Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

[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.

Says you, citing yourself as the sole legal authority. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Back in reality, the Constitution only states that removal requires the 2/3 majority. There is no such requirement for disqualification.

The Senate has found -twice- that a simple majority is all that is necessary for disqualification.

Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible

So your claim that they both have to be decided in a single vote is provable nonsense. Worse, the Senate determined that a simple majority is all that's necessary to disqualify.

Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35.

So yes, the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible. And yes, disqualification requires only a simple majority.

Which the democrats have.

The Constitution says the Senate shall try the "PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."

You keep trying to ignore that.

You say that, the Constitution doesn't. That's why you can't actually quote the Constitution saying that. Here's what it actually says....

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

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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.​

As you can see, nowhere does it state the Senate shall try the president of the United States. It says the Senate can try "all impeachments."

And it's no one's problem but your own that you don't understand the meaning of the word, "all."

 

[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.

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.

Says you, citing yourself as the sole legal authority. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Back in reality, the Constitution only states that removal requires the 2/3 majority. There is no such requirement for disqualification.

The Senate has found -twice- that a simple majority is all that is necessary for disqualification.

Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible

So your claim that they both have to be decided in a single vote is provable nonsense. Worse, the Senate determined that a simple majority is all that's necessary to disqualify.

Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35.

So yes, the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible. And yes, disqualification requires only a simple majority.

Which the democrats have.

The Constitution says the Senate shall try the "PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."

Nope. it doesn't. It says:

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

You keep trying to ignore that.

We keep ignoring YOU. As your pseudo-legal gibberish and made up 'constitution quotes' have no relevance to anything being discussed.

 

[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.

Where is the part that claims a trial is illegal?

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

And that's a requirement of the Chief Justice. Not on the Senate or the impeachment trial.

As demonstrated by the fact that Justice Roberts in NOT presiding over Trump's impeachment trial. Leahy is instead.

I marvel at how you are able to get everything ass backwards.

Or.....once again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

As there's no requirement that the Chief Justice preside over an impeachment trial of someone who isn't president.

Trump is no longer president. Thus, Roberts has no obligation to preside over his impeachment trial.

 

[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.

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.

The Constitution doesn't agree with you:

Article I, Section 3, that: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office......

bolding mine

=======

The impeachment process is for a singular purpose, to remove someone from office. Trump is already out of office on January 20, ergo the impeachment process (started on January 12) was already unnecessary, since the Congress ruled on January 6, that Biden is the President Elect and took oath of office on January 20.

It is not for a singular purpose which is why you intentionally edited out the rest of that sentence; which actually reads...

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 ​

Your stupidity is off the charts:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office

He is no longer in office you dumb twit, it no longer applies anymore thus the Trial is dead on arrival since he is NO LONGER IN OFFICE. He isn't there to be removed.

The DOJ can charge him with any crimes while he is citizen, but there is so far no indication they are going to do that.

And when you finish the sentence you quoted, you demonstrate the absurdity of your argument:

"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"

And the Senate has already found that removal and disqualification are divisible. They can be voted on separately. The former requires a 2/3 majority (which the democrats don't have). The latter requires only a simple majority (which the democrats do have).

The Senate is not authorized to make any such judgment, you fucking moron.

They already do that, fucking moron. If what you said was lucid, the Supreme Court would have put an end to that a long time ago.

 

[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?

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

And that's a requirement of the Chief Justice. Not on the Senate or the impeachment trial.

As demonstrated by the fact that Justice Roberts in NOT presiding over Trump's impeachment trial. Leahy is instead.

I marvel at how you are able to get everything ass backwards.

LOL

Slobbers the USMB's fucking moron.

 

[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.

Where is the part that claims a trial is illegal?

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

And that's a requirement of the Chief Justice. Not on the Senate or the impeachment trial.

As demonstrated by the fact that Justice Roberts in NOT presiding over Trump's impeachment trial. Leahy is instead.

I marvel at how you are able to get everything ass backwards.

LOL

Slobbers the USMB's fucking moron.

Nice pick on the the 1936 impeachment trial of Judge Ritter and the Judge Archibald impeachment trial in 1907.

They demonstrate unambiguously that:

1) The issues of removal and the issue of disqualification are divisible, with the Senate able to vote on them separately.

2) That disqualification requires only a simple majority vote, not the 2/3 vote necessary for removal.

That's some quality research, Faun. Well done, man!

 

[dudmuck]

This needs to be tried in a federal court. It was a crime. Trump aided in the crime. No one should be able to do what was done and just be allowed to walk. Fuck you republicans because you all suppported trumps attempts to investigate and imprison private citizens for nothing but a lie. So nobody wants to hear chirping from the clown car.

Shut up.

He gave a speech that leftist pieces of human shit like you didn't like. As a result, a relatively small group of uber-right-wing fanatics decided to storm the Capitol.

If it should be tried in a federal court, let's see you offer an unqualified denouncement of the impeachment. Otherwise, you're just another hypocritical negro...

Former President Donald Trump can be convicted in an impeachment trial for his role in inciting the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6 even though he is no longer in office, a bipartisan group of constitutional law scholars wrote in a letter Thursday.

Legal scholars, including at Federalist Society, say Trump can be convicted

Some Republicans have argued a former president can't be the target of an impeachment trial.

www.politico.com

and the federalist society is very conservative.

You must have us confused with Democrats, who slavishly believe anything that's said by someone famous from their party because they're unequipped to have original thoughts.

The Federalist Society can think any damned thing they want, and I reserve the right to think they're full of shit, no matter how "very conservative" you consider them to be. "They think this, and they're on your side, so you HAVE to think it too!!!" only works with drooling fools like you.

some of the GOP literally stood on the floor of the Senate and said the president incited the violence. But now they are all "Meh. Let's not worry about it anymore. "

 

[Nostra]

This Dimwinger temper tantrum is hilarious.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I can tell the difference between an impeachment and an impeachment trial. Which puts my comprehensions head and shoulders above both you and Tipsy.

I'll happily educate you on the distinction, if you'd like. Though I will be citing the Constitution rather than a free online dictionary. So you may not be able to keep up.

"Well, my talking points said THIS would make me smart, so I'm sure I am!!!"

You can't have an impeachment trial without an impeachment, Mr. "I know there's a difference, because I WAAAAANT IT!!!" And by definition, the impeachment became a moot point the instant he was no longer in office. Effectively, because of what an impeachment actually is - according to those silly definitions that you don't want to hear about because they get in your way - it stopped existing at that point. There's nothing to try.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I can tell the difference between an impeachment and an impeachment trial. Which puts my comprehensions head and shoulders above both you and Tipsy.

I'll happily educate you on the distinction, if you'd like. Though I will be citing the Constitution rather than a free online dictionary. So you may not be able to keep up.

"Well, my talking points said THIS would make me smart, so I'm sure I am!!!"

You can't have an impeachment trial without an impeachment, Mr. "I know there's a difference, because I WAAAAANT IT!!!" And by definition, the impeachment became a moot point the instant he was no longer in office. Effectively, because of what an impeachment actually is - according to those silly definitions that you don't want to hear about because they get in your way - it stopped existing at that point. There's nothing to try.

Again, I'll stick with the Constitution over 'free dictionary.com' on the penalties of a conviction for an impeachment trial. As would any thinking person.

"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"

Again, you can ignore that bolded portion of Constitution. But its not like the world disappears just because you close your eyes.

Run along,sweetie. The adults are talking now.

 

[mascale]

If the Senate shall try all impeachments, and there is a properly drawn Article of Impeachment: Then there is obscurity about the Senate does? Then there is the problem of whether another Trumped-Up Administration should be given another four years to, "Try, Try, Again?"

"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!)

 

[Skylar]

This Dimwinger temper tantrum is hilarious.

Yeah, you may want to acquaint yourself with the impeachment of Judge Archibald by the Senate. The senate determined that removal and disqualification were divisible....they could be voted on separately.

And while removal requires 2/3 of the Senate to impose, disqualification requires only a simple majority of the Senate.

Which the Democrats have.

 

[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.

I can tell the difference between an impeachment and an impeachment trial. Which puts my comprehensions head and shoulders above both you and Tipsy.

I'll happily educate you on the distinction, if you'd like. Though I will be citing the Constitution rather than a free online dictionary. So you may not be able to keep up.

"Well, my talking points said THIS would make me smart, so I'm sure I am!!!"

You can't have an impeachment trial without an impeachment, Mr. "I know there's a difference, because I WAAAAANT IT!!!" And by definition, the impeachment became a moot point the instant he was no longer in office. Effectively, because of what an impeachment actually is - according to those silly definitions that you don't want to hear about because they get in your way - it stopped existing at that point. There's nothing to try.

^^^ bitchslapped by the Constitution...

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

 

[Cecilie1200]

Trump is no longer in office---so Congress can not remove IMPEACH and remove him. The congress is simply trying to abuse their powers to harass the president and try to tell the american who they can and can't vote for. It's bs.

There is the added punishment of never being able to hold elective office again ... and there's clear precedent for this action ... if it's a power granted by the US Constitution, then exercising that power isn't abusive ... Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

Too bad for you that trying a private citizen for the express and only purpose of banning him from running for office isn't a power granted to anyone by the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

Trump is no longer in office---so Congress can not remove IMPEACH and remove him. The congress is simply trying to abuse their powers to harass the president and try to tell the american who they can and can't vote for. It's bs.

There is the added punishment of never being able to hold elective office again ... and there's clear precedent for this action ... if it's a power granted by the US Constitution, then exercising that power isn't abusive ... Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

Too bad for you that trying a private citizen for the express and only purpose of banning him from running for office isn't a power granted to anyone by the Constitution.

Sweetie, you're so far out of your depth here.

Not only can the Senate try Trump in his impeachment trial, the issues of removal from office and disqualification from future office are divisible. The Senate can vote on them separately.

And while removal from office requires a 2/3 majority, the Senate has determined that disqualification from future office requires only a simple majority. As demonstrated in the disqualification of Judge Archibald in his impeachment trial before the Senate. As well as their findings in Judge Ritter's impeachment trial in 1936.

Go read a dictionary, hon. This conversation is clearly beyond you.

 

[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.

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.

I can't help but notice that troll was never able to cite a single violation.

 

[Skylar]

I can't help but notice that troll was never able to cite a single violation.

Not one. The 'rules' cited were 'in general' procedure. They included words like 'typically' and 'normally' and 'often'. But not one thing that was REQUIRED that the House didn't do in Trump's impeachment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I can tell the difference between an impeachment and an impeachment trial. Which puts my comprehensions head and shoulders above both you and Tipsy.

I'll happily educate you on the distinction, if you'd like. Though I will be citing the Constitution rather than a free online dictionary. So you may not be able to keep up.

"Well, my talking points said THIS would make me smart, so I'm sure I am!!!"

You can't have an impeachment trial without an impeachment, Mr. "I know there's a difference, because I WAAAAANT IT!!!" And by definition, the impeachment became a moot point the instant he was no longer in office. Effectively, because of what an impeachment actually is - according to those silly definitions that you don't want to hear about because they get in your way - it stopped existing at that point. There's nothing to try.

Again, I'll stick with the Constitution over 'free dictionary.com' on the penalties of a conviction for an impeachment trial. As would any thinking person.

"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"

Again, you can ignore that bolded portion of Constitution. But its not like the world disappears just because you close your eyes.

Run along,sweetie. The adults are talking now.

Did you really think repeating, "I'll stick with the Constitution, instead of the words in the Constitution" was somehow going to make you LESS laughable?

Again, you can pretend that "the Constitution" is whatever your masters have told you it is this week, English language be damned, but it won't make it any more true.

Run along, "sweetie". The homo sapiens are talking now. You can go grunt back in your cave.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Trump is no longer in office---so Congress can not remove IMPEACH and remove him. The congress is simply trying to abuse their powers to harass the president and try to tell the american who they can and can't vote for. It's bs.

There is the added punishment of never being able to hold elective office again ... and there's clear precedent for this action ... if it's a power granted by the US Constitution, then exercising that power isn't abusive ... Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

Too bad for you that trying a private citizen for the express and only purpose of banning him from running for office isn't a power granted to anyone by the Constitution.

Sweetie, you're so far out of your depth here.

Not only can the Senate try Trump in his impeachment trial, the issues of removal from office and disqualification from future office are divisible. The Senate can vote on them separately.

And while removal from office requires a 2/3 majority, the Senate has determined that disqualification from future office requires only a simple majority. As demonstrated in the disqualification of Judge Archibald in his impeachment trial before the Senate. As well as their findings in Judge Ritter's impeachment trial in 1936.

Go read a dictionary, hon. This conversation is clearly beyond you.

"Sweetie", you're so far out of your evolutionary level here.

Not only does reality STILL not rearrange itself according to how many times you declare that you are right because you ARE YOU ARE YOU ARE, but the Constitution is still comprised of the meanings of the words IN the Constitution.

Go listen to your talking points, "hon". Conversation also involves words, which leaves you out. And I'm sure you have some very important lice to pick and eat.

 

[Faun]

Trump is no longer in office---so Congress can not remove IMPEACH and remove him. The congress is simply trying to abuse their powers to harass the president and try to tell the american who they can and can't vote for. It's bs.

There is the added punishment of never being able to hold elective office again ... and there's clear precedent for this action ... if it's a power granted by the US Constitution, then exercising that power isn't abusive ... Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

Too bad for you that trying a private citizen for the express and only purpose of banning him from running for office isn't a power granted to anyone by the Constitution.

Sweetie, you're so far out of your depth here.

Not only can the Senate try Trump in his impeachment trial, the issues of removal from office and disqualification from future office are divisible. The Senate can vote on them separately.

And while removal from office requires a 2/3 majority, the Senate has determined that disqualification from future office requires only a simple majority. As demonstrated in the disqualification of Judge Archibald in his impeachment trial before the Senate. As well as their findings in Judge Ritter's impeachment trial in 1936.

Go read a dictionary, hon. This conversation is clearly beyond you.

While they are separate votes, it's not clear if a conviction is first required. The Constitution is not clear if Trump can be disqualified from office if not first convicted on the Article of Impeachment against him. If the Senate does hold a vote to disqualify, he could likely contest it with the Supreme Court, where I believe he would prevail.