Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

[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.

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?

Sweetie....you're so far behind the curve on this one, its embarrassing to watch.

As the Constitution outlines penalties for conviction in impeachment trials that you are straight up ignoring and pretending don't exist.

"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 you ignore the Constitution and instead insist the Senate is bound to 'free dictionary.com'?

Laughing......good luck with that, hun.

 

[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.

"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.

Yes, and the Constitution still reads...

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

... no matter how little you understand that clause.

 

[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.

"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.

You insisting that the senate must ignore the Constitution and is instead bound to 'free-dictionary.com' isn't reality, Sweetie.

As demonstrated elegantly by Trump's impeachment trial.

You keep rocking back and forth, insisting that reality is defined by 'free-dictinary.com'. I'll keep laughing as Trump's impeachment trial commences.

Deal?

 

[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.

"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.

Yes, and the Constitution still reads...

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

... no matter how little you understand that clause.

Sigh......you can smell the desperation these poor souls. Where they insist that the Constitution and reality itself are overridden by 'free-dictionary.com'.

I'll stick with the Constitution and the authority it grants the Senate.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Still funny.

 

[Cecilie1200]

President Trump still owns their headspace ...

.

Well, it's such a wide-open territory, with nothing taking up space in it.

 

[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.

Still funny.

Laughing.....we can laugh together when Trump's impeachment trial begins.

 

[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.

Yes, and the Constitution still reads...

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

... no matter how little you understand that clause.

Sigh......you can smell the desperation these poor souls. Where they insist that the Constitution and reality itself are overridden by 'free-dictionary.com'.

I'll stick with the Constitution and the authority it grants the Senate.

*Sigh* You can smell the ignorance on these poor soulless lumps. Where they insist that the Constitution is something different from the words it's written with.

Or maybe what I'm smelling is the fact that your talking points didn't instruct you to know about wiping your own ass.

 

[Nostra]

Dimwingers are terrified of TRUMP 2024!

 

[366h34d]

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.

Yes, and the Constitution still reads...

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

... no matter how little you understand that clause.

here, is the real problem, base on your pts
(1) The Congress has the sole power to try all impeachments
(2) The Congress can put anyone up on trial
(3) One of the impeachment conviction outcomes is disqualified to hold and enjoy any Office of honour, Trust or Profit under the United States

Don't you have a problem with #3 given the nature of impeachment?

 

[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.

"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.

Yes, and the Constitution still reads...

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

... no matter how little you understand that clause.

Sigh......you can smell the desperation these poor souls. Where they insist that the Constitution and reality itself are overridden by 'free-dictionary.com'.

I'll stick with the Constitution and the authority it grants the Senate.

*Sigh* You can smell the ignorance on these poor soulless lumps. Where they insist that the Constitution is something different from the words it's written with.

Or maybe what I'm smelling is the fact that your talking points didn't instruct you to know about wiping your own ass.

Says the poor hopeless soul that ignores the Constitution and insists that the Senate is bound to 'free-dictionary.com'.

Sorry, hon....but the Senate is bound by the Constitution. And the Constitution has these possible penalties for conviction in an impeachment trial:

"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"

Ignoring the Constitution doesn't change it, sweetie. As Trump's impending impeachment trial demonstrates elegantly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They have zero constitutional power or right to do so
Trying T on fake charges is only a “ Soviet show trial “

Trump gets a pension and has secret service protection for 14 members of his family. You don't ever want another president lie Trump.. He has to be held accountable.

You are the poster child for "useful idiot". You're like the political version of Typhoid Mary, standing in the middle of a catastrophe she created while insisting that being a cook shouldn't require her to wash her hands.

 

[Turtlesoup]

I’m citing the Constitution, Stupid.

You should find someone to read it to you.

Here's the constitution:

Show me where it says that Roberts must preside over the impeachment trial of an ex-president.

If you're citing the constitution, this will be remarkably easy. If you're citing your imagination, it will be a bit harder.

No such thing as impeaching a private citizen.

Says who? That would be you, citing yourself.

Trump was impeached, thus the Senate has authority. Says who? Says the constitution.

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

Now why would I ignore the constitution and instead believe your rambling pseudo-legal gibberish?

Show me where the Constitution spells out the procedures for impeaching a private citizen.

You lose again.

There's no 'private citizen' limit to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials. You imagined it.

Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has authority over his impeachment trial. Says who? Says the constitution.

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

I keep quoting the constitution. You keep quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.

Hey asshole, you aren't winning. Trump isn't President, therefore the Senate has no legal right to try him.

Says who? There's no requirement that someone hold any office during an impeachment trial. And in fact, folks have been tried in impeachment trials AFTER they have left office.

So where in the constitution is the limitation to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials that you just made up?

Here's the constitution.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Show me.

Sorry asshole, you can't have it both ways. You want to impeach him and claim he's President, then claim he isn't President but we can try him anyway. Even though you failed to complete the process of impeachment before Trump left office. You lose again. Seems you totally ran away from that fact

Yeah, none of that is the constitution. That's just you making shit up again, citing yourself.

So where in the constitution is the limitation to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials that you just made up?

Here's the constitution.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Show me. Don't tell me. You citing you on a topic you know jack shit about isn't the Constitution.

Impeachment and the resulting trial applies to a few specific GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, Dumbass.

You just keep losing.

There's no requirement that the trial apply to government officials in the Constitution. You're citing your imagination. The only requirement for an impeachment trial is that someone has been impeached.

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

See, the Senate is bound by the *actual* constitution. Not your imaginary one.

The Constitution requires the trial to apply to THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, you goose stepping moron.

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

Trump can't be charged while in office------------but he can be impeached. Once out of office, he can't be impeached but he can charged as long as their evidence of guilt and an actual crime which doesn't exist.

 

[Skylar]

I’m citing the Constitution, Stupid.

You should find someone to read it to you.

Here's the constitution:

Show me where it says that Roberts must preside over the impeachment trial of an ex-president.

If you're citing the constitution, this will be remarkably easy. If you're citing your imagination, it will be a bit harder.

No such thing as impeaching a private citizen.

Says who? That would be you, citing yourself.

Trump was impeached, thus the Senate has authority. Says who? Says the constitution.

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

Now why would I ignore the constitution and instead believe your rambling pseudo-legal gibberish?

Show me where the Constitution spells out the procedures for impeaching a private citizen.

You lose again.

There's no 'private citizen' limit to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials. You imagined it.

Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has authority over his impeachment trial. Says who? Says the constitution.

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

I keep quoting the constitution. You keep quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.

Hey asshole, you aren't winning. Trump isn't President, therefore the Senate has no legal right to try him.

Says who? There's no requirement that someone hold any office during an impeachment trial. And in fact, folks have been tried in impeachment trials AFTER they have left office.

So where in the constitution is the limitation to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials that you just made up?

Here's the constitution.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Show me.

Sorry asshole, you can't have it both ways. You want to impeach him and claim he's President, then claim he isn't President but we can try him anyway. Even though you failed to complete the process of impeachment before Trump left office. You lose again. Seems you totally ran away from that fact

Yeah, none of that is the constitution. That's just you making shit up again, citing yourself.

So where in the constitution is the limitation to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials that you just made up?

Here's the constitution.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Show me. Don't tell me. You citing you on a topic you know jack shit about isn't the Constitution.

Impeachment and the resulting trial applies to a few specific GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, Dumbass.

You just keep losing.

There's no requirement that the trial apply to government officials in the Constitution. You're citing your imagination. The only requirement for an impeachment trial is that someone has been impeached.

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

See, the Senate is bound by the *actual* constitution. Not your imaginary one.

The Constitution requires the trial to apply to THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, you goose stepping moron.

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

Trump can't be charged while in office------------but he can be impeached. Once out of office, he can't be impeached but he can charged as long as their evidence of guilt and an actual crime which doesn't exist.

He can be tried if he's been impeached....even if he's left office. The Senate did exactly that to a Secretary of War.

Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has sole authority over his impeachment trial.

 

[Nostra]

I’m citing the Constitution, Stupid.

You should find someone to read it to you.

Here's the constitution:

Show me where it says that Roberts must preside over the impeachment trial of an ex-president.

If you're citing the constitution, this will be remarkably easy. If you're citing your imagination, it will be a bit harder.

No such thing as impeaching a private citizen.

Says who? That would be you, citing yourself.

Trump was impeached, thus the Senate has authority. Says who? Says the constitution.

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

Now why would I ignore the constitution and instead believe your rambling pseudo-legal gibberish?

Show me where the Constitution spells out the procedures for impeaching a private citizen.

You lose again.

There's no 'private citizen' limit to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials. You imagined it.

Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has authority over his impeachment trial. Says who? Says the constitution.

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

I keep quoting the constitution. You keep quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.

Hey asshole, you aren't winning. Trump isn't President, therefore the Senate has no legal right to try him.

Says who? There's no requirement that someone hold any office during an impeachment trial. And in fact, folks have been tried in impeachment trials AFTER they have left office.

So where in the constitution is the limitation to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials that you just made up?

Here's the constitution.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Show me.

Sorry asshole, you can't have it both ways. You want to impeach him and claim he's President, then claim he isn't President but we can try him anyway. Even though you failed to complete the process of impeachment before Trump left office. You lose again. Seems you totally ran away from that fact

Yeah, none of that is the constitution. That's just you making shit up again, citing yourself.

So where in the constitution is the limitation to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials that you just made up?

Here's the constitution.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Show me. Don't tell me. You citing you on a topic you know jack shit about isn't the Constitution.

Impeachment and the resulting trial applies to a few specific GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, Dumbass.

You just keep losing.

There's no requirement that the trial apply to government officials in the Constitution. You're citing your imagination. The only requirement for an impeachment trial is that someone has been impeached.

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

See, the Senate is bound by the *actual* constitution. Not your imaginary one.

The Constitution requires the trial to apply to THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, you goose stepping moron.

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

Trump can't be charged while in office------------but he can be impeached. Once out of office, he can't be impeached but he can charged as long as their evidence of guilt and an actual crime which doesn't exist.

Dimwingers told us Trump would be in cuffs the minute he was out of office.

 

[Skylar]

I’m citing the Constitution, Stupid.

You should find someone to read it to you.

Here's the constitution:

Show me where it says that Roberts must preside over the impeachment trial of an ex-president.

If you're citing the constitution, this will be remarkably easy. If you're citing your imagination, it will be a bit harder.

No such thing as impeaching a private citizen.

Says who? That would be you, citing yourself.

Trump was impeached, thus the Senate has authority. Says who? Says the constitution.

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

Now why would I ignore the constitution and instead believe your rambling pseudo-legal gibberish?

Show me where the Constitution spells out the procedures for impeaching a private citizen.

You lose again.

There's no 'private citizen' limit to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials. You imagined it.

Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has authority over his impeachment trial. Says who? Says the constitution.

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

I keep quoting the constitution. You keep quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.

Hey asshole, you aren't winning. Trump isn't President, therefore the Senate has no legal right to try him.

Says who? There's no requirement that someone hold any office during an impeachment trial. And in fact, folks have been tried in impeachment trials AFTER they have left office.

So where in the constitution is the limitation to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials that you just made up?

Here's the constitution.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Show me.

Sorry asshole, you can't have it both ways. You want to impeach him and claim he's President, then claim he isn't President but we can try him anyway. Even though you failed to complete the process of impeachment before Trump left office. You lose again. Seems you totally ran away from that fact

Yeah, none of that is the constitution. That's just you making shit up again, citing yourself.

So where in the constitution is the limitation to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials that you just made up?

Here's the constitution.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Show me. Don't tell me. You citing you on a topic you know jack shit about isn't the Constitution.

Impeachment and the resulting trial applies to a few specific GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, Dumbass.

You just keep losing.

There's no requirement that the trial apply to government officials in the Constitution. You're citing your imagination. The only requirement for an impeachment trial is that someone has been impeached.

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

See, the Senate is bound by the *actual* constitution. Not your imaginary one.

The Constitution requires the trial to apply to THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, you goose stepping moron.

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

Trump can't be charged while in office------------but he can be impeached. Once out of office, he can't be impeached but he can charged as long as their evidence of guilt and an actual crime which doesn't exist.

Dimwingers told us Trump would be in cuffs the minute he was out of office.

Did they? Or did they claim that Trump was open to criminal and civil liability after he left office.

As he is.

 

[Skylar]

ere, is the real problem, base on your pts
(1) The Congress has the sole power to try all impeachments
(2) The Congress can put anyone up on trial
(3) One of the impeachment conviction outcomes is disqualified to hold and enjoy any Office of honour, Trust or Profit under the United States

Don't you have a problem with #3 given the nature of impeachment?

Yes, if Trump cannot and will not be impeached, as everyone agrees he will not (even John Roberts will not
go along with the farce) then how can outcome #3 come into play?

Easy. The Senate has determined that removal from office and disqualification are divisible. That they can be voted on separately.

And while removal from office requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate (and is moot at this point), disqualification requires only a majority vote in the Senate.

A majority which the democrats have.

 

[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.

"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.

Yes, and the Constitution still reads...

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

... no matter how little you understand that clause.

here, is the real problem, base on your pts
(1) The Congress has the sole power to try all impeachments
(2) The Congress can put anyone up on trial
(3) One of the impeachment conviction outcomes is disqualified to hold and enjoy any Office of honour, Trust or Profit under the United States

Don't you have a problem with #3 given the nature of impeachment?

First of all, as far as impeachment, they can't put anyone on trial. Only civil officers, the president or the VP. As far as disqualifying such a person from holding an office of honor or trust in the future, that's what the Founders saw fit for anyone convicted of breaking the public's trust to begin with. In Trump's case, for inciting a riot on our Capitol. There is no better use of impeachment for such a crime. To throw him out of office, which wasn't needed since his term was ending anyway; and to prevent him from holding an office again to use to potentially incite another insurrection.

 

[Bobob]

One more time

Nostra You're talking in circles as always.

A. Trump was President when Impeached in the House

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

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

So just shut the fuck up.

You're wrong and you're lying and Trolling

Links have been provided on this thread to support all of that

Funny to watch you clowns try to get out of the corners I back you into,

Laughing......we'll laugh together as Trump is lawfully tried in the Senate in his impeachment trial. Just like William Belknap was tried after he left office before him.

So much for your imagination, eh Troll?

Laughing....keep ignoring the Constitution, precedent and reality.

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

Try again, Troll.

I’m the only one actually quoting the Constitution, Stupid.

And it doesn't say a THING that you do. As the only requirements you've cited in the Constitution.....are for the Chief Justice.

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

Here's the Constitution yet again:

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

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

Remember, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The Constitution clearly states the very few govt officials covered by the impeachment process. Private citizens are not covered.

Roberts knows this and gave Nazi Pelousy the middle finger.

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

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

What constitutional duty? Oh, I forgot that you are a constitutional scholar. Where
did you study again?

 

[Faun]

ere, is the real problem, base on your pts
(1) The Congress has the sole power to try all impeachments
(2) The Congress can put anyone up on trial
(3) One of the impeachment conviction outcomes is disqualified to hold and enjoy any Office of honour, Trust or Profit under the United States

Don't you have a problem with #3 given the nature of impeachment?

Yes, if Trump cannot and will not be impeached, as everyone agrees he will not (even John Roberts will not
go along with the farce) then how can outcome #3 come into play?

Dumbfuck, Trump's already been impeached.

Text - H.Res.24 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Text for H.Res.24 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

www.congress.gov