Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

[Nostra]

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

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

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

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

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

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

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which the democrats have.

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

Nope. it doesn't. It says:

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

You keep trying to ignore that.

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

I quoted the fucking Constitution, you witless baboon.

Fucking moron, you falsely claimed the Constitution says the Senate shall try the president of the United States when it states no such thing. So when you "quote" the Constitution, you really have no idea what it means.

It says exactly what I said it says. I quoted it over a dozen times, goat fucker.

Fucking moron, nowhere does the Constitution state the Senate shall try the president of the United States. It doesn't even state the Senate shall try all impeachments. You really are a fucking moron with zero cognitivity.

I've quoted where it says it dozens of times, you fucking NAZI moron

LOLOL

Fucking moron, you can quote it a million more times but you idiotically claiming it says the Senate shall try the president of the United States only serves to reveal your inability to comprehend English. What it actually states is: the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. That includes presidents and non-presidents.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

You just contradicted yourself in one post, Dumbass.

 

[Faun]

Yes, it does matter. I could hold a trial in my back yard with my neighbors serving as jurors, and it would have just as much legal significance as the Belknap impeachment trial.

^^^ beyond idiotic.

How so?

Unbelievably, you really do need your idiocy explained to you.

Fucking moron, the U.S. Senate is Constitutionally authorized to hold trials for "ALL" impeachments. Meaning Belknap's impeachment trial was duly constitutionally recognized as a legit trial. Whereas you and your buddies having a circle jerk in your back yard, while constitutionally allowed, is NOT constitutionally recognized as a legit trial.

You comparing yourself to the U.S. Senate reveals just how big of a fucking moron you are.

No, it doesn't mean that, dumbfuck. The Democrat Senate does things all the time that aren't Constitutionally authorized.

Fucking moron, Belknap was tried by a Republican-controlled Senate.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

So? He wasn't convicted because half the Senators decided the impeachment was unconstitutional.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Doesn't matter -- they still tried him. Had it actually been unconstitutional, they wouldn't have even tried him. Not to mention, the Senate is not constitutionally authorized to interpret the Constitution for constitutionality -- the Judicial branch is tasked with that.

 

[Faun]

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

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

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

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

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

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

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which the democrats have.

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

Nope. it doesn't. It says:

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

You keep trying to ignore that.

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

I quoted the fucking Constitution, you witless baboon.

Fucking moron, you falsely claimed the Constitution says the Senate shall try the president of the United States when it states no such thing. So when you "quote" the Constitution, you really have no idea what it means.

It says exactly what I said it says. I quoted it over a dozen times, goat fucker.

Fucking moron, nowhere does the Constitution state the Senate shall try the president of the United States. It doesn't even state the Senate shall try all impeachments. You really are a fucking moron with zero cognitivity.

I've quoted where it says it dozens of times, you fucking NAZI moron

LOLOL

Fucking moron, you can quote it a million more times but you idiotically claiming it says the Senate shall try the president of the United States only serves to reveal your inability to comprehend English. What it actually states is: the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. That includes presidents and non-presidents.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

You just contradicted yourself in one post, Dumbass.

LOLOL

Only to fucking morons. Your confession is accepted.

 

[Nostra]

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

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

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

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

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

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

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which the democrats have.

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

Nope. it doesn't. It says:

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

You keep trying to ignore that.

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

I quoted the fucking Constitution, you witless baboon.

Fucking moron, you falsely claimed the Constitution says the Senate shall try the president of the United States when it states no such thing. So when you "quote" the Constitution, you really have no idea what it means.

It says exactly what I said it says. I quoted it over a dozen times, goat fucker.

Fucking moron, nowhere does the Constitution state the Senate shall try the president of the United States. It doesn't even state the Senate shall try all impeachments. You really are a fucking moron with zero cognitivity.

I've quoted where it says it dozens of times, you fucking NAZI moron

LOLOL

Fucking moron, you can quote it a million more times but you idiotically claiming it says the Senate shall try the president of the United States only serves to reveal your inability to comprehend English. What it actually states is: the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. That includes presidents and non-presidents.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

You just contradicted yourself in one post, Dumbass.

LOLOL

Only to fucking morons. Your confession is accepted.

What did I confess to, Simpleton?

 

[Faun]

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

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

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

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

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

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

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which the democrats have.

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

Nope. it doesn't. It says:

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

You keep trying to ignore that.

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

I quoted the fucking Constitution, you witless baboon.

Fucking moron, you falsely claimed the Constitution says the Senate shall try the president of the United States when it states no such thing. So when you "quote" the Constitution, you really have no idea what it means.

Here ya go, Simpleton....


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.

U.S. Senate: Constitution of the United States

Constitution of the United States

www.senate.gov

Hey, thanks for proving the Constitution doesn't state "the Senate shall try the president of the United States" and that bripat9643 is a fucking moron for thinking it does.

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.

That is exactly my point. Don't vote for him. End of the story.

We did that last time. It resulted in this....

Who the hell ever wants to go through that again??

haha, if that is the truth, W T F dems wants to impeachment then 14th him.

Again, to help prevent another seditious insurrection on our Capitol like we had a few weeks ago.

How would impeachment prevent that?

shouldn’t he be arrested for the crime of insurrection?

If he's convicted and prevented from running again, he can't run and lose again and then again convince his retarded base the election was stolen from him.

So you admit there was no actual crime.

Got it.

LOL

Who knows what I said that your deformed brain translated it into that ^^^

I assumed if you thought Trump actually committed sedition and insurrection you would want him locked up. My bad.

Nice that you don’t think he did that.

I never said he stormed the Capitol. I said he incited those who did. Which is a crime and yes, I believe he should be locked up for that. Does the brain-dead conservative understand now?

Why hasn’t Pedo Joe locked him up for trying to overthrow the govt?

LOL

Dumbfuck, an investigation has to precede filing charges. Are you new in this country??

Didn’t in Nazis’s House.

Dumbfuck, Congress doesn't file criminal charges such as what Twice Impeached Trump could be facing.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever???

Never said they did. Learn to read.

Well that's what we were talking about...

Faun: I said he incited those who did. Which is a crime and yes, I believe he should be locked up for that.​

​

Dumbfuck: Why hasn’t Pedo Joe locked him up for trying to overthrow the govt?​

​

Faun: Dumbfuck, an investigation has to precede filing charges.​

​

Dumbfuck: Derp​

TILT!

I accept your concession.

 

[Faun]

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

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

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

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

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

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

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which the democrats have.

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

Nope. it doesn't. It says:

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

You keep trying to ignore that.

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

I quoted the fucking Constitution, you witless baboon.

Fucking moron, you falsely claimed the Constitution says the Senate shall try the president of the United States when it states no such thing. So when you "quote" the Constitution, you really have no idea what it means.

It says exactly what I said it says. I quoted it over a dozen times, goat fucker.

Fucking moron, nowhere does the Constitution state the Senate shall try the president of the United States. It doesn't even state the Senate shall try all impeachments. You really are a fucking moron with zero cognitivity.

I've quoted where it says it dozens of times, you fucking NAZI moron

LOLOL

Fucking moron, you can quote it a million more times but you idiotically claiming it says the Senate shall try the president of the United States only serves to reveal your inability to comprehend English. What it actually states is: the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. That includes presidents and non-presidents.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

You just contradicted yourself in one post, Dumbass.

LOLOL

Only to fucking morons. Your confession is accepted.

What did I confess to, Simpleton?

Being a fucking moron who deludes himself into thinking I contradicted myself.

 

[Faun]

Its says the Senate shall preside of the impeach trial of a President, moron

Holyfuckingshit!

You're an even bigger fucking moron than I've been saying.

No, ya fucking moron, it doesn't say the Senate shall preside over the impeachment trial of a president.

It says the Chief Justice shall preside over the impeachment trial of a president...

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

And even that doesn't limit trial impeachments to only a president. It only limits who can preside over the trial if a president is on trial. It doesn't state who presides over an impeachment trial if it's a non-president. In those cases, that's when the Senate presides. Which is the case for Twice Impeached Trump and which is why Roberts, the Chief Justice, announced he will not be presiding over this trial -- because Twice Impeached Trump is no longer president. Not because it's unconstitutional to try him.

I have never seen anyone in my life as eager to parade their abject fucking moronity as you do on this forum.

Is it your intention to debate by making others feel sorry and embarrassed for you??

 

[Nostra]

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

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

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

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

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

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

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which the democrats have.

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

Nope. it doesn't. It says:

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

You keep trying to ignore that.

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

I quoted the fucking Constitution, you witless baboon.

Fucking moron, you falsely claimed the Constitution says the Senate shall try the president of the United States when it states no such thing. So when you "quote" the Constitution, you really have no idea what it means.

It says exactly what I said it says. I quoted it over a dozen times, goat fucker.

Fucking moron, nowhere does the Constitution state the Senate shall try the president of the United States. It doesn't even state the Senate shall try all impeachments. You really are a fucking moron with zero cognitivity.

I've quoted where it says it dozens of times, you fucking NAZI moron

LOLOL

Fucking moron, you can quote it a million more times but you idiotically claiming it says the Senate shall try the president of the United States only serves to reveal your inability to comprehend English. What it actually states is: the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. That includes presidents and non-presidents.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

You just contradicted yourself in one post, Dumbass.

LOLOL

Only to fucking morons. Your confession is accepted.

What did I confess to, Simpleton?

Being a fucking moron who deludes himself into thinking I contradicted myself.

Link?

 

[Faun]

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

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

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

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

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

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

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which the democrats have.

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

Nope. it doesn't. It says:

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

You keep trying to ignore that.

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

I quoted the fucking Constitution, you witless baboon.

Fucking moron, you falsely claimed the Constitution says the Senate shall try the president of the United States when it states no such thing. So when you "quote" the Constitution, you really have no idea what it means.

It says exactly what I said it says. I quoted it over a dozen times, goat fucker.

Fucking moron, nowhere does the Constitution state the Senate shall try the president of the United States. It doesn't even state the Senate shall try all impeachments. You really are a fucking moron with zero cognitivity.

I've quoted where it says it dozens of times, you fucking NAZI moron

LOLOL

Fucking moron, you can quote it a million more times but you idiotically claiming it says the Senate shall try the president of the United States only serves to reveal your inability to comprehend English. What it actually states is: the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. That includes presidents and non-presidents.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

You just contradicted yourself in one post, Dumbass.

LOLOL

Only to fucking morons. Your confession is accepted.

What did I confess to, Simpleton?

Being a fucking moron who deludes himself into thinking I contradicted myself.

Link?

LOL

You want a link to where you were being a fucking moron who deluded himself into thinking I contradicted myself??

Ok ...

You just contradicted yourself in one post, Dumbass.

 

[Nostra]

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

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

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

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

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

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

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which the democrats have.

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

Nope. it doesn't. It says:

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

You keep trying to ignore that.

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

I quoted the fucking Constitution, you witless baboon.

Fucking moron, you falsely claimed the Constitution says the Senate shall try the president of the United States when it states no such thing. So when you "quote" the Constitution, you really have no idea what it means.

It says exactly what I said it says. I quoted it over a dozen times, goat fucker.

Fucking moron, nowhere does the Constitution state the Senate shall try the president of the United States. It doesn't even state the Senate shall try all impeachments. You really are a fucking moron with zero cognitivity.

I've quoted where it says it dozens of times, you fucking NAZI moron

LOLOL

Fucking moron, you can quote it a million more times but you idiotically claiming it says the Senate shall try the president of the United States only serves to reveal your inability to comprehend English. What it actually states is: the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. That includes presidents and non-presidents.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

You just contradicted yourself in one post, Dumbass.

LOLOL

Only to fucking morons. Your confession is accepted.

What did I confess to, Simpleton?

Being a fucking moron who deludes himself into thinking I contradicted myself.

Link?

LOL

You want a link to where you were being a fucking moron who deluded himself into thinking I contradicted myself??

Ok ...

​

You just contradicted yourself in one post, Dumbass.​

​

​

​

You did contradict yourself, Chester.

You are just too stupid to realize it.

 

[Faun]

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

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

impeachment

Definition of impeachment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words the people must be prevented from voting.

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

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

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

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which the democrats have.

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

Nope. it doesn't. It says:

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

You keep trying to ignore that.

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

I quoted the fucking Constitution, you witless baboon.

Fucking moron, you falsely claimed the Constitution says the Senate shall try the president of the United States when it states no such thing. So when you "quote" the Constitution, you really have no idea what it means.

It says exactly what I said it says. I quoted it over a dozen times, goat fucker.

Fucking moron, nowhere does the Constitution state the Senate shall try the president of the United States. It doesn't even state the Senate shall try all impeachments. You really are a fucking moron with zero cognitivity.

I've quoted where it says it dozens of times, you fucking NAZI moron

LOLOL

Fucking moron, you can quote it a million more times but you idiotically claiming it says the Senate shall try the president of the United States only serves to reveal your inability to comprehend English. What it actually states is: the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. That includes presidents and non-presidents.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

You just contradicted yourself in one post, Dumbass.

LOLOL

Only to fucking morons. Your confession is accepted.

What did I confess to, Simpleton?

Being a fucking moron who deludes himself into thinking I contradicted myself.

Link?

LOL

You want a link to where you were being a fucking moron who deluded himself into thinking I contradicted myself??

Ok ...

​

You just contradicted yourself in one post, Dumbass.​

​

​

​

You did contradict yourself, Chester.

You are just too stupid to realize it.

 

[DrLove]

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.

But it is. A rhetorical question is not really a question.
I'm not surprised you don't know. In this case it's more of a statement than anything else.

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)

Forensic Audit of the Dominion Voting Equipment in Michigan Shows ‘Intentional Errors’ - AMAC - The Association of Mature American Citizens

The ASOG team, led by Russell J. Ramsland, Jr., found that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inhere

amac.us

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.

Not really. The forensic audit was science driven.
A hand tally in Antrim county was run by Michigan democrat officials looking to hide their corruption.
Read the Supreme Court's analysis of the Michigan forensic audit.
You must be very stupid.

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.

The answer remains yes. The issue of Zuckererg funding and setting up the theft of the
presidential election has not been decided in court.
You hate Trump. When has Trump gone to a real court room to decide if he has been an ally of Putin or not?
Or all the other garbage the left throws at him.
You have a very dishonest sliding scale of what constitutes "truth". Piss off.

WTF?? You're still pedaling the lies about Dominion??? Haven't you heard? It was all fake news.

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

​

American Thinker and contributors Andrea Widburg, R.D. Wedge, Brian Tomlinson, and Peggy Ryan have published pieces on www.AmericanThinker.com that falsely accuse US Dominion Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively “Dominion”) of conspiring to steal the November 2020 election from Donald Trump. These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently.​

​

These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims.​

​

It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error. ​

They made them post it to avoid a lawsuit? Sue the bastards anyway. They don't call it American STINKER for nuttin' !!

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks.

 

[Faun]

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.

But it is. A rhetorical question is not really a question.
I'm not surprised you don't know. In this case it's more of a statement than anything else.

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)

Forensic Audit of the Dominion Voting Equipment in Michigan Shows ‘Intentional Errors’ - AMAC - The Association of Mature American Citizens

The ASOG team, led by Russell J. Ramsland, Jr., found that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inhere

amac.us

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.

Not really. The forensic audit was science driven.
A hand tally in Antrim county was run by Michigan democrat officials looking to hide their corruption.
Read the Supreme Court's analysis of the Michigan forensic audit.
You must be very stupid.

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.

The answer remains yes. The issue of Zuckererg funding and setting up the theft of the
presidential election has not been decided in court.
You hate Trump. When has Trump gone to a real court room to decide if he has been an ally of Putin or not?
Or all the other garbage the left throws at him.
You have a very dishonest sliding scale of what constitutes "truth". Piss off.

WTF?? You're still pedaling the lies about Dominion??? Haven't you heard? It was all fake news.

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

​

American Thinker and contributors Andrea Widburg, R.D. Wedge, Brian Tomlinson, and Peggy Ryan have published pieces on www.AmericanThinker.com that falsely accuse US Dominion Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively “Dominion”) of conspiring to steal the November 2020 election from Donald Trump. These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently.​

​

These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims.​

​

It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error. ​

They made them post it to avoid a lawsuit? Sue the bastards anyway. They don't call it American STINKER for nuttin' !!

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks.

That page is going to be used in the suits against Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and others. And unlike those two charlatans, they're going to be able to present evidence in court to win their case.

 

[DrLove]

That page is going to be used in the suits against Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and others. And unlike those two charlatans, they're going to be able to present evidence in court to win their case.

Toss 'em in Shuriff Joe's tent city, make 'em do hard labor in the sweltering Arizona heat and eat 37 cent meals.

 

[forkup]

Read the Supreme Court's appraisal of the Michigan forensic audit of Dominion.

This is not it.
Forensic Audit of the Dominion Voting Equipment in Michigan Shows ‘Intentional Errors’ - AMAC - The Association of Mature American Citizens
Luckily it did give me something to go by. So first this.
-What it is is an article about a report that was laughed out of court. Scanned-from-a-Xerox-Multifunction-Printer.pdf (democracydocket.com)
-The guy that led the team that did your "scientific report" lied about his credentials and has NONE in data analysis.
We have no record of an individual by the name of Russell James Ramsland having been employed by NASA. This does not preclude the possibility that Mr. Ramsland worked for a company with which NASA contracted, but we would not have those employment records. Fact Check: Cyber Analyst Did NOT Prove Dominion Software Used In Antrim County, Michigan Was Designed For Fraud | Lead Stories
-It was debunked by the election board who unlike him was willing to declare the rebuttal under oath. SOS Benson Response Antrim County (michigan.gov)
-It was debunked by doing a hand tally. Something that unlike what you claim can NOT be done by only Democrats.
-And lastly, it was debunked by Newsmax. No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election. Facts About Dominion, Smartmatic You Should Know | Newsmax.com

 

[Lesh]

Imbecile, Twice Impeached Trump was not a private citizen when he was impeached.

Nor would that matter. As we have noted over and over, there is precedent for Impeaching and trying a FORMER Executive branch office holder

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

This is not it.

But this is.

Dominion Audit Points to Systemic Fraud in US Election - Vision Times

Evidence of fraud in a recent Dominion audit for Antrim County, Michigan prompts recommendation that President Trump invoke his 2018 executive order on foreign interference.

visiontimes.com

Don't bother me again unless Dominion actually goes to court. Their threats are not going to trial
and legal filings are not going to trial

 

[forkup]

This is not it.

But this is.

Dominion Audit Points to Systemic Fraud in US Election - Vision Times

Evidence of fraud in a recent Dominion audit for Antrim County, Michigan prompts recommendation that President Trump invoke his 2018 executive order on foreign interference.

visiontimes.com

Don't bother me again unless Dominion actually goes to court. Their threats are not going to trial
and legal filings are not going to trial

Really???
Feel free to point out where in your article there is a link or even a mention of an appraisal of your "scientific" data analyst by the supreme court?

Read the Supreme Court's appraisal of the Michigan forensic audit of Dominion.

As for me not bothering you. I suggest you stop replying then. As long as you keep on posting stuff, I will keep on replying to you and expose how little of what you believe is based on objective reality.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

This is not it.

But this is.

Dominion Audit Points to Systemic Fraud in US Election - Vision Times

Evidence of fraud in a recent Dominion audit for Antrim County, Michigan prompts recommendation that President Trump invoke his 2018 executive order on foreign interference.

visiontimes.com

Don't bother me again unless Dominion actually goes to court. Their threats are not going to trial
and legal filings are not going to trial

Really???
Feel free to point out where in your article there is a link or even a mention of an appraisal of your "scientific" data analyst by the supreme court?

Read the Supreme Court's appraisal of the Michigan forensic audit of Dominion.

As for me not bothering you. I suggest you stop replying then. As long as you keep on posting stuff, I will keep on replying to you and expose how little of what you believe is based on objective reality.

Damning Information in Michigan Forensic Audit of Dominion Voting Machines - NRN • New Right Network

Evidence from the forensic audit in Michigan revealed damning information regarding the 2020 election and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.

newrightnetwork.com

I don't mind you replying. You are entertaining. But what you reply with is garbage.
What some Michigan country judge thinks of their democrat controlled recount
is meaningless.

Michigan is where their Secretary of State was a product of the George Soros
program to install more radical leftists in state offices (like this woman Jocelyn Benson).

To No One's Surprise - Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson Is A Product of a George Soros Secretary of State Program from 2010 | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

To no one’s surprise, Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was backed for her current position by a George Soros connected entity. Michigan Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, has a storied history of ‘questionable’ activity. We first heard of her when she misprinted military ballots and...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

This is not it.

But this is.

Dominion Audit Points to Systemic Fraud in US Election - Vision Times

Evidence of fraud in a recent Dominion audit for Antrim County, Michigan prompts recommendation that President Trump invoke his 2018 executive order on foreign interference.

visiontimes.com

Don't bother me again unless Dominion actually goes to court. Their threats are not going to trial
and legal filings are not going to trial

Really???
Feel free to point out where in your article there is a link or even a mention of an appraisal of your "scientific" data analyst by the supreme court?

Read the Supreme Court's appraisal of the Michigan forensic audit of Dominion.

As for me not bothering you. I suggest you stop replying then. As long as you keep on posting stuff, I will keep on replying to you and expose how little of what you believe is based on objective reality.

Damning Information in Michigan Forensic Audit of Dominion Voting Machines - NRN • New Right Network

Evidence from the forensic audit in Michigan revealed damning information regarding the 2020 election and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.

newrightnetwork.com

I don't mind you replying. You are entertaining. But what you reply with is garbage.
What some Michigan country judge thinks of their democrat controlled recount
is meaningless.

Michigan is where their Secretary of State was a product of the George Soros
program to install more radical leftists in state offices (like this woman Jocelyn Benson).

To No One's Surprise - Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson Is A Product of a George Soros Secretary of State Program from 2010 | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

To no one’s surprise, Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was backed for her current position by a George Soros connected entity. Michigan Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, has a storied history of ‘questionable’ activity. We first heard of her when she misprinted military ballots and...

www.thegatewaypundit.com