Serious Question

[Circe]

I don't see Cruz even considering such a thing. The poster you quoted is an idiot.

Well, it does seem unlikely Cruz would go that way to me, too. I guess we'll see as this progresses along its crazy way, as it is doing even today. I can't see how this is constitutional, and Justice Roberts agrees with that, I see from the paper today. But whether something is constitutional no longer matters, as we have seen with all the oppressive COVID rules.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't see Cruz even considering such a thing. The poster you quoted is an idiot.

Well, it does seem unlikely Cruz would go that way to me, too. I guess we'll see as this progresses along its crazy way, as it is doing even today. I can't see how this is constitutional, and Justice Roberts agrees with that, I see from the paper today. But whether something is constitutional no longer matters, as we have seen with all the oppressive COVID rules.

Correct. The Nazis just impeached a US President for exercising his first amendment rights.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't see Cruz even considering such a thing. The poster you quoted is an idiot.

Well, it does seem unlikely Cruz would go that way to me, too. I guess we'll see as this progresses along its crazy way, as it is doing even today. I can't see how this is constitutional, and Justice Roberts agrees with that, I see from the paper today. But whether something is constitutional no longer matters, as we have seen with all the oppressive COVID rules.

The vote today gives a pretty good indication where this is headed, can you say "nowhere"?

.

 

[Circe]

The vote today gives a pretty good indication where this is headed, can you say "nowhere"?

Oh, yeah? I didn't catch that, I don't know what the vote was. I HOPE it's going nowhere, but it's hard to see what good it does the Dems --- except that they think it "validates" their earlier impeachment.

I think it makes them look obsessed with hatred against a very effective politician.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The vote today gives a pretty good indication where this is headed, can you say "nowhere"?

I didn't watch. It would make me puke. I'm sure I'll see segments of it when I watch evil right-wing news shows tonight. We on the right have been telling the leftists it had no chance, but many were convinced a miracle would actually happen, even if they conducted it by secrete vote.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The vote today gives a pretty good indication where this is headed, can you say "nowhere"?

I didn't watch. It would make me puke. I'm sure I'll see segments of it when I watch evil right-wing news shows tonight. We on the right have been telling the leftists it had no chance, but many were convinced a miracle would actually happen, even if they conducted it by secrete vote.

The quotes from Rand Paul were excellent and very incisive.

“The Chief Justice’s absence demonstrates that this is not a trial as a president, but of a private citizen. Therefore I make a point of order, that this proceeding, which would try a private citizen and not a president, a vice president, or civil officer violates the Constitution, and is not in order.”

“Hyper-partisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history. Instead of doing the nation’s work with their new majorities in the Senate, House, and executive branch, Democrats are wasting the nation’s on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office. It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump. Without him as their boogeyman, they might have to legislate and to actually convince Americans that their policy prescriptions are the right ones.”

That last one is my personal favorite.

By the way, anyone who is still voting for Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Toomey, or Sasse should be shunned by all decent humans. Let them go into the gutter to get approbation from Democrats.

 

[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.

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.

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.

Why don't you unwad those skidmark stained panties and try reading the post to which I was responding.

It may, although I doubt it, help make you look a little less stupid.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The quotes from Rand Paul were excellent and very incisive.

“The Chief Justice’s absence demonstrates that this is not a trial as a president, but of a private citizen. Therefore I make a point of order, that this proceeding, which would try a private citizen and not a president, a vice president, or civil officer violates the Constitution, and is not in order.”

“Hyper-partisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history. Instead of doing the nation’s work with their new majorities in the Senate, House, and executive branch, Democrats are wasting the nation’s on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office. It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump. Without him as their boogeyman, they might have to legislate and to actually convince Americans that their policy prescriptions are the right ones.”

That last one is my personal favorite.

By the way, anyone who is still voting for Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Toomey, or Sasse should be shunned by all decent humans. Let them go into the gutter to get approbation from Democrats.

Paul is a guy that sometimes you like him and sometimes you don't. But correct, he was exactly right.

As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, if the Congress can impeach this private citizen and it's allowed to stand, then they can impeach any private citizen. That means whenever a threat comes the Democrats way and they have strong leadership of the House and Senate, simply impeach him or her and they can wipe out all serious opposition to their party. If you want to read what he said, I started a topic on it in Current Events titled Six ways the House violated the Constitution.

 

[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.

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.

Why don't you unwad those skidmark stained panties and try reading the post to which I was responding.

It may, although I doubt it, help make you look a little less stupid.

It was my own post you were responding to. You just tried to pussy out of answering the point by arrogantly instructing me to "try reading" my own fucking post.

Now, are you quite done utterly humiliating yourself? Because if not, I'm perfectly happy to keep laughing derisively.

 

[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.

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.

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.

Why don't you unwad those skidmark stained panties and try reading the post to which I was responding.

It may, although I doubt it, help make you look a little less stupid.

It was my own post you were responding to. You just tried to pussy out of answering the point by arrogantly instructing me to "try reading" my own fucking post.

Now, are you quite done utterly humiliating yourself? Because if not, I'm perfectly happy to keep laughing derisively.

If it was your own post, fool, then why are YOU NOT ON TOPIC YOU FUCKING MORON?!?!?

 

[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.

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.

Why don't you unwad those skidmark stained panties and try reading the post to which I was responding.

It may, although I doubt it, help make you look a little less stupid.

It was my own post you were responding to. You just tried to pussy out of answering the point by arrogantly instructing me to "try reading" my own fucking post.

Now, are you quite done utterly humiliating yourself? Because if not, I'm perfectly happy to keep laughing derisively.

If it was your own post, fool, then why are YOU NOT ON TOPIC YOU FUCKING MORON?!?!?

I was responding to your post. So if it went "off topic", that would be a problem with YOUR post.

We can do this all day while you try to twist and squirm to a point where you haven't made a fool of yourself.

 

[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

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

.

The case was dismissed and the trial brought to an end on January 14, 1799. While the grounds for the Senate's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction remain unclear, the Senate's action in the Blount case has been interpreted to mean that a Senator cannot be impeached. It seems highly unlikely that the framers of the constitution would have created a loophole that allowed the guilty to escape both impeachment and the barring of holding a future office by leaving leaving the office before conviction.

 

[Rambunctious]

They don't have the right to impeach a private citizen...and we all better hope for all our sake that someone stops them....

 

[Flopper]

I don't see Cruz even considering such a thing. The poster you quoted is an idiot.

Well, it does seem unlikely Cruz would go that way to me, too. I guess we'll see as this progresses along its crazy way, as it is doing even today. I can't see how this is constitutional, and Justice Roberts agrees with that, I see from the paper today. But whether something is constitutional no longer matters, as we have seen with all the oppressive COVID rules.

Correct. The Nazis just impeached a US President for exercising his first amendment rights.

Nope. The 1st amendment right of freedom of speech bars congress from making a law that would limit such. However, that does not mean that a person can say whatever they chose and be immune from the legal consequences due to such speech, for example inciting insurrection or rioting or damages to property or persons due exercising those rights.

Also keep mind, articles of impeachment are not a criminal charge but a pollical charge that the office holder is not fit to hold office. The FBI is looking at the attack on the capitol to determine who will face criminal charges which could go much higher up than just those that broke into the capitol.

This entire thread is rather meaningless since there is essential no way 17 republicans are going to vote to convict. However, keep in mind this is a pollical process, not a legal process. Senate democrats will carry through with a trial for two reasons. First being it is their responsible to do so. Second, it lays out the entire case by both the prosecution and defense for the voters to deicide on whether Trump should be given a second go at the white house.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

.

The case was dismissed and the trial brought to an end on January 14, 1799. While the grounds for the Senate's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction remain unclear, the Senate's action in the Blount case has been interpreted to mean that a Senator cannot be impeached. It seems highly unlikely that the framers of the constitution would have created a loophole that allowed the guilty to escape both impeachment and the barring of holding a future office by leaving leaving the office before conviction.

Seems likely to me, since the purpose of impeachment is to remove the person from office. If they resign instead, then mission accomplished. And the Constitution clearly mentions the possibility of criminal prosecution after that point, if needed. So it seems unlikely to ME that they were planning for the Senate to have jurisdiction to politically pursue people who are no longer holding office.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nope. The 1st amendment right of freedom of speech bars congress from making a law that would limit such. However, that does not mean that a person can say whatever they chose and be immune from the legal consequences due to such speech, for example inciting insurrection or rioting or damages to property or persons due exercising those rights.

Also keep mind, articles of impeachment are not a criminal charge but a pollical charge that the office holder is not fit to hold office. The FBI is looking at the attack on the capitol to determine who will face criminal charges which could go much higher up than just those that broke into the capitol.

This entire thread is rather meaningless since there is essential no way 17 republicans are going to vote to convict. However, keep in mind this is a pollical process, not a legal process. Senate democrats will carry through with a trial for two reasons. First being it is their responsible to do so. Second, it lays out the entire case by both the prosecution and defense for the voters to deicide on whether Trump should be given a second go at the white house.

The first amendment guarantees you freedom of speech without retaliation from government. It has nothing to do with making new laws by Congress. The Constitution also tells us that the impeachment process is based on criminal activity listing bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say only Democrats can make the determination of what one said.

Inciting riots or insurrection can be defined by just about any speech a pissed off politician makes. We've seen the Democrats do that repeatedly. It led to the riot at the Supreme Court, and may have played a part in the baseball field shooting. The only legitimate way to charge Trump for the riot is if he told people to riot, which he obviously instructed just the opposite "We will march to the Capital peacefully and patriotically."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They don't have the right to impeach a private citizen...and we all better hope for all our sake that someone stops them....

They cannot be stopped, but getting even will be even more fun. Watch how they cry about it then.

 

[meaner gene]

They don't have the right to impeach a private citizen...and we all better hope for all our sake that someone stops them....

Trump was president on January 13th, when the house impeached him.

The impeachment is over. Now comes the senate trial.

 

[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

.

The case was dismissed and the trial brought to an end on January 14, 1799. While the grounds for the Senate's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction remain unclear, the Senate's action in the Blount case has been interpreted to mean that a Senator cannot be impeached. It seems highly unlikely that the framers of the constitution would have created a loophole that allowed the guilty to escape both impeachment and the barring of holding a future office by leaving leaving the office before conviction.

Yet the first resolution they voted on said he could, when are you going to stop lying? From my link:


After three days of argument, the Senate met behind closed doors in January 1799 to deliberate and to vote on two resolutions. The first resolution was defeated, 11-14:

That William Blount was a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore liable to be impeached by the House of Representatives; That as the articles of impeachment charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors, supposed to have been committed while he was a Senator of the United States, his plea [to dismiss the charges] ought to be overruled.

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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?

.

Not surprising at all, as it goes along with:
Supreme Court: Retirees Can Be Court-Martialed for Crimes Committed After Service
You ain't free and clear, with the piper paid, by getting out just in time.

So you believe committed a crime after he was President? Didn't the Capitol protest happen before Biden was allegedly sworn in? What crime is he accused of committing? Can Congress impeach a private citizen? Crazy.

Most experts agree. It is happening. You are in for another reality check. The question is not whether it is happening, but whether there are 17 Republicans that are not aghast, Donnie sent the mob into their chamber screaming "Hang Pence" and got 5 people killed in the process of his little insurrection.

If the Senate rules (set by the Senate itself) call for a secret ballot in the trial, your gonna see a stampede of Republican to convict and get out of their way so the can run in 2024.

That is quite possible. I certainly will not shed a tear. He should have known better. Anybody else would have. It was gross neglet of duty to his oath, inexcusable negligence of judgement and his sending them to the capital after firing them up, sparked an insurrection on the Capital Building with both houses of Congress in session. We are damned lucky no more than 5 were killed, with a gallows erected on the Capital lawn and his trumpist mob storming the halls chanting "Hang Pence", his own Vice President of 4 years. Trump must pay for this outrage against our country, the rule of law, free elections in this country.

It was gross neglet of duty to his oath, inexcusable negligence of judgement
Right. Maybe we should consider that right after we see justice done for those same crimes committed in the Benghazi clusterfug which really did get people killed.