Serious Question

[Faun]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

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.
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.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.

Exactly, it says "removal, and disqualification" not removal, OR disqualification. Removal must come first, which isn't possible.

.

Nope. They're voted on separately.

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

​

Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction​

What commie lawyer dreamed that up?

.

LOLOL

By "commie," you mean who proved me wrong.

You could have just looked at the footnotes and you would have seen that article is based on precedence...

856 The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 Cannon’sprecedents Of The House Of Representatives § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 Deschler’sprecedents ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607 (1936).​

[emphasis mine]

 

[miketx]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't recall any of those democrats having to justify pussy grabbing on national television, paying off porno stars, refusing to release their tax returns, calling white supremacists' very fine people, banning entrance to the US based on religion, referring to the poorest nations as shithole countries, and thousand of other violations of common decency. Presidents were considered to be role models. Hopefully, that is no longer true.

I don't know how many times we need to dissect these lies, but you people keep repeating them.

 

[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?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

Been posted and mentioned several times in this thread, feel free to go look it up. Don't come in the thread on the 12th day and expect to be pampered.

.

That is not a precedent. They voted to not hold a trial because a Senator can't be impeached.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.​

Senators are not civil officers.

Not what the senate said. A precedent that has stood for 222 years.

.

That's exactly what they said. They voted against this...

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.​

And then voted to dismiss the trial on that.

The only thing mentioned in there which is in violation of the Constitution is that he was called a "civil officer," which Senators are not. At most, you could argue that Senate was not clear enough on whether their reason was because Blount wasn't a civil officer or because they had already expelled him -- but you lose the argument there too as ambiguity is not precedence.

Even worse for you, Belknap was impeached in 1876 and then resigned to avoid the Senate trial -- they tried him anyway because there is no such precedent as you claim.

Damn child, you just prove you illiteracy again. The said he was liable for impeachment, but dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction because he was out of office. Read it again.

LOL

Moron, they voted against that resolution.

Yeah, the resolution was a defense motion to dismiss, saying a senator was not impeachable, and they dismissed it saying he WAS impeachable.

From my link:

Blount's attorneys challenged the jurisdiction of the Senate over Blount on two distinct grounds: first, that a Senator was not a "civil officer" within the meaning of the Constitution's Impeachment Clause; and second, that because Blount had been expelled in July 1797, he was no longer an officer of the government and therefore the Senate no longer had jurisdiction over him.

The first was voted down, the second was upheld causing the impeachment to be dismissed. Get an adult to read and explain it to ya. Reading is fundamental.

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

.

Holy shit, now you're changing the wording of the resolutions on which they voted. Neither resolution specified "first" and "second." And here's the first resolution...

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.​

There's nothing in that resolution that shows the first argument failed but the second argument passed. The Senate merely bundled the two arguments together in that one resolution and voted against it.

Then they voted on another resolution whether or not to dismiss the trial...

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.​

That one doesn't mention either of Blount's arguments and it passed.

I can't tell .... are you lying or just stupid?

You fucking moron, those are the senates answers to the defense motions. They disagreed with the first motion and agreed with the second. ONCE AGAIN, READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. You didn't get an adult to explain it to ya, did ya?


.

 

[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?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

Long standing precedent says they are not moving forward according to the Constitution, a precedent set during the founding era. In fact Blount signed the Constitution and worked for its ratification. I would say congressional actions in that era would conform constitutionally more accurately than actions further removed from the founding. I wonder why you commies always try to bastardize the Constitution to push you agenda. Nah, we all know why.

.

The Constitution fails your argument too. It states...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.​

Emphasis mine

The ignorance is yours, that's all you got. But I do appreciate you bumping my thread.

.

LOLOL

You need the meaning of the word, "ALL," taught to you???

No you need to understand the meaning of the word "and".

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Like Trump you're comparing corvid to the flu. Unlike the common flu there was no effective treatment for covid, no vaccine, and the infection rate was far higher than the flu. Our only protection from covid was social distancing and masks. Trump down played the virus and made wearing masks and social distancing a campaign issue. Even after the election many his followers refuse to wear mask and are still spreading lies that masks are ineffective. Trump abandon federal management of the virus last April, leaving it to states and infections skyrocketed as the states lacked both expertise and funds. In most states managing the epidemic became a political issue and America's response to the virus was worst in world.

I get a little tired of hearing about Donald Trump saving the country by giving us a vaccine. The fact is both Moderna and Pfizer began developing an mRNA vaccine in the middle of January. In addition 10 other organization also began development in January. Both Moderna and Pfizer had proven their vaccine effective in the lab and were ready for clinical trials when Warp Speed was announced. Warp speed provided Moderna with additional funding and a advanced purchase contract. Pfizer refused government funding but agreed to sells doses of the vaccine to the government when it had FDA approval.

Warp Speed seems to have been handled well and Donald Trump certainly deserves credit for it since it happened on his watch. But vaccine development started long before it was a twinkle in his eye; everyone understood from the start that speed was critical; and it was Congress that allocated the funds to make it possible. Only after all that did Trump wrap a bow around everything by giving it a name. It was hardly a stroke of genius that only he could ever have come up with.

You avoided my question. How do you blame a President for being unable to control a new virus with no cure that killed thousands when the same thing happens every year with the flu, and we have remedies to prevent it? The point is the President of the United States cannot control these things. There was nothing more Trump could do.

* Democrats in Democrat cities rioted because a prisoner in another Democrat city died from an OD in custody of a police officer--Trump's fault.
* Wildfires are raging in California, as they do every year because they won't clean up the dead wood for environmental reasons-Trump's fault.
* A worldwide pandemic hit everybody on the planet, and people died in the US--Trump's fault.
* Much like most of the world, the virus hit our economy pretty bad because Democrat cities and states closed down--Trump's fault.

Right, Trump had nothing to do with the vaccine. That's why Whorris said she would never take a vaccine produced under President Trump--because he had nothing to do with it.

 

[OKTexas]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

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.
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.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.

Exactly, it says "removal, and disqualification" not removal, OR disqualification. Removal must come first, which isn't possible.

.

Nope. They're voted on separately.

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

​

Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction​

What commie lawyer dreamed that up?

.

LOLOL

By "commie," you mean who proved me wrong.

You could have just looked at the footnotes and you would have seen that article is based on precedence...

856 The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 Cannon’sprecedents Of The House Of Representatives § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 Deschler’sprecedents ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607 (1936).​

[emphasis mine]

You haven't proved a damn thing, politicians aren't qualified to determine the constitutionality of shit.

.

 

[Faun]

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?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

Been posted and mentioned several times in this thread, feel free to go look it up. Don't come in the thread on the 12th day and expect to be pampered.

.

That is not a precedent. They voted to not hold a trial because a Senator can't be impeached.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.​

Senators are not civil officers.

Not what the senate said. A precedent that has stood for 222 years.

.

That's exactly what they said. They voted against this...

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.​

And then voted to dismiss the trial on that.

The only thing mentioned in there which is in violation of the Constitution is that he was called a "civil officer," which Senators are not. At most, you could argue that Senate was not clear enough on whether their reason was because Blount wasn't a civil officer or because they had already expelled him -- but you lose the argument there too as ambiguity is not precedence.

Even worse for you, Belknap was impeached in 1876 and then resigned to avoid the Senate trial -- they tried him anyway because there is no such precedent as you claim.

Damn child, you just prove you illiteracy again. The said he was liable for impeachment, but dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction because he was out of office. Read it again.

LOL

Moron, they voted against that resolution.

Yeah, the resolution was a defense motion to dismiss, saying a senator was not impeachable, and they dismissed it saying he WAS impeachable.

From my link:

Blount's attorneys challenged the jurisdiction of the Senate over Blount on two distinct grounds: first, that a Senator was not a "civil officer" within the meaning of the Constitution's Impeachment Clause; and second, that because Blount had been expelled in July 1797, he was no longer an officer of the government and therefore the Senate no longer had jurisdiction over him.

The first was voted down, the second was upheld causing the impeachment to be dismissed. Get an adult to read and explain it to ya. Reading is fundamental.

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

.

Holy shit, now you're changing the wording of the resolutions on which they voted. Neither resolution specified "first" and "second." And here's the first resolution...

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.​

There's nothing in that resolution that shows the first argument failed but the second argument passed. The Senate merely bundled the two arguments together in that one resolution and voted against it.

Then they voted on another resolution whether or not to dismiss the trial...

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.​

That one doesn't mention either of Blount's arguments and it passed.

I can't tell .... are you lying or just stupid?

You fucking moron, those are the senates answers to the defense motions. They disagreed with the first motion and agreed with the second. ONCE AGAIN, READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. You didn't get an adult to explain it to ya, did ya?


.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

You're such a fucking retard. Moron, while you post in all CAPS, "READING IS FUNDAMENTAL," you actually demonstrate you're the one who's illiterate.

Shitstain -- try reading "YOUR OWN LINK"....

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. Members of Congress are instead expelled by a vote of two-thirds of the membership of their body.​

I ask again since you never answered ... are you lying or just stupid? Or is it both?

 

[Faun]

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?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

Long standing precedent says they are not moving forward according to the Constitution, a precedent set during the founding era. In fact Blount signed the Constitution and worked for its ratification. I would say congressional actions in that era would conform constitutionally more accurately than actions further removed from the founding. I wonder why you commies always try to bastardize the Constitution to push you agenda. Nah, we all know why.

.

The Constitution fails your argument too. It states...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.​

Emphasis mine

The ignorance is yours, that's all you got. But I do appreciate you bumping my thread.

.

LOLOL

You need the meaning of the word, "ALL," taught to you???

No you need to understand the meaning of the word "and".

.

LOLOLOL

You lie. You do need the word, "ALL," taught to you since the Constitution says the Senate has the power to try "all impeachments." Not, "all impeachments of sitting presidents, VP's and civil officers."

"ALL"

ALL as in every single impeachment. Trump's been impeached. That means the Senate can try him, if they so choose, because his impeachment ... are ya sitting down? ..... is inclusive in "ALL."

As far as "and," I've already shown you 2 cases where the Senate held separate votes. I also showed you where they're conclusively separate votes as one requires a 2/3rds majority to pass while the other requires only a simple majority.

If you had a brain, and clearly you don't, you'd STFU already because you're getting royally bitchslapped over this. In your own thread, no less.

 

[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?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

Been posted and mentioned several times in this thread, feel free to go look it up. Don't come in the thread on the 12th day and expect to be pampered.

.

That is not a precedent. They voted to not hold a trial because a Senator can't be impeached.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.​

Senators are not civil officers.

Not what the senate said. A precedent that has stood for 222 years.

.

That's exactly what they said. They voted against this...

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.​

And then voted to dismiss the trial on that.

The only thing mentioned in there which is in violation of the Constitution is that he was called a "civil officer," which Senators are not. At most, you could argue that Senate was not clear enough on whether their reason was because Blount wasn't a civil officer or because they had already expelled him -- but you lose the argument there too as ambiguity is not precedence.

Even worse for you, Belknap was impeached in 1876 and then resigned to avoid the Senate trial -- they tried him anyway because there is no such precedent as you claim.

Damn child, you just prove you illiteracy again. The said he was liable for impeachment, but dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction because he was out of office. Read it again.

LOL

Moron, they voted against that resolution.

Yeah, the resolution was a defense motion to dismiss, saying a senator was not impeachable, and they dismissed it saying he WAS impeachable.

From my link:

Blount's attorneys challenged the jurisdiction of the Senate over Blount on two distinct grounds: first, that a Senator was not a "civil officer" within the meaning of the Constitution's Impeachment Clause; and second, that because Blount had been expelled in July 1797, he was no longer an officer of the government and therefore the Senate no longer had jurisdiction over him.

The first was voted down, the second was upheld causing the impeachment to be dismissed. Get an adult to read and explain it to ya. Reading is fundamental.

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

.

Holy shit, now you're changing the wording of the resolutions on which they voted. Neither resolution specified "first" and "second." And here's the first resolution...

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.​

There's nothing in that resolution that shows the first argument failed but the second argument passed. The Senate merely bundled the two arguments together in that one resolution and voted against it.

Then they voted on another resolution whether or not to dismiss the trial...

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.​

That one doesn't mention either of Blount's arguments and it passed.

I can't tell .... are you lying or just stupid?

You fucking moron, those are the senates answers to the defense motions. They disagreed with the first motion and agreed with the second. ONCE AGAIN, READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. You didn't get an adult to explain it to ya, did ya?


.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

You're such a fucking retard. Moron, while you post in all CAPS, "READING IS FUNDAMENTAL," you actually demonstrate you're the one who's illiterate.

Shitstain -- try reading "YOUR OWN LINK"....

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. Members of Congress are instead expelled by a vote of two-thirds of the membership of their body.​

I ask again since you never answered ... are you lying or just stupid? Or is it both?

Once again, there is no need for interpretation, the senate plainly said a senator could be impeached.

"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. "

Bias skews interpretations, I'll go with the plain language of the record.

.

 

[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?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

Long standing precedent says they are not moving forward according to the Constitution, a precedent set during the founding era. In fact Blount signed the Constitution and worked for its ratification. I would say congressional actions in that era would conform constitutionally more accurately than actions further removed from the founding. I wonder why you commies always try to bastardize the Constitution to push you agenda. Nah, we all know why.

.

The Constitution fails your argument too. It states...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.​

Emphasis mine

The ignorance is yours, that's all you got. But I do appreciate you bumping my thread.

.

LOLOL

You need the meaning of the word, "ALL," taught to you???

No you need to understand the meaning of the word "and".

.

LOLOLOL

You lie. You do need the word, "ALL," taught to you since the Constitution says the Senate has the power to try "all impeachments." Not, "all impeachments of sitting presidents, VP's and civil officers."

"ALL"

ALL as in every single impeachment. Trump's been impeached. That means the Senate can try him, if they so choose, because his impeachment ... are ya sitting down? ..... is inclusive in "ALL."

As far as "and," I've already shown you 2 cases where the Senate held separate votes. I also showed you where they're conclusively separate votes as one requires a 2/3rds majority to pass while the other requires only a simple majority.

If you had a brain, and clearly you don't, you'd STFU already because you're getting royally bitchslapped over this. In your own thread, no less.

Actually it says "the President", not former president. At this point "the President" is quid pro joe.

.

 

[Faun]

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?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

Been posted and mentioned several times in this thread, feel free to go look it up. Don't come in the thread on the 12th day and expect to be pampered.

.

That is not a precedent. They voted to not hold a trial because a Senator can't be impeached.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.​

Senators are not civil officers.

Not what the senate said. A precedent that has stood for 222 years.

.

That's exactly what they said. They voted against this...

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.​

And then voted to dismiss the trial on that.

The only thing mentioned in there which is in violation of the Constitution is that he was called a "civil officer," which Senators are not. At most, you could argue that Senate was not clear enough on whether their reason was because Blount wasn't a civil officer or because they had already expelled him -- but you lose the argument there too as ambiguity is not precedence.

Even worse for you, Belknap was impeached in 1876 and then resigned to avoid the Senate trial -- they tried him anyway because there is no such precedent as you claim.

Damn child, you just prove you illiteracy again. The said he was liable for impeachment, but dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction because he was out of office. Read it again.

LOL

Moron, they voted against that resolution.

Yeah, the resolution was a defense motion to dismiss, saying a senator was not impeachable, and they dismissed it saying he WAS impeachable.

From my link:

Blount's attorneys challenged the jurisdiction of the Senate over Blount on two distinct grounds: first, that a Senator was not a "civil officer" within the meaning of the Constitution's Impeachment Clause; and second, that because Blount had been expelled in July 1797, he was no longer an officer of the government and therefore the Senate no longer had jurisdiction over him.

The first was voted down, the second was upheld causing the impeachment to be dismissed. Get an adult to read and explain it to ya. Reading is fundamental.

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

.

Holy shit, now you're changing the wording of the resolutions on which they voted. Neither resolution specified "first" and "second." And here's the first resolution...

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.​

There's nothing in that resolution that shows the first argument failed but the second argument passed. The Senate merely bundled the two arguments together in that one resolution and voted against it.

Then they voted on another resolution whether or not to dismiss the trial...

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.​

That one doesn't mention either of Blount's arguments and it passed.

I can't tell .... are you lying or just stupid?

You fucking moron, those are the senates answers to the defense motions. They disagreed with the first motion and agreed with the second. ONCE AGAIN, READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. You didn't get an adult to explain it to ya, did ya?


.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

You're such a fucking retard. Moron, while you post in all CAPS, "READING IS FUNDAMENTAL," you actually demonstrate you're the one who's illiterate.

Shitstain -- try reading "YOUR OWN LINK"....

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. Members of Congress are instead expelled by a vote of two-thirds of the membership of their body.​

I ask again since you never answered ... are you lying or just stupid? Or is it both?

Once again, there is no need for interpretation, the senate plainly said a senator could be impeached.

"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. "

Bias skews interpretations, I'll go with the plain language of the record.

.

LOLOLOLOL

Now you're arguing with your own source!

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. Members of Congress are instead expelled by a vote of two-thirds of the membership of their body.​

Oh, and again, there's more precedence proving you're an idiot. Again, bWilliam Belknap was impeached and the Senate tried him even though he was no longer in office.

Sadly, you're ineducable.

 

[Faun]

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?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

Long standing precedent says they are not moving forward according to the Constitution, a precedent set during the founding era. In fact Blount signed the Constitution and worked for its ratification. I would say congressional actions in that era would conform constitutionally more accurately than actions further removed from the founding. I wonder why you commies always try to bastardize the Constitution to push you agenda. Nah, we all know why.

.

The Constitution fails your argument too. It states...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.​

Emphasis mine

The ignorance is yours, that's all you got. But I do appreciate you bumping my thread.

.

LOLOL

You need the meaning of the word, "ALL," taught to you???

No you need to understand the meaning of the word "and".

.

LOLOLOL

You lie. You do need the word, "ALL," taught to you since the Constitution says the Senate has the power to try "all impeachments." Not, "all impeachments of sitting presidents, VP's and civil officers."

"ALL"

ALL as in every single impeachment. Trump's been impeached. That means the Senate can try him, if they so choose, because his impeachment ... are ya sitting down? ..... is inclusive in "ALL."

As far as "and," I've already shown you 2 cases where the Senate held separate votes. I also showed you where they're conclusively separate votes as one requires a 2/3rds majority to pass while the other requires only a simple majority.

If you had a brain, and clearly you don't, you'd STFU already because you're getting royally bitchslapped over this. In your own thread, no less.

Actually it says "the President", not former president. At this point "the President" is quid pro joe.

LOLOL

Congrats, dumbfuck ... you just proved Twice Impeached Trump can't be removed from the office of the president.

 

[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?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

Long standing precedent says they are not moving forward according to the Constitution, a precedent set during the founding era. In fact Blount signed the Constitution and worked for its ratification. I would say congressional actions in that era would conform constitutionally more accurately than actions further removed from the founding. I wonder why you commies always try to bastardize the Constitution to push you agenda. Nah, we all know why.

.

The Constitution fails your argument too. It states...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.​

Emphasis mine

The ignorance is yours, that's all you got. But I do appreciate you bumping my thread.

.

LOLOL

You need the meaning of the word, "ALL," taught to you???

No you need to understand the meaning of the word "and".

.

LOLOLOL

You lie. You do need the word, "ALL," taught to you since the Constitution says the Senate has the power to try "all impeachments." Not, "all impeachments of sitting presidents, VP's and civil officers."

"ALL"

ALL as in every single impeachment. Trump's been impeached. That means the Senate can try him, if they so choose, because his impeachment ... are ya sitting down? ..... is inclusive in "ALL."

As far as "and," I've already shown you 2 cases where the Senate held separate votes. I also showed you where they're conclusively separate votes as one requires a 2/3rds majority to pass while the other requires only a simple majority.

If you had a brain, and clearly you don't, you'd STFU already because you're getting royally bitchslapped over this. In your own thread, no less.

Actually it says "the President", not former president. At this point "the President" is quid pro joe.

LOLOL

Congrats, dumbfuck ... you just proved Twice Impeached Trump can't be removed from the office of the president.

Yeah, I just proved he can't be "removed, and disqualified". You're dismissed. I'll bet you don't know what that means either.

.

 

[Faun]

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?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

Long standing precedent says they are not moving forward according to the Constitution, a precedent set during the founding era. In fact Blount signed the Constitution and worked for its ratification. I would say congressional actions in that era would conform constitutionally more accurately than actions further removed from the founding. I wonder why you commies always try to bastardize the Constitution to push you agenda. Nah, we all know why.

.

The Constitution fails your argument too. It states...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.​

Emphasis mine

The ignorance is yours, that's all you got. But I do appreciate you bumping my thread.

.

LOLOL

You need the meaning of the word, "ALL," taught to you???

No you need to understand the meaning of the word "and".

.

LOLOLOL

You lie. You do need the word, "ALL," taught to you since the Constitution says the Senate has the power to try "all impeachments." Not, "all impeachments of sitting presidents, VP's and civil officers."

"ALL"

ALL as in every single impeachment. Trump's been impeached. That means the Senate can try him, if they so choose, because his impeachment ... are ya sitting down? ..... is inclusive in "ALL."

As far as "and," I've already shown you 2 cases where the Senate held separate votes. I also showed you where they're conclusively separate votes as one requires a 2/3rds majority to pass while the other requires only a simple majority.

If you had a brain, and clearly you don't, you'd STFU already because you're getting royally bitchslapped over this. In your own thread, no less.

Actually it says "the President", not former president. At this point "the President" is quid pro joe.

LOLOL

Congrats, dumbfuck ... you just proved Twice Impeached Trump can't be removed from the office of the president.

Yeah, I just proved he can't be "removed, and disqualified". You're dismissed. I'll bet you don't know what that means either.

.

LOLOL

Nope, all you proved is you're a moron who doesn't understand English, not even the little words like "all" or the bigger ones like "divisible."

The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible​

 

[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?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

Long standing precedent says they are not moving forward according to the Constitution, a precedent set during the founding era. In fact Blount signed the Constitution and worked for its ratification. I would say congressional actions in that era would conform constitutionally more accurately than actions further removed from the founding. I wonder why you commies always try to bastardize the Constitution to push you agenda. Nah, we all know why.

.

The Constitution fails your argument too. It states...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.​

Emphasis mine

The ignorance is yours, that's all you got. But I do appreciate you bumping my thread.

.

LOLOL

You need the meaning of the word, "ALL," taught to you???

No you need to understand the meaning of the word "and".

.

LOLOLOL

You lie. You do need the word, "ALL," taught to you since the Constitution says the Senate has the power to try "all impeachments." Not, "all impeachments of sitting presidents, VP's and civil officers."

"ALL"

ALL as in every single impeachment. Trump's been impeached. That means the Senate can try him, if they so choose, because his impeachment ... are ya sitting down? ..... is inclusive in "ALL."

As far as "and," I've already shown you 2 cases where the Senate held separate votes. I also showed you where they're conclusively separate votes as one requires a 2/3rds majority to pass while the other requires only a simple majority.

If you had a brain, and clearly you don't, you'd STFU already because you're getting royally bitchslapped over this. In your own thread, no less.

Actually it says "the President", not former president. At this point "the President" is quid pro joe.

LOLOL

Congrats, dumbfuck ... you just proved Twice Impeached Trump can't be removed from the office of the president.

Yeah, I just proved he can't be "removed, and disqualified". You're dismissed. I'll bet you don't know what that means either.

.

LOLOL

Nope, all you proved is you're a moron who doesn't understand English, not even the little words like "all" or the bigger ones like "divisible."

The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible​

Wow, you just proved my point.

.

 

[Faun]

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?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

Long standing precedent says they are not moving forward according to the Constitution, a precedent set during the founding era. In fact Blount signed the Constitution and worked for its ratification. I would say congressional actions in that era would conform constitutionally more accurately than actions further removed from the founding. I wonder why you commies always try to bastardize the Constitution to push you agenda. Nah, we all know why.

.

The Constitution fails your argument too. It states...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.​

Emphasis mine

The ignorance is yours, that's all you got. But I do appreciate you bumping my thread.

.

LOLOL

You need the meaning of the word, "ALL," taught to you???

No you need to understand the meaning of the word "and".

.

LOLOLOL

You lie. You do need the word, "ALL," taught to you since the Constitution says the Senate has the power to try "all impeachments." Not, "all impeachments of sitting presidents, VP's and civil officers."

"ALL"

ALL as in every single impeachment. Trump's been impeached. That means the Senate can try him, if they so choose, because his impeachment ... are ya sitting down? ..... is inclusive in "ALL."

As far as "and," I've already shown you 2 cases where the Senate held separate votes. I also showed you where they're conclusively separate votes as one requires a 2/3rds majority to pass while the other requires only a simple majority.

If you had a brain, and clearly you don't, you'd STFU already because you're getting royally bitchslapped over this. In your own thread, no less.

Actually it says "the President", not former president. At this point "the President" is quid pro joe.

LOLOL

Congrats, dumbfuck ... you just proved Twice Impeached Trump can't be removed from the office of the president.

Yeah, I just proved he can't be "removed, and disqualified". You're dismissed. I'll bet you don't know what that means either.

.

LOLOL

Nope, all you proved is you're a moron who doesn't understand English, not even the little words like "all" or the bigger ones like "divisible."

The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible​

Wow, you just proved my point.

.

LOL

Your point is you're an imbecile. Glad we agree on that.

 

[Ringtone]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

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.
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.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.

And, of course, barring one from holding any future office requires a simple majority in both houses of Congress, albeit, following a vote of conviction, which requires a 2/3's vote in the Senate. This farce is going nowhere.

 

[Ringtone]

I don't recall any of those democrats having to justify pussy grabbing on national television, paying off porno stars, refusing to release their tax returns, calling white supremacists' very fine people, banning entrance to the US based on religion, referring to the poorest nations as shithole countries. . . .

The enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers. Settlements are not illegal. The semi-enlarged is not required by law. The bolded are lies. The italicized is refuted/disputed. Dick Durbin claims that Trump said shithole countries. Other Republicans at the meeting didn't hear that at all. CNN reported that some Republicans at the meeting heard shithouses, but never identified who these Republicans were.

 

[Faun]

I don't recall any of those democrats having to justify pussy grabbing on national television, paying off porno stars, refusing to release their tax returns, calling white supremacists' very fine people, banning entrance to the US based on religion, referring to the poorest nations as shithole countries. . . .

The enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers. Settlements are not illegal. The semi-enlarged is not required by law. The bolded are lies. The italicized is refuted/disputed. Dick Durbin claims that Trump said shithole countries. Other Republicans at the meeting didn't hear that at all. CNN reported that some Republicans at the meeting heard shithouses, but never identified who these Republicans were.

Holy shit.

I got only as far as, "the enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers."

Uh, no. Approaching a woman and kissing them and/or grabbing their pussy is actually sexual assault if not welcomed; which it often wasn't...

The 26 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct

In May 2023, a Manhattan jury found Donald Trump liable for the sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll. Here's who else has accused him of misconduct.

www.businessinsider.com