Serious Question

“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

He also didn't call out the National Guard. Pence had to do that. Trump was too busy watching the show on TV and tweeting his love for the attackers.
 
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
Its straight out of article 1 and article 2
of the constitution.

Article I - the House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment
Article I - The Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachments
Article 2 - 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

From the senates own rules for trying impeachments, when articles of impeachment are presented to them, they shall schedule a trial that begins at 1:00 pm on the date they determine.

As they have historically done, once an officer of the US has been impeached, the trial follows, even if the subject resigns and is no longer an officer of the US.
 
“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

He also didn't call out the National Guard. Pence had to do that. Trump was too busy watching the show on TV and tweeting his love for the attackers.


Stupid little foreign commie, Pence didn't have the authority to "call out" anyone. Well except maybe his lunch waiter.

.
 
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.

.
That's a failed legal argument, since what Trump said on the 6th was just a final incitement. Trump has been inciting his followers to interfere in the election certifications, the electoral vote and the electoral vote certification in congress.

Everything Trump has said since he lost the election in November is evidence of his intent to mobilize his followers to overturn the election he lost.
 
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
Its straight out of article 1 and article 2
of the constitution.

Article I - the House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment
Article I - The Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachments
Article 2 - 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

From the senates own rules for trying impeachments, when articles of impeachment are presented to them, they shall schedule a trial that begins at 1:00 pm on the date they determine.

As they have historically done, once an officer of the US has been impeached, the trial follows, even if the subject resigns and is no longer an officer of the US.


All that has been covered multiple times in this thread, perhaps you should review the thread before jumping in.

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

True, but President Trump did nothing remotely like that. He should be held responsible for what he actually did; not imaginary actions.
 
As they have historically done, once an officer of the US has been impeached, the trial follows, even if the subject resigns and is no longer an officer of the US.

All that has been covered multiple times in this thread, perhaps you should review the thread before jumping in.

.
What argument did they give to say the senates rules were unconstitutional.
 
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.

.
That's a failed legal argument, since what Trump said on the 6th was just a final incitement. Trump has been inciting his followers to interfere in the election certifications, the electoral vote and the electoral vote certification in congress.

Everything Trump has said since he lost the election in November is evidence of his intent to mobilize his followers to overturn the election he lost.


Sure, if you ignore that fact that the capitol siege began before Trump spoke. But feel free to keep lying, it's expected.

.
 
As they have historically done, once an officer of the US has been impeached, the trial follows, even if the subject resigns and is no longer an officer of the US.

All that has been covered multiple times in this thread, perhaps you should review the thread before jumping in.

.
What argument did they give to say the senates rules were unconstitutional.


The question is jurisdiction to put a civilian on trial. They don't have it.

.
 
Sure, if you ignore that fact that the capitol siege began before Trump spoke. But feel free to keep lying, it's expected.

.
Actually Trump has been speaking of overturning the election by any means necessary ever since he lost on November 7th. Which explains why his followers started planning well before his rally on January 6th.

Trumps incitement before January 6th are just as applicable as those on the morning of January 6th.
 
As they have historically done, once an officer of the US has been impeached, the trial follows, even if the subject resigns and is no longer an officer of the US.
What argument did they give to say the senates rules were unconstitutional.
The question is jurisdiction to put a civilian on trial. They don't have it.
Article 1, the senate shall have sole power to try impeachments.

Trump was impeached.
The senate is thereby compelled to hold a trial.
Otherwise it would be a violation of due process.
 
That's a failed legal argument, since what Trump said on the 6th was just a final incitement. Trump has been inciting his followers to interfere in the election certifications, the electoral vote and the electoral vote certification in congress.

Everything Trump has said since he lost the election in November is evidence of his intent to mobilize his followers to overturn the election he lost.

Correct, but in a legal way.
 
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.

In our system of governance, you need actual evidence. How commies decide what he really meant is not evidence of anything. Now if he used words like break down the door, kill people, do anything you have to do legal or illegal, then you have a case. But Thought Police is still a segment of a book, and not what we should be using in the United States of America unless you can demonstrate you have mind readers in your party.
 
Sure, if you ignore that fact that the capitol siege began before Trump spoke. But feel free to keep lying, it's expected.

.
Actually Trump has been speaking of overturning the election by any means necessary ever since he lost on November 7th. Which explains why his followers started planning well before his rally on January 6th.

Trumps incitement before January 6th are just as applicable as those on the morning of January 6th.


Damn the election I voted in ended Nov 3rd not the 7th. I guess it would have been a good thing if the house commies hadn't been in such a fucking hurry. They failed to mention any of the previous speeches in their article. I guess that just proves they're no smarter than their no information voters. LMAO

.
 
Last edited:
As they have historically done, once an officer of the US has been impeached, the trial follows, even if the subject resigns and is no longer an officer of the US.
What argument did they give to say the senates rules were unconstitutional.
The question is jurisdiction to put a civilian on trial. They don't have it.
Article 1, the senate shall have sole power to try impeachments.

Trump was impeached.
The senate is thereby compelled to hold a trial.
Otherwise it would be a violation of due process.


Actually they're not, and there is an historical precedent not to hold a trial at all. See the impeachment of William Blount.


The second resolution passed, 14-11, on January 11, 1799:

The court is of opinion that the matter alleged in the plea of the defendant is sufficient in law to show that this court ought not to hold jurisdiction of the said impeachment, and that the said impeachment is dismissed.

The case was dismissed and the trial brought to an end on January 14, 1799.


.
 
Damn the election I voted in ended Nov 3rd not the 7th. I guess it would have been a good thing if the house commies hadn't been in such a fucking hurry. The failed to mention any of the previous speeches in their article.

.
That's what a trial is for. To introduce into evidence facts not reported in the indictment. These statements can include what Trump said as evidence of his intent to incite insurrection. And the ways in which he communicates those intentions to his target audience.

So when Trump told his followers to peaceably go to the capitol, it can be taken the same way as when Trump told the Georgia sec of state to find 11,780 votes.

In both cases Trump intended the person/people he was instructing, to break the law, as there was no legal means to accomplish what wanted them to do.
 
Damn the election I voted in ended Nov 3rd not the 7th. I guess it would have been a good thing if the house commies hadn't been in such a fucking hurry. The failed to mention any of the previous speeches in their article.

.
That's what a trial is for. To introduce into evidence facts not reported in the indictment. These statements can include what Trump said as evidence of his intent to incite insurrection. And the ways in which he communicates those intentions to his target audience.

So when Trump told his followers to peaceably go to the capitol, it can be taken the same way as when Trump told the Georgia sec of state to find 11,780 votes.

In both cases Trump intended the person/people he was instructing, to break the law, as there was no legal means to accomplish what wanted them to do.


Damn troll you just don't give up do ya. Everything Trump did was within the legal framework of this country, do you commies ever stop lying?

.
 
Sure, if you ignore that fact that the capitol siege began before Trump spoke. But feel free to keep lying, it's expected.

.
From Wikipedia.

Rudy and Don Jr speak before Donald Rudy calls for Trial by Combat

  • 12:00 p.m.: President Trump begins his over one-hour speech.[15] He repeats allegations that the election was stolen, criticizing Vice President Mike Pence by name a half-dozen times, accusing fellow Republicans of not doing enough to back up his allegations, and stating that he would walk with the crowd to the Capitol, though he retires to the White House immediately after the speech.[17]
  • 12:30 p.m.: Crowds of pro-Trump supporters gather outside the U.S. Capitol building.[18]
  • 12:49 p.m.:
    • Capitol Police respond to a report of a possible explosive device at the Republican National Committee Headquarters, which is later identified as a pipe bomb. Shortly afterwards, a second pipe bomb is found at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee.[19][18] Buildings next to these headquarters are evacuated.[20]
    • A police sweep of the area identifies a vehicle which held one handgun, an M4 Carbine assault rifle with loaded magazine, and components for 11 Molotov cocktails with homemade napalm. Around 6:30 p.m, the driver was apprehended carrying two unregistered handguns as he returned to the vehicle. He is not suspected of planting the pipe bombs.[20][21]
  • 12:53 p.m.: Rioters overwhelm police along the outer perimeter west of the Capitol building, pushing aside temporary fencing. By 1:03 p.m., rioters have overrun three additional layers of barricades and have forced police officers to the base of the west Capitol steps.[19]
  • 1:00 p.m.:
    • Senators and Vice President Pence walk to the House chamber.[15]
 
Actually they're not, and there is an historical precedent not to hold a trial at all. See the impeachment of William Blount.


The second resolution passed, 14-11, on January 11, 1799:

The court is of opinion that the matter alleged in the plea of the defendant is sufficient in law to show that this court ought not to hold jurisdiction of the said impeachment, and that the said impeachment is dismissed.

The case was dismissed and the trial brought to an end on January 14, 1799.


.

You know that Blount had been expelled from the senate.

On July 8, after hearing two of Blount's colleagues testify that the letter was in his handwriting and listening to a response by defense counsel, the Senate took up its committee's report. The committee had cited Blount's conduct as “entirely inconsistent with his public trust" and recommended that he be expelled from the Senate. By a vote of 25 to 1, the members upheld the report in the first expulsion of a United States senator.

Thus consistent with Article I, where the senate has sole jurisdiction over its members.

The house had no jurisdiction to impeach a senator, as a senator is not a civil officer, subject to confirmation in the senate.

The same would apply if the house wanted to impeach one of their own. They could not yield a trial to the senate because article 1 says that the house had sole control of it's members.

So your example is one of an error by the house being corrected by the senate, not that the senate can't try a civilian.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top