Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

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How is it Democrats rejecting something when the accusations are quickly rescinded when continuing would mean they would be liable?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

Yea I linked it a few posts ago. I also linked Dobbs, Newsmax, and Powell herself backtracking. Blair seems to now claiming ignorance of the fact that Dominion is suing both Giuliani and Powell.

 

[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?

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]

They aren't.

So when do the trials start?

No one wants to spend money on legal fees if they can avoid it.
Maybe someone like Mark Zuckerberg, plotter and money man behind the stolen election, can afford
those legals fees. Most people can't.

I say let Dominion go to court. I look forward to that farce.
I think Dominion is like the little dog who stands behind a fence and barks and snarls all day long.
You let that dog out and he turns around runs away, emptying his little bladder as he goes.

Read the Michigan forensic audit, you dumb shit! Dominion hasn't got a let to stand on, let alone
take people to court. Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia
Educate your stupid gullible self.

 

[forkup]

They aren't.

So when do the trials start?

No one wants to spend money on legal fees if they can avoid it.
Maybe someone like Mark Zuckerberg, plotter and money man behind the stolen election, can afford
those legals fees. Most people can't.

I say let Dominion go to court. I look forward to that farce.
I think Dominion is like the little dog who stands behind a fence and barks and snarls all day long.
You let that dog out and he turns around runs away, emptying his little bladder as he goes.

Trials start when a judge sets a date. As per usual. Why are you asking me?

As for the rest. I've so far given you the benefit of acting like you are talking to me in good faith. I don't really believe it but I give everybody a chance. Answering your questions and providing links where appropriate. So now I will ask you a question.

someone like Mark Zuckerberg, plotter and money man behind the stolen election

Can you support this accusation?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Trials start when a judge sets a date. As per usual. Why are you asking me?

It's called a rhetorical
question. I don't really think you have any information or could find your own ass in the dark.

As for the rest. I've so far given you the benefit of acting like you are talking to me in good faith. I don't really believe it but I give everybody a chance. Answering your questions and providing links where appropriate. So now I will ask you a question.

Your links are bloviating b.s.
Like I said: Read the Supreme Court's appraisal of the Michigan forensic audit of Dominion.
But, that's right. You aren't bright enough to appreciate a scientific appraisal of the Dominion
vote changing machine. You're like a hollow man blowing steam and hot air around.
You know just enough to be dangerous to the nation, you dumb sack of dog shit.

Can you support this accusation?

Of course I can. Report: Zuckerberg Money Used in Violation of Federal Election Law

 

[lantern2814]

He wasn't President

Trump wasn't President? Man get your meds adjusted and yea...report away

Sorry dummy, the idiot you keep bringing up was never President. False equivalency. Didn’t even read your own post did you?

 

[lantern2814]

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.

WTF?

He can be Impeached because he WAS President. The fact that he is now a private citizen does not preclude Impeachment.

As noted. There is precedent for both Impeaching and trying a private citizen after he left office

Your circular argument is nonsense.

A private citizen can not be impeached idiot. The article wasn’t delivered while he was in office. Oops. You idiots are trying to have it both ways. Not flying here.

 

[lantern2814]

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.

Q: Why isn’t Trump filing suit to stop it?
A: Because he knows it’s constitutional.

Wrong as usual. More because you idiots have no case and no hope of conviction. Letting you embarrass yourselves in front of the world. Again.

 

[lantern2814]

Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.

No...it does NOT you stupid little turd

I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick

Fucking moron, you don't understand English. You're quoting...

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

That ^^^ is what happens "when" the president is tried... What does a fucking moron like you think happens when it's not a president being tried??? Here, I'll even make it easy for you by making it multiple choice so even a fucking moron like you has a 50/50 shot at getting it right....

1. There is no impeachment trial if it's not a president being tried.
2. Someone else other than the Chief Justice presides.

... feel free to phone-a-friend for help, if needed.

It says nothing about anyone being tried other than the President, you psychotic NAZI moron. Please show where the Constitution allows Congress to try private citizens for anything.

Roberts already declined to participate in this farce.

LOLOLOL

Fucking moron, you really think it say nothing about anyone other than a president being tried?? Then how do you explain all of the other non-presidents who have been impeached by the House and tried in the Senate??

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

I can't believe you had a 50/50 shot to get that one right and you still got it wrong.

Spoiler

Just kidding, I not only believe it, I expected it.

Can the Senate Try Private Citizen Trump after He Leaves Office?​

Can the Senate Try Private Citizen Trump after He Leaves Office?​

​

Some pundits and Senators have suggested that a former President can be impeached and tried as a private citizen. I don't know if they think this applies to all former presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Bush and Obama, or whether it is applicable only to a president who has just recently left office. But either way, they are simply wrong as a matter of the Constitutional text and meaning.​

​

The relevant text of the Constitution reads as follows: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article II, Section 4)​

​

The Framers of the Constitution debated impeachment extensively. It is clear that they intended it to apply only to sitting presidents and other office holders and not to private citizens who previously held that office.​

​

The Framers did, however, regard impeachment and trial as part of one single process, culminating in removal from office. And so, if removal from office is no longer a possibility, it would seem that Congress would have no jurisdiction to impeach.​

​

What they want to do is to impeach President Trump without giving him an opportunity to defend himself at a Senate trial. This would be analogous to a prosecutor deciding to indict someone and then deny him a trial at which he could disprove his guilt or prove his innocence. That would be a core denial of due process, as would impeaching a president based on a majority of the House while denying him a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds super majority to remove.​

Fucking moron, you're quoting someone who's represented Twice Impeached Trump in the past and who is being considered to represent him again -- and who got caught lying the last time he represented Twice Impeached Trump. Even worse, in the link you gave, Dershowitz is actually claiming it's unconstitutional to disqualify a an individual from holding office if convicted of impeachment, even though that's in the Constitution.

Another provision of the Constitution says that an impeached president (or other office holder) may be disqualified "to hold and enjoy any office...." So some are arguing that the Constitutional provisions regarding impeachment should be interpreted to apply to any person who may be eligible to run in the future. Such an absurd interpretation of the Constitution would literally allow millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35 to be impeached and disqualified from future office holding.​

Dershowitz is speaking out of his ass. Who are these "millions of ordinary citizens over the age of 35" he speaks of??

Dershowits is speaking simple logic. Your only argument is that you don't like Dershowitz.

They hate Dershowitz because he has stated he’s a constitutional scholar first, professor second, and liberal third. Dems think that his number three should always be number one, law be damned.

 

[forkup]

Trials start when a judge sets a date. As per usual. Why are you asking me?

It's called a rhetorical
question. I don't really think you have any information or could find your own ass in the dark.

As for the rest. I've so far given you the benefit of acting like you are talking to me in good faith. I don't really believe it but I give everybody a chance. Answering your questions and providing links where appropriate. So now I will ask you a question.

Your links are bloviating b.s.
Like I said: Read the Supreme Court's appraisal of the Michigan forensic audit of Dominion.
But, that's right. You aren't bright enough to appreciate a scientific appraisal of the Dominion
vote changing machine. You're like a hollow man blowing steam and hot air around.
You know just enough to be dangerous to the nation, you dumb sack of dog shit.

Can you support this accusation?

Of course I can. Report: Zuckerberg Money Used in Violation of Federal Election Law

Actually, a rhetorical question is a question you know the answer to. Since no date of the trial has been set the question can't be rhetorical.

My links are bloviated and bs? Most of the links I provided are primary sources and usually right-wing.

As for your appraisal, I can't find it. What I can find is this SOS - Hand audit of all Presidential Election votes in Antrim County confirms previously certified results, voting machines were accurate (michigan.gov)

Kind of hard to claim a forensic audit is correct in claiming votes were incorrectly tabulated when a HAND tally showed the same results as before.

As for Zuckerberg. A report released to Newsmax is NOT one in a court of law. Nor is Newsmax a reliable reporter of accurate information as is proven by the hurry in which they retracted their election fraud stories when threatened by lawsuits.
Nor for that matter has The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit against Zuckerberg. They've filed other ones but not one to Zuckerberg. So when I asked if you can support your allegations the answer would be no. Unlike me you don't even have a judge to set a court date.

 

[forkup]

They aren't.

So when do the trials start?

No one wants to spend money on legal fees if they can avoid it.
Maybe someone like Mark Zuckerberg, plotter and money man behind the stolen election, can afford
those legals fees. Most people can't.

I say let Dominion go to court. I look forward to that farce.
I think Dominion is like the little dog who stands behind a fence and barks and snarls all day long.
You let that dog out and he turns around runs away, emptying his little bladder as he goes.

Read the Michigan forensic audit, you dumb shit! Dominion hasn't got a let to stand on, let alone
take people to court. Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia
Educate your stupid gullible self.

A slap suit is a frivolous lawsuit.

Dominion is a company that has as a business running elections. They have been now dragged through the mud and regardless of the accuracy of the accusations, states doing business with them has now become controversial. This hurts this company monetarily. On top of that, these accusations have caused their employees to receive death threats. As far as I, and I would assert all reasonable people being concerned punishing those starting and propagating accusations even after there was no reasonable reason to believe they were true is not frivolous.

 

[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.

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

C'mon you know you are cornered

Because impeachment is for civil officers, president or VP. Impeachment trials are for anyone who's been impeached. It matters not if they're no longer in the same position they were in when they were impeached. And there's precedence to support that.

 

[Faun]

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.

They will do that if they can't disqualify him through his impeachment.

 

[Lastamender]

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.

They will do that if they can't disqualify him through his impeachment.

What are you scared of if he was such a terrible president? He was awesome and they know it.

 

[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.

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?

The House Impeaches. The Senate tries impeachments. Trump was impeached by the House on 1.13.21. The Senate trial begins next month.

 

[Faun]

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.

They will do that if they can't disqualify him through his impeachment.

What are you scared of if he was such a terrible president? He was awesome and they know it.

He brought this on...

He should never be allowed to hold a public office again where he can inspire another attack on our country like that.

 

[Lastamender]

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.

They will do that if they can't disqualify him through his impeachment.

What are you scared of if he was such a terrible president? He was awesome and they know it.

He brought this on...

He should never be allowed to hold a public office again where he can inspire another attack on our country like that.

No he did not, even the lying WP says it was planned for days. You lose Assflap.

 

[surada]

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

They sure did apologize..

 

[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.

They will do that if they can't disqualify him through his impeachment.

What are you scared of if he was such a terrible president? He was awesome and they know it.

He brought this on...

He should never be allowed to hold a public office again where he can inspire another attack on our country like that.

No he did not, even the lying WP says it was planned for days. You lose Assflap.

Of course they planned the attack.. Trump had been lying and inciting the mfor 8 weeks.. He'll so it again.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The impeachment trial is over. They had a snap impeachment trial with no witnesses, no testimony and no evidence. There was to be a senate hearing scheduled for Feb 9th. That hearing was to remove Trump from office. That hearing will nit go forward because Trump is out of office and the senate no longer has jurisdiction to even hear the matter.

All the arguments supporting further action is over. If you don't want Trump to win another election don't vote for him.