Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

beautress

Always Faithful
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
17,438
Reaction score
9,420
Points
1,295
Location
Walker County, TX
Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......
Do you have a link to that?
Your ignorance of Roberts’ refusal to oversee the Shampeachment trial isn’t my concern.
Translation: You're citing yourself AS Roberts. As Roberts has never claimed that the impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'.

Color me shocked.
Then he must be impeached. Why isn’t Nazi impeaching him?

You can’t win this.
Who is 'nazi' in your little imagination?

Remember, you're not quoting Roberts. You're quoting yourself. The only one saying that Roberts must be impeached is you, citing yourself as a constitutional authority.

And your source doesn't know what he's talking about.
If this trial is Constitutional the Constitution requires Roberts to preside.
Either it is Constitutional, or he is violating his oath and needs to be impeached.
LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up! :lmao:

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy? :abgg2q.jpg:
Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.
Outta the park, BriPat. Too bad the idiot Demmies are so into submission to their higher-ranking apparatchiks they can't see the ball flying way over the stadium walls.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,463
Reaction score
27,916
Points
2,180
Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......
Do you have a link to that?
Your ignorance of Roberts’ refusal to oversee the Shampeachment trial isn’t my concern.
Translation: You're citing yourself AS Roberts. As Roberts has never claimed that the impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'.

Color me shocked.
Then he must be impeached. Why isn’t Nazi impeaching him?

You can’t win this.
Who is 'nazi' in your little imagination?

Remember, you're not quoting Roberts. You're quoting yourself. The only one saying that Roberts must be impeached is you, citing yourself as a constitutional authority.

And your source doesn't know what he's talking about.
If this trial is Constitutional the Constitution requires Roberts to preside.
Either it is Constitutional, or he is violating his oath and needs to be impeached.
LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up! :lmao:

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy? :abgg2q.jpg:
Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, it says it in the very same paragraph you've been quoting....

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.

[emphasis mine]

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:
That isn't what is being argued about, psycho. Where does it say that non-members of the government can be tried?
 

Bobob

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
3,241
Reaction score
1,120
Points
210
They went from the trump rally to the Capitol, darling. Stop deflecting.
So what, 'darling'? In the transcripts of President Trump's speech you can read (or can you?) where the President Trump talks about marching PEACEFULLY down to the Capitol and CHEERING ON GOP politicians?

I am guessing you can NOT read worth a damn or that your reading comprehension skills are literally non-existent, as I have pointed this out numerous times to you and you still don't seem to get it AND how the transcripts of his speech are readily available for anyone to read. Either you have reading them and can't comprehend what the words mean, or you choose to make up your own false narrative.
Your president incited the riot with his rhetoric. He is a pugnacious mother fucker
and wanted the coup attempt to succeed, just like you did. He called Marc Levin
one week before the insurrection and asked Levin to be at photo op rally and lead mob to Capitol, where Trump would meet him on the steps(according to Levin).
Link to this rhetoric that incited a riot?
Here we go.
Capitol riot: How Donald Trump incited an attack on America ...
fortune.com › 2021/01/07 › trump-speech-capitol-attac...

Jan 7, 2021 — Trump has been gathering fuel for an insurrection for a decade. ... James Mattis, Trump's first secretary of defense, who said last night that the ... At the rally, Trump delivered the same inflammatory rhetoric and false claims that ... Near the beginning of his speech, Trump even made what appeared to be an ...
“.....made what APPEARED to be....”

Im not interested in the spin and opinion of a Trump hater, Stupid.

See my sig.
Read the whole article to see how dictators handle and encourage disruption.
Funny how you always find a poor excuse for his bad behavior.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,601
Reaction score
14,235
Points
2,210
Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.
No...it does NOT you stupid little turd
I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick
Fucking moron, you don't understand English. You're quoting...

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

That ^^^ is what happens "when" the president is tried... What does a fucking moron like you think happens when it's not a president being tried??? Here, I'll even make it easy for you by making it multiple choice so even a fucking moron like you has a 50/50 shot at getting it right....

  1. There is no impeachment trial if it's not a president being tried.
  2. Someone else other than the Chief Justice presides.
... feel free to phone-a-friend for help, if needed.

:abgg2q.jpg:
It says nothing about anyone being tried other than the President, you psychotic NAZI moron. Please show where the Constitution allows Congress to try private citizens for anything.

Roberts already declined to participate in this farce.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, you really think it say nothing about anyone other than a president being tried?? Then how do you explain all of the other non-presidents who have been impeached by the House and tried in the Senate??

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:

I can't believe you had a 50/50 shot to get that one right and you still got it wrong.



Just kidding, I not only believe it, I expected it. :lmao:
Yes, they can be impeached, but that section lays out how to impeach and try the president.
Fucking moron, that section is about ALL impeachment trials....

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

... presidents and non-presidents. The only caveat that applies to that is if it's a president being tried, the Chief Justice presides over the trial. If it's not a president being tried, which is the case with Twice Impeached Trump's trial, the Chief Justice does not preside over the trial.

How the fuck did you ever become this retarded that you can't even understand something as simple as that?? :ack-1:
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,463
Reaction score
27,916
Points
2,180
Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.
No...it does NOT you stupid little turd
I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick
Fucking moron, you don't understand English. You're quoting...

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

That ^^^ is what happens "when" the president is tried... What does a fucking moron like you think happens when it's not a president being tried??? Here, I'll even make it easy for you by making it multiple choice so even a fucking moron like you has a 50/50 shot at getting it right....

  1. There is no impeachment trial if it's not a president being tried.
  2. Someone else other than the Chief Justice presides.
... feel free to phone-a-friend for help, if needed.

:abgg2q.jpg:
It says nothing about anyone being tried other than the President, you psychotic NAZI moron. Please show where the Constitution allows Congress to try private citizens for anything.

Roberts already declined to participate in this farce.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, you really think it say nothing about anyone other than a president being tried?? Then how do you explain all of the other non-presidents who have been impeached by the House and tried in the Senate??

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:

I can't believe you had a 50/50 shot to get that one right and you still got it wrong.



Just kidding, I not only believe it, I expected it. :lmao:

Can the Senate Try Private Citizen Trump after He Leaves Office?
Some pundits and Senators have suggested that a former President can be impeached and tried as a private citizen. I don't know if they think this applies to all former presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Obama, or whether it is applicable only to a president who has just recently left office. But either way, they are simply wrong as a matter of the Constitutional text and meaning.
The relevant text of the Constitution reads as follows: "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." (Article II, Section 4)
The Framers of the Constitution debated impeachment extensively. It is clear that they intended it to apply only to sitting presidents and other office holders and not to private citizens who previously held that office.
The Framers did, however, regard impeachment and trial as part of one single process, culminating in removal from office. And so, if removal from office is no longer a possibility, it would seem that Congress would have no jurisdiction to impeach.
What they want to do is to impeach President Trump without giving him an opportunity to defend himself at a Senate trial. This would be analogous to a prosecutor deciding to indict someone and then deny him a trial at which he could disprove his guilt or prove his innocence. That would be a core denial of due process, as would impeaching a president based on a majority of the House while denying him a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds super majority to remove.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,463
Reaction score
27,916
Points
2,180
Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.
No...it does NOT you stupid little turd
I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick
Fucking moron, you don't understand English. You're quoting...

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

That ^^^ is what happens "when" the president is tried... What does a fucking moron like you think happens when it's not a president being tried??? Here, I'll even make it easy for you by making it multiple choice so even a fucking moron like you has a 50/50 shot at getting it right....

  1. There is no impeachment trial if it's not a president being tried.
  2. Someone else other than the Chief Justice presides.
... feel free to phone-a-friend for help, if needed.

:abgg2q.jpg:
It says nothing about anyone being tried other than the President, you psychotic NAZI moron. Please show where the Constitution allows Congress to try private citizens for anything.

Roberts already declined to participate in this farce.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, you really think it say nothing about anyone other than a president being tried?? Then how do you explain all of the other non-presidents who have been impeached by the House and tried in the Senate??

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:

I can't believe you had a 50/50 shot to get that one right and you still got it wrong.



Just kidding, I not only believe it, I expected it. :lmao:
Yes, they can be impeached, but that section lays out how to impeach and try the president.
Fucking moron, that section is about ALL impeachment trials....

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

... presidents and non-presidents. The only caveat that applies to that is if it's a president being tried, the Chief Justice presides over the trial. If it's not a president being tried, which is the case with Twice Impeached Trump's trial, the Chief Justice does not preside over the trial.

How the fuck did you ever become this retarded that you can't even understand something as simple as that?? :ack-1:

"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." (Article II, Section 4)

How can Trump be removed from office? You fucking psycho dumbass.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,601
Reaction score
14,235
Points
2,210
Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......
Do you have a link to that?
Your ignorance of Roberts’ refusal to oversee the Shampeachment trial isn’t my concern.
Translation: You're citing yourself AS Roberts. As Roberts has never claimed that the impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'.

Color me shocked.
Then he must be impeached. Why isn’t Nazi impeaching him?

You can’t win this.
Who is 'nazi' in your little imagination?

Remember, you're not quoting Roberts. You're quoting yourself. The only one saying that Roberts must be impeached is you, citing yourself as a constitutional authority.

And your source doesn't know what he's talking about.
If this trial is Constitutional the Constitution requires Roberts to preside.
Either it is Constitutional, or he is violating his oath and needs to be impeached.
LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up! :lmao:

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy? :abgg2q.jpg:
Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, it says it in the very same paragraph you've been quoting....

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.

[emphasis mine]

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:
That isn't what is being argued about, psycho. Where does it say that non-members of the government can be tried?
LOLOLOL

Where is says, "all," fucking moron. :eusa_doh:

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

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:
 

BS Filter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
16,316
Reaction score
5,918
Points
360
The Senate trial can begin now. Leahy was sent home from the Detox unit.
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
23,336
Reaction score
6,439
Points
290
That section refers to impeaching a president, not a cabinet officer, dumbfuck.
I don't know what "section" you are referring to but the President, VP, and Cabinet members, and judges (office holders) can and have been Impeached. Actually No VP has been Impeached but Nixon's VP certainly would have had he not resigned

You need to read better or stop lying
 

Bobob

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
3,241
Reaction score
1,120
Points
210
One more time

Nostra You're talking in circles as always.

A. Trump was President when Impeached in the House

B. He is now a private citizen but that does not protect him. Private citizens have been both Impeached and tried in the past

C. Since he is NOW a private citizen the CJ of SCOTUS is not required for the Senate trial. MANY non Presidents have been Impeached and tried in the Senate with either the VP or the President Pro Tem presiding.

So just shut the fuck up.

You're wrong and you're lying and Trolling

Links have been provided on this thread to support all of that
Funny to watch you clowns try to get out of the corners I back you into, :laughing0301: :auiqs.jpg: :itsok:
Laughing......we'll laugh together as Trump is lawfully tried in the Senate in his impeachment trial. Just like William Belknap was tried after he left office before him.

So much for your imagination, eh Troll?
:itsok:
Laughing....keep ignoring the Constitution, precedent and reality.

Its not like Trump's impeachment trial will magically disappear. You guys tried that with the election already.

Try again, Troll.
I’m the only one actually quoting the Constitution, Stupid.
And it doesn't say a THING that you do. As the only requirements you've cited in the Constitution.....are for the Chief Justice.

Not for the Senate. And not for the Impeachment Trial.

Here's the Constitution yet again:

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

Trump was impeached. Thus, the senate has the sole power to try him in his impeachment trial. Your 'private citizen' batshit is just your imagination. There is no such restriction in the Constitution of the Senate's power to try impeachments. As demonstrated by the impeachment trial of William Belknap AFTER he left office.

Remember, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
The Constitution clearly states the very few govt officials covered by the impeachment process. Private citizens are not covered.

Roberts knows this and gave Nazi Pelousy the middle finger.
Roberts stayed out because he was tired of the hoopla surrounding Trump in the first impeachment trial, and for no other reason. Any time I need an explanation, I will defer to you because you are an expert on the Constitution. You don't know a con-man when he reaches out and slaps you upside the back of the head. Trump is the lowest form of life for taking advantage of poor souls like you.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,463
Reaction score
27,916
Points
2,180
Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......
Do you have a link to that?
Your ignorance of Roberts’ refusal to oversee the Shampeachment trial isn’t my concern.
Translation: You're citing yourself AS Roberts. As Roberts has never claimed that the impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'.

Color me shocked.
Then he must be impeached. Why isn’t Nazi impeaching him?

You can’t win this.
Who is 'nazi' in your little imagination?

Remember, you're not quoting Roberts. You're quoting yourself. The only one saying that Roberts must be impeached is you, citing yourself as a constitutional authority.

And your source doesn't know what he's talking about.
If this trial is Constitutional the Constitution requires Roberts to preside.
Either it is Constitutional, or he is violating his oath and needs to be impeached.
LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up! :lmao:

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy? :abgg2q.jpg:
Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, it says it in the very same paragraph you've been quoting....

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.

[emphasis mine]

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:
That isn't what is being argued about, psycho. Where does it say that non-members of the government can be tried?
LOLOLOL

Where is says, "all," fucking moron. :eusa_doh:

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

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:
Nope.

Where does it say Congress can impeach a non-officer of the federal government?
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
23,336
Reaction score
6,439
Points
290
Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.
No...it does NOT you stupid little turd
I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick
Fucking moron, you don't understand English. You're quoting...

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

That ^^^ is what happens "when" the president is tried... What does a fucking moron like you think happens when it's not a president being tried??? Here, I'll even make it easy for you by making it multiple choice so even a fucking moron like you has a 50/50 shot at getting it right....

  1. There is no impeachment trial if it's not a president being tried.
  2. Someone else other than the Chief Justice presides.
... feel free to phone-a-friend for help, if needed.

:abgg2q.jpg:
It says nothing about anyone being tried other than the President, you psychotic NAZI moron. Please show where the Constitution allows Congress to try private citizens for anything.

Roberts already declined to participate in this farce.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, you really think it say nothing about anyone other than a president being tried?? Then how do you explain all of the other non-presidents who have been impeached by the House and tried in the Senate??

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:

I can't believe you had a 50/50 shot to get that one right and you still got it wrong.



Just kidding, I not only believe it, I expected it. :lmao:

Can the Senate Try Private Citizen Trump after He Leaves Office?
Some pundits and Senators have suggested that a former President can be impeached and tried as a private citizen. I don't know if they think this applies to all former presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Obama, or whether it is applicable only to a president who has just recently left office. But either way, they are simply wrong as a matter of the Constitutional text and meaning.
The relevant text of the Constitution reads as follows: "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." (Article II, Section 4)
The Framers of the Constitution debated impeachment extensively. It is clear that they intended it to apply only to sitting presidents and other office holders and not to private citizens who previously held that office.
The Framers did, however, regard impeachment and trial as part of one single process, culminating in removal from office. And so, if removal from office is no longer a possibility, it would seem that Congress would have no jurisdiction to impeach.
What they want to do is to impeach President Trump without giving him an opportunity to defend himself at a Senate trial. This would be analogous to a prosecutor deciding to indict someone and then deny him a trial at which he could disprove his guilt or prove his innocence. That would be a core denial of due process, as would impeaching a president based on a majority of the House while denying him a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds super majority to remove.
Maybe you ought to ask Alan Douchowitz how it was that former Sec of War William Belknap was Impeached and tried...
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,511
Reaction score
12,472
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
They have zero constitutional power or right to do so
Trying T on fake charges is only a “ Soviet show trial “
Actually, not true.

In May 1876, William Bellkampf was impeached by the Senate even though he had already resigned as Secretary of War.
LOL... The senate stated they had NO JURISDICTION TO TAKE HIM TO TRIAL... SO just like today the House did a show indictment and the Senate will acquit.. On more DEMOCRAT FAILURE..
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,463
Reaction score
27,916
Points
2,180
One more time

Nostra You're talking in circles as always.

A. Trump was President when Impeached in the House

B. He is now a private citizen but that does not protect him. Private citizens have been both Impeached and tried in the past

C. Since he is NOW a private citizen the CJ of SCOTUS is not required for the Senate trial. MANY non Presidents have been Impeached and tried in the Senate with either the VP or the President Pro Tem presiding.

So just shut the fuck up.

You're wrong and you're lying and Trolling

Links have been provided on this thread to support all of that
Funny to watch you clowns try to get out of the corners I back you into, :laughing0301: :auiqs.jpg: :itsok:
Laughing......we'll laugh together as Trump is lawfully tried in the Senate in his impeachment trial. Just like William Belknap was tried after he left office before him.

So much for your imagination, eh Troll?
:itsok:
Laughing....keep ignoring the Constitution, precedent and reality.

Its not like Trump's impeachment trial will magically disappear. You guys tried that with the election already.

Try again, Troll.
I’m the only one actually quoting the Constitution, Stupid.
And it doesn't say a THING that you do. As the only requirements you've cited in the Constitution.....are for the Chief Justice.

Not for the Senate. And not for the Impeachment Trial.

Here's the Constitution yet again:

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

Trump was impeached. Thus, the senate has the sole power to try him in his impeachment trial. Your 'private citizen' batshit is just your imagination. There is no such restriction in the Constitution of the Senate's power to try impeachments. As demonstrated by the impeachment trial of William Belknap AFTER he left office.

Remember, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
The Constitution clearly states the very few govt officials covered by the impeachment process. Private citizens are not covered.

Roberts knows this and gave Nazi Pelousy the middle finger.
Roberts stayed out because he was tired of the hoopla surrounding Trump in the first impeachment trial, and for no other reason. Any time I need an explanation, I will defer to you because you are an expert on the Constitution. You don't know a con-man when he reaches out and slaps you upside the back of the head. Trump is the lowest form of life for taking advantage of poor souls like you.
When you demonstrate the ability to read minds, please let us know. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,463
Reaction score
27,916
Points
2,180
Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.
No...it does NOT you stupid little turd
I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick
Fucking moron, you don't understand English. You're quoting...

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

That ^^^ is what happens "when" the president is tried... What does a fucking moron like you think happens when it's not a president being tried??? Here, I'll even make it easy for you by making it multiple choice so even a fucking moron like you has a 50/50 shot at getting it right....

  1. There is no impeachment trial if it's not a president being tried.
  2. Someone else other than the Chief Justice presides.
... feel free to phone-a-friend for help, if needed.

:abgg2q.jpg:
It says nothing about anyone being tried other than the President, you psychotic NAZI moron. Please show where the Constitution allows Congress to try private citizens for anything.

Roberts already declined to participate in this farce.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, you really think it say nothing about anyone other than a president being tried?? Then how do you explain all of the other non-presidents who have been impeached by the House and tried in the Senate??

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:

I can't believe you had a 50/50 shot to get that one right and you still got it wrong.



Just kidding, I not only believe it, I expected it. :lmao:

Can the Senate Try Private Citizen Trump after He Leaves Office?
Some pundits and Senators have suggested that a former President can be impeached and tried as a private citizen. I don't know if they think this applies to all former presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Obama, or whether it is applicable only to a president who has just recently left office. But either way, they are simply wrong as a matter of the Constitutional text and meaning.
The relevant text of the Constitution reads as follows: "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." (Article II, Section 4)
The Framers of the Constitution debated impeachment extensively. It is clear that they intended it to apply only to sitting presidents and other office holders and not to private citizens who previously held that office.
The Framers did, however, regard impeachment and trial as part of one single process, culminating in removal from office. And so, if removal from office is no longer a possibility, it would seem that Congress would have no jurisdiction to impeach.
What they want to do is to impeach President Trump without giving him an opportunity to defend himself at a Senate trial. This would be analogous to a prosecutor deciding to indict someone and then deny him a trial at which he could disprove his guilt or prove his innocence. That would be a core denial of due process, as would impeaching a president based on a majority of the House while denying him a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds super majority to remove.
Maybe you ought to ask Alan Douchowitz how it was that former Sec of War William Belknap was Impeached and tried...
William W. Belknap - Wikipedia

Starting on April 5, 1876, Belknap was tried by the Senate,[88] presided over by the Chief Justice.[89] For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned office in March.[90] Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction;[90] the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.[90][91] Belknap was charged with five articles of impeachment, and the Senate listened to over 40 witnesses.[3] With 40 votes needed for conviction, the Senate voted 35 to 25 to convict Belknap, with one Senator not voting, thus acquitting Belknap of all charges by failing to reach the required two-thirds majority.[3][90][92] All Senators agreed that Belknap took the money from Marsh, but 23 who voted for acquittal believed that the Senate did not have jurisdiction.[90][92] Grant's speedy acceptance of Belknap's resignation undoubtedly saved him from conviction.[92] After the trial, Belknap's wife and children traveled to and remained in Europe.[90] Former Senator Matthew H. Carpenter of Wisconsin, who had defended Belknap at the Senate trial, said that Belknap was entirely innocent and that if he outlived Belknap he would clear Belknap's name.[93] Carpenter was reelected to the Senate in 1879, but had been in ill health; he died in February 1881, but never produced any new evidence.[93]
So the only party that said the Senate had jurisdiction was the Senate itself, and then it voted to acquit, so the upshot of the trial was moot. No SC ever ruled on the Constitutionality of this farce.

And that's the only precedent you can come up with? You won't win a court case with it.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,463
Reaction score
27,916
Points
2,180
Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.
No...it does NOT you stupid little turd
I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick
Fucking moron, you don't understand English. You're quoting...

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

That ^^^ is what happens "when" the president is tried... What does a fucking moron like you think happens when it's not a president being tried??? Here, I'll even make it easy for you by making it multiple choice so even a fucking moron like you has a 50/50 shot at getting it right....

  1. There is no impeachment trial if it's not a president being tried.
  2. Someone else other than the Chief Justice presides.
... feel free to phone-a-friend for help, if needed.

:abgg2q.jpg:
It says nothing about anyone being tried other than the President, you psychotic NAZI moron. Please show where the Constitution allows Congress to try private citizens for anything.

Roberts already declined to participate in this farce.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, you really think it say nothing about anyone other than a president being tried?? Then how do you explain all of the other non-presidents who have been impeached by the House and tried in the Senate??

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:

I can't believe you had a 50/50 shot to get that one right and you still got it wrong.



Just kidding, I not only believe it, I expected it. :lmao:

Can the Senate Try Private Citizen Trump after He Leaves Office?
Some pundits and Senators have suggested that a former President can be impeached and tried as a private citizen. I don't know if they think this applies to all former presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Obama, or whether it is applicable only to a president who has just recently left office. But either way, they are simply wrong as a matter of the Constitutional text and meaning.
The relevant text of the Constitution reads as follows: "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." (Article II, Section 4)
The Framers of the Constitution debated impeachment extensively. It is clear that they intended it to apply only to sitting presidents and other office holders and not to private citizens who previously held that office.
The Framers did, however, regard impeachment and trial as part of one single process, culminating in removal from office. And so, if removal from office is no longer a possibility, it would seem that Congress would have no jurisdiction to impeach.
What they want to do is to impeach President Trump without giving him an opportunity to defend himself at a Senate trial. This would be analogous to a prosecutor deciding to indict someone and then deny him a trial at which he could disprove his guilt or prove his innocence. That would be a core denial of due process, as would impeaching a president based on a majority of the House while denying him a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds super majority to remove.
Maybe you ought to ask Alan Douchowitz how it was that former Sec of War William Belknap was Impeached and tried...
He wasn't convicted, so the upshot of the trial was moot. That "trial" was meaningless. The Senate conducted a pointless show.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,601
Reaction score
14,235
Points
2,210
Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.
No...it does NOT you stupid little turd
I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick
Fucking moron, you don't understand English. You're quoting...

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

That ^^^ is what happens "when" the president is tried... What does a fucking moron like you think happens when it's not a president being tried??? Here, I'll even make it easy for you by making it multiple choice so even a fucking moron like you has a 50/50 shot at getting it right....

  1. There is no impeachment trial if it's not a president being tried.
  2. Someone else other than the Chief Justice presides.
... feel free to phone-a-friend for help, if needed.

:abgg2q.jpg:
It says nothing about anyone being tried other than the President, you psychotic NAZI moron. Please show where the Constitution allows Congress to try private citizens for anything.

Roberts already declined to participate in this farce.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, you really think it say nothing about anyone other than a president being tried?? Then how do you explain all of the other non-presidents who have been impeached by the House and tried in the Senate??

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:

I can't believe you had a 50/50 shot to get that one right and you still got it wrong.



Just kidding, I not only believe it, I expected it. :lmao:

Can the Senate Try Private Citizen Trump after He Leaves Office?
Some pundits and Senators have suggested that a former President can be impeached and tried as a private citizen. I don't know if they think this applies to all former presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Obama, or whether it is applicable only to a president who has just recently left office. But either way, they are simply wrong as a matter of the Constitutional text and meaning.
The relevant text of the Constitution reads as follows: "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." (Article II, Section 4)
The Framers of the Constitution debated impeachment extensively. It is clear that they intended it to apply only to sitting presidents and other office holders and not to private citizens who previously held that office.
The Framers did, however, regard impeachment and trial as part of one single process, culminating in removal from office. And so, if removal from office is no longer a possibility, it would seem that Congress would have no jurisdiction to impeach.
What they want to do is to impeach President Trump without giving him an opportunity to defend himself at a Senate trial. This would be analogous to a prosecutor deciding to indict someone and then deny him a trial at which he could disprove his guilt or prove his innocence. That would be a core denial of due process, as would impeaching a president based on a majority of the House while denying him a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds super majority to remove.
Fucking moron, you're quoting someone who's represented Twice Impeached Trump in the past and who is being considered to represent him again -- and who got caught lying the last time he represented Twice Impeached Trump. Even worse, in the link you gave, Dershowitz is actually claiming it's unconstitutional to disqualify a an individual from holding office if convicted of impeachment, even though that's in the Constitution. :eusa_doh:

Another provision of the Constitution says that an impeached president (or other office holder) may be disqualified "to hold and enjoy any office...." So some are arguing that the Constitutional provisions regarding impeachment should be interpreted to apply to any person who may be eligible to run in the future. Such an absurd interpretation of the Constitution would literally allow millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35 to be impeached and disqualified from future office holding.

Dershowitz is speaking out of his ass. Who are these "millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35" he speaks of??
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,601
Reaction score
14,235
Points
2,210
Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.
No...it does NOT you stupid little turd
I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick
Fucking moron, you don't understand English. You're quoting...

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

That ^^^ is what happens "when" the president is tried... What does a fucking moron like you think happens when it's not a president being tried??? Here, I'll even make it easy for you by making it multiple choice so even a fucking moron like you has a 50/50 shot at getting it right....

  1. There is no impeachment trial if it's not a president being tried.
  2. Someone else other than the Chief Justice presides.
... feel free to phone-a-friend for help, if needed.

:abgg2q.jpg:
It says nothing about anyone being tried other than the President, you psychotic NAZI moron. Please show where the Constitution allows Congress to try private citizens for anything.

Roberts already declined to participate in this farce.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, you really think it say nothing about anyone other than a president being tried?? Then how do you explain all of the other non-presidents who have been impeached by the House and tried in the Senate??

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:

I can't believe you had a 50/50 shot to get that one right and you still got it wrong.



Just kidding, I not only believe it, I expected it. :lmao:

Can the Senate Try Private Citizen Trump after He Leaves Office?
Some pundits and Senators have suggested that a former President can be impeached and tried as a private citizen. I don't know if they think this applies to all former presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Obama, or whether it is applicable only to a president who has just recently left office. But either way, they are simply wrong as a matter of the Constitutional text and meaning.
The relevant text of the Constitution reads as follows: "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." (Article II, Section 4)
The Framers of the Constitution debated impeachment extensively. It is clear that they intended it to apply only to sitting presidents and other office holders and not to private citizens who previously held that office.
The Framers did, however, regard impeachment and trial as part of one single process, culminating in removal from office. And so, if removal from office is no longer a possibility, it would seem that Congress would have no jurisdiction to impeach.
What they want to do is to impeach President Trump without giving him an opportunity to defend himself at a Senate trial. This would be analogous to a prosecutor deciding to indict someone and then deny him a trial at which he could disprove his guilt or prove his innocence. That would be a core denial of due process, as would impeaching a president based on a majority of the House while denying him a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds super majority to remove.
Maybe you ought to ask Alan Douchowitz how it was that former Sec of War William Belknap was Impeached and tried...
William W. Belknap - Wikipedia

Starting on April 5, 1876, Belknap was tried by the Senate,[88] presided over by the Chief Justice.[89] For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned office in March.[90] Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction;[90] the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.[90][91] Belknap was charged with five articles of impeachment, and the Senate listened to over 40 witnesses.[3] With 40 votes needed for conviction, the Senate voted 35 to 25 to convict Belknap, with one Senator not voting, thus acquitting Belknap of all charges by failing to reach the required two-thirds majority.[3][90][92] All Senators agreed that Belknap took the money from Marsh, but 23 who voted for acquittal believed that the Senate did not have jurisdiction.[90][92] Grant's speedy acceptance of Belknap's resignation undoubtedly saved him from conviction.[92] After the trial, Belknap's wife and children traveled to and remained in Europe.[90] Former Senator Matthew H. Carpenter of Wisconsin, who had defended Belknap at the Senate trial, said that Belknap was entirely innocent and that if he outlived Belknap he would clear Belknap's name.[93] Carpenter was reelected to the Senate in 1879, but had been in ill health; he died in February 1881, but never produced any new evidence.[93]
So the only party that said the Senate had jurisdiction was the Senate itself, and then it voted to acquit, so the upshot of the trial was moot. No SC ever ruled on the Constitutionality of this farce.

And that's the only precedent you can come up with? You won't win a court case with it.
LOLOLOL

Holyfuckingshit! :ack-1:

Fucking moron, that they voted to acquit means .... are you sitting down ... ? It means they held a trial.

 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,463
Reaction score
27,916
Points
2,180
Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.
No...it does NOT you stupid little turd
I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick
Fucking moron, you don't understand English. You're quoting...

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

That ^^^ is what happens "when" the president is tried... What does a fucking moron like you think happens when it's not a president being tried??? Here, I'll even make it easy for you by making it multiple choice so even a fucking moron like you has a 50/50 shot at getting it right....

  1. There is no impeachment trial if it's not a president being tried.
  2. Someone else other than the Chief Justice presides.
... feel free to phone-a-friend for help, if needed.

:abgg2q.jpg:
It says nothing about anyone being tried other than the President, you psychotic NAZI moron. Please show where the Constitution allows Congress to try private citizens for anything.

Roberts already declined to participate in this farce.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, you really think it say nothing about anyone other than a president being tried?? Then how do you explain all of the other non-presidents who have been impeached by the House and tried in the Senate??

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:

I can't believe you had a 50/50 shot to get that one right and you still got it wrong.



Just kidding, I not only believe it, I expected it. :lmao:

Can the Senate Try Private Citizen Trump after He Leaves Office?
Some pundits and Senators have suggested that a former President can be impeached and tried as a private citizen. I don't know if they think this applies to all former presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Obama, or whether it is applicable only to a president who has just recently left office. But either way, they are simply wrong as a matter of the Constitutional text and meaning.
The relevant text of the Constitution reads as follows: "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." (Article II, Section 4)
The Framers of the Constitution debated impeachment extensively. It is clear that they intended it to apply only to sitting presidents and other office holders and not to private citizens who previously held that office.
The Framers did, however, regard impeachment and trial as part of one single process, culminating in removal from office. And so, if removal from office is no longer a possibility, it would seem that Congress would have no jurisdiction to impeach.
What they want to do is to impeach President Trump without giving him an opportunity to defend himself at a Senate trial. This would be analogous to a prosecutor deciding to indict someone and then deny him a trial at which he could disprove his guilt or prove his innocence. That would be a core denial of due process, as would impeaching a president based on a majority of the House while denying him a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds super majority to remove.
Fucking moron, you're quoting someone who's represented Twice Impeached Trump in the past and who is being considered to represent him again -- and who got caught lying the last time he represented Twice Impeached Trump. Even worse, in the link you gave, Dershowitz is actually claiming it's unconstitutional to disqualify a an individual from holding office if convicted of impeachment, even though that's in the Constitution. :eusa_doh:

Another provision of the Constitution says that an impeached president (or other office holder) may be disqualified "to hold and enjoy any office...." So some are arguing that the Constitutional provisions regarding impeachment should be interpreted to apply to any person who may be eligible to run in the future. Such an absurd interpretation of the Constitution would literally allow millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35 to be impeached and disqualified from future office holding.

Dershowitz is speaking out of his ass. Who are these "millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35" he speaks of??
Dershowits is speaking simple logic. Your only argument is that you don't like Dershowitz.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,463
Reaction score
27,916
Points
2,180
Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.
No...it does NOT you stupid little turd
I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick
Fucking moron, you don't understand English. You're quoting...

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

That ^^^ is what happens "when" the president is tried... What does a fucking moron like you think happens when it's not a president being tried??? Here, I'll even make it easy for you by making it multiple choice so even a fucking moron like you has a 50/50 shot at getting it right....

  1. There is no impeachment trial if it's not a president being tried.
  2. Someone else other than the Chief Justice presides.
... feel free to phone-a-friend for help, if needed.

:abgg2q.jpg:
It says nothing about anyone being tried other than the President, you psychotic NAZI moron. Please show where the Constitution allows Congress to try private citizens for anything.

Roberts already declined to participate in this farce.
LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, you really think it say nothing about anyone other than a president being tried?? Then how do you explain all of the other non-presidents who have been impeached by the House and tried in the Senate??

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:

I can't believe you had a 50/50 shot to get that one right and you still got it wrong.



Just kidding, I not only believe it, I expected it. :lmao:

Can the Senate Try Private Citizen Trump after He Leaves Office?
Some pundits and Senators have suggested that a former President can be impeached and tried as a private citizen. I don't know if they think this applies to all former presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Obama, or whether it is applicable only to a president who has just recently left office. But either way, they are simply wrong as a matter of the Constitutional text and meaning.
The relevant text of the Constitution reads as follows: "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." (Article II, Section 4)
The Framers of the Constitution debated impeachment extensively. It is clear that they intended it to apply only to sitting presidents and other office holders and not to private citizens who previously held that office.
The Framers did, however, regard impeachment and trial as part of one single process, culminating in removal from office. And so, if removal from office is no longer a possibility, it would seem that Congress would have no jurisdiction to impeach.
What they want to do is to impeach President Trump without giving him an opportunity to defend himself at a Senate trial. This would be analogous to a prosecutor deciding to indict someone and then deny him a trial at which he could disprove his guilt or prove his innocence. That would be a core denial of due process, as would impeaching a president based on a majority of the House while denying him a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds super majority to remove.
Maybe you ought to ask Alan Douchowitz how it was that former Sec of War William Belknap was Impeached and tried...
William W. Belknap - Wikipedia

Starting on April 5, 1876, Belknap was tried by the Senate,[88] presided over by the Chief Justice.[89] For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned office in March.[90] Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction;[90] the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.[90][91] Belknap was charged with five articles of impeachment, and the Senate listened to over 40 witnesses.[3] With 40 votes needed for conviction, the Senate voted 35 to 25 to convict Belknap, with one Senator not voting, thus acquitting Belknap of all charges by failing to reach the required two-thirds majority.[3][90][92] All Senators agreed that Belknap took the money from Marsh, but 23 who voted for acquittal believed that the Senate did not have jurisdiction.[90][92] Grant's speedy acceptance of Belknap's resignation undoubtedly saved him from conviction.[92] After the trial, Belknap's wife and children traveled to and remained in Europe.[90] Former Senator Matthew H. Carpenter of Wisconsin, who had defended Belknap at the Senate trial, said that Belknap was entirely innocent and that if he outlived Belknap he would clear Belknap's name.[93] Carpenter was reelected to the Senate in 1879, but had been in ill health; he died in February 1881, but never produced any new evidence.[93]
So the only party that said the Senate had jurisdiction was the Senate itself, and then it voted to acquit, so the upshot of the trial was moot. No SC ever ruled on the Constitutionality of this farce.

And that's the only precedent you can come up with? You won't win a court case with it.
LOLOLOL

Holyfuckingshit! :ack-1:

Fucking moron, that they voted to acquit means .... are you sitting down ... ? It means they held a trial.

They held a meaningless trial that had no consequences and was never reviewed by any court. It has no legal significance.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top