Serious Question

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Who did he tell and when did they tell them? How do you know?
It was reported on several shows on Fox.
Link, please. Do you really expect us to just take your word for it? AND did Fox fact-check? They aren’t always 100% honest in their reporting.

After your earlier post, which you’ve reposted here, I tried and tried to find any confirmation of your claim. But there isn’t any.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
The constitution does not address the issue. However, there is some evidence in the Federalist Papers that the framers would support the trying of an offical after leaving office. There is one precedent. In 1876 after Impeachment proceedings of the Secretary of War was begun in the House the Secretary resigned. There was much discussion in the House and Senate and then general agreement that after an office holder left office he could be impeached and tried which is exactly what happened.

Trump is going to tried, that seems very likely. If he is convicted, then it will probably end up in the Supreme Court. If he is found innocent or the case is dismissed, Trump will celebrate his victory and that will be the end of it.
Justice Roberts have told some people he's not attending the commie show in the Senate. The hearing has to be presided by the Chief Justice. If there is no Chief Justice, then there is no Senate trial. If they proceed anyway and Trump is found guilty, then of course he would take it to the SC because we'd have an unconstitutional impeachment on our hands.
Try not to vomit over this. It could happen.

Here’s something for you to think about. Kamala Harris COULD be the one presiding over the trial. Here’s why. The Senate has the sole Power to try ALL impeachments. Prevailing opinion is that it is Constitutional to try Trump. Article 1 Section clause 6 says the following:

“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.”

Notice that it only calls for the Chief Justice when the President is tried. But Trump won’t be President so Roberts’ participation isn’t required. So, it could revert to the Senate to set the rules, and that might call for the President of the Senate to preside at the trial.

we could see Kamala Harris presiding over Trump’s trial! Now THATS FUNNY,
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Who did he tell and when did they tell them? How do you know?
It was reported on several shows on Fox.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,811
Reaction score
17,045
Points
2,290
Who did he tell and when did they tell them? How do you know?
It was reported on several shows on Fox.
Well I don't know about that because there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about the VP or Senator. It only says the Chief Justice shall preside.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,575
Reaction score
5,666
Points
280
Location
Washington
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.
They have already decided to try him. It will be in early February. Trumpsters shouldn't have much to worry about. It the same percentage of republican senators vote against impeachment as they did in the House, there will only be only 5 republican votes to convict. 17 is needed.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Who did he tell and when did they tell them? How do you know?
It was reported on several shows on Fox.
Well I don't know about that because there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about the VP or Senator. It only says the Chief Justice shall preside.
I realize. But read the article. Then read the Constitution for what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say who presides if the defendant isn’t the President.

But this will all play out. I’m betting that if Roberts doesn’t preside, there will STILL be a trial. and if he does preside, there will be a trial. You have said Roberts won’t be presiding and that there can’t be a trial. We’re both on record and one of us will be proven wrong In just a few days. Either way, I’ll be here to admit it if I‘m wrong or to see if you’ll admit it if you’re wrong.

if you want to change your prediction, now would be the time. Your prospects don’t look good.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
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.
They have already decided to try him. It will be in early February. Trumpsters shouldn't have much to worry about. It the same percentage of republican senators vote against impeachment as they did in the House, there will only be only 5 republican votes to convict. 17 is needed.
I’m not TOTALLY convinced there will be a trial. There’s still loom debate about it and there could still be a suit to prevent it. It will probably be deemed Constitutional but it’s still up being debated.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,575
Reaction score
5,666
Points
280
Location
Washington
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?

.
Once the House passed the articles of impeachment to the Senate, that put the Senate in a position to act, the impeachment is just a part, the issue facing the Senate is whether to allow Trump to hold a public office.

I’d be interested in what a judicial decision would look like.

The house didn't present the article of impeachment before Trump left office.


Article 2, Section 4

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.

Funny I don't see disqualification for office listed here and he's already gone.

.
If former officials are immune to the impeachment power, anyone facing conviction would resign their office moments before the Senate votes to convict. I doubt the framers of the constitution meant to create such a loophole. Although many judges interpret the constitution literally as written, when it becomes clear that the literal interpretation was not the framers intent, then the ruling is likely to include intent.
 
Last edited:

hunarcy

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
7,163
Reaction score
1,287
Points
255
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?

.
Once the House passed the articles of impeachment to the Senate, that put the Senate in a position to act, the impeachment is just a part, the issue facing the Senate is whether to allow Trump to hold a public office.

I’d be interested in what a judicial decision would look like.

The house didn't present the article of impeachment before Trump left office.


Article 2, Section 4

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.

Funny I don't see disqualification for office listed here and he's already gone.

.
If former officials are immune to the impeachment power, anyone facing conviction would resign their office moments before the Senate votes to convict. I doubt the framers of constitution meant to create such loophole.
The Framers wanted to insure that people could be REMOVED. If they deserved to be removed, who cares how they get put out.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,575
Reaction score
5,666
Points
280
Location
Washington
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.
They have already decided to try him. It will be in early February. Trumpsters shouldn't have much to worry about. It the same percentage of republican senators vote against impeachment as they did in the House, there will only be only 5 republican votes to convict. 17 is needed.
I’m not TOTALLY convinced there will be a trial. There’s still loom debate about it and there could still be a suit to prevent it. It will probably be deemed Constitutional but it’s still up being debated.
Democrats could pass a motion to dismiss if it's clear they won't have the votes which they probably won't.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,575
Reaction score
5,666
Points
280
Location
Washington
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?

.
Once the House passed the articles of impeachment to the Senate, that put the Senate in a position to act, the impeachment is just a part, the issue facing the Senate is whether to allow Trump to hold a public office.

I’d be interested in what a judicial decision would look like.

The house didn't present the article of impeachment before Trump left office.


Article 2, Section 4

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.

Funny I don't see disqualification for office listed here and he's already gone.

.
If former officials are immune to the impeachment power, anyone facing conviction would resign their office moments before the Senate votes to convict. I doubt the framers of constitution meant to create such loophole.
The Framers wanted to insure that people could be REMOVED. If they deserved to be removed, who cares how they get put out.
But the Framers also wanted to insure that the person could be barred from holding office again. If the person resigned that would not be case if the Senate was denied the right to try him because he was no longer in office.
 
Last edited:

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,811
Reaction score
17,045
Points
2,290
But the Framers also wanted to insure that the person could be barred from holding office again. If the person resigned that would not be case if the Senate was denied the right to try him because he was no longer in office.
Which is what the Democrats are scared shitless of. They know Bernie, they know their agenda, and it's a tragedy for Americans who will love to see Trump back in 2024.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,811
Reaction score
17,045
Points
2,290
I realize. But read the article. Then read the Constitution for what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say who presides if the defendant isn’t the President.

But this will all play out. I’m betting that if Roberts doesn’t preside, there will STILL be a trial. and if he does preside, there will be a trial. You have said Roberts won’t be presiding and that there can’t be a trial. We’re both on record and one of us will be proven wrong In just a few days. Either way, I’ll be here to admit it if I‘m wrong or to see if you’ll admit it if you’re wrong.

if you want to change your prediction, now would be the time. Your prospects don’t look good.
I'm a retired truck driver, not a lawyer or former judge. I really don't know and neither does anybody else since the commies are doing something that's never been done before. What I do know is that they are scared to death of Trump. What I do know is that these anti-Americans are impeaching a President for exercising his first amendment rights, but then again, they have always stood against free speech.

So if it turns out I'm wrong, of course I'll admit it. My prediction is that the Nazis are so desperate they'll try anything, even if it's a long shot. There is no possible way to get that many Republicans to go along with them given the fact it would be political suicide to attack such a popular figure in their party. and the threat they may piss off Trump so much that he starts another party taking a good portion of those 72 million supporters away from the GOP.

The level of integrity for the Democrats have sunk four fold since Trump took office. They may not realize it, but they are doing more harm to themselves than they know, which will be realized in future elections.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
So if it turns out I'm wrong, of course I'll admit it. My prediction is that the Nazis are so desperate they'll try anything, even if it's a long shot. There is no possible way to get that many Republicans to go along with them given the fact it would be political suicide to attack such a popular figure in their party. and the threat they may piss off Trump so much that he starts another party taking a good portion of those 72 million supporters away from the GOP.
How about a prediction that is factual And specific. Areyou backing off your statement that Roberts won’t preside. That there won’t be a trial. I said nothing about conviction. I’m retired too and I’m not a legal expert either. But I do know a dodge when I see them. Deflect, try to change the subject, and dodge the question all you want.

are you afraid to go on record with a specific prediction that isn’t just a lot of opinion.

come on. Man up.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,886
Reaction score
10,754
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?

.

Everyone is a private citizen and it depends on the situation. For example President pays taxes and vote as a private citizen. Impeachment is a political process to remove government official from office. It obviously is not a criminal or civil suit. Granted Trump is no longer in office. But he is eligible to run and hold other federal government offices.. Clearly the impeachment will only decide one issue. Will he be able to hold any official government position in the future. I would say that they probably can because the constitution is not clear on that issue. If you wanted to stop and possible future political office then impeachment would be the way.

The interesting thing about it is that it started when he was in office. Even though he is a citizen he does get security protection and pay. He also has people who work for him that are paid by government funds. So if he is impeached will that nullify all the above.

It can be debated but since he did hold office and the process was started before he left office then obviously they believe they can conclude the process.

The rest will probably have to be settle in a traditional court. I am sure Trump will bring it to the Supreme court assuming that the there is enough senate votes. Mitch has washed his hand of it and left it up to the individual senators. Interesting development but I believe that Mitch think Trump went to far with has election fraud. Time to cut the cord.

And disqualification from office can be found, where?

.

Article II ("No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President")

if you were to literally translate that then no one born after the adoption of this constitution would be eligible for the office of President. Simply based on the way it is written.

yet people born after the adoption of the constitution became presidents. Because it was written a long time ago by people who could only imagine what was before them at that point in time and left it up to the future people to figure it out. They could never imagine what the world would be like today. Clearly they intended for it to extend beyond their time.

Now if they can remove a person from office using impeachment it would imply that they cannot run again and get elected to that same office.


Article 1, section 3 reads as follows:

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
well it does exactly say it the way you have phrased it but it certainly implies that the person who was found guilty should be disqualified to hold any office of honor which would include any future office of honor. Of course it could be argued and that why they have the supreme court. It is pretty clear to me why they are continuing with this and the only logical reason is to disqualify Trump from holding any office in the future. They still have to vote on it.

imagine this. if Trump just excepted defeat then he could have avoided this and run again. Well he may still be able to depending of the vote in the Senate. So you can see why they are doing it. Mitch has given the green light for repubs to do what they think is right.

You might want to check the definition of "natural born citizen" Your interpretation is whacko.

Where does it say removal "or" disqualification. The way I read it they must go hand in hand, which isn't possible.

And what you're saying is you commies are scared shitless that Trump might run again, after the American people see how badly quid pro joe fucks things up. biden is doing a bang up job of doing just that and only been in office 51 hours.

.
The key words are "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" not natural born citizen. They go together. The way it is written says that you would have to be one at the time of the adoption of this constitution which was a long time ago. This is just to show that "show me where it says that" is not a valid argument for your position. It is just a position your taking and have to defend.

Are you forgetting the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation? Citizenship in the US was established prior to the adoption of the current Constitution.

.

Are you forgetting that as quickly as they agreed to it they they formally abandon it years later. Pretty let's do it again but establish an executive and judicial branch with balance of powers. So it holds no sway once they closed it. Probably why you do not hear to much about it in schools.

Wow, you can't refute so you deflect like the typical commie.

.

Is easy to do when you use fuzzy logic.. Using the Article of Confederation that was replaced by the constitution therefor dissolving it as a basis of government to make you point. They dissolved it because it wasn't working. That is you case. That is your serious question?

The question was about citizenship and what a natural born citizen is per the Constitution. Your deflection is duly noted and purposefully dismissed.

BTW, do you ever read the incoherent crap you type before you hit the post button?

.

As compare to you I guess not.

I get it, you're a fucking foreigner, you couldn't even get it right after being mocked. Carry on commie you're dismissed.

.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,886
Reaction score
10,754
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?

.
Romney, Sasse...

There's 2. Where's your 3?

What three Democrats whose lives were threatened by Trump's revolt are going to say "no, let's not hold the guy responsible, responsible."
Geez.

View attachment 447598

Typical commie, living in your fantasy land. You just reached a new level of stupidity.

.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,886
Reaction score
10,754
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?

.
It takes 67 senate votes to convict, so he would be acquitted even if 66 senators voted to convict.

True, but I'd rather they see they don't have constitutional jurisdiction over a civilian and just dismiss it, just like a previous senate did with William Blount.

.
Funny, only cheeto-suckers share that opinion. The remaining 90% of the country sees that Trump was impeached as president while in office. When he is convicted what's left of his political threat disappears.

And then he and his family and friends will disappear into a big dark prison we're renaming TRUMP-MAX

There's that commie fantasy land coming to the fore again.

.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top