Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The matter comes down to the First Amendment, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and Article 1, Sections 2 & 3 of the Constitution. Taken together, a former president can be impeached by the House, and then convicted and barred from holding office by the Senate if it so decides. Congressional power in this wise does not extend beyond impeachment, conviction, removal and disqualification. As for any subsequent criminal charges, which you seem to be conflating with the pertinent congressional proceedings, those would be adjudicated by the courts.
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.
But Trump is not going to be convicted by the Senate, as the charge is utter bullshit in the first place, both in terms of fact and lawful free speech, and it is not politically feasible. But do most especially take note of which Republicans, if any, vote to convict.
You're correct but not because of the reason you cited. Trump will not be convicted because it takes 17 republicans voting yes. The articles of impeachment could have said he shot Biden on 5th Ave and they would have still voted no.
Get back to me when you get that puzzle piece put back in you head. I never conflated anything. And you're right, he won't be convicted, but the commies will put on a spectacle, just like last time. And from what I've seen in some interviews they are going to try to include crap not in the single article of impeachment.
The matter comes down to the First Amendment, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and Article 1, Sections 2 & 3 of the Constitution. Taken together, a former president can be impeached by the House, and then convicted and barred from holding office by the Senate if it so decides. Congressional power in this wise does not extend beyond impeachment, conviction, removal and disqualification. As for any subsequent criminal charges, which you seem to be conflating with the pertinent congressional proceedings, those would be adjudicated by the courts.
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.
But Trump is not going to be convicted by the Senate, as the charge is utter bullshit in the first place, both in terms of fact and lawful free speech, and it is not politically feasible. But do most especially take note of which Republicans, if any, vote to convict.You're correct but not because of the reason you cited. Trump will not be convicted because it takes 17 republicans voting yes. The articles of impeachment could have said he shot Biden on 5th Ave and they would have still voted no.
Nonsense. I emphatically stated that a conviction is not politically feasible as, of course, two-thirds of the Senate is not going to vote to convict. I didn't think the latter had to be spelled out to anyone given that I cited the pertinent passages of the Constitution and given that the Senate is evenly split 50-50. LOL!
Inflammatory language is not necessary to inspire people. Look at Martin Luther King's "I had a dream speech", one of the most persuasive speeches of all times yet not a hint of a need for violence. Although Trump is certainly not a gifted orator that is no excuse for his continuing suggestions of the need for violence, praise for those that commit violent acts.
Get back to me when you get that puzzle piece put back in you head. I never conflated anything. And you're right, he won't be convicted, but the commies will put on a spectacle, just like last time. And from what I've seen in some interviews they are going to try to include crap not in the single article of impeachment.
Well, given that he was impeached and that his trail was set by the Senate, it seemed to me that you might be conflating the congressional proceedings and any criminal proceedings, as you did allude to the courts.
As for the rest, I say let her rip. The Dims will damage themselves. Pelosi's a fool.
I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office
You still don't understand what High crimes and misdemeanors are nor do you understand why they used that phrase and I'm tired explaining it to you and giving you links you don't read.
When Trump told his people to go home, he certainly praised them when he called them very special people.
Get back to me when you get that puzzle piece put back in you head. I never conflated anything. And you're right, he won't be convicted, but the commies will put on a spectacle, just like last time. And from what I've seen in some interviews they are going to try to include crap not in the single article of impeachment.
Well, given that he was impeached and that his trail was set by the Senate, it seemed to me that you might be conflating the congressional proceedings and any criminal proceedings, as you did allude to the courts.
As for the rest, I say let her rip. The Dims will damage themselves. Pelosi's a fool.
You might want to read the post where I mentioned the courts again.
.
Yes, yes, yes, I'm sure his approval ratings will drop any minute, though probably not to 36% like some of donnies. I didn't want anybody drilling in that Arctic National Wildlife Refuges, on of the largest rain forest outside of South America. Probably did piss off parents with daughters in sports or previously headed for sport. Doubt Troudeau any more pissed than dealing with donnie. Pretty sure there are not tens of thousands of military pissed off by anything done since inauguration. No big border patrol issue either as they do not set policy, only carry it out. Little early to start whining. Changes nothing, but looks impotent.
Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office
I didn't say Trump's speech was unlawful. However, I do believe that there would not have been an attack on our capital without Trump's constant suggestions of violence and hateful rhetoric directed at congressmen and the government in general.Inflammatory language is not necessary to inspire people. Look at Martin Luther King's "I had a dream speech", one of the most persuasive speeches of all times yet not a hint of a need for violence. Although Trump is certainly not a gifted orator that is no excuse for his continuing suggestions of the need for violence, praise for those that commit violent acts.
Liar, liar, pants on fire. There was absolutely nothing unlawful about Trump's speech, and he did not incite violence or praise those who commit violence.
Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.
I didn't say Trump's speech was unlawful. However, I do believe that there would not have been an attack on our capital without Trump's constant suggestions of violence and hateful rhetoric directed at congressmen and the government in general.Inflammatory language is not necessary to inspire people. Look at Martin Luther King's "I had a dream speech", one of the most persuasive speeches of all times yet not a hint of a need for violence. Although Trump is certainly not a gifted orator that is no excuse for his continuing suggestions of the need for violence, praise for those that commit violent acts.
Liar, liar, pants on fire. There was absolutely nothing unlawful about Trump's speech, and he did not incite violence or praise those who commit violence.
In what respect is he a "criminal" in your eyes?1. How many threads do we need on this bogus defense of an obviously guilty criminal?
Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by about 3 million and 7 million in 2020. It seems highly unlikely that Trump's future in 2024 will be improved by an attack by Trump supporters on the Capitol and a 2nd impeachment. He's being banned by social media and campaign contributions frozen by major campaign contributors, and he has lost support in congress. Only the most diehard Trump supporters would find this encouraging. Had congressional democrats done nothing about Trump's incitement, they would have lost support of their base. It would be condoning his actions.Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.
Try being honest. That's not why they are trying to ban him from office. They are doing it because if we ever have a fair election next time, Trump will beat the hell out of them.
Exactly what is not true? For four years, our elected officials claimed that the American People voted for a fraud, the American people voted for a charlatan, the Russian government was responsible for this charlatan, he is not my president, get in the faces of those that work for him, impeach 45, (same as the American people are stupid to vote for him), he is a racist, a xenophobe, and anti-Semite, a mysgonist....he must go. Go. I tell you Go!Well now I think I'm just talking to a botHis speech never called for any violence !!Well ultimately, yours is just a wildly partisan radical's opinion, instead of one that actually mattersZero evidence he incited any riotsWhere 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?
.
Legal scholars, including at Federalist Society, say Trump can be convicted
Some Republicans have argued a former president can't be the target of an impeachment trial.www.politico.com
Former President Donald Trump can be convicted in an impeachment trial for his role in inciting the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6 even though he is no longer in office, a bipartisan group of constitutional law scholars wrote in a letter Thursday.
“We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation,” wrote the signatories, which include the co-founder and other members of the conservative Federalist Society legal group. “But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.”
Seems pretty solid to me
In fact , it was Nancy pelousy and others who have incited the leftist mobs
I don't find it encouraging.Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by about 3 million and 7 million in 2020. It seems highly unlikely that Trump's future in 2024 will be improved by an attack by Trump supporters on the Capitol and a 2nd impeachment. He's being banned by social media and campaign contributions frozen by major campaign contributors, and he has lost support in congress. Only the most diehard Trump supporters would find this encouraging. Had congressional democrats done nothing about Trump's incitement, they would have lost support of their base. It would be condoning his actions.Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.
Try being honest. That's not why they are trying to ban him from office. They are doing it because if we ever have a fair election next time, Trump will beat the hell out of them.
Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by about 3 million and 7 million in 2020. It seems highly unlikely that Trump's future in 2024 will be improved by an attack by Trump supporters on the Capitol and a 2nd impeachment. He's being banned by social media and campaign contributions frozen by major campaign contributors, and he has lost support in congress. Only the most diehard Trump supporters would find this encouraging. Had congressional democrats done nothing about Trump's incitement, they would have lost support of their base. It would be condoning his actions.
