Serious Question

[Flopper]

First amendment rights restrict the congress from denying citizens their right to express themselves. Twitter may be muzzling Trump but I don't think congress is. When Trump incites an insurrection, that does fall under his right to free speech just as a man screaming fire in crowed auditorium.

Apples and oranges. First off, nobody can point to me anywhere in Trump's speech where he incited a riot. Not one mention of him instructing his followers to use violence, break laws, or bust down the doors of Congress in previous speeches or in his Tweets. In the speech during the riots, Trump told his people to protest peacefully and legally.

When somebody yells fire in a movie theater, their entire intent is to cause panic. That's not what Trump did. As I pointed out to Mustang, what Trump said is no more caustic than what Waters, Schumer, or Sander's said, and again, might have led to the baseball shooting since the shooter was a follower, and in documents the FBI found, he wrote letters to various Democrat politicians demanding Trump be removed from office and held on trial for treason. Now gee, where would he get an idea like that?

True, free speech can be limited to what one says, but if we limit it to how others construe the words, then we no longer have free speech because people can misinterpret what one is saying.

Trump would not explicitly tell his followers to attack the Capital, tear the place apart, and threaten congress but that is certainly how his people interpreted his message, “walk down to the Capitol,” adding, “You'll will never take back our country with weakness.” And after the attack, Trump didn't explicitly thank the insurgents for their attack but rather called them "very special people". In one his rallies he was addressing undocumented immigrants and he said with a contemptuous smile on his face, "We're going to be very gentle with them, protecting their rights. We're going to be non-violent but we going show them how patriots handle rapists and murders" Pollical scientist called this coded messaging. Often national leaders can not explicitly promote the violence they seek but they get their point across by alluding to it with carefully chosen phrases to engage and encourage their audience which is exactly what Trump does.

 

[Flopper]

It's purpose is to remove the person from office and to bar him from serving again,

So where does the constitution say removal OR disqualification? Removal has to precede disqualification, that's not possible here.

I doesn't.

It's purpose is to remove the person from office and to bar him from serving again,

So where does the constitution say removal OR disqualification? Removal has to precede disqualification, that's not possible here.

.

The Senate will vote on Trump articles of impeachment. A 2/3 vote will be required to pass the Senate. Whether he has left office by losing an election or resignation is irrelevant. If the articles are passed, the Senate will then decide whether he should be barred from holding future office which requires only a majority vote.

The issue of impeachment of a person who has left office was decided by the Senate in 1876. William Belknap, Secretary of War was impeached by the House and prior to his trial he resigned from office. The trial began in April 1876. For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned his office in March. Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction; the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.

IMHO, this trial is a Democrat attempt to drag Trump's part in the attack on the White House before the public once again. If the republicans in the Senate vote the way they did in the House impeachment, democrats will not have the 17 republican votes needed for conviction. thus there will be no vote on barring him from office.

William W. Belknap - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nice deflection, your example is contradicted by the attempted impeachment of William Blount. The senate decided then they didn't have the jurisdiction to try someone no longer in office.

Now would you care to actually address my point?

.

No, the Senate voted 14 to 11 to dismiss the impeachment of Blount, arguing that impeachment did not extend to senators. It was not about jurisdiction.

William Blount - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump would not explicitly tell his followers to attack the Capital, tear the place apart, and threaten congress but that is certainly how his people interpreted his message, “walk down to the Capitol,” adding, “You'll will never take back our country with weakness.” And after the attack, Trump didn't explicitly thank the insurgents for their attack but rather called them "very special people". In one his rallies he was addressing undocumented immigrants and he said with a contemptuous smile on his face, "We're going to be very gentle with them, protecting their rights. We're going to be non-violent but we going show them how patriots handle rapists and murders" Pollical scientist called this coded messaging. Often national leaders can not explicitly promote the violence they seek but they get their point across by alluding to it with carefully chosen phrases to engage and encourage their audience which is exactly what Trump does.

Is that so? You mean all this time the left has told me Trump can't coherently put together a sentence, they were wrong?

If people take things the wrong way, is that any reason to penalize the person who said this or that? I thought in this country of law and order, we need empirical evidence to convict anybody of anything. Now the new way is that it's up to Democrats to determine meaning to words, and not the words itself nor the intent of the orator.

You on the left are going to regret the actions of the Nazis in the House, because what goes around, comes around. And let's face it, given Biden can't say three sentences without Fn something up, it will be easy as pie to charge him for saying something innocuous as it might be.

It's a shame the left is ruining this country. It's why I have been saying for some time it's time to divide the country in half, and have two countries instead of one. We simply don't want to live with Communists or Nazis. Let them have their own country so we can live our lives much happier in ours, with the respect of our founders Constitution the way they intended. They never intended the impeachment process to be used as a political tool to stop a possible contender on the other side because he's done such a good job in the past they're scared to death he may return. They are rolling in their graves looking down at what the Democrats have done to us.

 

[forkup]

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, --Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 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.

So the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are at odds with each. The difference is that the Declaration has no legal authority. It is a DECLARATION of principles. as is the Gettysburg Address.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are at odds only if you presume that laws (made by government) were intended to trump Rights (of the People) when they clearly were not.

well, the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. If the Declaration has the force of law, why was slavery around for another 89 tears?

the Constitution grants power through a representative form of government. The people’s power is Exercised through voting and through Representation in Congress. When congress acts, they are doing so because they were elected to do just that.

the Declaration does not have the force of law.

Who said otherwise? Not me. The Peoples Rights are separate from and above government whims AKA "the force of law".

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Simple. When if there is no consent there is no just power to the government. That is a founding principle; not a mere law of a government with no just power. Oh the government may still have some physical power with which to intimidate and oppress the people and might even succeed even in suppressing them for a time but a house divided against itself cannot stand indefinitely (also not a law).

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,

"...Right of the People..." Right; not law. Laws are whatever a government wants to claim they are. Rights are so very much more and not subject to government approval.

But if the people are divide who is right. Which rights of the people are just. If the group lost then they should accept it. Hiding behind we the people when it is just "the like minded" people who would not accept the rights of the other people who disagree.

Interesting how you think that now, but didn't think that four years ago. That is, unless you can point us to a post by you back then insisting that "the group that lost should accept it".

If I say you are a hypocrite unless you can show me that you said something specific 4 years ago, would you accept that as sound reasoning? Never mind the fact that finding something specific from that far back is difficult but the fact of the matter is that I, you, and I'm sure Killroy believed stuff four years ago that we didn't necessarily voice at that particular time. It doesn't make us hypocritical. But just for kicks.

Again not disputing that Trump was duly elected.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hillary Clinton spent the last four years telling everyone who would listen that Trump was "illegitimate", and she "beat" him. Her cohorts in the Democrat Party and the media - but I repeat myself - have spent the last four years yammering about "Russian collusion" and how it "stole the election", up to actually impeaching the President over this non-existent collusion.

So do NOT gabble at me about "Well, here's Hillary's concession speech, so we accepted the election loss just fine, and MEANWHILE, Trump is a very, very bad man because that's how I want to remember it!"

Since I have a functioning brain stem, I simply will not be able to accommodate your desire that I magically start remembering the last four years the way you dictate. Sorry.

I think Hillary broke the record for excuses why she lost. The Russians, Jim Comey, third party candidate, subservient wives who obeyed the command of their husbands to vote for Trump, the DNC, the list goes on and on. The one person she didn't blame was herself for her laziness and drinking problem.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Who knows, at his age 4 years means a lot. On the other hand look at confused Joe who was elected. He gets confused telling you his name. Trump lost support after the attack but it came back up, and his support will likely grow given what plans Biden has for this country and the likely outcome. Regrets are already in play with the unions, our northern neighbors, the American Indians, mothers with athletic daughters in school, and that was just one week. Think of how many millions of people he's going to piss off at the end of four years.

The Democrats know this of course which is why they are making idiots out of themselves trying to keep Trump from running again. As for the GOP, they will not refuse Trumps bid to be a contender in the primaries.

Biden isn't confused. Unlike Trump he choses his words careful because he does not want to be misinterpreted or mislead his audience. Trump simply didn't care. That's why he lied so much, often babbling and making no sense. You see the difference between the two everyday, no midnight raving and fame wars, professional weekly press briefing, and carefully worded statements. In other words, Biden, unlike Trump is going to be the kind of president that Americans have had for over 200 years, exercising leadership, dignity, honesty, and compassion.

Quid pro joes staff choses his words carefully for him and dutifully places them on a teleprompter. He gets himself in trouble when he goes off on his own.

.

Public officials often get in trouble when they go off script. Trump is a great example. His staff was constantly trying to explain what he meant or to cover for him. American audiences love it when public figures speak off the cuff which is ok for media personality but generally not a national leader. What a president says needs to be accurate and and not subject to interpretation which is why presidents need to very carefully when it comes to impromptu discussions of policy and matters of real substance. Statements about policy need to well thought out and often discussed with staff. Every single statement a presidents says is analyzed by both friend and foe.

 

[OKTexas]

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, --Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 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.

So the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are at odds with each. The difference is that the Declaration has no legal authority. It is a DECLARATION of principles. as is the Gettysburg Address.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are at odds only if you presume that laws (made by government) were intended to trump Rights (of the People) when they clearly were not.

well, the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. If the Declaration has the force of law, why was slavery around for another 89 tears?

the Constitution grants power through a representative form of government. The people’s power is Exercised through voting and through Representation in Congress. When congress acts, they are doing so because they were elected to do just that.

the Declaration does not have the force of law.

Who said otherwise? Not me. The Peoples Rights are separate from and above government whims AKA "the force of law".

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Simple. When if there is no consent there is no just power to the government. That is a founding principle; not a mere law of a government with no just power. Oh the government may still have some physical power with which to intimidate and oppress the people and might even succeed even in suppressing them for a time but a house divided against itself cannot stand indefinitely (also not a law).

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,

"...Right of the People..." Right; not law. Laws are whatever a government wants to claim they are. Rights are so very much more and not subject to government approval.

But if the people are divide who is right. Which rights of the people are just. If the group lost then they should accept it. Hiding behind we the people when it is just "the like minded" people who would not accept the rights of the other people who disagree.

Interesting how you think that now, but didn't think that four years ago. That is, unless you can point us to a post by you back then insisting that "the group that lost should accept it".

Hillary Clinton's concession speech (full text)

Hillary Clinton conceded the election to President-elect Donald Trump.

www.cnn.com

Sorry I was not on the board but take my word for it Clinton lost and that was that. She acknowledge the defeat in public and conceded defeat in early November.

She did not submit 70 challenges to the court system claiming fraud or procedural errors. She did not urge supporters to gather in Washington to contest the election. She did not call AG of a state to find additional votes. She did not start a movement called "Stop the Steal".

Trump on the other hand has done all the above and has not conceded public the defeat. He snuck out on the last day. Afraid that Biden would not let him use AF 1 for the ride home. Refusing to go to the inauguration and appearing in public one last time as the president. Making appointees and changes in the last few days just to be spiteful.

Trump did all the above. Things that a petty man would do. I would feel sorry for him but can't stop laughing at his antics.

No she just said Trump wasn't the legitimate president for 4 freaking years and the commiecrats in congress challenged more EC delegations than republicans did this year. There were legal challenges as well.

.

 

[OKTexas]

It's purpose is to remove the person from office and to bar him from serving again,

So where does the constitution say removal OR disqualification? Removal has to precede disqualification, that's not possible here.

I doesn't.

It's purpose is to remove the person from office and to bar him from serving again,

So where does the constitution say removal OR disqualification? Removal has to precede disqualification, that's not possible here.

.

The Senate will vote on Trump articles of impeachment. A 2/3 vote will be required to pass the Senate. Whether he has left office by losing an election or resignation is irrelevant. If the articles are passed, the Senate will then decide whether he should be barred from holding future office which requires only a majority vote.

The issue of impeachment of a person who has left office was decided by the Senate in 1876. William Belknap, Secretary of War was impeached by the House and prior to his trial he resigned from office. The trial began in April 1876. For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned his office in March. Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction; the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.

IMHO, this trial is a Democrat attempt to drag Trump's part in the attack on the White House before the public once again. If the republicans in the Senate vote the way they did in the House impeachment, democrats will not have the 17 republican votes needed for conviction. thus there will be no vote on barring him from office.

William W. Belknap - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nice deflection, your example is contradicted by the attempted impeachment of William Blount. The senate decided then they didn't have the jurisdiction to try someone no longer in office.

Now would you care to actually address my point?

.

No, the Senate voted 14 to 11 to dismiss the impeachment of Blount, arguing that impeachment did not extend to senators. It was not about jurisdiction.

William Blount - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've already posted this, but I'll do it again.


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

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

Guides and Resources: Impeachment : Senator William Blount

Provides an overview of the Congressional power ofimpeachment, impeachment procedures, and past presidential and other executive branch impeachments.

law-richmond.libguides.com

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Who knows, at his age 4 years means a lot. On the other hand look at confused Joe who was elected. He gets confused telling you his name. Trump lost support after the attack but it came back up, and his support will likely grow given what plans Biden has for this country and the likely outcome. Regrets are already in play with the unions, our northern neighbors, the American Indians, mothers with athletic daughters in school, and that was just one week. Think of how many millions of people he's going to piss off at the end of four years.

The Democrats know this of course which is why they are making idiots out of themselves trying to keep Trump from running again. As for the GOP, they will not refuse Trumps bid to be a contender in the primaries.

Biden isn't confused. Unlike Trump he choses his words careful because he does not want to be misinterpreted or mislead his audience. Trump simply didn't care. That's why he lied so much, often babbling and making no sense. You see the difference between the two everyday, no midnight raving and fame wars, professional weekly press briefing, and carefully worded statements. In other words, Biden, unlike Trump is going to be the kind of president that Americans have had for over 200 years, exercising leadership, dignity, honesty, and compassion.

Quid pro joes staff choses his words carefully for him and dutifully places them on a teleprompter. He gets himself in trouble when he goes off on his own.

.

Public officials often get in trouble when they go off script. Trump is a great example. His staff was constantly trying to explain what he meant or to cover for him. American audiences love it when public figures speak off the cuff which is ok for media personality but generally not a national leader. What a president says needs to be accurate and and not subject to interpretation which is why presidents need to very carefully when it comes to impromptu discussions of policy and matters of real substance. Statements about policy need to well thought out and often discussed with staff. Every single statement a presidents says is analyzed by both friend and foe.

Ok.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Public officials often get in trouble when they go off script. Trump is a great example. His staff was constantly trying to explain what he meant or to cover for him. American audiences love it when public figures speak off the cuff which is ok for media personality but generally not a national leader. What a president says needs to be accurate and and not subject to interpretation which is why presidents need to very carefully when it comes to impromptu discussions of policy and matters of real substance. Statements about policy need to well thought out and often discussed with staff. Every single statement a presidents says is analyzed by both friend and foe.

Which is how we end up with a bunch of phonies and you don't know where they stand on anything. So yes, we like people like Trump because you know exactly what you're getting for your money. Not what kind of speech writers you are getting for your money.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

It really is all in English.

"Former President" is a description, not a position. "Perks" are not the defining factor; powers and responsibilities are. Former Presidents have neither. This is like saying that if I retire from a company and get a pension, I am "holding a position" with that company.

Well said, you can't really resign from being "Former President." It's an honororable title, not an honorable office. Former presidents are private citizens, as everyone knows.

 

[Dadoalex]

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.

Well, there's always the political solution of just beating him fairly in elections. Setting a new Constitutional precedent of holding impeachments after a person has left office, and inventing laughably flimsy justifications for it, is only the "sole political solution" if you believe you're entitled to never, ever, EVER lose elections and political power.

All you've really told us is, "This is the only possible way we can punish him and keep him from challenging us!" And I for one have no sympathy with your "problem".

He's already been beaten in a fair election.
His response to that humiliation is why he committed these crimes.
His abuse of federal power in his attempts to overthrow the legal government of the US
His attempts to corrupt the federal judiciary
His attempts to corrupt the DoJ
His refusal to send protection when the Congress was under attack.

He was impeached in office.
If you look you will find precedence for holding an impeachment trial AFTER the accused has left office.

As for "challenging" us?
That will be difficult from the bottom floor of a super-max.

 

[Dadoalex]

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.

That's an interesting argument.

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

"Besides a pension and office-related funds, former presidents get lifelong Secret Service protection for themselves, their spouses, and their children under 16."

Former presidents also get fund for travel....

What Benefits Do Presidents Get After They Leave Office?

The Former Presidents Act, which was passed by Dwight Eisenhower in 1958—largely to help Harry Truman, who struggled financially after leaving the Oval Office—entitles ex-presidents to a handful of benefits.

www.mentalfloss.com

COTUS says "Trust or Profit." I would hope that the Secret Service protection would not qualify for either of those.

All of this unity from the now all-powerful Democrats is really overwhelming.

Actually the Constitution says "Office of Honor, Trust or Profit", a former president already holds no office.

.

Are you people just so stupid you cannot read the words in front of you?

Trump hold the position of "Former President"
The position of "Former President" includes many government provided perks like
Free health care, just like the President
A salary, just like the President
Secret Service protections just like the President...

The TITLE of Former President is an "Office of Honor" that Trump can and does intden to profit from.

It really is all in English.

"Former President" is a description, not a position. "Perks" are not the defining factor; powers and responsibilities are. Former Presidents have neither. This is like saying that if I retire from a company and get a pension, I am "holding a position" with that company.

The more you try to struggle to say, "I want it, therefore it's legitimate!!!" the more ignorant you sound.

Trump was impeached while in office. BOOM!
There is precedent for impeachment trial after the accused has left office. BOOM!

 

[Dadoalex]

It really is all in English.

"Former President" is a description, not a position. "Perks" are not the defining factor; powers and responsibilities are. Former Presidents have neither. This is like saying that if I retire from a company and get a pension, I am "holding a position" with that company.

Well said, you can't really resign from being "Former President." It's an honororable title, not an honorable office. Former presidents are private citizens, as everyone knows.

Funny.
I'm a private citizen but
there aren't a dozen SS agents protecting me.
I don't get access to national security briefings

But, all of that aside.
Trump was impeached while in office.
AND
There is precedent for an impeachment trial AFTER the accused has left office.

So....

 

[Kilroy2]

She did not submit 70 challenges to the court system claiming fraud or procedural errors. She did not urge supporters to gather in Washington to contest the election. She did not call AG of a state to find additional votes. She did not start a movement called "Stop the Steal".

There was nothing suspicious in her election. When you have this guy with dementia not only win the election, but with a new record of voters, something is seriously wrong. His son is under FBI investigation which according to Tony Boblinksi, Joe was involved in. Go to his website and his entire agenda is destructive for most Americans. If it was Obama, I don't think that the election would be that questionable. But this joker has been in federal government for 50 years, never accomplished a thing, and he's the most popular President in history?????

About 75% of Republicans agree with Trump that this entire election was rigged. It has nothing to do with what Trump says, it has to do with the fact Joe was a complete failure his entire professional life while Trump was the best President we've had since Reagan.

Biden has been a senator for quite a few years. he was VP , and now he is the president. IF you want to call it a failure then that is your opinion. If he has dementia then I would love to see the diagnosis from a doctor. Compared to a nobody like Trump and a person with questionable behavior traits, then it is a matter of personal opinion. Hillary was not able to excite the voters enough to win. Then it could also be a believe that some were willing to give a businessman with no political experience a shot. Only history will tell if it he closed that door.

Trump lost because the turnout was the highest it has ever been at 66% as related to registered voters. He pissed off quite a few voters. Yet he did get more votes the 2nd time around because of voter turnout.

Obama was at about 61% on his first run and went down a little on his 2nd run.

In the early years pre 1900 it was listed above 70 percent and in modern times it averages in the high 50's. It means quite a few people registered but do not bother to vote. This time 1/3 of the registered voters did not vote.

The number of votes has steadily increased in every year since recorded over time.

My believe is people believe that Trump is the worst president ever and that drove the numbers up between eligible voter and those who actually vote.

Obama being the first black president running drove up the number of votes because it was history being made.

Clinton was the next highest and some of the repub vote might have been diluted with Perot votes. Also Bush was unlucky and he inherited the Regan economy when things went south.

Lesson to be learn, if voters are motivated they will come out to vote.

 

[Kilroy2]

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, --Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 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.

So the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are at odds with each. The difference is that the Declaration has no legal authority. It is a DECLARATION of principles. as is the Gettysburg Address.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are at odds only if you presume that laws (made by government) were intended to trump Rights (of the People) when they clearly were not.

well, the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. If the Declaration has the force of law, why was slavery around for another 89 tears?

the Constitution grants power through a representative form of government. The people’s power is Exercised through voting and through Representation in Congress. When congress acts, they are doing so because they were elected to do just that.

the Declaration does not have the force of law.

Who said otherwise? Not me. The Peoples Rights are separate from and above government whims AKA "the force of law".

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Simple. When if there is no consent there is no just power to the government. That is a founding principle; not a mere law of a government with no just power. Oh the government may still have some physical power with which to intimidate and oppress the people and might even succeed even in suppressing them for a time but a house divided against itself cannot stand indefinitely (also not a law).

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,

"...Right of the People..." Right; not law. Laws are whatever a government wants to claim they are. Rights are so very much more and not subject to government approval.

But if the people are divide who is right. Which rights of the people are just. If the group lost then they should accept it. Hiding behind we the people when it is just "the like minded" people who would not accept the rights of the other people who disagree.

Interesting how you think that now, but didn't think that four years ago. That is, unless you can point us to a post by you back then insisting that "the group that lost should accept it".

Hillary Clinton's concession speech (full text)

Hillary Clinton conceded the election to President-elect Donald Trump.

www.cnn.com

Sorry I was not on the board but take my word for it Clinton lost and that was that. She acknowledge the defeat in public and conceded defeat in early November.

She did not submit 70 challenges to the court system claiming fraud or procedural errors. She did not urge supporters to gather in Washington to contest the election. She did not call AG of a state to find additional votes. She did not start a movement called "Stop the Steal".

Trump on the other hand has done all the above and has not conceded public the defeat. He snuck out on the last day. Afraid that Biden would not let him use AF 1 for the ride home. Refusing to go to the inauguration and appearing in public one last time as the president. Making appointees and changes in the last few days just to be spiteful.

Trump did all the above. Things that a petty man would do. I would feel sorry for him but can't stop laughing at his antics.

Hillary Clinton spent the last four years telling everyone who would listen that Trump was "illegitimate", and she "beat" him. Her cohorts in the Democrat Party and the media - but I repeat myself - have spent the last four years yammering about "Russian collusion" and how it "stole the election", up to actually impeaching the President over this non-existent collusion.

So do NOT gabble at me about "Well, here's Hillary's concession speech, so we accepted the election loss just fine, and MEANWHILE, Trump is a very, very bad man because that's how I want to remember it!"

Since I have a functioning brain stem, I simply will not be able to accommodate your desire that I magically start remembering the last four years the way you dictate. Sorry.

Yet she conceded defeat. I am sure she believed that she was robbed. The difference is she talks about voter suppression issues, FBI investigation, the fact that she got significant more votes than Trump. Those are issues different that voter fraud.

Trump did not conceded, he tried to convince the AG to find him enough votes to win and was very specific with that number which was at least 1 more than what he had lost by,

He did a number of lawsuits, he tried to get Pence to do it, and finally he tried to get his supporters to do it.

If you do not see the difference then that is your opinion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lesson to be learn, if voters are motivated they will come out to vote.

Except they didn't "come out to vote." They stayed home while the Nazis put a ballot on their kitchen table to get the most politically ignorant and uneducated voters to vote, since most politically ignorant vote Democrat.

If they had to come out to vote, Trump would have cleaned Biden's clock. Those welfare types are not going to take the time or energy to actually make an effort to get to the polls. Why do you think the Nazis fought so hard against Voter-ID?

Yes, Biden is a failure and always has been. How do you spend 47 years in federal politics and accomplish absolutely nothing? Then run for President, and beat a sitting President that's done such great things for this country? It simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, there's always the political solution of just beating him fairly in elections. Setting a new Constitutional precedent of holding impeachments after a person has left office, and inventing laughably flimsy justifications for it, is only the "sole political solution" if you believe you're entitled to never, ever, EVER lose elections and political power.

All you've really told us is, "This is the only possible way we can punish him and keep him from challenging us!" And I for one have no sympathy with your "problem".

He's already been beaten in a fair election.
His response to that humiliation is why he committed these crimes.
His abuse of federal power in his attempts to overthrow the legal government of the US
His attempts to corrupt the federal judiciary
His attempts to corrupt the DoJ
His refusal to send protection when the Congress was under attack.

He was impeached in office.
If you look you will find precedence for holding an impeachment trial AFTER the accused has left office.

As for "challenging" us?
That will be difficult from the bottom floor of a super-max.

What the fuck does "he's already been beaten" have to do with the topic, aside from your desperate desire to claim legitimacy for that travesty of an election? Did I miss some point at which politicians aren't allowed to ever run for office again after losing an election? Because if so, that means Grandpa Badfinger had no business running for President last year.

He hasn't committed any crimes, and you don't get to declare that he did unless you're prepared to extend that same "outrage" to every Democrat and media member - but I repeat myself - who covered for and excused endless riots all last year. Your attempt to assume some sort of moral high ground here doesn't work on me, because I've seen enough of you to laugh at any notion of you having morals.

Ditto for the rest of your self-serving "This is true, because I want to believe it" crap. You want to declare something as settled fact, you prove it. I will treat any blank, unsubstantiated declaration from you as a lie from an idiot, so just save us both some time and don't bother hoping that if you assert it over and over, it'll become accepted.

 

[DJT for Life]

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

Gotta link?

Try this...

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

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

legalinsurrection.com

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

Turn on your tv

 

[DJT for Life]

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

Gotta link?

Try this...

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

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

legalinsurrection.com

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

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

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

news.yahoo.com

.

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

Leahy from Vermont is gonna here the case. That ought to be entertaining in its own right. Leahy and Sanders, both from Vermont,
are the only two US Senators that served in the Senate when Teddy Roosevelt was running the show.