This whole thing is theater. It’s the last act of a large group of people, both elected and career bureaucrat, that want Trump gone at any cost because he had the audacity to interrupt their back door fleecing of the American taxpayer.

They made the decision some time ago to rig a presidential election if necessary and are now holding a kangaroo court trying to prevent him from running for the office of President again.

My guess is they will fail to convict which requires 67 voting for conviction, but will then go down the path to disqualify him from future officeholding which only requires a majority vote in the Senate.

The Dems will vote lockstep and the Few Republican suckbags that hate him will vote that way as well - voila, Trump gone.

Honestly, I’m at the point where I hate them all and with a pox on their houses........it’s what the vast majority deserve.

(02-09-2021 05:21 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  Six GOP senators voted with Democrats, establishing that the impeachment trial is constitutional despite calls from some Republicans to dismiss proceedings.

The six senators are:

Bill Cassidy
Susan Collins
Lisa Murkowski
Mitt Romney
Ben Sasse
Pat Toomey

The question passed 56-44.

No surprises on the ayes from the GOP

In spite of the fact that the constitution is silent on impeachment after someone has left office. (It's all politics)

(02-10-2021 11:33 AM)Crebman Wrote:  My guess is they will fail to convict which requires 67 voting for conviction, but will then go down the path to disqualify him from future officeholding which only requires a majority vote in the Senate.

As I understand it, the disqualification vote can only be taken after an impeachment conviction. I don't see how they get 17 republicans to vote to convict.

If they try a disqualification vote without conviction, in a trial of an already replaced president, presided over by someone other than the constitution provides, I think all they will accomplish is to make Donald Trump a martyr.

Martyrs are dangerous, particularly if the economy tanks any time in the next 3-4 years. I think democrats are playing with fire here, and I just hope that we don't all get burned.

If Romney had put this much effort into winning in 2012 as he has been in opposing Trump, we might have just seen him finish his second term.

Oh well, I guess "losing politely" is better than anything else to him.

Democrats have rendered impeachments meaningless.

(02-10-2021 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 10:29 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 05:53 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  It's in the constitution so......

Impeachment of a sitting president is in the constitution, not a former president. Additionally, Bills of Attainder are expressly prohibited. These proceedings are not constitutional in the least.

Not at all correct.

Quote:The text [of the Constitution] does not directly address the question of whether a president, a vice president or another civil officer can be impeached by the House while in office but tried, convicted and sanctioned by the Senate after leaving office. (Nor does it address the related question of whether a person who was once a president, a vice president or another civil officer can be impeached by the House after leaving office and thereafter tried, convicted and sanctioned by the Senate. But since President Trump was impeached while in office, this post will focus on the scenario at hand.)

https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitution...ile-office

What I said is correct. You cite a law blogs opinion. I'm a lawyer myself. You know what they say about opinions. The text of the constitution says president not former president. And as I said before also explicitly prohibits bills of attainders. If the framers wanted ex-presidents to be impeached they could have said that. They could have easily written "president or former president". But they chose not to.

(02-10-2021 11:05 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 10:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  The purpose of impeachment and the trial is to remove the president from office, who is not subject to the courts. If the president did something illegal, then they are subject to prosecution once they leave office.

To me, presidents and other office-holders may be impeached for non-criminal, non-illegal actions. For such actions, the threat of prosecution once they leave office is moot.

Presidents can be. But that is not the intent of the Constitution. It says, "high crimes and misdemeanors." While getting serviced by an intern under the Resolute desk while on the phone doing the people's business and lying about it under oath is a misdemeanor, I don't think it is what the Founders intended. Its a low misdemeanor. An under the desk misdemeanor.

(02-10-2021 11:05 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 10:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  The purpose of impeachment and the trial is to remove the president from office, who is not subject to the courts. If the president did something illegal, then they are subject to prosecution once they leave office.

To me, presidents and other office-holders may be impeached for non-criminal, non-illegal actions. For such actions, the threat of prosecution once they leave office is moot.

You people really, really, really hate Trump don’t you.

The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, who is constitutionally supposed to precede over impeachment, is not there because he deemed it unconstitutional. Do you want to take it up with him? And he hates Trump as much as you.

This is abuse of power. Plain and simple.

Also abuse of the useful idiots but who cares about those fools.

(02-10-2021 12:01 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Democrats have rendered impeachments meaningless.

They were already meaningless. The only two in history before Trump were political BS, too.

(02-10-2021 12:25 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 10:29 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 05:53 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  It's in the constitution so......

Impeachment of a sitting president is in the constitution, not a former president. Additionally, Bills of Attainder are expressly prohibited. These proceedings are not constitutional in the least.

Not at all correct.

Quote:The text [of the Constitution] does not directly address the question of whether a president, a vice president or another civil officer can be impeached by the House while in office but tried, convicted and sanctioned by the Senate after leaving office. (Nor does it address the related question of whether a person who was once a president, a vice president or another civil officer can be impeached by the House after leaving office and thereafter tried, convicted and sanctioned by the Senate. But since President Trump was impeached while in office, this post will focus on the scenario at hand.)

https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitution...ile-office

What I said is correct. You cite a law blogs opinion. I'm a lawyer myself. You know what they say about opinions. The text of the constitution says president not former president. And as I said before also explicitly prohibits bills of attainders. If the framers wanted ex-presidents to be impeached they could have said that. They could have easily written "president or former president". But they chose not to.

They also didn't say that former presidents could not be impeached. Did they chose that...or just omit it?

The consensus among Constitutional experts is that this is constitutional. Regardless, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says what is happening is NOT allowed. Therefore, your comment "These proceedings are not constitutional in the least" is just not correct.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

From reading various constitutional law scholars weigh in on it, I'm pretty sure the dems are staking their claim on the following two points

- It does not limit impeachments to an active president.
- When the president is tried the chief justice shall preside. Trump isn't president so the Chief Justice does not need to preside.

IF by some snowball's chance in hell the dems bride or blackmail enough GOP to convict it would be a hell of a SCOTUS case because Roberts would have to recuse himself if DJT took the path that because he did not preside the impeachment was unconstitutional.

(02-10-2021 01:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 12:25 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 10:29 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 05:53 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  It's in the constitution so......

Impeachment of a sitting president is in the constitution, not a former president. Additionally, Bills of Attainder are expressly prohibited. These proceedings are not constitutional in the least.

Not at all correct.

Quote:The text [of the Constitution] does not directly address the question of whether a president, a vice president or another civil officer can be impeached by the House while in office but tried, convicted and sanctioned by the Senate after leaving office. (Nor does it address the related question of whether a person who was once a president, a vice president or another civil officer can be impeached by the House after leaving office and thereafter tried, convicted and sanctioned by the Senate. But since President Trump was impeached while in office, this post will focus on the scenario at hand.)

https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitution...ile-office

What I said is correct. You cite a law blogs opinion. I'm a lawyer myself. You know what they say about opinions. The text of the constitution says president not former president. And as I said before also explicitly prohibits bills of attainders. If the framers wanted ex-presidents to be impeached they could have said that. They could have easily written "president or former president". But they chose not to.

They also didn't say that former presidents could not be impeached. Did they chose that...or just omit it?

The consensus among Constitutional experts is that this is constitutional. Regardless, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says what is happening is NOT allowed. Therefore, your comment "These proceedings are not constitutional in the least" is just not correct.

Argue that with the Chief Justice. I’m sure you will destroy him with your constitutional law degree.

Can’t wait till the republicans gain control again. They should impeach all the democrats and clean house. After all, the democrats set the precedent.

(02-10-2021 12:01 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Democrats have rendered impeachments meaningless.

That may be the point if they think they will keep the WH for eternity.

(02-10-2021 01:09 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

From reading various constitutional law scholars weigh in on it, I'm pretty sure the dems are staking their claim on the following two points

- It does not limit impeachments to an active president.
- When the president is tried the chief justice shall preside. Trump isn't president so the Chief Justice does not need to preside.

IF by some snowball's chance in hell the dems bride or blackmail enough GOP to convict it would be a hell of a SCOTUS case because Roberts would have to recuse himself if DJT took the path that because he did not preside the impeachment was unconstitutional.

Again. This opens the door for Impeaching ANY former President. Including the one that investigated the opposing party's candidate. Just politics, right?

(02-10-2021 01:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 12:25 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 10:29 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 05:53 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  It's in the constitution so......

Impeachment of a sitting president is in the constitution, not a former president. Additionally, Bills of Attainder are expressly prohibited. These proceedings are not constitutional in the least.

Not at all correct.

Quote:The text [of the Constitution] does not directly address the question of whether a president, a vice president or another civil officer can be impeached by the House while in office but tried, convicted and sanctioned by the Senate after leaving office. (Nor does it address the related question of whether a person who was once a president, a vice president or another civil officer can be impeached by the House after leaving office and thereafter tried, convicted and sanctioned by the Senate. But since President Trump was impeached while in office, this post will focus on the scenario at hand.)

https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitution...ile-office

What I said is correct. You cite a law blogs opinion. I'm a lawyer myself. You know what they say about opinions. The text of the constitution says president not former president. And as I said before also explicitly prohibits bills of attainders. If the framers wanted ex-presidents to be impeached they could have said that. They could have easily written "president or former president". But they chose not to.

They also didn't say that former presidents could not be impeached. Did they chose that...or just omit it?

The consensus among Constitutional experts is that this is constitutional. Regardless, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says what is happening is NOT allowed. Therefore, your comment "These proceedings are not constitutional in the least" is just not correct.

This is the last time I'm going to respond you. To your first contention, there are rules of statutory and constitutional construction. The constitution is a grant of power to the federal government. That is, it spells out what authority he government has. The absence of a power means that the federal government does not have that power. This principle has been weaken over centuries though due to judicial activism.

Second, this argument is nonsense. I submit their is no such consensus (Dershowitz and Turkey are just two prominent examples of academics that disagree) and even if their was consensus is not relevant to law. The plain textual language controls. Their is actually something that says it is not allowed, i.e. the prohibition on bills of attainder. The legislature cannot try private citizens and declare them guilty of wrongdoing. The courts are invested with that authority. That is what the provision on bills of attainder prevents.

They are scared shitless that he's going to run again and rip out the RINOs on the way. Dems don't want to have to face Trump when he'll have Biden's record and continuing senility to work with. They know the stuff they are going to put through in the next 2 years is going to create a lot of "moderate" buyer's remorse and their only hope is for the Reps to put up Romney Part 2 or a Bob Dole type.

(02-10-2021 10:29 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 05:53 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  It's in the constitution so......

Impeachment of a sitting president is in the constitution, not a former president. Additionally, Bills of Attainder are expressly prohibited. These proceedings are not constitutional in the least.

And to everyone pearl clutching about holding an ex-president accountable, there is a mechanism for that....charge them on court with a crime if they committed one. The reason the administration hasn't done that is they know Trump didn't commit incitement to insurrection. Not even close by legal standards. Hence the dog and pony show trial. Reminds me of the soviets trying dead people for crimes.

They did impeach a sitting president.

(02-10-2021 02:30 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 10:29 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 05:53 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  It's in the constitution so......

Impeachment of a sitting president is in the constitution, not a former president. Additionally, Bills of Attainder are expressly prohibited. These proceedings are not constitutional in the least.

And to everyone pearl clutching about holding an ex-president accountable, there is a mechanism for that....charge them on court with a crime if they committed one. The reason the administration hasn't done that is they know Trump didn't commit incitement to insurrection. Not even close by legal standards. Hence the dog and pony show trial. Reminds me of the soviets trying dead people for crimes.

They did impeach a sitting president.

True, but he hadn't had a trial yet. The dems just want to make sure he can't run again against them. period