You didn’t read the article, did you.The was no crime committed by Trump.
Criminal offenses are tried in a criminal court of law.
The Senate is not a criminal court of law. ...
Only while he is in office, turd.
Show me where it says that in the Constitution.
Cite the part that they "bent?"
It is now solely in the hands of the Senate toed side whether a crime has been committed. if this goes to trial, there is no court of appeal. Trump could argue to the courts that he can’t be tried, if it goes to trial, the Senate decides.I've never hear of a person who voluntarily left a company he worked for when his contract was over and went home.
And then officially fired weeks later by the new management of the company. ...
Inciting an insurrection is a crime.
legalinsurrection.com
They are not uncharted...No doubt these are uncharted waters.
An interesting related article.
Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office
At best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it's complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution.
Some also argue that the courts would not address the issue because it is a political question or a matter up to the Senate. That’s not true, it is a constitutional matter — May the Senate convict a president after the president has left office? That’s a threshold matter that I think SCOTUS would decide. If SCOTUS answered in the affirmative, then it would not nitpick Senate procedures, but whether the Senate even has constitutional authority is not up to the Senate.
So at best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it’s complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution.
I’ll be the first to admit that there are differences of opinion over whether Trump can still be tried and convicted, but here’s a credible opinion and its rationale. Take a deep breath, read with an open mind (that’s asking a lot), then do some critical thinking.
Legal scholars, including at Federalist Society, say Trump can be convicted
Some Republicans have argued a former president can't be the target of an impeachment trial.www.politico.com
“Impeachment is the exclusive constitutional means for removing a president (or other officer) before his or her term expires,” they wrote. “But nothing in the provision authorizing impeachment-for-removal limits impeachment to situations where it accomplishes removal from office. Indeed, such a reading would thwart and potentially nullify a vital aspect of the impeachment power: the power of the Senate to impose disqualification from future office as a penalty for conviction.”
The Federalist Society was established with conservative and liberal lawyers as a counter to liberal influences In the legal system and education system.
About Us
fedsoc.org
- Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order. We are committed to the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks to promote awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.
From your first articleThey are not uncharted...No doubt these are uncharted waters.
An interesting related article.
Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office
At best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it's complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution.
Some also argue that the courts would not address the issue because it is a political question or a matter up to the Senate. That’s not true, it is a constitutional matter — May the Senate convict a president after the president has left office? That’s a threshold matter that I think SCOTUS would decide. If SCOTUS answered in the affirmative, then it would not nitpick Senate procedures, but whether the Senate even has constitutional authority is not up to the Senate.
So at best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it’s complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution.
We've impeached two officers after they no longer held their positions....
Congress impeached and tried my ancestor after he left office. Trump could be next.
I'll leave the legal arguments to the lawyers, but my own last name is proof Congress can impeach and try newly minted private citizens.www.usatoday.com
I’ll be the first to admit that there are differences of opinion over whether Trump can still be tried and convicted, but here’s a credible opinion and its rationale. Take a deep breath, read with an open mind (that’s asking a lot), then do some critical thinking.
Legal scholars, including at Federalist Society, say Trump can be convicted
Some Republicans have argued a former president can't be the target of an impeachment trial.
“Impeachment is the exclusive constitutional means for removing a president (or other officer) before his or her term expires,” they wrote. “But nothing in the provision authorizing impeachment-for-removal limits impeachment to situations where it accomplishes removal from office. Indeed, such a reading would thwart and potentially nullify a vital aspect of the impeachment power: the power of the Senate to impose disqualification from future office as a penalty for conviction.”
The Federalist Society was established with conservative and liberal lawyers as a counter to liberal influences In the legal system and education system.
About Us
- Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order. We are committed to the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks to promote awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.
www.whitehouse.senate.gov
www.npr.org
I admit that was a good one.
I didn’t write what you are commenting on, you messed up. You might want to correct you error and learn how to use quotes.
