Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You didn’t read the article, did you.The was no crime committed by Trump.Inciting an insurrection is a crime.
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.The Constitution doesn't say that they can impeach a wayward President?The Constitution doesn't grant Congress that power, NAZI.
SorryYou replied to Bush92 but tagged me.The number required is 67 and if the Senate includes secret ballots (which they can) There might be enough Replicans voting to convict without fear of ever being found out.What would they impeach Trump over. And they need 60 votes. American public will sour on this nonsense and waste of time and $$$ real quick. Go ahead , impeach him, help rise his political star again.
But if all your worried about is time and money, do you actually know how much it would cost. Would it be as much time and money as Trump spent on his 320 golf outings. Would it be as much money as he charged his Secret Service details to stay at his resorts.
I’m sure a lot of people would pitch in to defray the cost. This is what I pay taxes for.
In retrospect I agree with Bush92 as being a waste of time and tax payers money.
The expended resources wouldnt fit the alleged crime imo.
That’s why I posted the links at the beginning of this thread. A bunch of conservative and libertarian legal experts say that TRUMP absolutely can be tried and convicted.Lots of CNN legal scholars here yet it’s apparent no one is a constitutional attorney. Let’s just see how they succeed in bending the Constitution to fit their narrative.
My bet is that they can not.
Show me where it says that in the Constitution.Only while he is in office, turd.
Cite the part that they "bent?"Lots of CNN legal scholars here yet it’s apparent no one is a constitutional attorney. Let’s just see how they succeed in bending the Constitution to fit their narrative.
My bet is that they can not.
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
Funny how some people are worried about the will of the people after trying to suppress votes and overturn the will of 80,000,000 peopleSo impeachment is a way for the corrupt congress to ignore the will of the people and insure that the people don't get to chose who they want as president.
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.
150 conservative and libertarian legal experts disagree with you. But hey, your rants make you better qualified than all of them combine.Only while he is in office, turd.The Constitution doesn't say that they can impeach a wayward President?The Constitution doesn't grant Congress that power, NAZI.
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 | The Federalist Society
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.
of course they want to ban him from office, and rightfully so. The humiliation and stain on his legacy are just a couple of bonuses.The issue would be dead in the water except they want to stop Trump from running again, the move is quite obvious, not sure why we keep going over this.
of course they want to ban him from office, and rightfully so. The humiliation and stain on his legacy are just a couple of bonuses.The issue would be dead in the water except they want to stop Trump from running again, the move is quite obvious, not sure why we keep going over this.
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
That would be comparing apples to orange man.Both examples being of different circumstances and characteristics of those particular crimes, compared to Trump are really not comparing apples to apples imo. If Im reading the articles correctly, it was not established that they were not eligible to run for any office again.
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 | The Federalist Society
- 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.That would be comparing apples to orange man.Both examples being of different circumstances and characteristics of those particular crimes, compared to Trump are really not comparing apples to apples imo. If Im reading the articles correctly, it was not established that they were not eligible to run for any office again.
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.That would be comparing apples to orange man.Both examples being of different circumstances and characteristics of those particular crimes, compared to Trump are really not comparing apples to apples imo. If Im reading the articles correctly, it was not established that they were not eligible to run for any office again.
