Serious Question

[Concerned American]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.

As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.

Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.

Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".

.

How would you address Donald J. Trump today?

MR. PRESIDENT

So, your argument fails.
Care to try again?
Want to talk salary?
Health care?
SS protection?
Travel allowance?
Security Briefings?

Your argument fails on all counts.

I don't address any politician by their title, nor do I expect them to address me in a manner that reflects the many job titles I've held over my life.

.

Well, and I'm truly sorry to tell you this, I'm pretty sure the law doesn't give one tiny little fuck about your choice of titles. Trump was impeached as President and will be tried as a former president.

Sorry for your loss

Or it could be dismissed with 51 votes. How hard would you cry if that happened?

.

Or with 66 votes.

Or with 66 votes, what?

.

It takes 67 senate votes to convict, so he would be acquitted even if 66 senators voted to convict.

 

[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?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.

As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.

Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.

Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".

.

How would you address Donald J. Trump today?

MR. PRESIDENT

So, your argument fails.
Care to try again?
Want to talk salary?
Health care?
SS protection?
Travel allowance?
Security Briefings?

Your argument fails on all counts.

I don't address any politician by their title, nor do I expect them to address me in a manner that reflects the many job titles I've held over my life.

.

Well, and I'm truly sorry to tell you this, I'm pretty sure the law doesn't give one tiny little fuck about your choice of titles. Trump was impeached as President and will be tried as a former president.

Sorry for your loss

Or it could be dismissed with 51 votes. How hard would you cry if that happened?

.

Or with 66 votes.

Or with 66 votes, what?

.

It takes 67 senate votes to convict, so he would be acquitted even if 66 senators voted to convict.

True, but I'd rather they see they don't have constitutional jurisdiction over a civilian and just dismiss it, just like a previous senate did with William Blount.

.

 

[Circe]

you have to believe if Senate rules for the impeachment trial call for secret ballots, Ted is gonna vote to convict to clear the way for his own Senate run, all the while claiming no. Nobody will be the wiser.

Ummmmm. . . I wonder. I'll watch. I'd have bet against that earlier, but after the Battle of Capitol Hill, I suppose it's possible.

 

[OKTexas]

you have to believe if Senate rules for the impeachment trial call for secret ballots, Ted is gonna vote to convict to clear the way for his own Senate run, all the while claiming no. Nobody will be the wiser.

Ummmmm. . . I wonder. I'll watch. I'd have bet against that earlier, but after the Battle of Capitol Hill, I suppose it's possible.

Isn't Ted already in the Senate?

.

 

[Circe]

Isn't Ted already in the Senate?

Oh --- probably MadDog meant presidential run. That's how I read it (!). Oops.

Ted Cruz was betting on his support of Trump being the "real" election winner helping him in a presidential run with Republican voters grateful for his loyalty to Trump, and saying that the election was stolen and an emergency commission should be appointed to look into this before the Inauguration. I listened to him saying just this before Fox switched away from him and someone said there are people running on the floor of the House of Representatives and something seems to be happening ---- and you know the rest.

Would he turn coat and vote to convict Trump now? Surely this is moot because Trump is out of office, but I can't see Cruz doing that if they do try him. I know McClellan has, and some others, but it would be a big leap after Cruz starting all that trouble, giving people hope they could overturn the vote.

 

[OKTexas]

Isn't Ted already in the Senate?

Oh --- probably MadDog meant presidential run. That's how I read it (!). Oops.

Ted Cruz was betting on his support of Trump being the "real" election winner helping him in a presidential run with Republican voters grateful for his loyalty to Trump, and saying that the election was stolen and an emergency commission should be appointed to look into this before the Inauguration. I listened to him saying just this before Fox switched away from him and someone said there are people running on the floor of the House of Representatives and something seems to be happening ---- and you know the rest.

Would he turn coat and vote to convict Trump now? Surely this is moot because Trump is out of office, but I can't see Cruz doing that if they do try him. I know McClellan has, and some others, but it would be a big leap after Cruz starting all that trouble, giving people hope they could overturn the vote.

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

.

 

[Kilroy2]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Everyone is a private citizen and it depends on the situation. For example President pays taxes and vote as a private citizen. Impeachment is a political process to remove government official from office. It obviously is not a criminal or civil suit. Granted Trump is no longer in office. But he is eligible to run and hold other federal government offices.. Clearly the impeachment will only decide one issue. Will he be able to hold any official government position in the future. I would say that they probably can because the constitution is not clear on that issue. If you wanted to stop and possible future political office then impeachment would be the way.

The interesting thing about it is that it started when he was in office. Even though he is a citizen he does get security protection and pay. He also has people who work for him that are paid by government funds. So if he is impeached will that nullify all the above.

It can be debated but since he did hold office and the process was started before he left office then obviously they believe they can conclude the process.

The rest will probably have to be settle in a traditional court. I am sure Trump will bring it to the Supreme court assuming that the there is enough senate votes. Mitch has washed his hand of it and left it up to the individual senators. Interesting development but I believe that Mitch think Trump went to far with has election fraud. Time to cut the cord.

And disqualification from office can be found, where?

.

Article II ("No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President")

if you were to literally translate that then no one born after the adoption of this constitution would be eligible for the office of President. Simply based on the way it is written.

yet people born after the adoption of the constitution became presidents. Because it was written a long time ago by people who could only imagine what was before them at that point in time and left it up to the future people to figure it out. They could never imagine what the world would be like today. Clearly they intended for it to extend beyond their time.

Now if they can remove a person from office using impeachment it would imply that they cannot run again and get elected to that same office.


Article 1, section 3 reads as follows:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

well it does exactly say it the way you have phrased it but it certainly implies that the person who was found guilty should be disqualified to hold any office of honor which would include any future office of honor. Of course it could be argued and that why they have the supreme court. It is pretty clear to me why they are continuing with this and the only logical reason is to disqualify Trump from holding any office in the future. They still have to vote on it.

imagine this. if Trump just excepted defeat then he could have avoided this and run again. Well he may still be able to depending of the vote in the Senate. So you can see why they are doing it. Mitch has given the green light for repubs to do what they think is right.

You might want to check the definition of "natural born citizen" Your interpretation is whacko.

Where does it say removal "or" disqualification. The way I read it they must go hand in hand, which isn't possible.

And what you're saying is you commies are scared shitless that Trump might run again, after the American people see how badly quid pro joe fucks things up. biden is doing a bang up job of doing just that and only been in office 51 hours.

.

The key words are "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" not natural born citizen. They go together. The way it is written says that you would have to be one at the time of the adoption of this constitution which was a long time ago. This is just to show that "show me where it says that" is not a valid argument for your position. It is just a position your taking and have to defend.

Are you forgetting the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation? Citizenship in the US was established prior to the adoption of the current Constitution.

.

Are you forgetting that as quickly as they agreed to it they they formally abandon it years later. Pretty let's do it again but establish an executive and judicial branch with balance of powers. So it holds no sway once they closed it. Probably why you do not hear to much about it in schools.

Wow, you can't refute so you deflect like the typical commie.

.

Is easy to do when you use fuzzy logic.. Using the Article of Confederation that was replaced by the constitution therefor dissolving it as a basis of government to make you point. They dissolved it because it wasn't working. That is you case. That is your serious question?

 

[Flopper]

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?

.

The constitution does not address the issue. However, there is some evidence in the Federalist Papers that the framers would support the trying of an offical after leaving office. There is one precedent. In 1876 after Impeachment proceedings of the Secretary of War was begun in the House the Secretary resigned. There was much discussion in the House and Senate and then general agreement that after an office holder left office he could be impeached and tried which is exactly what happened.

Trump is going to tried, that seems very likely. If he is convicted, then it will probably end up in the Supreme Court. If he is found innocent or the case is dismissed, Trump will celebrate his victory and that will be the end of it.

 

[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?

.

Everyone is a private citizen and it depends on the situation. For example President pays taxes and vote as a private citizen. Impeachment is a political process to remove government official from office. It obviously is not a criminal or civil suit. Granted Trump is no longer in office. But he is eligible to run and hold other federal government offices.. Clearly the impeachment will only decide one issue. Will he be able to hold any official government position in the future. I would say that they probably can because the constitution is not clear on that issue. If you wanted to stop and possible future political office then impeachment would be the way.

The interesting thing about it is that it started when he was in office. Even though he is a citizen he does get security protection and pay. He also has people who work for him that are paid by government funds. So if he is impeached will that nullify all the above.

It can be debated but since he did hold office and the process was started before he left office then obviously they believe they can conclude the process.

The rest will probably have to be settle in a traditional court. I am sure Trump will bring it to the Supreme court assuming that the there is enough senate votes. Mitch has washed his hand of it and left it up to the individual senators. Interesting development but I believe that Mitch think Trump went to far with has election fraud. Time to cut the cord.

And disqualification from office can be found, where?

.

Article II ("No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President")

if you were to literally translate that then no one born after the adoption of this constitution would be eligible for the office of President. Simply based on the way it is written.

yet people born after the adoption of the constitution became presidents. Because it was written a long time ago by people who could only imagine what was before them at that point in time and left it up to the future people to figure it out. They could never imagine what the world would be like today. Clearly they intended for it to extend beyond their time.

Now if they can remove a person from office using impeachment it would imply that they cannot run again and get elected to that same office.


Article 1, section 3 reads as follows:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

well it does exactly say it the way you have phrased it but it certainly implies that the person who was found guilty should be disqualified to hold any office of honor which would include any future office of honor. Of course it could be argued and that why they have the supreme court. It is pretty clear to me why they are continuing with this and the only logical reason is to disqualify Trump from holding any office in the future. They still have to vote on it.

imagine this. if Trump just excepted defeat then he could have avoided this and run again. Well he may still be able to depending of the vote in the Senate. So you can see why they are doing it. Mitch has given the green light for repubs to do what they think is right.

You might want to check the definition of "natural born citizen" Your interpretation is whacko.

Where does it say removal "or" disqualification. The way I read it they must go hand in hand, which isn't possible.

And what you're saying is you commies are scared shitless that Trump might run again, after the American people see how badly quid pro joe fucks things up. biden is doing a bang up job of doing just that and only been in office 51 hours.

.

The key words are "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" not natural born citizen. They go together. The way it is written says that you would have to be one at the time of the adoption of this constitution which was a long time ago. This is just to show that "show me where it says that" is not a valid argument for your position. It is just a position your taking and have to defend.

Are you forgetting the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation? Citizenship in the US was established prior to the adoption of the current Constitution.

.

Are you forgetting that as quickly as they agreed to it they they formally abandon it years later. Pretty let's do it again but establish an executive and judicial branch with balance of powers. So it holds no sway once they closed it. Probably why you do not hear to much about it in schools.

Wow, you can't refute so you deflect like the typical commie.

.

Is easy to do when you use fuzzy logic.. Using the Article of Confederation that was replaced by the constitution therefor dissolving it as a basis of government to make you point. They dissolved it because it wasn't working. That is you case. That is your serious question?

The question was about citizenship and what a natural born citizen is per the Constitution. Your deflection is duly noted and purposefully dismissed.

BTW, do you ever read the incoherent crap you type before you hit the post button?

.

 

[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?

.

The constitution does not address the issue. However, there is some evidence in the Federalist Papers that the framers would support the trying of an offical after leaving office. There is one precedent. In 1876 after Impeachment proceedings of the Secretary of War was begun in the House the Secretary resigned. There was much discussion in the House and Senate and then general agreement that after an office holder left office he could be impeached and tried which is exactly what happened.

Trump is going to tried, that seems very likely. If he is convicted, then it will probably end up in the Supreme Court. If he is found innocent or the case is dismissed, Trump will celebrate his victory and that will be the end of it.

Actually the founders specifically rejected the idea, as it was common practice in England. But regardless the senate, in the William Blount trial, decided they didn't have jurisdiction over someone who was no longer in office and dismissed the impeachment.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No one is passing any bills.

Trump as president was impeached in office by a clear majority of the house.
The Senate, as it has done many times before, will decide the rules for proceeding with the trial.
The trial will be held.
If 16 Republicans have the courage to vote on the facts Trump will be convicted.
If not we will know that Republicans have ZERO respect for the rule of law and the electorate will remember their cowardice in 2022 and beyond.

Herr Himmler, what "facts?"

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

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

AND there is the matter of the SCOTUS that the Reich must get past.

 

[Kilroy2]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Everyone is a private citizen and it depends on the situation. For example President pays taxes and vote as a private citizen. Impeachment is a political process to remove government official from office. It obviously is not a criminal or civil suit. Granted Trump is no longer in office. But he is eligible to run and hold other federal government offices.. Clearly the impeachment will only decide one issue. Will he be able to hold any official government position in the future. I would say that they probably can because the constitution is not clear on that issue. If you wanted to stop and possible future political office then impeachment would be the way.

The interesting thing about it is that it started when he was in office. Even though he is a citizen he does get security protection and pay. He also has people who work for him that are paid by government funds. So if he is impeached will that nullify all the above.

It can be debated but since he did hold office and the process was started before he left office then obviously they believe they can conclude the process.

The rest will probably have to be settle in a traditional court. I am sure Trump will bring it to the Supreme court assuming that the there is enough senate votes. Mitch has washed his hand of it and left it up to the individual senators. Interesting development but I believe that Mitch think Trump went to far with has election fraud. Time to cut the cord.

And disqualification from office can be found, where?

.

Article II ("No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President")

if you were to literally translate that then no one born after the adoption of this constitution would be eligible for the office of President. Simply based on the way it is written.

yet people born after the adoption of the constitution became presidents. Because it was written a long time ago by people who could only imagine what was before them at that point in time and left it up to the future people to figure it out. They could never imagine what the world would be like today. Clearly they intended for it to extend beyond their time.

Now if they can remove a person from office using impeachment it would imply that they cannot run again and get elected to that same office.


Article 1, section 3 reads as follows:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

well it does exactly say it the way you have phrased it but it certainly implies that the person who was found guilty should be disqualified to hold any office of honor which would include any future office of honor. Of course it could be argued and that why they have the supreme court. It is pretty clear to me why they are continuing with this and the only logical reason is to disqualify Trump from holding any office in the future. They still have to vote on it.

imagine this. if Trump just excepted defeat then he could have avoided this and run again. Well he may still be able to depending of the vote in the Senate. So you can see why they are doing it. Mitch has given the green light for repubs to do what they think is right.

You might want to check the definition of "natural born citizen" Your interpretation is whacko.

Where does it say removal "or" disqualification. The way I read it they must go hand in hand, which isn't possible.

And what you're saying is you commies are scared shitless that Trump might run again, after the American people see how badly quid pro joe fucks things up. biden is doing a bang up job of doing just that and only been in office 51 hours.

.

The key words are "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" not natural born citizen. They go together. The way it is written says that you would have to be one at the time of the adoption of this constitution which was a long time ago. This is just to show that "show me where it says that" is not a valid argument for your position. It is just a position your taking and have to defend.

Are you forgetting the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation? Citizenship in the US was established prior to the adoption of the current Constitution.

.

Are you forgetting that as quickly as they agreed to it they they formally abandon it years later. Pretty let's do it again but establish an executive and judicial branch with balance of powers. So it holds no sway once they closed it. Probably why you do not hear to much about it in schools.

Wow, you can't refute so you deflect like the typical commie.

.

Is easy to do when you use fuzzy logic.. Using the Article of Confederation that was replaced by the constitution therefor dissolving it as a basis of government to make you point. They dissolved it because it wasn't working. That is you case. That is your serious question?

The question was about citizenship and what a natural born citizen is per the Constitution. Your deflection is duly noted and purposefully dismissed.

BTW, do you ever read the incoherent crap you type before you hit the post button?

.

As compare to you I guess not.

 

[Dadoalex]

If 16 Republicans have the courage to vote on the facts Trump will be convicted.

Typical commies. Now they are impeaching Presidents for exercising their first amendment rights, and then they claim they are not anti-Americans.

I was forming a clear response to this when I decided that anyone starting a post with "typical commies" is too stuuuuuupid to understand a clear response so I'll just say,,,

That is clearly the stupidest thing I've seen today. Congratulations! You achieved a level of moronity only dreamed of among your fellow cheeto-suckers.

 

[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.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.

As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.

Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.

Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".

.

How would you address Donald J. Trump today?

MR. PRESIDENT

So, your argument fails.
Care to try again?
Want to talk salary?
Health care?
SS protection?
Travel allowance?
Security Briefings?

Your argument fails on all counts.

I don't address any politician by their title, nor do I expect them to address me in a manner that reflects the many job titles I've held over my life.

.

Well, and I'm truly sorry to tell you this, I'm pretty sure the law doesn't give one tiny little fuck about your choice of titles. Trump was impeached as President and will be tried as a former president.

Sorry for your loss

Or it could be dismissed with 51 votes. How hard would you cry if that happened?

.

Romney, Sasse...

There's 2. Where's your 3?

What three Democrats whose lives were threatened by Trump's revolt are going to say "no, let's not hold the guy responsible, responsible."
Geez.

 

[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.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.

As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.

Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.

Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".

.

How would you address Donald J. Trump today?

MR. PRESIDENT

So, your argument fails.
Care to try again?
Want to talk salary?
Health care?
SS protection?
Travel allowance?
Security Briefings?

Your argument fails on all counts.

I don't address any politician by their title, nor do I expect them to address me in a manner that reflects the many job titles I've held over my life.

.

Well, and I'm truly sorry to tell you this, I'm pretty sure the law doesn't give one tiny little fuck about your choice of titles. Trump was impeached as President and will be tried as a former president.

Sorry for your loss

Or it could be dismissed with 51 votes. How hard would you cry if that happened?

.

Or with 66 votes.

Or with 66 votes, what?

.

It takes 67 senate votes to convict, so he would be acquitted even if 66 senators voted to convict.

True, but I'd rather they see they don't have constitutional jurisdiction over a civilian and just dismiss it, just like a previous senate did with William Blount.

.

Funny, only cheeto-suckers share that opinion. The remaining 90% of the country sees that Trump was impeached as president while in office. When he is convicted what's left of his political threat disappears.

And then he and his family and friends will disappear into a big dark prison we're renaming TRUMP-MAX

 

[Concerned American]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.

As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.

Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.

Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".

.

How would you address Donald J. Trump today?

MR. PRESIDENT

So, your argument fails.
Care to try again?
Want to talk salary?
Health care?
SS protection?
Travel allowance?
Security Briefings?

Your argument fails on all counts.

I don't address any politician by their title, nor do I expect them to address me in a manner that reflects the many job titles I've held over my life.

.

Well, and I'm truly sorry to tell you this, I'm pretty sure the law doesn't give one tiny little fuck about your choice of titles. Trump was impeached as President and will be tried as a former president.

Sorry for your loss

Or it could be dismissed with 51 votes. How hard would you cry if that happened?

.

Or with 66 votes.

Or with 66 votes, what?

.

It takes 67 senate votes to convict, so he would be acquitted even if 66 senators voted to convict.

True, but I'd rather they see they don't have constitutional jurisdiction over a civilian and just dismiss it, just like a previous senate did with William Blount.

.

Funny, only cheeto-suckers share that opinion. The remaining 90% of the country sees that Trump was impeached as president while in office. When he is convicted what's left of his political threat disappears.

And then he and his family and friends will disappear into a big dark prison we're renaming TRUMP-MAX

Funny, only illegitimate bastards back illegitimate puppet administrations that are afraid of their own shadows.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I was forming a clear response to this when I decided that anyone starting a post with "typical commies" is too stuuuuuupid to understand a clear response so I'll just say,,,

That is clearly the stupidest thing I've seen today. Congratulations! You achieved a level of moronity only dreamed of among your fellow cheeto-suckers.

Well little troll, if you don't understand why I call them that, go to the US Communist Party website and checkout their platform. See what they said about presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and then see what they said about Trump, Bush, McCain. Learn something for once.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The constitution does not address the issue. However, there is some evidence in the Federalist Papers that the framers would support the trying of an offical after leaving office. There is one precedent. In 1876 after Impeachment proceedings of the Secretary of War was begun in the House the Secretary resigned. There was much discussion in the House and Senate and then general agreement that after an office holder left office he could be impeached and tried which is exactly what happened.

Trump is going to tried, that seems very likely. If he is convicted, then it will probably end up in the Supreme Court. If he is found innocent or the case is dismissed, Trump will celebrate his victory and that will be the end of it.

Justice Roberts have told some people he's not attending the commie show in the Senate. The hearing has to be presided by the Chief Justice. If there is no Chief Justice, then there is no Senate trial. If they proceed anyway and Trump is found guilty, then of course he would take it to the SC because we'd have an unconstitutional impeachment on our hands.

 

[Dadoalex]

No one is passing any bills.

Trump as president was impeached in office by a clear majority of the house.
The Senate, as it has done many times before, will decide the rules for proceeding with the trial.
The trial will be held.
If 16 Republicans have the courage to vote on the facts Trump will be convicted.
If not we will know that Republicans have ZERO respect for the rule of law and the electorate will remember their cowardice in 2022 and beyond.

Herr Himmler, what "facts?"

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

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

AND there is the matter of the SCOTUS that the Reich must get past.

Perhaps, oh ye of massive ignorance, you should try to understand the oath of office.
Then, at the very least, you will be slightly less ignorant.

 

[MadDog]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.

As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.

He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?

Then:

" Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.

Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.

.

Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.

Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.

Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".

.

How would you address Donald J. Trump today?

MR. PRESIDENT

So, your argument fails.
Care to try again?
Want to talk salary?
Health care?
SS protection?
Travel allowance?
Security Briefings?

Your argument fails on all counts.

I don't address any politician by their title, nor do I expect them to address me in a manner that reflects the many job titles I've held over my life.

.

Well, and I'm truly sorry to tell you this, I'm pretty sure the law doesn't give one tiny little fuck about your choice of titles. Trump was impeached as President and will be tried as a former president.

Sorry for your loss

Or it could be dismissed with 51 votes. How hard would you cry if that happened?

.

Or with 66 votes.

Or with 66 votes, what?

.

It takes 67 senate votes to convict, so he would be acquitted even if 66 senators voted to convict.

True, but I'd rather they see they don't have constitutional jurisdiction over a civilian and just dismiss it, just like a previous senate did with William Blount.

.

Funny, only cheeto-suckers share that opinion. The remaining 90% of the country sees that Trump was impeached as president while in office. When he is convicted what's left of his political threat disappears.

And then he and his family and friends will disappear into a big dark prison we're renaming TRUMP-MAX

Funny, only illegitimate bastards back illegitimate puppet administrations that are afraid of their own shadows.

The constitution does not address the issue. However, there is some evidence in the Federalist Papers that the framers would support the trying of an offical after leaving office. There is one precedent. In 1876 after Impeachment proceedings of the Secretary of War was begun in the House the Secretary resigned. There was much discussion in the House and Senate and then general agreement that after an office holder left office he could be impeached and tried which is exactly what happened.

Trump is going to tried, that seems very likely. If he is convicted, then it will probably end up in the Supreme Court. If he is found innocent or the case is dismissed, Trump will celebrate his victory and that will be the end of it.

Justice Roberts have told some people he's not attending the commie show in the Senate. The hearing has to be presided by the Chief Justice. If there is no Chief Justice, then there is no Senate trial. If they proceed anyway and Trump is found guilty, then of course he would take it to the SC because we'd have an unconstitutional impeachment on our hands.

Who did he tell and when did they tell them? How do you know?