Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
57,493
Reaction score
15,802
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
The voter fraud took place in six swing states. Witnesses and data prove the fraud.
Why was the data that you claim proved such, never brought to court in a suit, by Giuliani or Powel or any of his legal teams?


DEAR GOD, I've answered this I bet 200 times and I guess I'll do it ONE MORE TIME. The evidence WAS brought before court after court, and not in one case was it disproven as wrong or false, much less "baseless," in fact, the evidence was never even examined. The cases themselves were denied purely on a procedural basis, such as the time or date the case was brought to them on the grounds that the president didn't have standing to even bring the charges to challenge the election! It never even got to where the court was willing to test the evidence to determine if it showed fraud or not. Amazing.
DEAR LORD, I'll point this out one last time....

You've been sold a bill of goods by your mind control handlers...

NONE, ZIP, ZERO of those cases rejected by the court, brought by Trump team lawyers to court, involved any CLAIMS OF VOTER FRAUD.

The court cases they brought were procedural objections to election laws used....

No Domnion, or Smartmatic computer fraud allegations, or ballot stuffing allegations, or vote switching allegations, etc etc etc were ever brought to court, to be DENIED. The cases rejected or shot down were on election process rules and changes.

The claims your TRUMP mind control masters have repetitively inundated you with ....enough, that you believe them, regarding their voter fraud evidence not being allowed to be presented in their court cases because their court cases were denied standing....

THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

Trump brought NO court cases to the Courts on voter fraud, to be denied.

I went through the list of the 60 plus court cases one by one, that the right wing is passing around.... fraud cases were never brought.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,637
Reaction score
14,272
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??
Dershowits is speaking simple logic. Your only argument is that you don't like Dershowitz.
Great, since it's so simple, you should have been able to answer my question. That you can't reveals Dershowitz is lying again to protect his former client and you're a fucking moron who doesn't understand English. Here it is again since you avoided answering it...

Who are these "millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35" Dershowitz is speaking of??
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,637
Reaction score
14,272
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.

They held a meaningless trial that had no consequences and was never reviewed by any court. It has no legal significance.
It matters not how inconsequential a fucking moron like you thinks that trial was -- it was still a trial of someone no longer in office.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,488
Reaction score
27,940
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.
Great, since it's so simple, you should have been able to answer my question. That you can't reveals Dershowitz is lying again to protect his former client and you're a fucking moron who doesn't understand English. Here it is again since you avoided answering it...

Who are these "millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35" Dershowitz is speaking of??
Every person in the United States qualified to be president, you fucking NAZI moron.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,488
Reaction score
27,940
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.
It matters not how inconsequential a fucking moron like you thinks that trial was -- it was still a trial of someone no longer in office.
Yes, it does matter. I could hold a trial in my back yard with my neighbors serving as jurors, and it would have just as much legal significance as the Belknap impeachment trial.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,637
Reaction score
14,272
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??
Dershowits is speaking simple logic. Your only argument is that you don't like Dershowitz.
Great, since it's so simple, you should have been able to answer my question. That you can't reveals Dershowitz is lying again to protect his former client and you're a fucking moron who doesn't understand English. Here it is again since you avoided answering it...

Who are these "millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35" Dershowitz is speaking of??
Every person in the United States qualified to be president, you fucking NAZI moron.
LOLOLOL

As always, you prove to be a fucking moron. :lmao:

Fucking moron, according to you and to Alan Dershowitz, "every person in the United States qualified to be president" is subject to being impeached by the House. Do you see now why Dershowitz is lying again and why you're a fucking moron???

 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,637
Reaction score
14,272
Points
2,210
Yes, it does matter. I could hold a trial in my back yard with my neighbors serving as jurors, and it would have just as much legal significance as the Belknap impeachment trial.
^^^ beyond idiotic.

 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,488
Reaction score
27,940
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.
Great, since it's so simple, you should have been able to answer my question. That you can't reveals Dershowitz is lying again to protect his former client and you're a fucking moron who doesn't understand English. Here it is again since you avoided answering it...

Who are these "millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35" Dershowitz is speaking of??
Every person in the United States qualified to be president, you fucking NAZI moron.
LOLOLOL

As always, you prove to be a fucking moron. :lmao:

Fucking moron, according to you and to Alan Dershowitz, "every person in the United States qualified to be president" is subject to being impeached by the House. Do you see now why Dershowitz is lying again and why you're a fucking moron???

That's the NAZI Democrat legal theory, not his, moron.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,637
Reaction score
14,272
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??
Dershowits is speaking simple logic. Your only argument is that you don't like Dershowitz.
Great, since it's so simple, you should have been able to answer my question. That you can't reveals Dershowitz is lying again to protect his former client and you're a fucking moron who doesn't understand English. Here it is again since you avoided answering it...

Who are these "millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35" Dershowitz is speaking of??
Every person in the United States qualified to be president, you fucking NAZI moron.
LOLOLOL

As always, you prove to be a fucking moron. :lmao:

Fucking moron, according to you and to Alan Dershowitz, "every person in the United States qualified to be president" is subject to being impeached by the House. Do you see now why Dershowitz is lying again and why you're a fucking moron???

That's the NAZI Democrat legal theory, not his, moron.
LOL

Wrong again, Fucking moron. That's what Dershowitz said. That's why I quoted him saying that. That's why I asked you to verify his claim. He lied as "millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35" of are NOT subject to impeachment by the House. But fret not, I don't expect you to understand his lie or even why he lied. You're a fucking moron who doesn't understand your own shadow is created by your body blocking light. You think it's some 'Dem NAZI' stalking you.

:abgg2q.jpg:
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,637
Reaction score
14,272
Points
2,210
Yes, it does matter. I could hold a trial in my back yard with my neighbors serving as jurors, and it would have just as much legal significance as the Belknap impeachment trial.
^^^ beyond idiotic.

How so?
Unbelievably, you really do need your idiocy explained to you. :eusa_doh:

Fucking moron, the U.S. Senate is Constitutionally authorized to hold trials for "ALL" impeachments. Meaning Belknap's impeachment trial was duly constitutionally recognized as a legit trial. Whereas you and your buddies having a circle jerk in your back yard, while constitutionally allowed, is NOT constitutionally recognized as a legit trial.

You comparing yourself to the U.S. Senate reveals just how big of a fucking moron you are.

 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,488
Reaction score
27,940
Points
2,180
Yes, it does matter. I could hold a trial in my back yard with my neighbors serving as jurors, and it would have just as much legal significance as the Belknap impeachment trial.
^^^ beyond idiotic.

How so?
Unbelievably, you really do need your idiocy explained to you. :eusa_doh:

Fucking moron, the U.S. Senate is Constitutionally authorized to hold trials for "ALL" impeachments. Meaning Belknap's impeachment trial was duly constitutionally recognized as a legit trial. Whereas you and your buddies having a circle jerk in your back yard, while constitutionally allowed, is NOT constitutionally recognized as a legit trial.

You comparing yourself to the U.S. Senate reveals just how big of a fucking moron you are.

Now it doesn't mean that. Contrary to you belief, Congress isn't allowed to do whatever it likes. Congress can command the ocean waves to stop, and so can I. Both have the same legal significance.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,637
Reaction score
14,272
Points
2,210
Yes, it does matter. I could hold a trial in my back yard with my neighbors serving as jurors, and it would have just as much legal significance as the Belknap impeachment trial.
^^^ beyond idiotic.

How so?
Unbelievably, you really do need your idiocy explained to you. :eusa_doh:

Fucking moron, the U.S. Senate is Constitutionally authorized to hold trials for "ALL" impeachments. Meaning Belknap's impeachment trial was duly constitutionally recognized as a legit trial. Whereas you and your buddies having a circle jerk in your back yard, while constitutionally allowed, is NOT constitutionally recognized as a legit trial.

You comparing yourself to the U.S. Senate reveals just how big of a fucking moron you are.

Now it doesn't mean that. Contrary to you belief, Congress isn't allowed to do whatever it likes.
LOLOLOLOLOL

Fucking moron, again, directly from the Constitution....

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

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
35,317
Reaction score
20,286
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
You've been sold a bill of goods by your mind control handlers...
I'm not capable of mind control you idiot.

NONE, ZIP, ZERO of those cases rejected by the court, brought by Trump team lawyers to court, involved any CLAIMS OF VOTER FRAUD.
Get your head out of your ass (or whatever). I use the word fraud as a generic term to indicate cheating and corruption. None of the cases claimed FRAUD for legal, technical reasons only.

The cases rejected or shot down were on election process rules and changes.
You're making my point. None of the massive evidence Trump's team has was ever even looked at or into much less deemed "baseless."

The claims your TRUMP mind control masters have repetitively inundated you with
Blow me, shrew.

....enough, that you believe them
I believe the EVIDENCE I've seen, Jackhole cumsocket!
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,488
Reaction score
27,940
Points
2,180
Yes, it does matter. I could hold a trial in my back yard with my neighbors serving as jurors, and it would have just as much legal significance as the Belknap impeachment trial.
^^^ beyond idiotic.

How so?
Unbelievably, you really do need your idiocy explained to you. :eusa_doh:

Fucking moron, the U.S. Senate is Constitutionally authorized to hold trials for "ALL" impeachments. Meaning Belknap's impeachment trial was duly constitutionally recognized as a legit trial. Whereas you and your buddies having a circle jerk in your back yard, while constitutionally allowed, is NOT constitutionally recognized as a legit trial.

You comparing yourself to the U.S. Senate reveals just how big of a fucking moron you are.

Now it doesn't mean that. Contrary to you belief, Congress isn't allowed to do whatever it likes.
LOLOLOLOLOL

Fucking moron, again, directly from the Constitution....

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.
Even the one in my backyard? You keep regurgitating that as if it had some significance.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,637
Reaction score
14,272
Points
2,210

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
22,766
Reaction score
18,428
Points
2,415
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.
What part of " When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside" didn't you understand? Where does is say "former president?"
LOLOL

Fucking moron, that means IF a president is being tried, the Chief Justice shall preside over the trial; otherwise, the Chief Justice doesn't preside over the trial. Which is why Roberts said he will not preside because Twice Impeached Trump is not the president. It doesn't mean there won't be a trial. It only means the Chief Justice won't preside over it.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??? :ack-1:
I was waiting to see what kind of twisted logic you would use to justify the plainly unconstitutional scheme of the Democrats to try someone who isn't the president.

What it means is that the Senate will try the President, and no one else. It doesn't say "if," it says "when," you sleazy lying dumbfuck.
You know that a "private citizen " HAS been Impeached and tried previously. right? There is precedent
Link?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top