Who? lol!
Alcee Hastings from Florida’s 8th District I think. I just found about this the other day. He was impeached and convicted on accounts of bribery in getting a lesser sentence for someone in the mafia
I googled this. He was charged with those crimes an acquitted. There was no evidence he had actually done anything wrong.
The Senate did convict him and he’s currently a member of The House of Representatives.
You clearly didn't read either the source or what I wrote. I said he was charged with those crimes and acquitted, which is true. He had his day in court and was found innocent of all charges. He was then impeached and convicted without any real evidence being presented.The courts found him innocent, but congress decided to impeach him anyway without much, if any, evidence.
You didn’t specify what you were talking about lol. He got impeached and convicted in the Senate, that’s what matters imo lol.
So he was found innocent of the charges, but politicians chose to punish him anyway without any evidence. Why is that what matters in your opinion? Surely the trial and being found innocent because there was no evidence is the important point.
He was acquitted anyway. Show's over. Time to move on.
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?
Name one offense that is impeachable but not criminally prosecutable
nowhere does it say that it can be used to ban a person from holding office after he’s left office.
That would be in the word “all”.Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.He was impeached as president, the senate therefore had the power to convict. It’s basic English, since we’re going with the semantic argument.
Taking a 2 year long vacation with no security briefings
A vote to bar a federal official from holding future office can literally only be held after they are no longer in office.
Setting that aside, this entire line of argument is completely absurd. You keep saying that they can’t do X because it doesn’t specifically say that in the constitution. Damn near all the rules they’re operating under are not in the constitution. No where in the constitution does it say that they need 67 votes to convict. What it actually said is you need 2/3rds majority. Guess what that means... you actually have to think about how the words in the constitution apply. That’s how it works.
Impeach all former presidents lol! That will solve every problem the public has. Did you get the 2000 dollars Biden promised? Impeach him for lying.
If we are using “all” then can the House impeach a member of the US Senate? Can the House impeach an American Citizen? They cannot. Impeachment is inherently limited meaning that Conviction is limited by Article 2 Section 3 that states on the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers. It’s not that hard, otherwise the House can impeach anyone in the United States.
Pretty sure that amounts to treason
False. After being removed from office, not after their term expires. Impeachment was designed to remove a President that posed a current threat in office if you read the Federalist Papers. A preemptive ban is 100% unconstitutional.
You can impeach whoever the hell you want with your definition but Constitutionally you can only convict a President, Vice President, or other Civil Officers
Do you read anything I write? Do you stop and and think about any of it?
I’ve already quoted you the part of the constitution that says who can be impeached. Private citizens are not on there. This is a classic slippery slope fallacy and an absurd one at that - the idea that if we convict a former president who was impeached as the sitting president then this would lead to private citizens like you or I being impeached. You can’t be serious.
And while you entertain the absurdity of this leading to private citizens being impeached for being private citizens, you ignore the absurdity of your own position. How do you hold a president *politically* accountable for lighting a match on his way out the door? How do you bar any public official from holding future office if they just resign right before the vote? Explain that to me, then we can further discuss your slippery slope.
If you want to remain consistent with your logic, I already said that the Chief Justice should be presiding, but you seem to even disagree with that. The Constitution clearly states only the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers can be convicted. It’s not rocket science.
Your question about resignation is irrelevant to this when the Constitution clearly states you cannot convict a private citizen
Unless you want to set a precedent that Obama can be impeached and convicted too. Hell why not George Washington for that matter.
There’s nothing inconsistent about my position. The difference between us here is about an inclusive interpretation vs. an exclusive one. You are taking it exclusively, that is to say only these positions strictly interpreted can be impeached and tried. There is nothing in the constitution of federalist papers that supports that interpretation.
The line in the constitution for example that states that the cheif justice shall president of its the outsider on trial, that is strict to the sitting president. Why? Because we know the reason why that is in there... it is to avoid a scenario where the Vice President presides over a proceeding that could potentially result in themselves becoming president.
And as far as your rocket science comment... it’s also not rocket science that the word “all” means “all”.
Show me that part of the constitution. Quote the texts you are referring to that discuss what happens with an official whose time in office ran out during the trial. I’ll wait.
Trump was impeached while he was the sitting president. Neither Obama or Washington can be impeached as sitting presidents. That’s the difference. Why is that so hard for you?
Also, remember that the *two* questions the senate is tasked with answering during a trial are “should this individual remain in office” and “should this individual be disqualified from holding future office”.
The first question is no longer relevant. The second question still is, which is why the George Washington example is particularly nonsensical.
“All” is inherently inclusive to everyone in the United States, dead or alive lol. The “all” is qualified by Article 2 Section 4 where it clearly states only the President, VP, and Civil Officers can be convicted. Trump is neither of those period.
Lmfao, the Articles of Impeachment clearly name the President of the United States Donald John Trump. That means Chief Justice John Roberts has to preside.
Yes “all” means everyone in the United States, what’s the problem with that?
But the second has to go with the first. That’s what “and” means lol. With one the first your cannot have the second.
You have the burden to prove the positive lol not me proving the negative.
Your premise is that Presidents are liable for impeachment based on what’s happened in their term. Therefore you can impeach someone who’s out of office because they’re liable for what they did in office. You can’t cherry-pick who can get impeached or not lmfao cause it destroys your entire premise.
The “all” isn’t inclusive to everyone in the United States. I already explained why, did you read it?Article 2 section 4 establishes who can be impeached. That is an inclusive passage. I already explained why this matters. Did you understand it?
I already explained why this is false. Did you read it?
The burden of proof rests on the person who makes the claim.You are the one claiming “the Constitution clearly states you cannot convict a private citizen”. Prove your claim. Show me the passage you claim exists where the framers discussed what happens in a scenario where a sitting president is constitutionally impeached towards the end of his term and then time runs out before the senate can finish the trial.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether an officer no longer in office can be impeached, constitutional scholars do not largely agree. But the question of whether a sitting officer who has been impeached can be tried is a different question, and there is very little disagreement on that.
I haven’t taken a position on that either way. What I’ve argued isA) Trump’s impeachment was constitutionalB) This according to the constitution gives the senate the power to try himThere is nothing explicit in the texts to rule out convicting someone in this scenario, so it takes interpretation. That is where your argument monumentally fails.
Every law comes down to two different ways it can be interpreted; by the “spirit of the law” or “the letter of the law”. You aren’t even bothering to argue the spirit of the law on this, and I don’t blame you cause you have nothing there.
The letter of the law takes much less interpretation than the spirit, but still requires some. Words are written in context, and that context is what determines what they mean. If you are just going to ignore the context of the passage then you’re not even trying to understand it, you’re just putting on your partisan glasses to block out anything inconvenient. That’s clearly what’s going on here as evidenced by the fact that your responses continually ignore my arguments and just re assert the same tired talking points.
Either way why don’t you and I have a formal debate over this rather than just chit chatting over a forum. Let the voters decide who’s more convincing.
Fine, send me a challenge. No more than 8,000 characters, and how many days to respond can we have? 3 days is rough for me cause I can only log on in spurts.
Oh and no (or at least minimal) quoting each other. It just ruins the quality of the debate. If you’re cool with that I’ll accept.
I mean isn’t quoting and responding the whole purpose of the debate?
You don’t need to quote to respond. The voters just read the argument, they don’t need to read it again.But whatever that’s just my opinion. Not a big deal, I’ll draft my arguments how I wish and you are of course free to do the same.
