that he wouldn't preside...is that he simply didn't want to be in the middle of this.

He wasn't happy to have had to preside over the first Impeachment. In either case he has no real role.
So now you are claiming he is not fulfilling his Constitutional duties.

You're obviously confused. Roberts is under no obligation to preside over the impeachment of Trump. As Trump isn't President.

Why isn’t Nazi impeaching Roberts for violating his oath?

Failing to obey the mandates of your imaginination isn't a 'violation of his oath'. Remember, your imagination obligates no one to do anything.

Keep running, Troll.
Inspection again you are having to ignore the Constituion based on you being backed into a corner.

I merely have to ignore your imagination about you think the Constitution says. I can quote the ACTUAL constitution all day long. Watch:

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation."

There's no 'private citizen' limit on the Senate's authority to try all impeachments. You imagined that. And ignoring your imaginary pseudo-legal horseshit is not ignoring the constitution.

As you have no idea what you're talking about.
There is a limitation because it specifically list only a few government officials subject to impeachment, you blithering idiot.

The only limit to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials.......is that the trial be for someone who was impeached.

Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has authority over his impeachment trial.

Your 'private citizen' limit is made up nonsense that the Senate has NEVER been limited by.


Try again, Troll.
 
It is, Dummy.

Show me where impeachment is for former Presidents.

Impeachment trials are not for former Presidents either, Halfwit.

You lose again.
You're half right. Impeachments are for President/Vice President, and officers of the US only.

Impeachment trials are for anybody who was impeached.
Not according to the Constitution. Try reading it.
Dumbfuck, nothing in the Constitution indicates Twice Impeached Trump can't stand trial in the Senate. You're just too brain-dead to know any better.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

So, just like the hurt Democrat children in the congress, you're making it up as you go....It won't stand.
LOL

Imbecile, I didn't make that up -- I copied & pasted that italicized text from the Constitution.

Hey, I didn't call you names asshole...While you may have copied a portion of text from the Constitution, you left out much of it, and distorted the meaning.
Don't be an imbecile and I won't call you one. I left out nothing that affects that sentence. What part of "ALL" is too confusing for you??

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.

Let me put in the context you refuse to....

" The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. "

I got news for ya, Donald Trump is NOT the President of the United States, and Chief Justice Roberts refuses to preside...
These clowns have him as President one post, and the next he isn’t President. Thats how they are trying to ignore the Constitution

Oh I know....They are making it up as they go...And as usual being total assholes while doing such...The thing they don't get is that Sen. Paul's point of order today acted as a preliminary vote, and they don't have the votes to convict....So, another clown show thrown out...

Trump's conviction is highly unlikely. But Trump's impeachment trial is definitely going to happen.

You people do seem to love your Kangaroo lynch mobs don't you?

And by 'Kangaroo', you mean constitutionally delegated authority?

No, I mean Kangaroo...No due process, false charges based on nothing but emotional nonsense, you know how Democrats operate...

Couldn't get the chief Justice, so you put in a partisan Democrat to ensure the fix...pathetically transparent...

What due process was denied, specifically?

Were there hearings that I missed in the house? Witnesses? Trump's chance to refute? NO! It was a knee jerk vote brought with none of that...A sad display.

Where are those hearings a requirement of the impeachment process in the constitution?

Here it is:


Show me.
House rules. The Speaker can’t unilaterally change or ignore House rules.

1) Show us that Pelosi lacks the authority to do what she did.

2) Show us where in the constitution its prohibited.

As you're not citing anything but yourself. And your source is laughably inadequate to carry your argument.
Any change in House rules must be debated and voted on at the beginning of each Congress.
Basic stuff that you are obviously ignorant of.

What 'changes' were required? Remember, it was the Judiciary Committee that introduced the article of impeachment.

Maybe you could cite your imagination again? Or pretend to be Justice Roberts? Maybe make up more imaginary restrictions to the Senates power of impeachment trials?
Here is the normal procedure. none of which was followed.

You just keep losing, Simpleton.


The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.
Impeachment proceedings are usually initiated in the House when a Member submits a resolution through the hopper (in the same way that all House resolutions are submitted). A resolution calling for the impeachment of an officer will be referred to the Judiciary Committee; a resolution simply authorizing an investigation of an officer will be referred to the Rules Committee. In either case, the committee could then report a privileged resolution authorizing the investigation. In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.
Impeachment proceedings could also be initiated by a Member on the floor. A Member can offer an impeachment resolution as a “Question of the Privileges of the House.” The House, when it considers a resolution called up this way, might immediately vote to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, leaving the resolution in the same status as if it had been submitted through the hopper. Alternatively, the House might vote to table the impeachment resolution. The House could also vote directly on the resolution, but in modern practice, it has not chosen to approve articles of impeachment called up in this fashion. Instead, the House has relied on the Judiciary Committee to first conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and report recommendations to the full House.
Committee consideration is therefore typically the second stage of the impeachment process. In recent decades, it has been more common than not that the Judiciary Committee used information provided from another outside investigation. The committee might create a task force or a subcommittee to review this material and collect any other information through subpoenas, depositions, and public hearings. Impeachment investigations are governed by the standing rules of the House that govern all committee investigations, the terms of the resolution authorizing the investigation, and perhaps additional rules adopted by the committee specifically for the inquiry.
If the committee determines that impeachment is warranted, it will mark up articles of impeachment using the same procedures followed for the markup of other legislation. If the Judiciary Committee reports a resolution impeaching a federal officer, that resolution qualifies for privileged consideration on the House floor; its consideration is the third stage of the impeachment process. The resolution can be called up at the direction of the committee and considered immediately under the hour rule in the House. If called up this way, amendments could be precluded if a majority voted to order the previous question. A motion to recommit, with or without instructions, is in order but is not subject to debate. Alternatively, the House might alter these procedures by unanimous consent to, for example, set a longer time for debate or to allow brief debate on a motion to recommit. A resolution reported from the Rules Committee could also be used to structure floor debate.
If the House approves the impeachment resolution, it will appoint managers to present and argue its case against the federal
 
And you just pretended to be Roberts just a minute ago....
Wrong I cited a source who relayed Roberts' reasoning as well as his intention NOT to preside...before anyone knew that

That would be Nostra, playing make believe that he was Justice Roberts, citing Nostra as Roberts. From beginning to end, their source has been:

1611713976066.png
 
It is, Dummy.

Show me where impeachment is for former Presidents.

Impeachment trials are not for former Presidents either, Halfwit.

You lose again.
You're half right. Impeachments are for President/Vice President, and officers of the US only.

Impeachment trials are for anybody who was impeached.
Not according to the Constitution. Try reading it.
Dumbfuck, nothing in the Constitution indicates Twice Impeached Trump can't stand trial in the Senate. You're just too brain-dead to know any better.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

So, just like the hurt Democrat children in the congress, you're making it up as you go....It won't stand.
LOL

Imbecile, I didn't make that up -- I copied & pasted that italicized text from the Constitution.

Hey, I didn't call you names asshole...While you may have copied a portion of text from the Constitution, you left out much of it, and distorted the meaning.
Don't be an imbecile and I won't call you one. I left out nothing that affects that sentence. What part of "ALL" is too confusing for you??

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.

Let me put in the context you refuse to....

" The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. "

I got news for ya, Donald Trump is NOT the President of the United States, and Chief Justice Roberts refuses to preside...
These clowns have him as President one post, and the next he isn’t President. Thats how they are trying to ignore the Constitution

Oh I know....They are making it up as they go...And as usual being total assholes while doing such...The thing they don't get is that Sen. Paul's point of order today acted as a preliminary vote, and they don't have the votes to convict....So, another clown show thrown out...

Trump's conviction is highly unlikely. But Trump's impeachment trial is definitely going to happen.

You people do seem to love your Kangaroo lynch mobs don't you?

And by 'Kangaroo', you mean constitutionally delegated authority?

No, I mean Kangaroo...No due process, false charges based on nothing but emotional nonsense, you know how Democrats operate...

Couldn't get the chief Justice, so you put in a partisan Democrat to ensure the fix...pathetically transparent...

What due process was denied, specifically?

Were there hearings that I missed in the house? Witnesses? Trump's chance to refute? NO! It was a knee jerk vote brought with none of that...A sad display.

Where are those hearings a requirement of the impeachment process in the constitution?

Here it is:


Show me.
House rules. The Speaker can’t unilaterally change or ignore House rules.

1) Show us that Pelosi lacks the authority to do what she did.

2) Show us where in the constitution its prohibited.

As you're not citing anything but yourself. And your source is laughably inadequate to carry your argument.
Any change in House rules must be debated and voted on at the beginning of each Congress.
Basic stuff that you are obviously ignorant of.

What 'changes' were required? Remember, it was the Judiciary Committee that introduced the article of impeachment.

Maybe you could cite your imagination again? Or pretend to be Justice Roberts? Maybe make up more imaginary restrictions to the Senates power of impeachment trials?
Here is the normal procedure. none of which was followed.

You just keep losing, Simpleton.


The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.
Impeachment proceedings are usually initiated in the House when a Member submits a resolution through the hopper (in the same way that all House resolutions are submitted). A resolution calling for the impeachment of an officer will be referred to the Judiciary Committee; a resolution simply authorizing an investigation of an officer will be referred to the Rules Committee. In either case, the committee could then report a privileged resolution authorizing the investigation. In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.
Impeachment proceedings could also be initiated by a Member on the floor. A Member can offer an impeachment resolution as a “Question of the Privileges of the House.” The House, when it considers a resolution called up this way, might immediately vote to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, leaving the resolution in the same status as if it had been submitted through the hopper. Alternatively, the House might vote to table the impeachment resolution. The House could also vote directly on the resolution, but in modern practice, it has not chosen to approve articles of impeachment called up in this fashion. Instead, the House has relied on the Judiciary Committee to first conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and report recommendations to the full House.
Committee consideration is therefore typically the second stage of the impeachment process. In recent decades, it has been more common than not that the Judiciary Committee used information provided from another outside investigation. The committee might create a task force or a subcommittee to review this material and collect any other information through subpoenas, depositions, and public hearings. Impeachment investigations are governed by the standing rules of the House that govern all committee investigations, the terms of the resolution authorizing the investigation, and perhaps additional rules adopted by the committee specifically for the inquiry.
If the committee determines that impeachment is warranted, it will mark up articles of impeachment using the same procedures followed for the markup of other legislation. If the Judiciary Committee reports a resolution impeaching a federal officer, that resolution qualifies for privileged consideration on the House floor; its consideration is the third stage of the impeachment process. The resolution can be called up at the direction of the committee and considered immediately under the hour rule in the House. If called up this way, amendments could be precluded if a majority voted to order the previous question. A motion to recommit, with or without instructions, is in order but is not subject to debate. Alternatively, the House might alter these procedures by unanimous consent to, for example, set a longer time for debate or to allow brief debate on a motion to recommit. A resolution reported from the Rules Committee could also be used to structure floor debate.
If the House approves the impeachment resolution, it will appoint managers to present and argue its case against the federal

There's no requirement that there be Judiciary committee hearings. You're citing what is usually done as what MUST be done. And there's no requirement. You made the requirement up, citing yourself. Just like you did with your made up 'private citizen' nonsense.

Once again, your argument is just your.....

1611714038673.png
 
It is, Dummy.

Show me where impeachment is for former Presidents.

Impeachment trials are not for former Presidents either, Halfwit.

You lose again.
You're half right. Impeachments are for President/Vice President, and officers of the US only.

Impeachment trials are for anybody who was impeached.
Not according to the Constitution. Try reading it.
Dumbfuck, nothing in the Constitution indicates Twice Impeached Trump can't stand trial in the Senate. You're just too brain-dead to know any better.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

So, just like the hurt Democrat children in the congress, you're making it up as you go....It won't stand.
LOL

Imbecile, I didn't make that up -- I copied & pasted that italicized text from the Constitution.

Hey, I didn't call you names asshole...While you may have copied a portion of text from the Constitution, you left out much of it, and distorted the meaning.
Don't be an imbecile and I won't call you one. I left out nothing that affects that sentence. What part of "ALL" is too confusing for you??

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.

Let me put in the context you refuse to....

" The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. "

I got news for ya, Donald Trump is NOT the President of the United States, and Chief Justice Roberts refuses to preside...
These clowns have him as President one post, and the next he isn’t President. Thats how they are trying to ignore the Constitution

Oh I know....They are making it up as they go...And as usual being total assholes while doing such...The thing they don't get is that Sen. Paul's point of order today acted as a preliminary vote, and they don't have the votes to convict....So, another clown show thrown out...

Trump's conviction is highly unlikely. But Trump's impeachment trial is definitely going to happen.

You people do seem to love your Kangaroo lynch mobs don't you?

And by 'Kangaroo', you mean constitutionally delegated authority?

No, I mean Kangaroo...No due process, false charges based on nothing but emotional nonsense, you know how Democrats operate...

Couldn't get the chief Justice, so you put in a partisan Democrat to ensure the fix...pathetically transparent...

What due process was denied, specifically?

Were there hearings that I missed in the house? Witnesses? Trump's chance to refute? NO! It was a knee jerk vote brought with none of that...A sad display.

Where are those hearings a requirement of the impeachment process in the constitution?

Here it is:


Show me.
House rules. The Speaker can’t unilaterally change or ignore House rules.

1) Show us that Pelosi lacks the authority to do what she did.

2) Show us where in the constitution its prohibited.

As you're not citing anything but yourself. And your source is laughably inadequate to carry your argument.
Any change in House rules must be debated and voted on at the beginning of each Congress.
Basic stuff that you are obviously ignorant of.

What 'changes' were required? Remember, it was the Judiciary Committee that introduced the article of impeachment.

Maybe you could cite your imagination again? Or pretend to be Justice Roberts? Maybe make up more imaginary restrictions to the Senates power of impeachment trials?
Here is the normal procedure. none of which was followed.

You just keep losing, Simpleton.


The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.
Impeachment proceedings are usually initiated in the House when a Member submits a resolution through the hopper (in the same way that all House resolutions are submitted). A resolution calling for the impeachment of an officer will be referred to the Judiciary Committee; a resolution simply authorizing an investigation of an officer will be referred to the Rules Committee. In either case, the committee could then report a privileged resolution authorizing the investigation. In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.
Impeachment proceedings could also be initiated by a Member on the floor. A Member can offer an impeachment resolution as a “Question of the Privileges of the House.” The House, when it considers a resolution called up this way, might immediately vote to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, leaving the resolution in the same status as if it had been submitted through the hopper. Alternatively, the House might vote to table the impeachment resolution. The House could also vote directly on the resolution, but in modern practice, it has not chosen to approve articles of impeachment called up in this fashion. Instead, the House has relied on the Judiciary Committee to first conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and report recommendations to the full House.
Committee consideration is therefore typically the second stage of the impeachment process. In recent decades, it has been more common than not that the Judiciary Committee used information provided from another outside investigation. The committee might create a task force or a subcommittee to review this material and collect any other information through subpoenas, depositions, and public hearings. Impeachment investigations are governed by the standing rules of the House that govern all committee investigations, the terms of the resolution authorizing the investigation, and perhaps additional rules adopted by the committee specifically for the inquiry.
If the committee determines that impeachment is warranted, it will mark up articles of impeachment using the same procedures followed for the markup of other legislation. If the Judiciary Committee reports a resolution impeaching a federal officer, that resolution qualifies for privileged consideration on the House floor; its consideration is the third stage of the impeachment process. The resolution can be called up at the direction of the committee and considered immediately under the hour rule in the House. If called up this way, amendments could be precluded if a majority voted to order the previous question. A motion to recommit, with or without instructions, is in order but is not subject to debate. Alternatively, the House might alter these procedures by unanimous consent to, for example, set a longer time for debate or to allow brief debate on a motion to recommit. A resolution reported from the Rules Committee could also be used to structure floor debate.
If the House approves the impeachment resolution, it will appoint managers to present and argue its case against the federal

There's no requirement that there be Judiciary committee hearings. You're citing what is usually done as what MUST be done. And there's no requirement. You made the requirement up, citing yourself. Just like you did with your made up 'private citizen' nonsense.

Once again, your argument is just your.....

View attachment 449004
House rules, Dumbass.
 
It is, Dummy.

Show me where impeachment is for former Presidents.

Impeachment trials are not for former Presidents either, Halfwit.

You lose again.
You're half right. Impeachments are for President/Vice President, and officers of the US only.

Impeachment trials are for anybody who was impeached.
Not according to the Constitution. Try reading it.
Dumbfuck, nothing in the Constitution indicates Twice Impeached Trump can't stand trial in the Senate. You're just too brain-dead to know any better.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

So, just like the hurt Democrat children in the congress, you're making it up as you go....It won't stand.
LOL

Imbecile, I didn't make that up -- I copied & pasted that italicized text from the Constitution.

Hey, I didn't call you names asshole...While you may have copied a portion of text from the Constitution, you left out much of it, and distorted the meaning.
Don't be an imbecile and I won't call you one. I left out nothing that affects that sentence. What part of "ALL" is too confusing for you??

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.

Let me put in the context you refuse to....

" The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. "

I got news for ya, Donald Trump is NOT the President of the United States, and Chief Justice Roberts refuses to preside...
These clowns have him as President one post, and the next he isn’t President. Thats how they are trying to ignore the Constitution

Oh I know....They are making it up as they go...And as usual being total assholes while doing such...The thing they don't get is that Sen. Paul's point of order today acted as a preliminary vote, and they don't have the votes to convict....So, another clown show thrown out...

Trump's conviction is highly unlikely. But Trump's impeachment trial is definitely going to happen.

You people do seem to love your Kangaroo lynch mobs don't you?

And by 'Kangaroo', you mean constitutionally delegated authority?

No, I mean Kangaroo...No due process, false charges based on nothing but emotional nonsense, you know how Democrats operate...

Couldn't get the chief Justice, so you put in a partisan Democrat to ensure the fix...pathetically transparent...

What due process was denied, specifically?

Were there hearings that I missed in the house? Witnesses? Trump's chance to refute? NO! It was a knee jerk vote brought with none of that...A sad display.

Where are those hearings a requirement of the impeachment process in the constitution?

Here it is:


Show me.
House rules. The Speaker can’t unilaterally change or ignore House rules.

1) Show us that Pelosi lacks the authority to do what she did.

2) Show us where in the constitution its prohibited.

As you're not citing anything but yourself. And your source is laughably inadequate to carry your argument.
Any change in House rules must be debated and voted on at the beginning of each Congress.
Basic stuff that you are obviously ignorant of.

What 'changes' were required? Remember, it was the Judiciary Committee that introduced the article of impeachment.

Maybe you could cite your imagination again? Or pretend to be Justice Roberts? Maybe make up more imaginary restrictions to the Senates power of impeachment trials?
Here is the normal procedure. none of which was followed.

You just keep losing, Simpleton.


The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.
Impeachment proceedings are usually initiated in the House when a Member submits a resolution through the hopper (in the same way that all House resolutions are submitted). A resolution calling for the impeachment of an officer will be referred to the Judiciary Committee; a resolution simply authorizing an investigation of an officer will be referred to the Rules Committee. In either case, the committee could then report a privileged resolution authorizing the investigation. In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.
Impeachment proceedings could also be initiated by a Member on the floor. A Member can offer an impeachment resolution as a “Question of the Privileges of the House.” The House, when it considers a resolution called up this way, might immediately vote to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, leaving the resolution in the same status as if it had been submitted through the hopper. Alternatively, the House might vote to table the impeachment resolution. The House could also vote directly on the resolution, but in modern practice, it has not chosen to approve articles of impeachment called up in this fashion. Instead, the House has relied on the Judiciary Committee to first conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and report recommendations to the full House.
Committee consideration is therefore typically the second stage of the impeachment process. In recent decades, it has been more common than not that the Judiciary Committee used information provided from another outside investigation. The committee might create a task force or a subcommittee to review this material and collect any other information through subpoenas, depositions, and public hearings. Impeachment investigations are governed by the standing rules of the House that govern all committee investigations, the terms of the resolution authorizing the investigation, and perhaps additional rules adopted by the committee specifically for the inquiry.
If the committee determines that impeachment is warranted, it will mark up articles of impeachment using the same procedures followed for the markup of other legislation. If the Judiciary Committee reports a resolution impeaching a federal officer, that resolution qualifies for privileged consideration on the House floor; its consideration is the third stage of the impeachment process. The resolution can be called up at the direction of the committee and considered immediately under the hour rule in the House. If called up this way, amendments could be precluded if a majority voted to order the previous question. A motion to recommit, with or without instructions, is in order but is not subject to debate. Alternatively, the House might alter these procedures by unanimous consent to, for example, set a longer time for debate or to allow brief debate on a motion to recommit. A resolution reported from the Rules Committee could also be used to structure floor debate.
If the House approves the impeachment resolution, it will appoint managers to present and argue its case against the federal

There's no requirement that there be Judiciary committee hearings. You're citing what is usually done as what MUST be done. And there's no requirement. You made the requirement up, citing yourself. Just like you did with your made up 'private citizen' nonsense.

Once again, your argument is just your.....

View attachment 449004
House rules, Dumbass.

And where in the House Rules does it say that there MUST be Judiciary Committee hearings?

Remembering, of course, that you citing your imagination isn't "House Rules" anymore than you making up imaginary 'private citizen' limits to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials is the Constitution.

Its all just you citing you. And your source sucks.

Try again, Troll.
 
They just took Patrick Leahy to the hospital. Probably fell down drunk and broke his fat lying nose.
I'm sorry Senator Leahy is unwell. I don't agree with him, but he is an American, and he seems to be in trouble. Prayers up for him, his family and his circle of friends who care for him. :hands:
 
It is, Dummy.

Show me where impeachment is for former Presidents.

Impeachment trials are not for former Presidents either, Halfwit.

You lose again.
You're half right. Impeachments are for President/Vice President, and officers of the US only.

Impeachment trials are for anybody who was impeached.
Not according to the Constitution. Try reading it.
Dumbfuck, nothing in the Constitution indicates Twice Impeached Trump can't stand trial in the Senate. You're just too brain-dead to know any better.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

So, just like the hurt Democrat children in the congress, you're making it up as you go....It won't stand.
LOL

Imbecile, I didn't make that up -- I copied & pasted that italicized text from the Constitution.

Hey, I didn't call you names asshole...While you may have copied a portion of text from the Constitution, you left out much of it, and distorted the meaning.
Don't be an imbecile and I won't call you one. I left out nothing that affects that sentence. What part of "ALL" is too confusing for you??

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.

Let me put in the context you refuse to....

" The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. "

I got news for ya, Donald Trump is NOT the President of the United States, and Chief Justice Roberts refuses to preside...
These clowns have him as President one post, and the next he isn’t President. Thats how they are trying to ignore the Constitution

Oh I know....They are making it up as they go...And as usual being total assholes while doing such...The thing they don't get is that Sen. Paul's point of order today acted as a preliminary vote, and they don't have the votes to convict....So, another clown show thrown out...

Trump's conviction is highly unlikely. But Trump's impeachment trial is definitely going to happen.

You people do seem to love your Kangaroo lynch mobs don't you?

And by 'Kangaroo', you mean constitutionally delegated authority?

No, I mean Kangaroo...No due process, false charges based on nothing but emotional nonsense, you know how Democrats operate...

Couldn't get the chief Justice, so you put in a partisan Democrat to ensure the fix...pathetically transparent...

What due process was denied, specifically?

Were there hearings that I missed in the house? Witnesses? Trump's chance to refute? NO! It was a knee jerk vote brought with none of that...A sad display.

Where are those hearings a requirement of the impeachment process in the constitution?

Here it is:


Show me.
House rules. The Speaker can’t unilaterally change or ignore House rules.

1) Show us that Pelosi lacks the authority to do what she did.

2) Show us where in the constitution its prohibited.

As you're not citing anything but yourself. And your source is laughably inadequate to carry your argument.
Any change in House rules must be debated and voted on at the beginning of each Congress.
Basic stuff that you are obviously ignorant of.

What 'changes' were required? Remember, it was the Judiciary Committee that introduced the article of impeachment.

Maybe you could cite your imagination again? Or pretend to be Justice Roberts? Maybe make up more imaginary restrictions to the Senates power of impeachment trials?
Here is the normal procedure. none of which was followed.

You just keep losing, Simpleton.


The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.
Impeachment proceedings are usually initiated in the House when a Member submits a resolution through the hopper (in the same way that all House resolutions are submitted). A resolution calling for the impeachment of an officer will be referred to the Judiciary Committee; a resolution simply authorizing an investigation of an officer will be referred to the Rules Committee. In either case, the committee could then report a privileged resolution authorizing the investigation. In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.
Impeachment proceedings could also be initiated by a Member on the floor. A Member can offer an impeachment resolution as a “Question of the Privileges of the House.” The House, when it considers a resolution called up this way, might immediately vote to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, leaving the resolution in the same status as if it had been submitted through the hopper. Alternatively, the House might vote to table the impeachment resolution. The House could also vote directly on the resolution, but in modern practice, it has not chosen to approve articles of impeachment called up in this fashion. Instead, the House has relied on the Judiciary Committee to first conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and report recommendations to the full House.
Committee consideration is therefore typically the second stage of the impeachment process. In recent decades, it has been more common than not that the Judiciary Committee used information provided from another outside investigation. The committee might create a task force or a subcommittee to review this material and collect any other information through subpoenas, depositions, and public hearings. Impeachment investigations are governed by the standing rules of the House that govern all committee investigations, the terms of the resolution authorizing the investigation, and perhaps additional rules adopted by the committee specifically for the inquiry.
If the committee determines that impeachment is warranted, it will mark up articles of impeachment using the same procedures followed for the markup of other legislation. If the Judiciary Committee reports a resolution impeaching a federal officer, that resolution qualifies for privileged consideration on the House floor; its consideration is the third stage of the impeachment process. The resolution can be called up at the direction of the committee and considered immediately under the hour rule in the House. If called up this way, amendments could be precluded if a majority voted to order the previous question. A motion to recommit, with or without instructions, is in order but is not subject to debate. Alternatively, the House might alter these procedures by unanimous consent to, for example, set a longer time for debate or to allow brief debate on a motion to recommit. A resolution reported from the Rules Committee could also be used to structure floor debate.
If the House approves the impeachment resolution, it will appoint managers to present and argue its case against the federal

There's no requirement that there be Judiciary committee hearings. You're citing what is usually done as what MUST be done. And there's no requirement. You made the requirement up, citing yourself. Just like you did with your made up 'private citizen' nonsense.

Once again, your argument is just your.....

View attachment 449004
Let me educate the ignorant...




B. Procedure in the House


Sec. 6 . In General; Initiation and Referral of Charges

Generally

Under the modern practice, an impeachment is normally instituted
by the House by the adoption of a resolution calling for a committee
investigation of charges against the officer in question. This
committee may, after investigation, recommend the dismissal of charges
or it may recommend impeachment. Impeachment--Selected Materials,
Committee on the Judiciary, H. Doc. No. 93-7, Oct. 1973, p 699. A
resolution recommending impeachment is reported to the House
simultaneously with the articles of impeachment setting forth the
grounds for the proposed action. Sec. 8, infra. Following the adoption
of a resolution to impeach, the House appoints managers to conduct the
impeachment trial in the Senate. The Senate is then informed of these
facts by resolution. Manual Sec. 607; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 9. When this
resolution reaches the Senate, the Senate advises the House as to when
the Senate will receive the managers appointed by the House. The
managers then present themselves and the impeachment articles to the
Senate, the House reserving the right to file additional articles
later. Manual Sec. 608a; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 10, 11.

Initiation of Charges

In most cases, impeachment proceedings in the House have been
initiated either by introducing a resolution of impeachment through
the hopper or by offering a resolution of impeachment on the floor as
a question of the privileges of the House. Manual Sec. 603; Deschler
Ch 14 Sec. 5.
In the House, various events have been credited with setting an
impeachment in motion, including:

Charges initiated by a petition from one or more citizens and
referred to committee. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2364, 2491, 2494.
Charges transmitted in a message from the President. 3 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 2294, 2319; 6 Cannon Sec. 498.
Charges transmitted from the legislature of a State. 3 Hinds
Sec. 2469.
Charges arising from a grand jury investigation. 3 Hinds
Sec. 2488.
Charges arising from an independent counsel investigation
under section 595(c) of title 28, United States Code. Manual
Sec. 603.

In the 93d Congress, Vice President Agnew used a letter to the
Speaker to attempt to initiate an investigation by the House of
charges against him of possible impeachable offenses, but the House
took no action on the request. Manual Sec. 603.

[[Page 603]]

In the 105th Congress, an independent counsel transmitted to the
House under section 593 of title 28, United States Code, a
communication containing evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by
the President. The House adopted a privileged resolution reported by
the Committee on Rules referring the communication to the Committee on
the Judiciary, immediately releasing portions to the public,
restricting Members' access to the communication, and restricting
access to committee meetings and hearings on the communication. Later,
the House adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on
the Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee.
Manual Sec. 603.

Referral to Committee

Resolutions introduced through the hopper that directly call for
an impeachment are referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, whereas
resolutions merely calling for a committee investigation with a view
toward impeachment are referred to the Committee on Rules. Deschler Ch
14 Sec. Sec. 5.10, 5.11. In the 105th Congress the House adopted a
privileged resolution reported by the Committee on Rules referring a
communication from an independent counsel alleging certain impeachable
offenses to the Committee on the Judiciary. Later, the House adopted a
privileged resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary
authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee. Manual Sec. 603.
All impeachments to reach the Senate since 1900 have been based on
resolutions reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Before that
committee's creation in 1813, impeachments were referred to a special
committee for investigation. Manual Sec. 603; 6 Cannon Sec. 657.


Sec. 7 . Committee Investigations

Committee impeachment investigations are governed by those
portions of Rule XI relating to committee investigative and hearing
procedures, and by any rules and special procedures adopted by the
House and by the committee for the inquiry. Manual Sec. 605; Deschler
Ch 14 Sec. 6.3. The House may by resolution waive or supplement a
requirement of these rules in a particular case. In several recent
instances, the House agreed to a resolution authorizing the counsel to
the Committee on the Judiciary to take depositions of witnesses in an
impeachment investigation and waiving the provision of Rule XI that
requires at least two committee members to be present during the
taking of such testimony. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 6.3; 105-2, H. Res. 581,
Oct. 8, 1998, p 24679; 110-2, H. Res. 1448, Sept. 17, 2008, p 19502;
111-1, H. Res. 424, May 12, 2009, p __. Authorities to conduct an
inves

[[Page 604]]

tigation in one Congress have been ``re-invigorated'' in a subsequent
Congress. 111-1, H. Res. 15, Jan. 13, 2009, p __.
Under the earlier practice the committee sometimes made its
inquiry ex parte. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2319, 2343, 2385. However, the
modern trend is to permit the accused to testify, present witnesses,
cross-examine witnesses, and be represented by counsel. 3 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 2445, 2470, 2471, 2501, 2518; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 6; 105-2,
H. Rept. 105-830. Constitutionality, see Sec. 9, infra.

Confidentiality of Material; Access

The House and the Committee on the Judiciary may adopt procedures
to ensure the confidentiality of impeachment inquiry materials and to
limit access to such materials. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 6.9, 15.3;
105-2, H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998, pp 20020, 20021. Where a Federal
court subpoenas certain evidence gathered by the committee in an
impeachment inquiry, the House may adopt a resolution granting such
limited access to the evidence as will not violate the privileges of
the House or its sole power of impeachment under the Constitution.
Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 6.13.

Subcommittee Investigations

An investigative subcommittee charged with an impeachment inquiry
is limited to the powers expressly authorized by the House or by the
full committee. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 6.11; 105-2, H. Res. 581, Oct. 8,
1998, p 24679. After completing its investigation, the subcommittee
ordinarily submits recommendations to the full committee as to whether
impeachment is warranted. See, e.g., Final Report of the Special
Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 of the Committee on the Judiciary, 91-2,
committee print, Sept. 17, 1970.

Form

For forms of resolutions authorizing an investigation of the
sufficiency of grounds for impeachment and conferring subpoena power
and authority to take testimony, see Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 6.


Sec. 8 . Consideration in the House; Voting

Generally

The respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the
adoption of the House of articles of impeachment. Only a majority vote
is necessary, whereas a two-thirds vote of Members present is required
in the Senate for conviction and removal. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3;
Impeachment--Selected Materials, Committee on the Judiciary, H. Doc.
No. 93-7, Oct. 1973, p 700. In this regard, as is the usual practice,
the committee's recommendations as reported in the resolution are not
binding on the House

[[Page 605]]

until they are adopted. In 1933 the House voted to impeach Judge
Harold Louderback, even though the Committee on the Judiciary found
insufficient grounds to warrant impeachment. 6 Cannon Sec. 514.

Impeachment Propositions as Privileged

A resolution impeaching an officer is highly privileged under the
Constitution and therefore supersedes other pending business,
including an election contest. Manual Sec. 604; 3 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 2045-2048, 2581; 6 Cannon Sec. 468. Such a resolution, if
reported, may be considered immediately in the House as a question of
privilege. It is, therefore, not subject to the three-day layover
requirement of rule XIII. Manual Sec. 604. It does not lose its
privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been considered
previously during the same session. 3 Hinds Sec. 2408. However, a
resolution offered from the floor simply proposing an investigation is
not privileged, even though impeachment may be a possible consequence.
3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2050, 2546; 6 Cannon Sec. 463.
Although charges or resolutions of impeachment are privileged,
they cannot be presented while another Member has the floor unless
yielded to for that purpose. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 5.2. A resolution of
impeachment offered from the floor by a Member (other than the
Majority or Minority Leader) is not privileged for immediate
consideration because it is subject to the notice requirement of rule
IX. Manual Sec. 699.
A committee to which resolutions of impeachment have been referred
may report and call up as privileged resolutions incidental to the
consideration of the impeachment question. Manual Sec. 604; Deschler
Ch 14 Sec. 5.8. If, however, such a resolution is offered on the floor
by a Member on such Member's own initiative and not reported from the
committee to which the impeachment has been referred, it is not
privileged for immediate consideration because it is subject to the
notice requirement of rule IX. See Manual Sec. 699.
Propositions incidental to an ongoing impeachment proceeding taken
up as privileged (3 Hinds Sec. 2400) have included:

Reports relating to the investigation (3 Hinds Sec. 2402;
Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 8.2).
Resolutions providing for the selection of managers (6 Cannon
Sec. 517).
Propositions to abate an impeachment proceeding (6 Cannon
Sec. 514).
Proposals to confer subpoena authority or to provide funding
for the investigation (Manual Sec. 604; 6 Cannon Sec. 549).
Resolutions authorizing depositions by committee counsel
(Manual Sec. 604).

Following adoption of the articles of impeachment, the House
adopts resolutions appointing managers to present the articles before
the Senate, no

[[Page 606]]

tifying the Senate of the adoption of articles and appointment of
managers, and authorizing the managers to prepare for and to conduct
the trial in the Senate. Manual Sec. 607; 6 Cannon Sec. Sec. 499, 500,
514, 517. These privileged incidental resolutions may be merged into a
single indivisible privileged resolution. Manual Sec. 607.
On several occasions the Committee on the Judiciary, having been
referred a question of impeachment, reported a recommendation that
impeachment was not warranted and, thereafter, called up the report as
a question of privilege. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 1.3. Under section 596(a)
of title 28, United States Code, an independent counsel appointed to
investigate the President may be impeached; and a resolution
impeaching such independent counsel constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX. Manual Sec. 604.

Debate; Motions

Propositions of impeachment are considered under the general rules
of the House applicable to other simple House resolutions, unless the
House otherwise provides by special order of business. Deschler Ch 14
Sec. 8; 105-2, Dec. 18, 1998, pp 27846, 27847. Since 1912, the House
has considered the resolution together with the articles of
impeachment. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 8.2. The House may consider the
resolution and articles under a unanimous-consent agreement fixing and
controlling the time for debate. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.4;
105-2, Dec. 18, 1998, pp 27846, 27847. The motion for the previous
question and the motion to recommit are applicable, and a separate
vote may be demanded on each article of impeachment contained in the
resolution. Manual Sec. 606a; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 8.8-8.10. The
resolution also is subject to a motion to lay on the table before
debate thereon. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 1.15.
A wide range of debate is permitted on impeachment proposals, and
a Member may refer to the political, social, and even the familial
background of the accused. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 8.5. However, Members
must abstain from language personally offensive. Manual Sec. 370.
Furthermore, Members must abstain from references to the personal
conduct of sitting Members of the House or Senate. Manual Sec. 370.
To a privileged resolution of impeachment, an amendment in the
motion to recommit proposing instead to censure (which is not
privileged) was held not germane. Manual Sec. 604.

[[Page 607]]
 
I’m citing the Constitution, Stupid.

You should find someone to read it to you.


Here's the constitution:

Show me where it says that Roberts must preside over the impeachment trial of an ex-president.

If you're citing the constitution, this will be remarkably easy. If you're citing your imagination, it will be a bit harder.
No such thing as impeaching a private citizen.

Next?
They didn’t impeach a private citizen
 
It is, Dummy.

Show me where impeachment is for former Presidents.

Impeachment trials are not for former Presidents either, Halfwit.

You lose again.
You're half right. Impeachments are for President/Vice President, and officers of the US only.

Impeachment trials are for anybody who was impeached.
Not according to the Constitution. Try reading it.
Dumbfuck, nothing in the Constitution indicates Twice Impeached Trump can't stand trial in the Senate. You're just too brain-dead to know any better.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

So, just like the hurt Democrat children in the congress, you're making it up as you go....It won't stand.
LOL

Imbecile, I didn't make that up -- I copied & pasted that italicized text from the Constitution.

Hey, I didn't call you names asshole...While you may have copied a portion of text from the Constitution, you left out much of it, and distorted the meaning.
Don't be an imbecile and I won't call you one. I left out nothing that affects that sentence. What part of "ALL" is too confusing for you??

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.

Let me put in the context you refuse to....

" The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. "

I got news for ya, Donald Trump is NOT the President of the United States, and Chief Justice Roberts refuses to preside...
These clowns have him as President one post, and the next he isn’t President. Thats how they are trying to ignore the Constitution

Oh I know....They are making it up as they go...And as usual being total assholes while doing such...The thing they don't get is that Sen. Paul's point of order today acted as a preliminary vote, and they don't have the votes to convict....So, another clown show thrown out...

Trump's conviction is highly unlikely. But Trump's impeachment trial is definitely going to happen.

You people do seem to love your Kangaroo lynch mobs don't you?

And by 'Kangaroo', you mean constitutionally delegated authority?

No, I mean Kangaroo...No due process, false charges based on nothing but emotional nonsense, you know how Democrats operate...

Couldn't get the chief Justice, so you put in a partisan Democrat to ensure the fix...pathetically transparent...

What due process was denied, specifically?

Were there hearings that I missed in the house? Witnesses? Trump's chance to refute? NO! It was a knee jerk vote brought with none of that...A sad display.

Where are those hearings a requirement of the impeachment process in the constitution?

Here it is:


Show me.
House rules. The Speaker can’t unilaterally change or ignore House rules.

1) Show us that Pelosi lacks the authority to do what she did.

2) Show us where in the constitution its prohibited.

As you're not citing anything but yourself. And your source is laughably inadequate to carry your argument.
Any change in House rules must be debated and voted on at the beginning of each Congress.
Basic stuff that you are obviously ignorant of.

What 'changes' were required? Remember, it was the Judiciary Committee that introduced the article of impeachment.

Maybe you could cite your imagination again? Or pretend to be Justice Roberts? Maybe make up more imaginary restrictions to the Senates power of impeachment trials?
Here is the normal procedure. none of which was followed.

You just keep losing, Simpleton.


The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.
Impeachment proceedings are usually initiated in the House when a Member submits a resolution through the hopper (in the same way that all House resolutions are submitted). A resolution calling for the impeachment of an officer will be referred to the Judiciary Committee; a resolution simply authorizing an investigation of an officer will be referred to the Rules Committee. In either case, the committee could then report a privileged resolution authorizing the investigation. In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.
Impeachment proceedings could also be initiated by a Member on the floor. A Member can offer an impeachment resolution as a “Question of the Privileges of the House.” The House, when it considers a resolution called up this way, might immediately vote to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, leaving the resolution in the same status as if it had been submitted through the hopper. Alternatively, the House might vote to table the impeachment resolution. The House could also vote directly on the resolution, but in modern practice, it has not chosen to approve articles of impeachment called up in this fashion. Instead, the House has relied on the Judiciary Committee to first conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and report recommendations to the full House.
Committee consideration is therefore typically the second stage of the impeachment process. In recent decades, it has been more common than not that the Judiciary Committee used information provided from another outside investigation. The committee might create a task force or a subcommittee to review this material and collect any other information through subpoenas, depositions, and public hearings. Impeachment investigations are governed by the standing rules of the House that govern all committee investigations, the terms of the resolution authorizing the investigation, and perhaps additional rules adopted by the committee specifically for the inquiry.
If the committee determines that impeachment is warranted, it will mark up articles of impeachment using the same procedures followed for the markup of other legislation. If the Judiciary Committee reports a resolution impeaching a federal officer, that resolution qualifies for privileged consideration on the House floor; its consideration is the third stage of the impeachment process. The resolution can be called up at the direction of the committee and considered immediately under the hour rule in the House. If called up this way, amendments could be precluded if a majority voted to order the previous question. A motion to recommit, with or without instructions, is in order but is not subject to debate. Alternatively, the House might alter these procedures by unanimous consent to, for example, set a longer time for debate or to allow brief debate on a motion to recommit. A resolution reported from the Rules Committee could also be used to structure floor debate.
If the House approves the impeachment resolution, it will appoint managers to present and argue its case against the federal

There's no requirement that there be Judiciary committee hearings. You're citing what is usually done as what MUST be done. And there's no requirement. You made the requirement up, citing yourself. Just like you did with your made up 'private citizen' nonsense.

Once again, your argument is just your.....

View attachment 449004
Let me educate the ignorant...




B. Procedure in the House


Sec. 6 . In General; Initiation and Referral of Charges

Generally

Under the modern practice, an impeachment is normally instituted
by the House by the adoption of a resolution calling for a committee
investigation of charges against the officer in question. This
committee may, after investigation, recommend the dismissal of charges
or it may recommend impeachment. Impeachment--Selected Materials,
Committee on the Judiciary, H. Doc. No. 93-7, Oct. 1973, p 699. A
resolution recommending impeachment is reported to the House
simultaneously with the articles of impeachment setting forth the
grounds for the proposed action. Sec. 8, infra. Following the adoption
of a resolution to impeach, the House appoints managers to conduct the
impeachment trial in the Senate. The Senate is then informed of these
facts by resolution. Manual Sec. 607; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 9. When this
resolution reaches the Senate, the Senate advises the House as to when
the Senate will receive the managers appointed by the House. The
managers then present themselves and the impeachment articles to the
Senate, the House reserving the right to file additional articles
later. Manual Sec. 608a; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 10, 11.

Initiation of Charges

In most cases, impeachment proceedings in the House have been
initiated either by introducing a resolution of impeachment through
the hopper or by offering a resolution of impeachment on the floor as
a question of the privileges of the House. Manual Sec. 603; Deschler
Ch 14 Sec. 5.
In the House, various events have been credited with setting an
impeachment in motion, including:

Charges initiated by a petition from one or more citizens and
referred to committee. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2364, 2491, 2494.
Charges transmitted in a message from the President. 3 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 2294, 2319; 6 Cannon Sec. 498.
Charges transmitted from the legislature of a State. 3 Hinds
Sec. 2469.
Charges arising from a grand jury investigation. 3 Hinds
Sec. 2488.
Charges arising from an independent counsel investigation
under section 595(c) of title 28, United States Code. Manual
Sec. 603.

In the 93d Congress, Vice President Agnew used a letter to the
Speaker to attempt to initiate an investigation by the House of
charges against him of possible impeachable offenses, but the House
took no action on the request. Manual Sec. 603.

[[Page 603]]

In the 105th Congress, an independent counsel transmitted to the
House under section 593 of title 28, United States Code, a
communication containing evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by
the President. The House adopted a privileged resolution reported by
the Committee on Rules referring the communication to the Committee on
the Judiciary, immediately releasing portions to the public,
restricting Members' access to the communication, and restricting
access to committee meetings and hearings on the communication. Later,
the House adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on
the Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee.
Manual Sec. 603.

Referral to Committee

Resolutions introduced through the hopper that directly call for
an impeachment are referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, whereas
resolutions merely calling for a committee investigation with a view
toward impeachment are referred to the Committee on Rules. Deschler Ch
14 Sec. Sec. 5.10, 5.11. In the 105th Congress the House adopted a
privileged resolution reported by the Committee on Rules referring a
communication from an independent counsel alleging certain impeachable
offenses to the Committee on the Judiciary. Later, the House adopted a
privileged resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary
authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee. Manual Sec. 603.
All impeachments to reach the Senate since 1900 have been based on
resolutions reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Before that
committee's creation in 1813, impeachments were referred to a special
committee for investigation. Manual Sec. 603; 6 Cannon Sec. 657.


Sec. 7 . Committee Investigations

Committee impeachment investigations are governed by those
portions of Rule XI relating to committee investigative and hearing
procedures, and by any rules and special procedures adopted by the
House and by the committee for the inquiry. Manual Sec. 605; Deschler
Ch 14 Sec. 6.3. The House may by resolution waive or supplement a
requirement of these rules in a particular case. In several recent
instances, the House agreed to a resolution authorizing the counsel to
the Committee on the Judiciary to take depositions of witnesses in an
impeachment investigation and waiving the provision of Rule XI that
requires at least two committee members to be present during the
taking of such testimony. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 6.3; 105-2, H. Res. 581,
Oct. 8, 1998, p 24679; 110-2, H. Res. 1448, Sept. 17, 2008, p 19502;
111-1, H. Res. 424, May 12, 2009, p __. Authorities to conduct an
inves

[[Page 604]]

tigation in one Congress have been ``re-invigorated'' in a subsequent
Congress. 111-1, H. Res. 15, Jan. 13, 2009, p __.
Under the earlier practice the committee sometimes made its
inquiry ex parte. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2319, 2343, 2385. However, the
modern trend is to permit the accused to testify, present witnesses,
cross-examine witnesses, and be represented by counsel. 3 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 2445, 2470, 2471, 2501, 2518; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 6; 105-2,
H. Rept. 105-830. Constitutionality, see Sec. 9, infra.

Confidentiality of Material; Access

The House and the Committee on the Judiciary may adopt procedures
to ensure the confidentiality of impeachment inquiry materials and to
limit access to such materials. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 6.9, 15.3;
105-2, H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998, pp 20020, 20021. Where a Federal
court subpoenas certain evidence gathered by the committee in an
impeachment inquiry, the House may adopt a resolution granting such
limited access to the evidence as will not violate the privileges of
the House or its sole power of impeachment under the Constitution.
Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 6.13.

Subcommittee Investigations

An investigative subcommittee charged with an impeachment inquiry
is limited to the powers expressly authorized by the House or by the
full committee. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 6.11; 105-2, H. Res. 581, Oct. 8,
1998, p 24679. After completing its investigation, the subcommittee
ordinarily submits recommendations to the full committee as to whether
impeachment is warranted. See, e.g., Final Report of the Special
Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 of the Committee on the Judiciary, 91-2,
committee print, Sept. 17, 1970.

Form

For forms of resolutions authorizing an investigation of the
sufficiency of grounds for impeachment and conferring subpoena power
and authority to take testimony, see Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 6.


Sec. 8 . Consideration in the House; Voting

Generally

The respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the
adoption of the House of articles of impeachment. Only a majority vote
is necessary, whereas a two-thirds vote of Members present is required
in the Senate for conviction and removal. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3;
Impeachment--Selected Materials, Committee on the Judiciary, H. Doc.
No. 93-7, Oct. 1973, p 700. In this regard, as is the usual practice,
the committee's recommendations as reported in the resolution are not
binding on the House

[[Page 605]]

until they are adopted. In 1933 the House voted to impeach Judge
Harold Louderback, even though the Committee on the Judiciary found
insufficient grounds to warrant impeachment. 6 Cannon Sec. 514.

Impeachment Propositions as Privileged

A resolution impeaching an officer is highly privileged under the
Constitution and therefore supersedes other pending business,
including an election contest. Manual Sec. 604; 3 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 2045-2048, 2581; 6 Cannon Sec. 468. Such a resolution, if
reported, may be considered immediately in the House as a question of
privilege. It is, therefore, not subject to the three-day layover
requirement of rule XIII. Manual Sec. 604. It does not lose its
privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been considered
previously during the same session. 3 Hinds Sec. 2408. However, a
resolution offered from the floor simply proposing an investigation is
not privileged, even though impeachment may be a possible consequence.
3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2050, 2546; 6 Cannon Sec. 463.
Although charges or resolutions of impeachment are privileged,
they cannot be presented while another Member has the floor unless
yielded to for that purpose. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 5.2. A resolution of
impeachment offered from the floor by a Member (other than the
Majority or Minority Leader) is not privileged for immediate
consideration because it is subject to the notice requirement of rule
IX. Manual Sec. 699.
A committee to which resolutions of impeachment have been referred
may report and call up as privileged resolutions incidental to the
consideration of the impeachment question. Manual Sec. 604; Deschler
Ch 14 Sec. 5.8. If, however, such a resolution is offered on the floor
by a Member on such Member's own initiative and not reported from the
committee to which the impeachment has been referred, it is not
privileged for immediate consideration because it is subject to the
notice requirement of rule IX. See Manual Sec. 699.
Propositions incidental to an ongoing impeachment proceeding taken
up as privileged (3 Hinds Sec. 2400) have included:

Reports relating to the investigation (3 Hinds Sec. 2402;
Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 8.2).
Resolutions providing for the selection of managers (6 Cannon
Sec. 517).
Propositions to abate an impeachment proceeding (6 Cannon
Sec. 514).
Proposals to confer subpoena authority or to provide funding
for the investigation (Manual Sec. 604; 6 Cannon Sec. 549).
Resolutions authorizing depositions by committee counsel
(Manual Sec. 604).

Following adoption of the articles of impeachment, the House
adopts resolutions appointing managers to present the articles before
the Senate, no

[[Page 606]]

tifying the Senate of the adoption of articles and appointment of
managers, and authorizing the managers to prepare for and to conduct
the trial in the Senate. Manual Sec. 607; 6 Cannon Sec. Sec. 499, 500,
514, 517. These privileged incidental resolutions may be merged into a
single indivisible privileged resolution. Manual Sec. 607.
On several occasions the Committee on the Judiciary, having been
referred a question of impeachment, reported a recommendation that
impeachment was not warranted and, thereafter, called up the report as
a question of privilege. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 1.3. Under section 596(a)
of title 28, United States Code, an independent counsel appointed to
investigate the President may be impeached; and a resolution
impeaching such independent counsel constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX. Manual Sec. 604.

Debate; Motions

Propositions of impeachment are considered under the general rules
of the House applicable to other simple House resolutions, unless the
House otherwise provides by special order of business. Deschler Ch 14
Sec. 8; 105-2, Dec. 18, 1998, pp 27846, 27847. Since 1912, the House
has considered the resolution together with the articles of
impeachment. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 8.2. The House may consider the
resolution and articles under a unanimous-consent agreement fixing and
controlling the time for debate. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.4;
105-2, Dec. 18, 1998, pp 27846, 27847. The motion for the previous
question and the motion to recommit are applicable, and a separate
vote may be demanded on each article of impeachment contained in the
resolution. Manual Sec. 606a; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 8.8-8.10. The
resolution also is subject to a motion to lay on the table before
debate thereon. Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 1.15.
A wide range of debate is permitted on impeachment proposals, and
a Member may refer to the political, social, and even the familial
background of the accused. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 8.5. However, Members
must abstain from language personally offensive. Manual Sec. 370.
Furthermore, Members must abstain from references to the personal
conduct of sitting Members of the House or Senate. Manual Sec. 370.
To a privileged resolution of impeachment, an amendment in the
motion to recommit proposing instead to censure (which is not
privileged) was held not germane. Manual Sec. 604.

[[Page 607]]

In general. Usually. Normally. Typically.

You didn't read what you posted, did you?

No where does it say that such hearings are REQUIRED. That they must happen. You simply imagine it must be so.

Show us where it is REQUIRED to have Judiciary Committee hearings. Highlight the passage that says they MUST occur.
 
I’m citing the Constitution, Stupid.

You should find someone to read it to you.


Here's the constitution:

Show me where it says that Roberts must preside over the impeachment trial of an ex-president.

If you're citing the constitution, this will be remarkably easy. If you're citing your imagination, it will be a bit harder.
No such thing as impeaching a private citizen.

Says who? That would be you, citing yourself.

Trump was impeached, thus the Senate has authority. Says who? Says the constitution.

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation."

Now why would I ignore the constitution and instead believe your rambling pseudo-legal gibberish?
Show me where the Constitution spells out the procedures for impeaching a private citizen.

You lose again.:itsok::laughing0301:

There's no 'private citizen' limit to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials. You imagined it.

Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has authority over his impeachment trial. Says who? Says the constitution.

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation."

I keep quoting the constitution. You keep quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.
Hey asshole, you aren't winning. Trump isn't President, therefore the Senate has no legal right to try him. You claim they do , thus you are claiming Trump is President. By the way, the article wasnt delivered until Trump was out of office. Meaning too late, it doesn't count.
 

Forum List

Back
Top