Trump's Second Impeachment Trial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

So lets see if I understand you.

---

Given your history on this forum, you understanding anything is something of a miracle.

Quote:

---

A president stokes racial division in this country that threatens me, my family, friends, and co-worker's lives and livelihoods.

---

Do you have an actual quote of a President.. not only acknowledging you, your friends or your co-workers (guess your claim of owner/manager of a restaurant just went bye bye..) let alone threatening you?

Quote:

---

This same president knowingly lies to his supporters claiming the last presidential election was rigged.

This same president tells people to come to Washington DC on Jan 6th for a "wild" event.

This same president tells his supporters on Jan 6th to march down to the capitol and fight like hell.

---

You mean when he said "peacefully march"? Or are you still believing "peacefully" means "Riot" in some special "ok" signal type of ZOMGWHITESUPREMACY code?

Quote:

---

Those supporters in tactical gear armed with weapons fight law enforcement to break into and ransack a federal building called the US Capitol where Congress is confirming the votes of the American people while chanting death threats including to hand the vice president.

I watched all of this as it happened.

---

I watch plenty of riots in 2020... but like I said.. your selective outrage is hilarious.

Quote:

---

And I'm getting played by democrats?

---

Incredibly stupid people are easily played... you've been doing it for as long as you've been posting here.

Quote:

---

Someone is getting played. Thats for damn sure. But it ain't me, pal.

---

That's the best part of Democrats.. they play their fools and their fools have no clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Let's put aside the fact you're talking out of your ass.

The majority of the Senate voted that for the purpose of their business the ability to impeach a President once he's left office is constitutional, following the presentation of evidence and as determined by prior precedent.

---

Senators voting on something does not make it Constitutional.

Quote:

---

If the Orange man following this action wants to file a petition to the Supreme Court to challenge the jurisdiction of he Senate, he's more than welcome to. But that has no hope of derailing the trial following his second impeachment.

---

I honestly hope he does. Impeachment is a tool to remove a sitting President. President Trump is no longer the sitting President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kutter

You are aware that the Senate is not the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional, correct? If it was constitutional then why did the Chief Justice say he will not preside over the trial.

---

Hey now.. the "Trial" is being presided over by an unbiased Senator Patrick Leahy. He's above reproach and will look at just the facts. I don't even know if he's a Republican or a Democrat... that's how unbiased he is!

He's so unbiased that he will literally be Judge, Jury and Witness in this "trial". And sure.. he said some rude things about Trump in the past.. but I'm sure that's just water under the bridge. He promised to be impartial, so that should be good enough for everyone...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kutter

You are aware that the Senate is not the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional, correct? If it was constitutional then why did the Chief Justice say he will not preside over the trial.

---

Because they are Constitution dictates that the Chef Justice will preside when the one being tried is the President of the United States. Private Citizen Trump is no longer the President. Period. Had that chicken shit McConnell not kept the Senate in recess, then Chief Justice Roberts would have presided.

Pretty obvious you don't understand English. Nor do you have any concept of Congress or the President's obligation to uphold the constitution. Had the Senate held, again for the purposes of the trial, that it wasn't constitutionally authorized to impeach a former official, the proceedings would have stopped. However, a bipartisan group found it to be consistent with their obligation as constitutionallly elected officials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Because they are Constitution dictates that the Chef Justice will preside when the one being tried is the President of the United States. Private Citizen Trump is no longer the President. Period. Had that chicken shit McConnell not kept the Senate in recess, then Chief Justice Roberts would have presided.

Pretty obvious you don't understand English. Nor do you have any concept of Congress or the President's obligation to uphold the constitution. Had the Senate held, again for the purposes of the trial, that it wasn't constitutionally authorized to impeach a former official, the proceedings would have stopped. However, a bipartisan group found it to be consistent with their obligation as constitutionallly elected officials.

---

So, in your opinion, it's McConnell's fault that Chief Justice Roberts isn't presiding?

Can you go over that with us one more time so we can get the timeline on how this happened please?

https://media2.giphy.com/media/l0HlD...VejC/giphy.gif

While I agree this isn't going to go anywhere because neither party is going to impeach their own. I think the Senate still has the power to try the case. He was impeached while still in office and the Senate has the power to try all impeachments. Had they tried to impeach after he left office I would feel differently.

Given that the nation's first impeachment, which was carried out 20 years after the nation was founded, was against William Blount and was done AFTER he had already been removed from the Senate, any arguments that you can't impeach someone who has left office are utter garbage. (He was convicted in the Senate, btw)

If people had actually bothered to check the historical record, we've impeached many people after they left office going as far back as the 1700s.

There is absolutely no factual or legal basis for the argument that you can't impeach or try someone after they've left office.

None.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drauz

While I agree this isn't going to go anywhere because neither party is going to impeach their own. I think the Senate still has the power to try the case. He was impeached while still in office and the Senate has the power to try all impeachments. Had they tried to impeach after he left office I would feel differently.

---

If they were doing this to impeach him (remove him from office) I would agree they would have the power to do so.

He's a citizen now though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

If they were doing this to impeach him (remove him from office) I would agree they would have the power to do so.

He's a citizen now though.

---

The punishments are more than that though. They can bar him from holding future public office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

Given that the nation's first impeachment, which was carried out 20 years after the nation was founded, was against William Blount and was done AFTER he had already been removed from the Senate, any arguments that you can't impeach someone who has left office are utter garbage. (He was convicted in the Senate, btw)

If people had actually bothered to check the historical record, we've impeached many people after they left office going as far back as the 1700s.

There is absolutely no factual or legal basis for the argument that you can't impeach or try someone after they've left office.

None.

---

You're extremely incorrect. The Senate dismissed the impeachment proceedings saying it didn't extend to senators. The only time an impeachment and later conviction ever worked on a person no longer in office was someone that tried to resign to escape it. In any other case the impeachment was shot down. Instead of telling people to do their research, you need to do yours.