Serious Question

OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,863
Reaction score
10,744
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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.
Herr Himmler, what "facts?"

That you hate the last legitimate president and want revenge for him outsmarting you time and again?

Shitt Romney will betray his oath of office again and join with the Nazis. Shitt will be primaried in 22.

AND there is the matter of the SCOTUS that the Reich must get past.
Perhaps, oh ye of massive ignorance, you should try to understand the oath of office.
Then, at the very least, you will be slightly less ignorant.

What you fail to understand that most politicians never intend to honor their oath. Just like quid pro joe violated his within hours of taking it.

.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,863
Reaction score
10,744
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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.

A link has been provided, you even thanked me for it. You must be as senile as quid pro joe.


.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,863
Reaction score
10,744
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?

.
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.

It's pretty damn simple, if they truly committed a crime, there's the criminal justice system. But the commies know there's no evidence to get a conviction, so they are pressing an unconstitutional impeachment.

.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,721
Reaction score
16,986
Points
2,290
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.
I gave you my prediction, and since I'm not a liberal, I don't have a crystal ball like you people do, so I can only tell you what I think will happen which I did. They will never get enough Republican Senators to vote with them. This is nothing more than a waste of time and taxpayer money; not that the commies ever cared about that before. Now they are pushing for it to happen as quickly as possible. Why do you suppose that is? Because the majority of people hate impeachment, and they want to do it as far away from the next election as possible hoping people will forget.

The Democrats are against the American people. Always were and always will be.
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
692
Points
140
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.

.
I see you like to call everyone a commie.

You do protest to much but if you do not have a point then

good for you
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,575
Reaction score
5,666
Points
280
Location
Washington
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.
I doubt Trump will be a candidate in 2024 regardless of the outcome of the trial. The GOP leadership certainly has no use for him and looking at his drop in popularity after the attack on the capital, he has certainly lost support. 4 years as president has been hard on him and in 4 more years, the presidency will be out of his reach. His inability to carry on discussions and to speak accurately and fluently which is not very good now, will certainly get worse. I suspect he will remain in politics, probably campaigning for others and trying to reclaim his place again as a media personality. The Trump show or Trump TV may well become a reality.
 
Last edited:
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,863
Reaction score
10,744
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.

.
I see you like to call everyone a commie.

You do protest to much but if you do not have a point then

good for you

The point is you're a foreigner that can't put a 3 line post together properly. I see you're not denying it, so it must me true.

.
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
470
Reaction score
206
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

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.

.
Wow! What a moronic statement. I'll bet you can say that again?
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
470
Reaction score
206
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

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.

.
Wow! Only took one post before the only thought in your brain ejaculated all over your keyboard.

Remember this?
"Wow! What a moronic statement. I'll bet you can say that again?" And you did. Moron!
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
470
Reaction score
206
Points
143
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.
Herr Himmler, what "facts?"

That you hate the last legitimate president and want revenge for him outsmarting you time and again?

Shitt Romney will betray his oath of office again and join with the Nazis. Shitt will be primaried in 22.

AND there is the matter of the SCOTUS that the Reich must get past.
Perhaps, oh ye of massive ignorance, you should try to understand the oath of office.
Then, at the very least, you will be slightly less ignorant.

What you fail to understand that most politicians never intend to honor their oath. Just like quid pro joe violated his within hours of taking it.

.
WOW!

Two lies in one sentence.
You've studied your Republican lessons well.

Now be careful.
You don't want to be caught accidentally "TRUTHING!"
 

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.

It's pretty damn simple, if they truly committed a crime, there's the criminal justice system. But the commies know there's no evidence to get a conviction, so they are pressing an unconstitutional impeachment.

.
An impeachment and trial is a political process not a legal process. It's purpose is to determine whether the person is fit to serve and whether he should be removed from office and/or barred from serving again thus there is no criminal record nor punishment if found guilty. Impeachment is governed by Article 1 of the Constitution and House and Senate rules and that's it. Although Federal statues do not address impeachment, violation of those statues can certainly be grounds for impeachment. Even if Trump is found not guilty by the Senate, he can be charged in criminal or civil court for violation of federal statues. In short there is no issue of double jeopardy here.
 
Last edited:
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,863
Reaction score
10,744
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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.
Herr Himmler, what "facts?"

That you hate the last legitimate president and want revenge for him outsmarting you time and again?

Shitt Romney will betray his oath of office again and join with the Nazis. Shitt will be primaried in 22.

AND there is the matter of the SCOTUS that the Reich must get past.
Perhaps, oh ye of massive ignorance, you should try to understand the oath of office.
Then, at the very least, you will be slightly less ignorant.

What you fail to understand that most politicians never intend to honor their oath. Just like quid pro joe violated his within hours of taking it.

.
WOW!

Two lies in one sentence.
You've studied your Republican lessons well.

Now be careful.
You don't want to be caught accidentally "TRUTHING!"

Talking the oath was quid pro joes first lie, and he proved it with illegal and unconstitutional EOs. I can prove that's true, let's see you prove it isn't with more than your bullshit.

.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
2,852
Reaction score
2,885
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.

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.

.
Wow! Only took one post before the only thought in your brain ejaculated all over your keyboard.

Remember this?
"Wow! What a moronic statement. I'll bet you can say that again?" And you did. Moron!
Do you need some pepto, your keyboard seems to have nausea--it is vomiting all over this thread. Just what are you blathering about? Do you even know?
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
2,852
Reaction score
2,885
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?

.
Without a trial, Trump would be denied the opportunity for an acquittal. Does that seem like justice to you?
I believe that no trial shows the impeachment for just what it is--a partisan shit show.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,721
Reaction score
16,986
Points
2,290
Without a trial, Trump would be denied the opportunity for an acquittal. Does that seem like justice to you?
Without a trial the case is simply dismissed. What good would an acquittal do? Not being convicted doesn't change the outcome of the House impeachment.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,863
Reaction score
10,744
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?

.
Without a trial, Trump would be denied the opportunity for an acquittal. Does that seem like justice to you?

Impeachment is about a political process, it's not about justice, as nazi palousey proved by proceeding with no hearing, no witnesses and no representation by the defense.

.
 
Last edited:

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,721
Reaction score
16,986
Points
2,290
An impeachment and trial is a political process not a legal process. It's purpose is to determine whether the person is fit to serve and whether he should be removed from office and/or barred from serving again thus there is no criminal record nor punishment if found guilty. Impeachment is governed by Article 1 of the Constitution and House and Senate rules and that's it. Although Federal statues do not address impeachment, violation of those statues can certainly be grounds for impeachment. Even if Trump is found not guilty by the Senate, he can be charged in criminal or civil court for violation of federal statues. In short there is no issue of double jeopardy here.
Exercising your first amendment rights is not a criminal activity. It's not even a high crime or misdemeanor.
 

Mustang

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
1,823
Points
245
Location
39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
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?

.
Without a trial, Trump would be denied the opportunity for an acquittal. Does that seem like justice to you?

Impeachment is about a political process, it's not about justice, as nazi palousey proved by proceeding with no hearing, no witnesses and no representation by the defense.

.
An accusation (whether it's a criminal indictment, or a political impeachment) deserves a verdict to be rendered in answer to the charge brought forward.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top