Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

[Nostra]

So what? Neither did Johnson's nor Clinton's. It's still a stain on a presidency that can't be washed away.

There have been four presidential impeachments. And half of them were Trump.

YOu are right. He has 2. However, it just shows you how wrong the process was?

Oh? Why is that?

Do you think impeachment is for jaywalking?

No, now why didn't you answer the question I asked? Why was the impeachment process wrong?

Nothing wrong with the process. Impeachment is a tool to remove an official without assassin the official because he/she is incompetent or moralless. Now, someone just devalues it.

Removal from office is not the only purpose of impeachment. Disqualification from holding a federal office in the future is also a purpose of impeachment. How is that wrong?

You don’t have the votes.

Just a Dimwinger temper tantrum like the one you are throwing in this thread.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Says you citing you. The constitution however says that the Senate has authority over ALL impeachment trials.

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

There is no 'private citizen' exemption to the Senate's authority. You imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial....and the impeachment trial of William Belknap

Try again, Troll.

It says the Senate shall preside over impeaching "THE PRESIDENT," you fucking moron.

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

Fawnboi is tilting hard now.

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!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


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

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

There's no exemption for non Apple employees from being fired from Apple computer. That's what you're arguing.

You're arguing that being fired from Apple can forbid you from ever holding office again?

If no, then clearly you're not familiar with the potential consequences of an impeachment trial.

As always, your pseudo-legal gibberish obligates no one to do anything. As Trump's impending impeachment trial demonstrates elegantly.

I can always count on you to deliberately misconstrue what I said.

What is the consequence to me of being impeached by the Senate?

It means they can then vote to disqualify him from ever holding a federal office again. As opposed to your backyard circle jerk with your buddies only results in a mess you yourself will end up cleaning.

There's no such consequence to me because I'm not a federal office holder, and neither is Trump, you fucking moron.

LOLOL

Read it again, this time for clarity...

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

... now show where "ALL" excludes private citizens or you're merely proving yet again that you're nothing but a fucking moron.

Repeating a non sequitur doesn't make it true.

I don't think 'non-sequitur' means what you think it means. As Faun's point is spot on. The Senate has authority over all impeachment trials. There are no exceptions in the Constitution.

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

"They get to do it because I'm too stupid to know that I'm using the word wrong!!! And I don't care, because knowing English might stop me from getting what I waaaaant!!!!"

Once again, the problem is that you, illiterate leftist tool that you are, have no idea what the word "impeachment" means.

Laughing......yeah, I'm gonna stick with what the constitution actually says rather than your 'free dictionary.com'.

I'm laughing, because you think there's some difference between "what the Constitution says" and the meanings of the words the Constitution uses.

By all means, tell us more about your fascinating take on that whole "language" mystery you never unraveled. We can get you a hurdy-gurdy to dance to, if the familiarity helps.

 

[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

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

Says you citing you. The constitution however says that the Senate has authority over ALL impeachment trials.

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

There is no 'private citizen' exemption to the Senate's authority. You imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial....and the impeachment trial of William Belknap

Try again, Troll.

It says the Senate shall preside over impeaching "THE PRESIDENT," you fucking moron.

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

Fawnboi is tilting hard now.

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!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


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

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

There's no exemption for non Apple employees from being fired from Apple computer. That's what you're arguing.

You're arguing that being fired from Apple can forbid you from ever holding office again?

If no, then clearly you're not familiar with the potential consequences of an impeachment trial.

As always, your pseudo-legal gibberish obligates no one to do anything. As Trump's impending impeachment trial demonstrates elegantly.

I can always count on you to deliberately misconstrue what I said.

What is the consequence to me of being impeached by the Senate?

It means they can then vote to disqualify him from ever holding a federal office again. As opposed to your backyard circle jerk with your buddies only results in a mess you yourself will end up cleaning.

There's no such consequence to me because I'm not a federal office holder, and neither is Trump, you fucking moron.

LOLOL

Read it again, this time for clarity...

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

... now show where "ALL" excludes private citizens or you're merely proving yet again that you're nothing but a fucking moron.

Repeating a non sequitur doesn't make it true.

LOLOL

Fucking moron, the section of the Constitution which grants the U.S. Senate the power to try all impeachments is not a non-sequitur in a thread claiming the Senate cannot constitutionally try Trump's impeachment. Do you even know what "non-sequitur" means??

Yes it is a non sequitur, you boot licking NAZI moron.

 

[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 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.

Says you citing you. The constitution however says that the Senate has authority over ALL impeachment trials.

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

There is no 'private citizen' exemption to the Senate's authority. You imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial....and the impeachment trial of William Belknap

Try again, Troll.

It says the Senate shall preside over impeaching "THE PRESIDENT," you fucking moron.

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

Fawnboi is tilting hard now.

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!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


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

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

There's no exemption for non Apple employees from being fired from Apple computer. That's what you're arguing.

You're arguing that being fired from Apple can forbid you from ever holding office again?

If no, then clearly you're not familiar with the potential consequences of an impeachment trial.

As always, your pseudo-legal gibberish obligates no one to do anything. As Trump's impending impeachment trial demonstrates elegantly.

I can always count on you to deliberately misconstrue what I said.

What is the consequence to me of being impeached by the Senate?

It means they can then vote to disqualify him from ever holding a federal office again. As opposed to your backyard circle jerk with your buddies only results in a mess you yourself will end up cleaning.

There's no such consequence to me because I'm not a federal office holder, and neither is Trump, you fucking moron.

You get that the disqualification would apply to the future, right?

You understand the difference between the future, the past and the present, yes?

If you're impeached, you can never hold another office IN THE FUTURE. Trump has talked about running again IN THE FUTURE. And an impeachment trial conviction would prevent him from ever running again IN THE FUTURE.

Did you follow this time?

Votes are not there. Everyone knows it.

Dimwinger Temper Tantrum 2.0

And you've abandoned your blithering 'private citizen' nonsense, scrambling to a topic change.

That was easy.

Nope. Still unconstitutional....and a temper tantrum.

Oh, its absolutelyy constitutional. As the exemptions you made up to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials don't exist. The senate has authority over ALL impeachment trials. Not just the one's you imagine they do. Says who?

Says the US Constitution:

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

Try again, Troll.

Unconstitutional temper tantrum.

A thoroughly constitutional impeachment. So far, the most bipartisan presidential impeachment in US history.

Nope. It violated almost every House rule on impeachment.

Which rule was violated? Remember, you were unable to cite a single instance of what the House Rules REQUIRED that wasn't followed by the House.

For example, the Judiciary Committee USUALLY holds hearings. But they're not required to do so.

So what rule was violated? Show me, don't tell me.

 

[Faun]

Simply stated a private citizen cannot be impeached, for anything.

You're confused. We're talking about impeachment trials. Not impeachments. The former is the authority of the Senate. The latter the authority of the House.

And the Senate has authority to try all impeachments.

No, YOU'RE confused, as always. There appear to be whole reams of words that you like to throw around incorrectly because no one bothered to tell you that they had actual meanings.

What do you think the word, "all," means...?

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

 

[Faun]

No, not just "ever held." If you are currently not holding a federal office, you can't be impeached.

LOL

Fucking moron, Twice Impeached Trump was already impeached while he was president. You're hallucinating again.

And now he is not president. That;'s the end of Congresses authority over him.

Nowhere does the Constitution state that. And the Congress is not bound by your hallucinations.

I've already quote the text numerous times.

Nope, you quoted no such thing nor can you as no such text exists in the Constitution. Case in point, the Constitution grants the Senate the power to try all impeachments; whereas you claimed the "Congress" has no authority over him. While the Senate is body of the Congress, it's not the Congress. So yet again, you prove to be a fucking moron.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing......yeah, I'm gonna stick with what the constitution actually says rather than your 'free dictionary.com'.

I'm laughing, because you think there's some difference between "what the Constitution says" and the meanings of the words the Constitution uses.

Given that the Constitution lays out punishments in excess of what is cited in 'free dictionary.com', you're clearly missing relevant details.

Again, the consequences for conviction in an impeachment trial per the ACTUAL constitution as follows:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

Where was that mentioned in 'free-dictionary.com' again?

Laughing....this is why any thinking person uses the actual constitution rather than a free online dictionary as their source on constitutional authority. And why you're so hopelessly confused.

Try again. This time reading the ACTUAL constitution. It will be less embarrassing for you.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

"It's Constitutional because I WAAAAAANT IIIIIIT!!"

Impeachment
A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office.

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

It's a bitch when all those messy words you tried to use to get what you want turn out to actually mean things.

Try again, troll. And the next time you want to quote the Constitution, try to understand what it says.

Yeah, I'll stick with the constitution rather than 'the free dictionary.com'.

And these are the punishments associated with the impeachment per the Constitution:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

Its that second part that's relevant to our discussion.

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

We cannot impeach a political office holder after his term is over no matter what the crime is. Even if he's in prison. Removal from office and a prohibition against running again is a single political act.

Democrat communists just don't trust people to vote the way they want the vote to go.

 

[Faun]

So what? Neither did Johnson's nor Clinton's. It's still a stain on a presidency that can't be washed away.

There have been four presidential impeachments. And half of them were Trump.

YOu are right. He has 2. However, it just shows you how wrong the process was?

Oh? Why is that?

Do you think impeachment is for jaywalking?

No, now why didn't you answer the question I asked? Why was the impeachment process wrong?

Nothing wrong with the process. Impeachment is a tool to remove an official without assassin the official because he/she is incompetent or moralless. Now, someone just devalues it.

Removal from office is not the only purpose of impeachment. Disqualification from holding a federal office in the future is also a purpose of impeachment. How is that wrong?

You don’t have the votes.

Just a Dimwinger temper tantrum like the one you are throwing in this thread.

This thread isn't about whether or not he will be convicted. I highly doubt he will be. This thread is about whether or not his impeachment can be constitutionally tried in the Senate. As always, you prove to be utterly confused.

 

[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?

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.

Says you citing you. The constitution however says that the Senate has authority over ALL impeachment trials.

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

There is no 'private citizen' exemption to the Senate's authority. You imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial....and the impeachment trial of William Belknap

Try again, Troll.

It says the Senate shall preside over impeaching "THE PRESIDENT," you fucking moron.

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

Fawnboi is tilting hard now.

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!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


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

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

There's no exemption for non Apple employees from being fired from Apple computer. That's what you're arguing.

You're arguing that being fired from Apple can forbid you from ever holding office again?

If no, then clearly you're not familiar with the potential consequences of an impeachment trial.

As always, your pseudo-legal gibberish obligates no one to do anything. As Trump's impending impeachment trial demonstrates elegantly.

I can always count on you to deliberately misconstrue what I said.

What is the consequence to me of being impeached by the Senate?

It means they can then vote to disqualify him from ever holding a federal office again. As opposed to your backyard circle jerk with your buddies only results in a mess you yourself will end up cleaning.

There's no such consequence to me because I'm not a federal office holder, and neither is Trump, you fucking moron.

LOLOL

Read it again, this time for clarity...

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

... now show where "ALL" excludes private citizens or you're merely proving yet again that you're nothing but a fucking moron.

Repeating a non sequitur doesn't make it true.

LOLOL

Fucking moron, the section of the Constitution which grants the U.S. Senate the power to try all impeachments is not a non-sequitur in a thread claiming the Senate cannot constitutionally try Trump's impeachment. Do you even know what "non-sequitur" means??

Yes it is a non sequitur, you boot licking NAZI moron.

Nope, it's about what this thread is about. Thanks for confirming what I already knew -- you have not a clue what "non-sequitur" means.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here is something not considered in the thread, it is part way down in this article that drives home the trial is illegal.

American Thinker


January 27, 2021
The Senate Cannot Impeach Donald Trump
By Jonathon Moseley

Excerpt:


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has delivered Articles of Impeachment of Donald J. Trump and the appointment of Impeachment Managers to the U.S. Senate on January 25. The Senate cannot legally hold a trial on impeachment of a President or other official who has already left office.

As we will watch, the Senate has extensive, long-established procedures -- but only as its own rules. The Senate must convene the next day at 1:00 P.M. But the Senate typically schedules the actual trial for later. Chuck Schumer says the trial will start February 8. Senate rules require a trial, whereas the Constitution only allows the Senate to hold a trial should they choose. No trial is required. But in any trial, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be taken up first.

Remember: Democrats in the House were conducting impeachment hearings of President Richard Nixon for some serious crimes. It appeared that the votes were there in the Senate to remove Nixon from office. But when Nixon resigned, the entire effort stopped. Democrats then believed that they did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with impeachment. In December 2019, when Rep. Matt Gaetz suggested impeaching Barack Obama no longer in office, the Washington Post “fact checked” the idea as unlikely, with more professors arguing against than for.

LINK

==========

The Constitution says in Article I, Section 3, that: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”


Trump is already out of office, the Senate Trial is no longer valid.

 

[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 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.

Says you citing you. The constitution however says that the Senate has authority over ALL impeachment trials.

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

There is no 'private citizen' exemption to the Senate's authority. You imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial....and the impeachment trial of William Belknap

Try again, Troll.

It says the Senate shall preside over impeaching "THE PRESIDENT," you fucking moron.

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

Fawnboi is tilting hard now.

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!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


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

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

There's no exemption for non Apple employees from being fired from Apple computer. That's what you're arguing.

You're arguing that being fired from Apple can forbid you from ever holding office again?

If no, then clearly you're not familiar with the potential consequences of an impeachment trial.

As always, your pseudo-legal gibberish obligates no one to do anything. As Trump's impending impeachment trial demonstrates elegantly.

I can always count on you to deliberately misconstrue what I said.

What is the consequence to me of being impeached by the Senate?

It means they can then vote to disqualify him from ever holding a federal office again. As opposed to your backyard circle jerk with your buddies only results in a mess you yourself will end up cleaning.

There's no such consequence to me because I'm not a federal office holder, and neither is Trump, you fucking moron.

LOLOL

Read it again, this time for clarity...

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

... now show where "ALL" excludes private citizens or you're merely proving yet again that you're nothing but a fucking moron.

Repeating a non sequitur doesn't make it true.

LOLOL

Fucking moron, the section of the Constitution which grants the U.S. Senate the power to try all impeachments is not a non-sequitur in a thread claiming the Senate cannot constitutionally try Trump's impeachment. Do you even know what "non-sequitur" means??

Yes it is a non sequitur, you boot licking NAZI moron.

Nope. You have no idea what a 'non-sequitur' is.

The Senate has authority over all impeachment trials. There are no exemptions listed in the Constitution:

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

"Try All impeachments" means try all impeachments. Not 'try all impeachments but whatever Bripat makes up'.

 

[Faun]

"It's Constitutional because I WAAAAAANT IIIIIIT!!"

Impeachment
A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office.

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

It's a bitch when all those messy words you tried to use to get what you want turn out to actually mean things.

Try again, troll. And the next time you want to quote the Constitution, try to understand what it says.

Yeah, I'll stick with the constitution rather than 'the free dictionary.com'.

And these are the punishments associated with the impeachment per the Constitution:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

Its that second part that's relevant to our discussion.

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

We cannot impeach a political office holder after his term is over no matter what the crime is. Even if he's in prison. Removal from office and a prohibition against running again is a single political act.

Democrat communists just don't trust people to vote the way they want the vote to go.

You're wrong again. Those require separate votes in the Senate. They are not a "single political act."

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

 

[Skylar]

Here is something not considered in the thread, it is part way down in this article that drives home the trial is illegal.

American Thinker


January 27, 2021
The Senate Cannot Impeach Donald Trump
By Jonathon Moseley

Excerpt:


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has delivered Articles of Impeachment of Donald J. Trump and the appointment of Impeachment Managers to the U.S. Senate on January 25. The Senate cannot legally hold a trial on impeachment of a President or other official who has already left office.

As we will watch, the Senate has extensive, long-established procedures -- but only as its own rules. The Senate must convene the next day at 1:00 P.M. But the Senate typically schedules the actual trial for later. Chuck Schumer says the trial will start February 8. Senate rules require a trial, whereas the Constitution only allows the Senate to hold a trial should they choose. No trial is required. But in any trial, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be taken up first.

Remember: Democrats in the House were conducting impeachment hearings of President Richard Nixon for some serious crimes. It appeared that the votes were there in the Senate to remove Nixon from office. But when Nixon resigned, the entire effort stopped. Democrats then believed that they did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with impeachment. In December 2019, when Rep. Matt Gaetz suggested impeaching Barack Obama no longer in office, the Washington Post “fact checked” the idea as unlikely, with more professors arguing against than for.

LINK

==========

The Constitution says in Article I, Section 3, that: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”


Trump is already out of office, the Senate Trial is no longer valid.

The Senate disagrees. And the authority over impeachment trials, the Constitution definitely picks a team between the U.S. Senate or Johathon Mosely.

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

As demonstrated by both Trump's impending impeachment trial and the impeachment trial of William Belknap after he left office.

 

[Skylar]

"It's Constitutional because I WAAAAAANT IIIIIIT!!"

Impeachment
A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office.

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

It's a bitch when all those messy words you tried to use to get what you want turn out to actually mean things.

Try again, troll. And the next time you want to quote the Constitution, try to understand what it says.

Yeah, I'll stick with the constitution rather than 'the free dictionary.com'.

And these are the punishments associated with the impeachment per the Constitution:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

Its that second part that's relevant to our discussion.

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

Take it up with the Founders.

 

[bripat9643]

"It's Constitutional because I WAAAAAANT IIIIIIT!!"

Impeachment
A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office.

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

It's a bitch when all those messy words you tried to use to get what you want turn out to actually mean things.

Try again, troll. And the next time you want to quote the Constitution, try to understand what it says.

Yeah, I'll stick with the constitution rather than 'the free dictionary.com'.

And these are the punishments associated with the impeachment per the Constitution:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

Its that second part that's relevant to our discussion.

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

We cannot impeach a political office holder after his term is over no matter what the crime is. Even if he's in prison. Removal from office and a prohibition against running again is a single political act.

Democrat communists just don't trust people to vote the way they want the vote to go.

You're wrong again. Those require separate votes in the Senate. They are not a "single political act."

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

Nope, The Senate votes "guilty" or "not guilty." It doesn't have a separate to disqualify him from holding office in the future.

 

[Faun]

Here is something not considered in the thread, it is part way down in this article that drives home the trial is illegal.

American Thinker


January 27, 2021
The Senate Cannot Impeach Donald Trump
By Jonathon Moseley

Excerpt:


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has delivered Articles of Impeachment of Donald J. Trump and the appointment of Impeachment Managers to the U.S. Senate on January 25. The Senate cannot legally hold a trial on impeachment of a President or other official who has already left office.

As we will watch, the Senate has extensive, long-established procedures -- but only as its own rules. The Senate must convene the next day at 1:00 P.M. But the Senate typically schedules the actual trial for later. Chuck Schumer says the trial will start February 8. Senate rules require a trial, whereas the Constitution only allows the Senate to hold a trial should they choose. No trial is required. But in any trial, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be taken up first.

Remember: Democrats in the House were conducting impeachment hearings of President Richard Nixon for some serious crimes. It appeared that the votes were there in the Senate to remove Nixon from office. But when Nixon resigned, the entire effort stopped. Democrats then believed that they did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with impeachment. In December 2019, when Rep. Matt Gaetz suggested impeaching Barack Obama no longer in office, the Washington Post “fact checked” the idea as unlikely, with more professors arguing against than for.

LINK

==========

The Constitution says in Article I, Section 3, that: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”


Trump is already out of office, the Senate Trial is no longer valid.

Where is the part that claims a trial is illegal?

 

[Faun]

"It's Constitutional because I WAAAAAANT IIIIIIT!!"

Impeachment
A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office.

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

It's a bitch when all those messy words you tried to use to get what you want turn out to actually mean things.

Try again, troll. And the next time you want to quote the Constitution, try to understand what it says.

Yeah, I'll stick with the constitution rather than 'the free dictionary.com'.

And these are the punishments associated with the impeachment per the Constitution:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

Its that second part that's relevant to our discussion.

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

We cannot impeach a political office holder after his term is over no matter what the crime is. Even if he's in prison. Removal from office and a prohibition against running again is a single political act.

Democrat communists just don't trust people to vote the way they want the vote to go.

You're wrong again. Those require separate votes in the Senate. They are not a "single political act."

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

Nope, The Senate votes "guilty" or "not guilty." It doesn't have a separate to disqualify him from holding office in the future.

Fucking moron, I even posted a link that shows there are separate votes. It's not my problem you're too stupid to understand it.

 

[mascale]

Elsewhere Noted: The Article of Impeachment was clearly valid at the time, and remains clearly valid, especially if time has been standing still(?)!

The "Disqualification" part requires special attention: Since the Presidency is not an option for just any private citizen. There is a particular class of private citizens, mentioned in the Constitution: Who are qualified. The disqualification of any one of them--for cause--is clearly presumptive as an impeachment trial matter.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 25: 14-30 itself: Offers clarity in the Matter of the Christian Message! Red States have recently created, "Safe Haven" Baby Abandonment boxes. At least one Holy Father historically had created them as alternative to drowning the newborn in the Tiber River! Red State Christianity has become far more clear of message: During the Trumped-Up Administration, starting 2016!)

 

[bripat9643]

Here is something not considered in the thread, it is part way down in this article that drives home the trial is illegal.

American Thinker


January 27, 2021
The Senate Cannot Impeach Donald Trump
By Jonathon Moseley

Excerpt:


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has delivered Articles of Impeachment of Donald J. Trump and the appointment of Impeachment Managers to the U.S. Senate on January 25. The Senate cannot legally hold a trial on impeachment of a President or other official who has already left office.

As we will watch, the Senate has extensive, long-established procedures -- but only as its own rules. The Senate must convene the next day at 1:00 P.M. But the Senate typically schedules the actual trial for later. Chuck Schumer says the trial will start February 8. Senate rules require a trial, whereas the Constitution only allows the Senate to hold a trial should they choose. No trial is required. But in any trial, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be taken up first.

Remember: Democrats in the House were conducting impeachment hearings of President Richard Nixon for some serious crimes. It appeared that the votes were there in the Senate to remove Nixon from office. But when Nixon resigned, the entire effort stopped. Democrats then believed that they did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with impeachment. In December 2019, when Rep. Matt Gaetz suggested impeaching Barack Obama no longer in office, the Washington Post “fact checked” the idea as unlikely, with more professors arguing against than for.

LINK

==========

The Constitution says in Article I, Section 3, that: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”


Trump is already out of office, the Senate Trial is no longer valid.

The Senate disagrees. And the authority over impeachment trials, the Constitution definitely picks a team between the U.S. Senate or Johathon Mosely.

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

As demonstrated by both Trump's impending impeachment trial and the impeachment trial of William Belknap after he left office.

It doesn't matter whether the Senate disagrees, moron. The Senate doesn't determine the meaning of the Constitution. You're like the drunk searching for his keys under the lamp post because the light is better there.