Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

[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?

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.

So, trump cannot be on 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

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

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

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

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.

They did.

 

[dudmuck]

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

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

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

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

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.

Q: What do you call an insurrection that goes unpunished?

A: A rehearsal.

 

[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.

So, trump cannot be on trial??

He can be on trial by the Senate for his impeachment. He could also find himself on trial facing criminal charges, though that hasn't happened yet.

 

[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?

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.

So, trump cannot be on trial??

He can be on trial by the Senate for his impeachment. He could also find himself on trial facing criminal charges, though that hasn't happened yet.

How can he be on trial when is not civil officers, VP or POTUS?

C'mon you know you are cornered

 

[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.

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.

So, trump cannot be on trial??

He can be on trial by the Senate for his impeachment. He could also find himself on trial facing criminal charges, though that hasn't happened yet.

How can he be on trial when is not civil officers, VP or POTUS?

C'mon you know you are cornered

Impeachment and the impeachment trial aren't the same thing.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

So then why don't democrats simply "disqualify" Trump since they have the votes for that instead of going on with this impeachment farce since they don't have the votes for that?

It doesn't make any sense and there must be something you are missing or are not aware of.

This does not add up.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So then why don't democrats simply "disqualify" Trump since they have the votes instead of going on with this
impeachment farce since they don't have the votes for that?

Trump's impeachment trial isn't until next month. They can't disqualify him from future office until then.

It doesn't make any sense and there must be something you are missing or are not aware of.

This does not add up.

You seem confused. You get that no senator can vote on Trump's impeachment trial until.....you know, there's an impeachment trial, yes?

 

[surada]

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.

You're an idiot.. You have nothing but personal attacks.

 

[Bobob]

Nobody is rooting for Antifa to pillage and destroy.

VP Kamala Harris did.

"They MUST NOT STOP. WE must NOT STOP."

For inciting this continued Insurrection she needs to be Impeached.

She supports peaceful protests and not violent protests. Stop leaning on and inventing stupid theories, because you should know better. Your boy is gone, so try and start to think clearly for a change.

Horseshit. She setup a fund to bail violent protesters out of jail.

That's just another right wing viral LIE.....

She did NOT set up a fund to bail the violent protesters out of jail.

The charity she and others set up was for accused non violent offenders who could not afford bail...and it was set up long before a few rioters who had no bail money, utilized this charity fund. It was not set up or funded for the rioters.

Are these people ignorant or just deliberate liars?

Both

 

[surada]

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.

So then why don't democrats simply "disqualify" Trump since they have the votes for that instead of going on with this impeachment farce since they don't have the votes for that?

It doesn't make any sense and there must be something you are missing or are not aware of.

This does not add up.

Trump's intention is revenge on the Republicans for his humiliation. HIs intention is to destroy the party. See his New Officer for the Former President.


‘Office of Former President’ formed by Trump - South ...
Top South Florida News, Sports, Weather and Entertainment - South Florida Sun-Sentinel › news › politics › fl-ne...
1 day ago · Former President Donald Trump set up an official post-presidency office in Palm Beach County on Monday. He’s calling it “The Office of the Former President,” and it will manage his ...

 

[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?

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.

So, trump cannot be on trial??

He can be on trial by the Senate for his impeachment. He could also find himself on trial facing criminal charges, though that hasn't happened yet.

How can he be on trial when is not civil officers, VP or POTUS?

C'mon you know you are cornered

Impeachment and the impeachment trial aren't the same thing.

what is the difference?

 

[forkup]

Again. That question has been raised before and has been rejected.

In a most disingenuous way. The left has won a battle by stealing an election because they were frightened
by Donald Trump but they cannot win a war without massive popular support.

Joe Biden, Nan Pelosi, Kamala Harris are anchors around the necks of democrats.

How do Democrats reject something, when it's judges nominated by ALL presidents up until Reagan who did the rejecting?

How is it Democrats rejecting something when the accusations are quickly rescinded when continuing would mean they would be liable?

Statement - American Thinker
These are not Democrats.
Eddie Perez on Smartmatic | Fox Business Video
He isn't
Facts About Dominion, Smartmatic You Should Know | Newsmax.com
These people aren't.
Sidney Powell withdraws 'kraken' lawsuit in Georgia | TheHill
She isn't.


If the only place where people are willing to assert voter fraud are places that don't carry a penalty for lying and if those people aren't willing to continue with those assertions when they are challenged and when lying does carry a penalty. Where does that leave you?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Trump's impeachment trial isn't until next month. They can't disqualify him from future office until then.

So until next Monday? (eye roll)
That doesn't change my point at all. Not enough votes to impeach. Whereas they can disqualify, strictly going by partisan jihadist votes, quite easily.

So why carry on this farce? Why play this ridiculous game?

 

[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.

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.

So, trump cannot be on trial??

He can be on trial by the Senate for his impeachment. He could also find himself on trial facing criminal charges, though that hasn't happened yet.

How can he be on trial when is not civil officers, VP or POTUS?

C'mon you know you are cornered

Impeachment and the impeachment trial aren't the same thing.

what is the difference?

Impeachment, charges levied by the House....requires you be an civil officer, the president or the VP.

An impeachment trial, which occurs exclusively in the Senate, requires only that you've been impeached.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Again. That question has been raised before and has been rejected.

In a most disingenuous way. The left has won a battle by stealing an election because they were frightened
by Donald Trump but they cannot win a war without massive popular support.

Joe Biden, Nan Pelosi, Kamala Harris are anchors around the necks of democrats.

How do Democrats reject something, when it's judges nominated by ALL presidents up until Reagan who did the rejecting?

How is it Democrats rejecting something when the accusations are quickly rescinded when continuing would mean they would be liable?

Statement - American Thinker
These are not Democrats.
Eddie Perez on Smartmatic | Fox Business Video
He isn't
Facts About Dominion, Smartmatic You Should Know | Newsmax.com
These people aren't.
Sidney Powell withdraws 'kraken' lawsuit in Georgia | TheHill
She isn't.


If the only place where people are willing to assert voter fraud are places that don't carry a penalty for lying and if those people aren't willing to continue with those assertions when they are challenged where does that leave you?

So Dominion should definitely sue. Right?
What are they waiting for?

 

[Skylar]

Trump's impeachment trial isn't until next month. They can't disqualify him from future office until then.

So until next Monday? (eye roll)

Now you're getting it!

That doesn't change my point at all. Not enough votes to impeach. Whereas they can disqualify, strictly going by partisan jihadist votes, quite easily.

So why carry on this farce?

Sure it does. As you're demanding to know why democrats haven't voted to disqualify Trump at an impeachment trial that hasn't happened yet.

Your 'point' is that you don't understand how sequence works. And are confounded by the concept of 'before' and 'after'.

 

[forkup]

Again. That question has been raised before and has been rejected.

In a most disingenuous way. The left has won a battle by stealing an election because they were frightened
by Donald Trump but they cannot win a war without massive popular support.

Joe Biden, Nan Pelosi, Kamala Harris are anchors around the necks of democrats.

How do Democrats reject something, when it's judges nominated by ALL presidents up until Reagan who did the rejecting?

How is it Democrats rejecting something when the accusations are quickly rescinded when continuing would mean they would be liable?

Statement - American Thinker
These are not Democrats.
Eddie Perez on Smartmatic | Fox Business Video
He isn't
Facts About Dominion, Smartmatic You Should Know | Newsmax.com
These people aren't.
Sidney Powell withdraws 'kraken' lawsuit in Georgia | TheHill
She isn't.


If the only place where people are willing to assert voter fraud are places that don't carry a penalty for lying and if those people aren't willing to continue with those assertions when they are challenged where does that leave you?

So Dominion should definitely sue. Right?
What are they waiting for?

They aren't.
Trump Associate Sidney Powell Sued by Dominion Voting Over Election-Fraud Claims - Bloomberg
READ: Dominion's lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani - CNNPolitics

 

[Skylar]

Again. That question has been raised before and has been rejected.

In a most disingenuous way. The left has won a battle by stealing an election because they were frightened
by Donald Trump but they cannot win a war without massive popular support.

Joe Biden, Nan Pelosi, Kamala Harris are anchors around the necks of democrats.

How do Democrats reject something, when it's judges nominated by ALL presidents up until Reagan who did the rejecting?

How is it Democrats rejecting something when the accusations are quickly rescinded when continuing would mean they would be liable?

Statement - American Thinker
These are not Democrats.
Eddie Perez on Smartmatic | Fox Business Video
He isn't
Facts About Dominion, Smartmatic You Should Know | Newsmax.com
These people aren't.
Sidney Powell withdraws 'kraken' lawsuit in Georgia | TheHill
She isn't.


If the only place where people are willing to assert voter fraud are places that don't carry a penalty for lying and if those people aren't willing to continue with those assertions when they are challenged where does that leave you?

So Dominion should definitely sue. Right?
What are they waiting for?

They aren't.
Trump Associate Sidney Powell Sued by Dominion Voting Over Election-Fraud Claims - Bloomberg
Giuliani sued for $1.3 billion by Dominion Voting systems over false election fraud claims | The Independent

Did you see the grovelling apology that American Thinker gave when Dominion showed them their civil liability for the conspiracies they shilled?

It was one of the most obsequious things I've ever read.

Retraction

We received a lengthy letter from Dominion's defamation lawyers explaining why they believe that their client has been the victim of defamatory statements. Having considered the full import of the letter, we have agreed to their reques...

www.americanthinker.com

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Sure it does. As you're demanding to know why democrats haven't voted to disqualify Trump at an impeachment trial that hasn't happened yet.

Your 'point' is that you don't understand how sequence works. And are confounded by the concept of 'before' and 'after'.

Your unctuous smarmy idiocy makes you the butt of your own comments.
It's not a matter of sequence, jerkwad. It's a question of getting enough votes to impeach. Biden says Democrats don't have votes to convict Trump

Even that illegitimate dummy knows the score. Nothing is funnier than the dunce who tries to lecture the
people who happen to know what's actually going on.