Serious Question

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
744
Reaction score
392
Points
883
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?

.

Former President Donald Trump can be convicted in an impeachment trial for his role in inciting the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6 even though he is no longer in office, a bipartisan group of constitutional law scholars wrote in a letter Thursday.

“We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation,” wrote the signatories, which include the co-founder and other members of the conservative Federalist Society legal group. “But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.”


Seems pretty solid to me :dunno:
Just a load of rubbish, providing yet more proof that we're now just a larger version of Venezuela, and you and your Establishment suckups are just a collection of pathological degenerates with the mentalities of spoiled 10 year olds.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,829
Reaction score
1,153
Points
195
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?

.
Well, and even though I am on Trump's side here, seems like once someone has served as POTUS he's sort of considered a President for life. I don't agree with it, but the bad guys are gonna take this one to the limits and beyond. I'll even go so far myself as to say Trump brought this on himself in the sense that he could have declared martial law, called up the regular Army, and wiped our government clean of ALL traitors. In the process he might have even avoided a second impeachment trial. Instead he handed our government and all of us right over to the most evil incarnation of US Government in America's history. I won't shed one tear for any demise Trump might meet at the hands of the democrats and traitor republicans. He had the chance to possibly save our civilization and he walked away. Better to die a hero than be drawn and quartered as some kind of half-assed martyr.
You mean by commiting a military coup he would have saved the country? What country are you referring to? Zimbabwe?

The coup attempt was the fraudulent election. Your Zimbabwe was engineered by the democrats and their republican turncoat allies. Our nation was founded in rebellion. To deny that is to deny your own history and national identity.
Calling an election you lost fraudulent doesn’t make it so. As is evident by the claims being rejected by the judiciary, the DOJ, the lawyers representing the plaintiff for election disputes (even Powell retracted her case) and now hard-line Conservative "news" outlets like American thinker and OAAN. The only places people insist it happened is the dark reccesses of the internet. If your friends and enemies allnsay the same thing you probably should take notice.

By the way for someone who doesn't believe in a POTUS for life you seem perfectly content with trying to install one.
Claiming you won an honest election doesn't make it so either.
No it doesn't, you are right. The way you prove that they were dis(honest) is by putting your case to the test in the only venue that has the constitutional power to grant relief if you dispute the election result. That power lays with the judiciary.

The judiciary has ruled overwhelmingly that the election results where valid. Those rulings where done by judges nominated by ALL presidents up until Reagan.

So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity? Why is it that you hold on to it it when even the AG, hardly a Democrat rejects it? Why is it that you hold on to it even when Trumps own lawyers are hesitant or even unwilling to assert it in court?
So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity?

That question has been answered repeatedly and the answer remains the same. The judiciary is a branch of government and governments (including the judiciary) are well known to become tyrannical and corrupt. The Founders made it quite clear by word and deed that the people were to be the final judge and that it their Right and duty to alter or replace government if and when needed. Also refusing to hear the evidence is not the same as rejecting. "..of the People, for People, by the People..." The People are speaking. You best listen.
Where does the Constitution say that. It’s filled with provisions giving sole authority to Congress, The Judicaty, and other pats of government. see Article 1, section 3 clause 6 where SOLE POWER to try an impeachment is granted to the Senate, not to the “people”
Predates the Constitution:


In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These were the people who made this Country at the risk of their lives through revolt and insurrection against their legitimate government. If that weren't example enough they gave us a Constitution of checks and balances with the people as the ultimate check to balance the government.
They risked their lives to depose a monarch. They gave the people a system of voting in their leaders as the ultimate check and balance. They took away the rights of the monarch to stand in judgment over his people and gave that right to the judiciary who besides the nomination act completely independent of the executive branch and gave it the right to judge any election dispute as another check.

What you want is the exact opposite of that. You want to install a monarch or a despot to be more precise. Ignore the will of the people as decided by vote. Ignore the judiciary branch completely. As I said you have absolutely no idea what the founding father stood for and did by writing the constitution.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
6,901
Reaction score
2,230
Points
325
Don't assume you have any idea what I want or what the FF's intentions or actions were. You very obviously don't. Once even grade schoolers knew that our Constitutional government had three branches consisting of the legislative the executive and the judicial branches. One government-three branches each intended to check and balance the others. Yes, the judicial branch was meant to be as independent as possible. But who arranges their pay and benefits? Who appoints them if they are not elected? Who assures that their courtrooms and other facilities are provided and maintained? The people were also intended to participate and act as one more check and balance to to the government (all three branches). When and if the government breaks down or becomes tyrannical it is not only the right but the duty of the People to fix or replace it. The FF stated this quite clearly and often. If you think the Constitution says something else feel free to quote what and where.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,366
Reaction score
19,528
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
It’s what the Constitution provides for. Nothing Nazi about the Constitution.
Impeachment is a political action to remove an official from office.

Donald Trump is a private citizen. He holds no office.

The extrajudicial trial of a private citizen is a lynching. What you of the Reich seek to do is to lynch the last legitimate president as warning to anyone who would dare stand up to the Oligarchy in favor of the American people.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,366
Reaction score
19,528
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
The Reich is lynching Donald Trump.

That is a fact.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,366
Reaction score
19,528
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Your argument presumes that there should be no accountability of the actions of a President simply because of time.

Aren't you guys supposed to be the law and order party?
That is moronic.

The Reich knows that there is no chance to charge the last legitimate president under criminal statutes - all those requirements for facts, evidence, and such that the Reich does no deal with. So this lynching is done as a spectacle, a warning to would be usurpers that resistance to the Reich will be dealt with harshly.

It is an odd dichotomy that as you destroy the rule of law with the tyranny you have established, you expect your victims to follow the law you are shitting on.

The only legal recourse for you of the Reich are to bring criminal charges against the enemies of the party, including the President.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
89,366
Reaction score
19,528
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
He did assume accountability. He was impeached with no investigation into the charge, no defense lawyer present, no facts, no high crimes, and no misdemeanors.
In this you are wrong.

Opposition to the party is a high crime under the Reich, in fact the most serious crime possible. Trump opposed the party, oppose CHINA, promoted the good of the people over the interests of the Oligarchs. Trump has engaged in what the Reich views as the most heinous of all crimes, he is a patriotic American.

America is the hated enemy of the democrats, an enemy they are dedicated to destroying.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
69,156
Reaction score
17,295
Points
2,290
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.
That's been my point all along. We shouldn't be impeaching anybody based on "can be taken that way," we impeach based on actual words or facts. Just like the first impeachment. The transcript clearly shows Trump asked Zelensky for a favor, and never threatened military aid. But the commies said "Oh, we know what he really meant" and impeached him on their interpretation. Words mean things. All you have to do is look up the definitions.

But as I've said repeatedly, the Nazis started something they will regret down the road. They made the new rules of the game, and when we have power, will return the favor based on their new precedent. From this point forward, every President will be impeached when the opposition party leads the House, and I don't want to see one leftist here crying about it.
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
539
Reaction score
225
Points
143
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.

Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".

.
How would you address Donald J. Trump today?

MR. PRESIDENT

So, your argument fails.
Care to try again?
Want to talk salary?
Health care?
SS protection?
Travel allowance?
Security Briefings?

Your argument fails on all counts.

I don't address any politician by their title, nor do I expect them to address me in a manner that reflects the many job titles I've held over my life.

.
Well, and I'm truly sorry to tell you this, I'm pretty sure the law doesn't give one tiny little fuck about your choice of titles. Trump was impeached as President and will be tried as a former president.

Sorry for your loss
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
539
Reaction score
225
Points
143
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.

Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".

.
Ok, but repeat after me, “you can bar someone not in office from holding future office.” Then repeat after me, “ALL impeachments”

You might want to research bills of attainder.

.
No one is passing any bills.

Trump as president was impeached in office by a clear majority of the house.
The Senate, as it has done many times before, will decide the rules for proceeding with the trial.
The trial will be held.
If 16 Republicans have the courage to vote on the facts Trump will be convicted.
If not we will know that Republicans have ZERO respect for the rule of law and the electorate will remember their cowardice in 2022 and beyond.
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
539
Reaction score
225
Points
143
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?

.
Can you imagine the carnage at the Capitol building if the Senate tried a stunt like that?

Patriots are pissed enough over a stolen election.
Let me correct that for you:

Patriots Trump Traitors are pissed enough going to prison over a being stupid enough to believe Trump's lies about a stolen election.

You're welcome.
How're you gonna look in a pink jumpsuit?

A lot of effort to say nothing. How's Trump's cheeto tasting to you now, Ho-Ass?
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
539
Reaction score
225
Points
143
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.
I quoted the relevant section in the context of a response to the query.

The other instances of the word "impeach" in the Constitution are not relevant to the discussion.

Sorry for your error.
So your the one who defines “relevance”? Thats an awfully long word for someone who doesn’t understand the word “all”.

But your tactic is interesting. Find anything that doesn’t suit your narrative and dismiss it as irrelevant. No need to apologize to me. The error is all yours.
Relevance is.

Trying to make something relevant when it is not does not make your argument. It is only an attempt, a failed attempt to cloud the discussion with falsehoods.

What you have failed miserably anyone might add, is to either make a cogent argument or knock down mine.

So, I do apologise. Obviously you missed that semester when the ACTUAL Constitution was discussed as so clearly demonstrated by your Patrick Starr understanding of the document. Sorry you ended up with that "kissing disease" from that one meeting with Gym Jordan.
View attachment 447206
WOW. Tell us, if it weren't for memes could you post anything at all?

I mean, we all know you can post stupid shit, proven time and again but can you actually post something relevant and defend it with actual English words?

No?

Well then meme away moron!
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
69,156
Reaction score
17,295
Points
2,290
If 16 Republicans have the courage to vote on the facts Trump will be convicted.
Typical commies. Now they are impeaching Presidents for exercising their first amendment rights, and then they claim they are not anti-Americans.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,093
Reaction score
10,977
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Yeah, what ever commie, I'm going to bed. BTW, Trump told them to make their "voices heard", nothing more.
Mark 6:25
And having entered immediately with haste to the king, she asked, saying, "I desire that you give to me the head of John the Baptist upon a platter at once."


Matthew 14:8

At her mother's suggestion she asked him, "Give me here and now the head of John the Baptist on a plate!"

You would say she didn't ask for John the Babtist to be killed. She just wanted his head. Nothing more.

Just when I thought you couldn't get more stupid, you prove me wrong. Carry on commie. LMAO

.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,093
Reaction score
10,977
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.

Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".

.
How would you address Donald J. Trump today?

MR. PRESIDENT

So, your argument fails.
Care to try again?
Want to talk salary?
Health care?
SS protection?
Travel allowance?
Security Briefings?

Your argument fails on all counts.

I don't address any politician by their title, nor do I expect them to address me in a manner that reflects the many job titles I've held over my life.

.
Well, and I'm truly sorry to tell you this, I'm pretty sure the law doesn't give one tiny little fuck about your choice of titles. Trump was impeached as President and will be tried as a former president.

Sorry for your loss

Or it could be dismissed with 51 votes. How hard would you cry if that happened?

.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,093
Reaction score
10,977
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.

Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".

.
Ok, but repeat after me, “you can bar someone not in office from holding future office.” Then repeat after me, “ALL impeachments”

You might want to research bills of attainder.

.
No one is passing any bills.

Trump as president was impeached in office by a clear majority of the house.
The Senate, as it has done many times before, will decide the rules for proceeding with the trial.
The trial will be held.
If 16 Republicans have the courage to vote on the facts Trump will be convicted.
If not we will know that Republicans have ZERO respect for the rule of law and the electorate will remember their cowardice in 2022 and beyond.

Thanks for proving how clueless you are. It takes 67 votes to convict. LMAO

.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
3,198
Reaction score
3,296
Points
1,893
Location
In your head
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.

Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".

.
How would you address Donald J. Trump today?

MR. PRESIDENT

So, your argument fails.
Care to try again?
Want to talk salary?
Health care?
SS protection?
Travel allowance?
Security Briefings?

Your argument fails on all counts.

I don't address any politician by their title, nor do I expect them to address me in a manner that reflects the many job titles I've held over my life.

.
Well, and I'm truly sorry to tell you this, I'm pretty sure the law doesn't give one tiny little fuck about your choice of titles. Trump was impeached as President and will be tried as a former president.

Sorry for your loss

Or it could be dismissed with 51 votes. How hard would you cry if that happened?

.
Or with 66 votes.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,093
Reaction score
10,977
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.
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?

.
Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.
Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.

Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".

.
How would you address Donald J. Trump today?

MR. PRESIDENT

So, your argument fails.
Care to try again?
Want to talk salary?
Health care?
SS protection?
Travel allowance?
Security Briefings?

Your argument fails on all counts.

I don't address any politician by their title, nor do I expect them to address me in a manner that reflects the many job titles I've held over my life.

.
Well, and I'm truly sorry to tell you this, I'm pretty sure the law doesn't give one tiny little fuck about your choice of titles. Trump was impeached as President and will be tried as a former president.

Sorry for your loss

Or it could be dismissed with 51 votes. How hard would you cry if that happened?

.
Or with 66 votes.

Or with 66 votes, what?

.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,093
Reaction score
10,977
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top