-->
@ebuc
Impeachment Trial Thread
Posts
Total:
146
-->
@Greyparrot
xD
-->
@ILikePie5
@ebuc
Call your doctor immediately for insurrections lasting longer than four hours.
-->
@ILikePie5
Great so if the President of the United States is impeached, then Article 1 Section 4 states that the Chief Justice must preside. Since he is not presiding the trial is inherently unconstitutional.
That’s not what it says.
“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”
The president is not being tried, the former president is.
Impeachment and the trial are two different things. The house impeached the sitting president. The senate is now holding the trial of the former president. Nothing about this violates the constitution.
And beyond that... what is your point? That John Robert’s gets to decide on his own whether the senate can try Donald Trump? And for what? Are you that desperate to avoid having to face the reality that he is obviously guilty as charged?
-->
@Greyparrot
Then you agree this Theatrical Display is about securing power and has nothing to do with punishing Trump or justice or "protecting democracy"
Question: is this just projection, or do you really think democrats are worse than republicans?
I’m also really curious as to what you would be saying about this insurrection if it were Joe Biden who lost and then spent the following two months telling the country the election was rigged, right before summoning antifa to the Capitol and telling them to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”, for them to storm and takeover the Capitol draped in Biden 2020 flags... tell me you would consider any attempt to hold him accountable to be “political theater”.
-->
@Greyparrot
Call your doctor immediately for insurrections lasting longer than four hours.
Actually it’s call the Vice President, because the President won’t give a crap.
-->
@Double_R
Question: is this just projection, or do you really think democrats are worse than republicans?
Worse in what way? That both sides use theatrics to gain more authoritative power and destroy their competition, and the left is just better at doing that?
Good for them I guess.
I’m also really curious as to what you would be saying about this insurrection if it were Joe Biden who lost and then spent the following two months telling the country the election was rigged, right before summoning antifa to the Capitol and telling them to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”, for them to storm and takeover the Capitol draped in Biden 2020 flags... tell me you would consider any attempt to hold him accountable to be “political theater”.
If it was an actual insurrection, Biden would already have ordered the FBI to imprison citizen Trump. Can you guess some possible reasons why old Joe hasn't done this?
-->
@Danielle
the trial to remove him from office should have immediately been held, but Mitch McConnell chose to delay for political purposes.
Guess what? As of 1/20/21, Shoofly became Majority Leader, and therefore had control of the Senate to schedule the trial anytime he wished.
However, the Senate cannot begin the trial until after they have received the Article of Impeachment from the House. McConnell could have begun a trial, but could not until the Article was delivered. Pelostomy is who held up your trial for political purposes. She did not deliver until 1/25/21. I don't need wish balloons to insult. You need, however, a sense of timing to hurl accusations. So, keep blowing. One day, you'll get that balloon filled.
-->
@Double_R
That’s not what it says.“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”The president is not being tried, the former president is.Impeachment and the trial are two different things. The house impeached the sitting president. The senate is now holding the trial of the former president. Nothing about this violates the constitution.
Ok so Trump is being charged as the “former” President. Where in the Constitution does it say “former” Presidents can be convicted in the Senate?
The Constitution clearly states this:
“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.”
Where does “former President” fall? Can’t be President, VP, or Officer.
And beyond that... what is your point? That John Robert’s gets to decide on his own whether the senate can try Donald Trump? And for what? Are you that desperate to avoid having to face the reality that he is obviously guilty as charged?
No the whole Supreme Court gets to decided whether a private citizen can be convicted in the Senate.
-->
@ILikePie5
Bets on predictit.org have now hit rock bottom on every line on impeachment. I won't be able to make any money on this :(
-->
@Greyparrot
Worse in what way? That both sides use theatrics to gain more authoritative power and destroy their competition, and the left is just better at doing that?
Democrats are better at using authoritative power to destroy their competition? Really? There is a reason Trump got to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices and hundreds of federal judges in his tenure, and it wasn’t because they all just happened to be open. There is a reason democrats have to win the popular vote in congressional races nationwide by clear majorities just to match the number of seats republicans will get. It’s not democrats using authoritarian tactics to gain power.
If it was an actual insurrection, Biden would already have ordered the FBI to imprison citizen Trump. Can you guess some possible reasons why old Joe hasn't done this?
Not going to answer the question I see. That’s ok though, I guess I wouldn’t either knowing that there is no way I could appear serious while doing so.
-->
@ILikePie5
Ok so Trump is being charged as the “former” President. Where in the Constitution does it say “former” Presidents can be convicted in the Senate?
It states that president’s can be impeached. Check.
It then states that the senate has the *sole power* to try *all* impeachments.
This isn’t complicated. And even if it were, after playing this little semantic game you are resorting to we can then move on to using common sense. The framers put impeachment as a means to hold office holders accountable politically. Please explain why they would have made it “against the rules” to try someone for high crimes and misdemeanors merely because the clock ran out. Please explain how your semantic interpretation would stop someone from resigning right before the final vote in order to take away the senate’s constitutional right to disqualify them from running again.
No the whole Supreme Court gets to decided whether a private citizen can be convicted in the Senate.
Show me where in the constitution it talks about a senate impeachment trial, private citizens, and the whole Supreme Court in the same section.
-->
@Greyparrot
Bets on predictit.org have now hit rock bottom on every line on impeachment. I won't be able to make any money on this :(
Republican fecklessness is to easily predictable.
-->
@Double_R
Not going to answer the question I see. That’s ok though, I guess I wouldn’t either knowing that there is no way I could appear serious while doing so.
I can easily lob this charge right back at you. You are claiming an insurrection happened and I asked you why the FBI isn't acting on the evidence you think exists.
-->
@Double_R
There is a reason Trump got to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices and hundreds of federal judges in his tenure, and it wasn’t because they all just happened to be open.
The main reason is because Obama lost the Senate majority by pushing a compromised broken healthcare plan written by lobbyists to the tune of 10,000 pages that wasn't fundamentally viable across most of the country. Republicans didn't really have to use much Political theatre for that.
Obama theatrically claimed poor people were going to die if you didn't support him. Even that theatre wasn't enough to hide the major flaws in the policy, from federal mandates, compulsory purchases, to the eventual elimination of a large swath of private insurance options.
Obamacare wasn't going to work no matter how many right-wing conspiracy theories were muzzled by MSM. It just wasn't, even by the admission of most rational people on the left after seeing all the problems with it over the years. If you still think Obamacare was a failure all because of the GOP, then you are not very well informed at all.
That bad policy is ultimately what led to the 3 SCOTUS judge picks. Obama told the GOP to sit in the back of the bus. Well okay, we now know what to expect when the left gets a supermajority in Congress. We expect endless crony politics as lobbyists write self-serving legislation thousands of pages long. That doesn't help the little guy much at all.
-->
@fauxlaw
You tagged me in some post to say "Let us recall that impeachment has but two potential results: removal from office, and disqualification." I have no idea why. We all know that Trump can't be removed; now he should be disqualified. What's your point?
Before January 20th, McConnell had the ability to call the Senate back in session and they could have then moved to convict Donald Trump in an impeachment trial and try him before leaving office, but McConnell chose not to alter the Senate schedule which was his prerogative. So since impeachment was going to happen post January 20, Nancy took her time to deliver the articles. That has nothing to do with anything I said.
Please stop tagging me in your nonsensical posts about "wish balloons." Nobody knows or cares what you're talking about.
obviously the impeachment is a fraud
-->
@Double_R
It states that president’s can be impeached. Check.It then states that the senate has the *sole power* to try *all* impeachments.
But it also says only Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Civil Officers and be convicted in the Senate. Trump is not of those. Your interpretation of the clause means the House can choose to impeach anyone including me or you, which definitely is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly lays out who can be impeached and convicted and a private citizen isn’t one of those.
This isn’t complicated. And even if it were, after playing this little semantic game you are resorting to we can then move on to using common sense. The framers put impeachment as a means to hold office holders accountable politically. Please explain why they would have made it “against the rules” to try someone for high crimes and misdemeanors merely because the clock ran out. Please explain how your semantic interpretation would stop someone from resigning right before the final vote in order to take away the senate’s constitutional right to disqualify them from running again.
Well first thing’s first, a private citizen can still be prosecuted in a court of law. The President can resign but he can’t escape criminal prosecution lol. Try Trump in a criminal court for all I care. The Constitution clearly states that former Presidents cannot be tried by the Senate because a separate system is available for private citizens.
-->
@Greyparrot
You tryin to get impeached with me? It’ll be a fun time!
-->
@Danielle
What's your point?
The point ought to be obvious. Sorry to have to teach grammar, but there are proper rules of same and the constitutional founders knew them:
- When there are two items in a list, don't use a comma to separate the list items (unless it helps your reader).
- “And” is inclusive and means all of the items mentioned apply, whereas “or” indicates that only one of the items is relevant.
Please read Article I, Section 3, clause 7 in that light:
“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.”
If you think the two results of a Senate conviction on impeachment of the President can be either removal from office, or disqualification, you failed your grammar school [gee, I wonder why its called that?] education in English grammar. Congratulations. You’ve learned nothing since.
-->
@Greyparrot
I can easily lob this charge right back at you. You are claiming an insurrection happened and I asked you why the FBI isn't acting on the evidence you think exists.
The FBI is acting, they’ve arrested almost 200 of the insurrectionists.
If you’re asking why they haven’t moved to prosecute Trump, well first of all they still might. We don’t even have an attorney general yet. But even if they don’t, the decision probably won’t be a legal one but rather political. Biden has said repeatedly he wants to look backwards not forwards. He doesn’t want this to tear the country apart which I can understand. But that has nothing to do with how clear this all is.
-->
@Greyparrot
The main reason is because Obama lost the Senate majority by pushing a compromised broken healthcare plan...
Is this a joke? No, it’s because republicans decided to create a new rule that no justice will be confirmed in the final year of a presidency, only to confirm one in the final month of Trump’s. It’s blatant hypocrisy in order to maintain power.
-->
@Double_R
Is this a joke? No, it’s because republicans decided to create a new rule that no justice will be confirmed in the final year of a presidency, only to confirm one in the final month of Trump’s. It’s blatant hypocrisy in order to maintain power.
It's a matter of history. The Senate flipped in Obama's 2nd year which led to the 3 SCOTUS appointments. The Senate historically decided who deserved to sit in the SCOTUS before there was even a GOP.
-->
@Double_R
If you’re asking why they haven’t moved to prosecute Trump, well first of all they still might. We don’t even have an attorney general yet. But even if they don’t, the decision probably won’t be a legal one but rather political. Biden has said repeatedly he wants to look backwards not forwards. He doesn’t want this to tear the country apart which I can understand. But that has nothing to do with how clear this all is.
So you are okay with Biden essentially pardoning Trump, a known criminal in your eyes? I wouldn't be.
That guy definitely shouldn't be pardoned. I mean look at what he did to that poor bison to get that hat.
-->
@Double_R
Is this a joke? No, it’s because republicans decided to create a new rule that no justice will be confirmed in the final year of a presidency, only to confirm one in the final month of Trump’s. It’s blatant hypocrisy in order to maintain power.
That’s not what history states lol. The history states that when the ruling parties in the Senate and the White House are different, Justices aren’t confirmed in the past year. If they are the same party it has historically been done.
-->
@Double_R
But even if they don’t, the decision probably won’t be a legal one but rather political. Biden has said repeatedly he wants to look backwards not forwards. He doesn’t want this to tear the country apart which I can understand. But that has nothing to do with how clear this all is.
So you’re ok with not prosecuting someone even though in your eyes they committed a crime, but are ok with that same said person being convicted in the Senate? All because of unity? Huh?
-->
@ILikePie5
But it also says only Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Civil Officers and be convicted in the Senate. Trump is not of those. Your interpretation of the clause means the House can choose to impeach anyone including me or you, which definitely is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly lays out who can be impeached and convicted and a private citizen isn’t one of those.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article II, Section 4:
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.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
The house has the power to impeach the President, Vice President, and other officers and the senate has power to try all impeachment. Explain how this gets you to; “then they can impeach private citizens”
Also, quote me where it says that the senate can only try someone while they are still in office.
Well first thing’s first, a private citizen can still be prosecuted in a court of law. The President can resign but he can’t escape criminal prosecution lol. Try Trump in a criminal court for all I care. The Constitution clearly states that former Presidents cannot be tried by the Senate because a separate system is available for private citizens.
Impeachment trials and criminal trials are fundamentally different processes for a reason. One cannot be substituted for the other.
Impeachments determine an individuals eligibility to hold public office. Criminal trials determine an individuals right to freedom. These are not the same thing, therefore they do not follow the same rules or standards.
-->
@Double_R
The house has the power to impeach the President, Vice President, and other officers and the senate has power to try all impeachment. Explain how this gets you to; “then they can impeach private citizens”
A “former President” is a private citizen and not an Officer of the United States and therefore cannot be convicted.
Also, quote me where it says that the senate can only try someone while they are still in office.
That’s not the duality present. You said he’s the “former President.” The only people that the Senate can constitutionally convict are the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers. I’ll ask you once again, where does “former President” fit into that? The answer is, it doesn’t. Therefore, the Senate cannot try him.
Impeachment trials and criminal trials are fundamentally different processes for a reason. One cannot be substituted for the other.
Name one offense that is impeachable but not criminally prosecutable lol.
Impeachments determine an individuals eligibility to hold public office. Criminal trials determine an individuals right to freedom. These are not the same thing, therefore they do not follow the same rules or standards.
Impeachments serve to remove a person from office per the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers and for that purpose alone; nowhere does it say that it can be used to ban a person from holding office after he’s left office. At that point he’s not even a threat lol. Hell the Democrats have an impeached and convicted federal judge in the US House lol.
-->
@ILikePie5
Hell the Democrats have an impeached and convicted federal judge in the US House lol.
Who? lol!