Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

[bripat9643]

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???

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?

No private citizen has ever been tried and convicted by the Senate.

LOLOL

Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. But even you admit a private citizen was tried by the Senate.

"Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. "

You're beyond help, fucking moron. This thread is about whether or not the U.S. Senate can constitutionally try Trump since he's out of office. On what planet does the verdict of his trial have to do with the claim that the Senate can't? Or are you moronically claiming Trump's trial is constitutional if he's convicted but unconstitutional if he's acquitted?

You truly are the dumbest poster on this forum.

You moving the goal posts, douchebag. It's not the verdict of his trial. It's the verdict in your so-called "precedent." Since there was no legal punishment imposed, it's precedent of nothing. No court ever upheld that fantasy "conviction."

So a private citizen has been tried by the Senate.

I congratulate you on your desperate attempt to commit logic, but you failed, once again.

 

[Skylar]

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???

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?

No private citizen has ever been tried and convicted by the Senate.

LOLOL

Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. But even you admit a private citizen was tried by the Senate.

"Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. "

You're beyond help, fucking moron. This thread is about whether or not the U.S. Senate can constitutionally try Trump since he's out of office. On what planet does the verdict of his trial have to do with the claim that the Senate can't? Or are you moronically claiming Trump's trial is constitutional if he's convicted but unconstitutional if he's acquitted?

You truly are the dumbest poster on this forum.

You moving the goal posts, douchebag. It's not the verdict of his trial. It's the verdict in your so-called "precedent." Since there was no legal punishment imposed, it's precedent of nothing. No court ever upheld that fantasy "conviction."

LOL

That's your claim, fucking moron. Trump's trial is constitutional if he's convicted but unconstitutional if he's acquitted. Precedents don't result in trial aquittals, trials do.

No, that isn't my claim. My claim is that your so-called "precedent" is meaningless horseshit.

The precedent is an impeachment trial in the Senate of a private citizen.

You know, what you poor souls insist could never happen?

 

[bripat9643]

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???

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?

No private citizen has ever been tried and convicted by the Senate.

Convicted no. Tried, yes. William Belknap was tried by the senate in an impeachment trial after he left office.

Nor is there any 'private citizen' exemption in the constitution for impeachment trials. The Senate has authority over ALL impeachments. Not all impeachments....except for the categories you make up.

I tried and convicted Schumar and Piglosi in my backyard.

 

[Faun]

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???

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?

No private citizen has ever been tried and convicted by the Senate.

LOLOL

Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. But even you admit a private citizen was tried by the Senate.

"Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. "

You're beyond help, fucking moron. This thread is about whether or not the U.S. Senate can constitutionally try Trump since he's out of office. On what planet does the verdict of his trial have to do with the claim that the Senate can't? Or are you moronically claiming Trump's trial is constitutional if he's convicted but unconstitutional if he's acquitted?

You truly are the dumbest poster on this forum.

You moving the goal posts, douchebag. It's not the verdict of his trial. It's the verdict in your so-called "precedent." Since there was no legal punishment imposed, it's precedent of nothing. No court ever upheld that fantasy "conviction."

LOL

That's your claim, fucking moron. Trump's trial is constitutional if he's convicted but unconstitutional if he's acquitted. Precedents don't result in trial aquittals, trials do.

No, that isn't my claim. My claim is that your so-called "precedent" is meaningless horseshit.

You're saying that, but you're batshit insane, as demonstrated by your bizarre claim that Trump got more legal votes than Biden.

 

[Nostra]

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!

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?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[Skylar]

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???

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?

No private citizen has ever been tried and convicted by the Senate.

LOLOL

Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. But even you admit a private citizen was tried by the Senate.

"Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. "

You're beyond help, fucking moron. This thread is about whether or not the U.S. Senate can constitutionally try Trump since he's out of office. On what planet does the verdict of his trial have to do with the claim that the Senate can't? Or are you moronically claiming Trump's trial is constitutional if he's convicted but unconstitutional if he's acquitted?

You truly are the dumbest poster on this forum.

You moving the goal posts, douchebag. It's not the verdict of his trial. It's the verdict in your so-called "precedent." Since there was no legal punishment imposed, it's precedent of nothing. No court ever upheld that fantasy "conviction."

So a private citizen has been tried by the Senate.

I congratulate you on your desperate attempt to commit logic, but you failed, once again.

We already have precedent of a private citizen being tried by the senate in an impeachment trial.

So it obviously can happen. Nor is there anything in the constitution that prevents it....as the Senate has authority over all impeachments.

Remember....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

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???

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?

No private citizen has ever been tried and convicted by the Senate.

LOLOL

Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. But even you admit a private citizen was tried by the Senate.

"Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. "

You're beyond help, fucking moron. This thread is about whether or not the U.S. Senate can constitutionally try Trump since he's out of office. On what planet does the verdict of his trial have to do with the claim that the Senate can't? Or are you moronically claiming Trump's trial is constitutional if he's convicted but unconstitutional if he's acquitted?

You truly are the dumbest poster on this forum.

You moving the goal posts, douchebag. It's not the verdict of his trial. It's the verdict in your so-called "precedent." Since there was no legal punishment imposed, it's precedent of nothing. No court ever upheld that fantasy "conviction."

LOL

That's your claim, fucking moron. Trump's trial is constitutional if he's convicted but unconstitutional if he's acquitted. Precedents don't result in trial aquittals, trials do.

No, that isn't my claim. My claim is that your so-called "precedent" is meaningless horseshit.

The precedent is an impeachment trial in the Senate of a private citizen.

You know, what you poor souls insist could never happen?

It's bullshit. The legal upshot of that show trial was nothing. It was never reviewed by any court because no one was "convicted."

 

[Faun]

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,

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?

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.

The why isn’t Roberts being impeached for refusing to do his Constitutional duty?

LOL

Dumbfuck, who's the president being tried??

 

[bripat9643]

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???

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?

No private citizen has ever been tried and convicted by the Senate.

LOLOL

Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. But even you admit a private citizen was tried by the Senate.

"Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. "

You're beyond help, fucking moron. This thread is about whether or not the U.S. Senate can constitutionally try Trump since he's out of office. On what planet does the verdict of his trial have to do with the claim that the Senate can't? Or are you moronically claiming Trump's trial is constitutional if he's convicted but unconstitutional if he's acquitted?

You truly are the dumbest poster on this forum.

You moving the goal posts, douchebag. It's not the verdict of his trial. It's the verdict in your so-called "precedent." Since there was no legal punishment imposed, it's precedent of nothing. No court ever upheld that fantasy "conviction."

So a private citizen has been tried by the Senate.

I congratulate you on your desperate attempt to commit logic, but you failed, once again.

We already have precedent of a private citizen being tried by the senate in an impeachment trial.

So it obviously can happen. Nor is there anything in the constitution that prevents it....as the Senate has authority over all impeachments.

Remember....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Yes, meaningless show trials can happen. That's all you proved. Like I said, I convicted Schumar and Piglosi in my backyard.

 

[Faun]

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???

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?

No private citizen has ever been tried and convicted by the Senate.

LOLOL

Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. But even you admit a private citizen was tried by the Senate.

"Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. "

You're beyond help, fucking moron. This thread is about whether or not the U.S. Senate can constitutionally try Trump since he's out of office. On what planet does the verdict of his trial have to do with the claim that the Senate can't? Or are you moronically claiming Trump's trial is constitutional if he's convicted but unconstitutional if he's acquitted?

You truly are the dumbest poster on this forum.

You moving the goal posts, douchebag. It's not the verdict of his trial. It's the verdict in your so-called "precedent." Since there was no legal punishment imposed, it's precedent of nothing. No court ever upheld that fantasy "conviction."

So a private citizen has been tried by the Senate.

I congratulate you on your desperate attempt to commit logic, but you failed, once again.

You're lying again, fucking moron, which is what you brag about doing in this forum...

yes, I did lie about that. I said it simply to trigger morons like you, and it worked.

 

[Skylar]

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!

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?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

There's no 'private citizen' exemption. The senate has authority over all impeachment trials. Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has the authority to try him.

You imagined the 'private citizen' exemption. And your imagination is irrelevant to the Senate's authority. The constitution, however....is not.

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

It doesn't say 'The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.....except in Impeachment trials where someone has already left office and is a private citizen at the time of the trial.

The limit to senate authority you've imagined......is completely made up. It simply doesn't exist in the constitution

 

[Nostra]

Fawnboi is on TILT!
There is no provision in the Constuitution for the Senate to put a private citizen on trial.

 

[Faun]

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!

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?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

You're lying again. The Constitution says there is...

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

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

 

[Faun]

Fawnboi is on TILT!
There is no provision in the Constuitution for the Senate to put a private citizen on trial.

You're lying again. The Constitution says there is...

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

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

 

[Skylar]

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???

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?

No private citizen has ever been tried and convicted by the Senate.

LOLOL

Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. But even you admit a private citizen was tried by the Senate.

"Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. "

You're beyond help, fucking moron. This thread is about whether or not the U.S. Senate can constitutionally try Trump since he's out of office. On what planet does the verdict of his trial have to do with the claim that the Senate can't? Or are you moronically claiming Trump's trial is constitutional if he's convicted but unconstitutional if he's acquitted?

You truly are the dumbest poster on this forum.

You moving the goal posts, douchebag. It's not the verdict of his trial. It's the verdict in your so-called "precedent." Since there was no legal punishment imposed, it's precedent of nothing. No court ever upheld that fantasy "conviction."

So a private citizen has been tried by the Senate.

I congratulate you on your desperate attempt to commit logic, but you failed, once again.

We already have precedent of a private citizen being tried by the senate in an impeachment trial.

So it obviously can happen. Nor is there anything in the constitution that prevents it....as the Senate has authority over all impeachments.

Remember....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Yes, meaningless show trials can happen. That's all you proved. Like I said, I convicted Schumar and Piglosi in my backyard.

Oh, if Trump is convicted he'll absolutely be forbidden from holding public office again. You don't seem to understand that there are legal consequences for conviction in an impeachment trial.

But your ignorance doesn't magically transform the constitution and an impeachment trial.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

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?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

There's no 'private citizen' exemption. The senate has authority over all impeachment trials. Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has the authority to try him.

You imagined the 'private citizen' exemption. And your imagination is irrelevant to the Senate's authority. The constitution, however....is not.

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

It doesn't say 'The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.....except if someone has already left office and is a private citizen at the time of the trial.

The limit to senate authority you've imagined......is completely made up. It simply doesn't exist in the constitution

spare us the "exemption" bullshit. When a cop pulls you over for speeding, he doesn't give an "exmption" to everyone going under the limit. Following the law is not an "exemption."

 

[Nostra]

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!

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?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

There's no 'private citizen' exemption. The senate has authority over all impeachment trials. Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has the authority to try him.

You imagined the 'private citizen' exemption. And your imagination is irrelevant to the Senate's authority. The constitution, however....is not.

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

It doesn't say 'The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.....except if someone has already left office and is a private citizen at the time of the trial.

The limit to senate authority you've imagined......is completely made up. It simply doesn't exist in the constitution

Only a handful of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS are subject to the impeachment process. Private citizens are not subject to the impeachment process.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[bripat9643]

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???

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?

No private citizen has ever been tried and convicted by the Senate.

LOLOL

Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. But even you admit a private citizen was tried by the Senate.

"Conviction has nothing to do with this moronic thread. "

You're beyond help, fucking moron. This thread is about whether or not the U.S. Senate can constitutionally try Trump since he's out of office. On what planet does the verdict of his trial have to do with the claim that the Senate can't? Or are you moronically claiming Trump's trial is constitutional if he's convicted but unconstitutional if he's acquitted?

You truly are the dumbest poster on this forum.

You moving the goal posts, douchebag. It's not the verdict of his trial. It's the verdict in your so-called "precedent." Since there was no legal punishment imposed, it's precedent of nothing. No court ever upheld that fantasy "conviction."

So a private citizen has been tried by the Senate.

I congratulate you on your desperate attempt to commit logic, but you failed, once again.

We already have precedent of a private citizen being tried by the senate in an impeachment trial.

So it obviously can happen. Nor is there anything in the constitution that prevents it....as the Senate has authority over all impeachments.

Remember....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Yes, meaningless show trials can happen. That's all you proved. Like I said, I convicted Schumar and Piglosi in my backyard.

Oh, if Trump is convicted he'll absolutely be forbidden from holding public office again. You don't seem to understand that there are legal consequences for conviction in an impeachment trial.

But your ignorance doesn't magically transform the constitution and an impeachment trial.

No he won't.

 

[Faun]

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,

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?

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.

The why isn’t Roberts being impeached for refusing to do his Constitutional duty?

LOL

Dumbfuck, who's the president being tried??

<crickets>

Nostra's avoidance of answering that question reveals even he knows he's full of shit. So who knows why he persists?

 

[Nostra]

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!

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?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

You're lying again. The Constitution says there is...

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

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Fawnboi is TILTING!