Serious Question

[9thIDdoc]

“If it were unconstitutional to finish impeachment proceedings for a former official, then Congress would never be able to ban officials from future office: the subject official would just resign moments before the Senate vote. said. In order to give meaning to the constitutional text, the official can’t control that process of disqualification for serious misconduct. Which means it has to apply to former officials as well.”

Impeachment exists for the express purpose of removing a criminal from office. Once they are out of office it is pointless. Presidents are already limited to two terms and Congress has no authority to commandeer the people's function in determining who should be President. Instead we should be considering limits to the number of terms Congressmen and women are allowed to "serve". After a lifetime in office they manage to vote themselves nearly unlimited wealth and power and forget what they are supposed to be there for.

It most certainly is not pointless if it prevents a criminal from running for election later, as Trump has made clear it is his intention to do.

Certainly is pointless to try to remove from office someone who is not in office. What exactly gives Congress the authority to do that? Or the authority for Congress to in any way penalize even a sitting President without successfully finding him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors? You are slurping down the Kool Ade.

 

[OKTexas]

I just heard the Chief Justice said he won't be presiding on the sham trial, he said he only presides over an impeachment of "THE" president, which at this point in time is quid pro joe.

..

Funny, I heard Roberts told some associates “I can’t wait to nail the bastards ass” then high-fived Sonia Sotomayor.

Payback’s a bitch!

I can cite two senators who confirmed it, can you?

.

There are arguments on both sides. I think it will ultimately be up to SCOTUS to decide on the Constitutionality of a trial If it is challenged. Would you agree?

No, because there will be no injury, they don't have the votes to convict.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are arguments on both sides. I think it will ultimately be up to SCOTUS to decide on the Constitutionality of a trial If it is challenged. Would you agree?

The Constitution requires the chief justice to preside, and he said he's not going to preside over an impeachment of a President who is already gone. Now if they proceed anyway, the impeachment is unconstitutional.

 

[DJT for Life]

You heard wrong...Roberts will not hear the impeachment.

Gotta link?

Try this...

Impeachment Problem? Chief Justice Roberts May Not Have Constitutional Authority To Preside At Trial Of FORMER President

The Constitution says 'hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside' -- but Trump will not be 'the President' during the upcoming trial. If Roberts refuses to preside at upcoming Senate trial as beyond his constitutional authority -- as

legalinsurrection.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It most certainly is not pointless if it prevents a criminal from running for election later, as Trump has made clear it is his intention to do.

Nobody knows what Trump is going to do and he's never been convicted of a crime in his life. So now what?

 

[Dragonlady]

“If it were unconstitutional to finish impeachment proceedings for a former official, then Congress would never be able to ban officials from future office: the subject official would just resign moments before the Senate vote. said. In order to give meaning to the constitutional text, the official can’t control that process of disqualification for serious misconduct. Which means it has to apply to former officials as well.”

Impeachment exists for the express purpose of removing a criminal from office. Once they are out of office it is pointless. Presidents are already limited to two terms and Congress has no authority to commandeer the people's function in determining who should be President. Instead we should be considering limits to the number of terms Congressmen and women are allowed to "serve". After a lifetime in office they manage to vote themselves nearly unlimited wealth and power and forget what they are supposed to be there for.

It most certainly is not pointless if it prevents a criminal from running for election later, as Trump has made clear it is his intention to do.

Ain't gonna happen you foreign bitch. They don't have the votes.
.

I don't think it's done deal that he gets off the hook. With Wall Street and Corporate America rapidly defunding the Republican Party, unless Republicans disavow Trump and remove the cancer of white supremacy and the crazy of Q-anon from the party, aka "Trumpism", they're not going to have a party.

The American Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street investment banking firms have seen European and Asian consumers and investors boycotting the USA because of political instability, trade wars, and quite frankly, untrustworthy and unreliable business partners.

The Republican Party has been openly embracing authoritarianism, and the crazy. That's not good for business, investment, or the wealthy donors. One way of showing the donors that they had disavowed Trump and Trumpism, would be to impeach Trump.

 

[Dragonlady]

It most certainly is not pointless if it prevents a criminal from running for election later, as Trump has made clear it is his intention to do.

Nobody knows what Trump is going to do and he's never been convicted of a crime in his life. So now what?

Not yet, but he will be. They're not going to let him settle without admitting guilt this time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, what’s next is that he’s going to trial.

Nobody goes to trial unless they are charged and convicted of something. But hey! While I got you here, can you tell me how it feels to be bent over by slow Joe and getting it where it hurts when he cutoff your Keystone line? Your leader doesn't seem too happy about it. Enjoy your new fuel costs.

 

[MadDog]

You heard wrong...Roberts will not hear the impeachment.

Gotta link?

Try this...

Impeachment Problem? Chief Justice Roberts May Not Have Constitutional Authority To Preside At Trial Of FORMER President

The Constitution says 'hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside' -- but Trump will not be 'the President' during the upcoming trial. If Roberts refuses to preside at upcoming Senate trial as beyond his constitutional authority -- as

legalinsurrection.com

Didn’t see anything to suggest Roberts has made any statements at all.

 

[MadDog]

I just heard the Chief Justice said he won't be presiding on the sham trial, he said he only presides over an impeachment of "THE" president, which at this point in time is quid pro joe.

..

Funny, I heard Roberts told some associates “I can’t wait to nail the bastards ass” then high-fived Sonia Sotomayor.

Payback’s a bitch!

I can cite two senators who confirmed it, can you?

.

There are arguments on both sides. I think it will ultimately be up to SCOTUS to decide on the Constitutionality of a trial If it is challenged. Would you agree?

No, because there will be no injury, they don't have the votes to convict.

.

Looks like constitutionality is under dispute. Who will decide?

 

[OKTexas]

“If it were unconstitutional to finish impeachment proceedings for a former official, then Congress would never be able to ban officials from future office: the subject official would just resign moments before the Senate vote. said. In order to give meaning to the constitutional text, the official can’t control that process of disqualification for serious misconduct. Which means it has to apply to former officials as well.”

Impeachment exists for the express purpose of removing a criminal from office. Once they are out of office it is pointless. Presidents are already limited to two terms and Congress has no authority to commandeer the people's function in determining who should be President. Instead we should be considering limits to the number of terms Congressmen and women are allowed to "serve". After a lifetime in office they manage to vote themselves nearly unlimited wealth and power and forget what they are supposed to be there for.

It most certainly is not pointless if it prevents a criminal from running for election later, as Trump has made clear it is his intention to do.

Ain't gonna happen you foreign bitch. They don't have the votes.
.

I don't think it's done deal that he gets off the hook. With Wall Street and Corporate America rapidly defunding the Republican Party, unless Republicans disavow Trump and remove the cancer of white supremacy and the crazy of Q-anon from the party, aka "Trumpism", they're not going to have a party.

The American Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street investment banking firms have seen European and Asian consumers and investors boycotting the USA because of political instability, trade wars, and quite frankly, untrustworthy and unreliable business partners.

The Republican Party has been openly embracing authoritarianism, and the crazy. That's not good for business, investment, or the wealthy donors. One way of showing the donors that they had disavowed Trump and Trumpism, would be to impeach Trump.

When law enforcement are called and court documents are cited, that will prove the capitol attack was planned days in advance and Trumps speech didn't have a damn thing to do with it, he will be acquitted, again. I would venture to say even a few dem will vote for acquittal.

But hey, feel free to keep the hate, it fits you.

.

 

[OKTexas]

I just heard the Chief Justice said he won't be presiding on the sham trial, he said he only presides over an impeachment of "THE" president, which at this point in time is quid pro joe.

..

Funny, I heard Roberts told some associates “I can’t wait to nail the bastards ass” then high-fived Sonia Sotomayor.

Payback’s a bitch!

I can cite two senators who confirmed it, can you?

.

There are arguments on both sides. I think it will ultimately be up to SCOTUS to decide on the Constitutionality of a trial If it is challenged. Would you agree?

No, because there will be no injury, they don't have the votes to convict.

.

Looks like constitutionality is under dispute. Who will decide?

That would only be determined if someone with standing files suit.

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

“If it were unconstitutional to finish impeachment proceedings for a former official, then Congress would never be able to ban officials from future office: the subject official would just resign moments before the Senate vote. said. In order to give meaning to the constitutional text, the official can’t control that process of disqualification for serious misconduct. Which means it has to apply to former officials as well.”

Impeachment exists for the express purpose of removing a criminal from office. Once they are out of office it is pointless. Presidents are already limited to two terms and Congress has no authority to commandeer the people's function in determining who should be President. Instead we should be considering limits to the number of terms Congressmen and women are allowed to "serve". After a lifetime in office they manage to vote themselves nearly unlimited wealth and power and forget what they are supposed to be there for.

It most certainly is not pointless if it prevents a criminal from running for election later, as Trump has made clear it is his intention to do.

Ain't gonna happen you foreign bitch. They don't have the votes.
.

I don't think it's done deal that he gets off the hook. With Wall Street and Corporate America rapidly defunding the Republican Party, unless Republicans disavow Trump and remove the cancer of white supremacy and the crazy of Q-anon from the party, aka "Trumpism", they're not going to have a party.

The American Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street investment banking firms have seen European and Asian consumers and investors boycotting the USA because of political instability, trade wars, and quite frankly, untrustworthy and unreliable business partners.

The Republican Party has been openly embracing authoritarianism, and the crazy. That's not good for business, investment, or the wealthy donors. One way of showing the donors that they had disavowed Trump and Trumpism, would be to impeach Trump.

You think recent events will help "stabilize" America? I think you are delusional. I think that if Trump thinks it is worth the effort he could start his own political party that would crush Dims and GOP alike. I hope he does and grooms Ivanka to run for President next time around. Of course that only matters if the current alleged government lasts another four years which is not a given.

 

[MadDog]

“If it were unconstitutional to finish impeachment proceedings for a former official, then Congress would never be able to ban officials from future office: the subject official would just resign moments before the Senate vote. said. In order to give meaning to the constitutional text, the official can’t control that process of disqualification for serious misconduct. Which means it has to apply to former officials as well.”

Impeachment exists for the express purpose of removing a criminal from office. Once they are out of office it is pointless. Presidents are already limited to two terms and Congress has no authority to commandeer the people's function in determining who should be President. Instead we should be considering limits to the number of terms Congressmen and women are allowed to "serve". After a lifetime in office they manage to vote themselves nearly unlimited wealth and power and forget what they are supposed to be there for.

It most certainly is not pointless if it prevents a criminal from running for election later, as Trump has made clear it is his intention to do.

Ain't gonna happen you foreign bitch. They don't have the votes.
.

I don't think it's done deal that he gets off the hook. With Wall Street and Corporate America rapidly defunding the Republican Party, unless Republicans disavow Trump and remove the cancer of white supremacy and the crazy of Q-anon from the party, aka "Trumpism", they're not going to have a party.

The American Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street investment banking firms have seen European and Asian consumers and investors boycotting the USA because of political instability, trade wars, and quite frankly, untrustworthy and unreliable business partners.

The Republican Party has been openly embracing authoritarianism, and the crazy. That's not good for business, investment, or the wealthy donors. One way of showing the donors that they had disavowed Trump and Trumpism, would be to impeach Trump.

When law enforcement are called and court documents are cited, that will prove the capitol attack was planned days in advance and Trumps speech didn't have a damn thing to do with it, he will be acquitted, again. I would venture to say even a few dem will vote for acquittal.

But hey, feel free to keep the hate, it fits you.

.

“If it were unconstitutional to finish impeachment proceedings for a former official, then Congress would never be able to ban officials from future office: the subject official would just resign moments before the Senate vote. said. In order to give meaning to the constitutional text, the official can’t control that process of disqualification for serious misconduct. Which means it has to apply to former officials as well.”

Impeachment exists for the express purpose of removing a criminal from office. Once they are out of office it is pointless. Presidents are already limited to two terms and Congress has no authority to commandeer the people's function in determining who should be President. Instead we should be considering limits to the number of terms Congressmen and women are allowed to "serve". After a lifetime in office they manage to vote themselves nearly unlimited wealth and power and forget what they are supposed to be there for.

It most certainly is not pointless if it prevents a criminal from running for election later, as Trump has made clear it is his intention to do.

Ain't gonna happen you foreign bitch. They don't have the votes.
.

I don't think it's done deal that he gets off the hook. With Wall Street and Corporate America rapidly defunding the Republican Party, unless Republicans disavow Trump and remove the cancer of white supremacy and the crazy of Q-anon from the party, aka "Trumpism", they're not going to have a party.

The American Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street investment banking firms have seen European and Asian consumers and investors boycotting the USA because of political instability, trade wars, and quite frankly, untrustworthy and unreliable business partners.

The Republican Party has been openly embracing authoritarianism, and the crazy. That's not good for business, investment, or the wealthy donors. One way of showing the donors that they had disavowed Trump and Trumpism, would be to impeach Trump.

When law enforcement are called and court documents are cited, that will prove the capitol attack was planned days in advance and Trumps speech didn't have a damn thing to do with it, he will be acquitted, again. I would venture to say even a few dem will vote for acquittal.

But hey, feel free to keep the hate, it fits you.

.

Preplanning doesnt preclude Trump from be responsible in part. He told everyone to come to Washington, fired up everyone and issued the order to “CHARGE”. Then he went to the White House and gloated about the riot.

if someone organizes the troops and you provide the ammunition and the attack order, it’s on him

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You think recent events will help "stabilize" America? I think you are delusional. I think that if Trump thinks it is worth the effort he could start his own political party that would crush Dims and GOP alike. I hope he does and grooms Ivanka to run for President next time around. Of course that only matters if the current alleged government lasts another four years which is not a given.

Ivanka is pretty much a liberal so she would stand no chance. After all, who in Trump's family would even want that job after all he's been through.

 

[MadDog]

I just heard the Chief Justice said he won't be presiding on the sham trial, he said he only presides over an impeachment of "THE" president, which at this point in time is quid pro joe.

..

Funny, I heard Roberts told some associates “I can’t wait to nail the bastards ass” then high-fived Sonia Sotomayor.

Payback’s a bitch!

I can cite two senators who confirmed it, can you?

.

There are arguments on both sides. I think it will ultimately be up to SCOTUS to decide on the Constitutionality of a trial If it is challenged. Would you agree?

No, because there will be no injury, they don't have the votes to convict.

.

Looks like constitutionality is under dispute. Who will decide?

That would only be determined if someone with standing files suit.

.

i agree. Do you think someone will? If that happens, who will they file with?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Preplanning doesnt preclude Trump from be responsible in part. He told everyone to come to Washington, fired up everyone and issued the order to “CHARGE”. Then he went to the White House and gloated about the riot.

if someone organizes the troops and you provide the ammunition and the attack order, it’s on him

Except for the fact Trump never did any of that. Using the word "charge" does not mean start a riot, break down doors, injure or kill people.

 

[OKTexas]

You heard wrong...Roberts will not hear the impeachment.

Gotta link?

Try this...

Impeachment Problem? Chief Justice Roberts May Not Have Constitutional Authority To Preside At Trial Of FORMER President

The Constitution says 'hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside' -- but Trump will not be 'the President' during the upcoming trial. If Roberts refuses to preside at upcoming Senate trial as beyond his constitutional authority -- as

legalinsurrection.com

Didn’t see anything to suggest Roberts has made any statements at all.

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial

Constitutionally-speaking, Chief Justice John Roberts is meant to preside over President Trump's impeachment trial, but he apparently wants out, Politico reports.Multiple Republican and Democratic sources have reportedly told Politico that Roberts is seeking a way to avoid the job because of how...

news.yahoo.com

.

 

[MadDog]

Preplanning doesnt preclude Trump from be responsible in part. He told everyone to come to Washington, fired up everyone and issued the order to “CHARGE”. Then he went to the White House and gloated about the riot.

if someone organizes the troops and you provide the ammunition and the attack order, it’s on him

Except for the fact Trump never did any of that. Using the word "charge" does not mean start a riot, break down doors, injure or kill people.

Didnt LITERALLY mean the word charge but he didn’t tell them to take control of the government and stop the certification. Do you think Trump believed the crowd was so nuanced they thought he wasn’t asking for violence? That a rabid crowd would heed one halfhearted sentence asking them to be peaceful.

 

[MadDog]

You heard wrong...Roberts will not hear the impeachment.

Gotta link?

Try this...

Impeachment Problem? Chief Justice Roberts May Not Have Constitutional Authority To Preside At Trial Of FORMER President

The Constitution says 'hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside' -- but Trump will not be 'the President' during the upcoming trial. If Roberts refuses to preside at upcoming Senate trial as beyond his constitutional authority -- as

legalinsurrection.com

Didn’t see anything to suggest Roberts has made any statements at all.

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial

Constitutionally-speaking, Chief Justice John Roberts is meant to preside over President Trump's impeachment trial, but he apparently wants out, Politico reports.Multiple Republican and Democratic sources have reportedly told Politico that Roberts is seeking a way to avoid the job because of how...

news.yahoo.com

.

Thanks for the link. If push comes to shove, I think he’ll view it as his duty and he’ll preside. But this is a matter of fact, not opinion. We‘ll see how it plays out.