Trump's Second Impeachment Trial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

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.

---

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gelston again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

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.

---

T4f is wrong again? Shocked, I tell you, I am shocked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

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.

---

You're right to call me out on the Senate's final decision- I remembered that incorrectly. But the facts of the case still make it very clear that both the House and the Senate believed Blount could be impeached and tried even after leaving office:

1) The House's special committee determined that Blount was impeachable. They then recommended the Senate to expel him (he didn't resign) and then to compel him to show up for the Impeachment trial.

2) The Senate did both of those things in that order.

3) Blount requested extra time to prepare for the trial, and it was granted. (If they didn't think he could be tried, they wouldn't have given him time to prepare for trial)

Everything about the impeachment proceedings make it abundantly clear that neither the House nor the Senate believed he was immune to impeachment based solely on no longer holding office. The fact that the House expected him to show up to answer to the articles of impeachment after he had been expelled makes it clear that they didn't find these two things to be incompatible.

The fact that the Senate did exactly those things makes it clear that they also found nothing problematic about trying a former office holder.

So yes, I was wrong about him being having been convicted in the end. But it doesn't change the fact that both the House and Senate agreed to first turn an official into a former official and then to try him in the Senate.

Now they did ultimately decide he wasn't impeachable **during the trial**, but that was largely based on concerns about the "lower" House having the ability to force Senators out of the Senate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

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?

---

Scroll up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

You're right to call me out on the Senate's final decision- I remembered that incorrectly. But the facts of the case still make it very clear that both the House and the Senate believed Blount could be impeached and tried even after leaving office:

1) The House's special committee determined that Blount was impeachable. They then recommended the Senate to expel him (he didn't resign) and then to compel him to show up for the Impeachment trial.

2) The Senate did both of those things in that order.

3) Blount requested extra time to prepare for the trial, and it was granted. (If they didn't think he could be tried, they wouldn't have given him time to prepare for trial)

Everything about the impeachment proceedings make it abundantly clear that neither the House nor the Senate believed he was immune to impeachment based solely on no longer holding office. The fact that the House expected him to show up to answer to the articles of impeachment after he had been expelled makes it clear that they didn't find these two things to be incompatible.

The fact that the Senate did exactly those things makes it clear that they also found nothing problematic about trying a former office holder.

So yes, I was wrong about him being having been convicted in the end. But it doesn't change the fact that both the House and Senate agreed to first turn an official into a former official and then to try him in the Senate.

Now they did ultimately decide he wasn't impeachable **during the trial**, but that was largely based on concerns about the "lower" House having the ability to force Senators out of the Senate.

---

The Senate still completely dismissed the impeachment, they said they couldn’t convict him because he was no longer a an officer of the Government. Your basis was 100% incorrect and I don’t know why you typed anything more than admitting you were wrong. When they voted to sequester his seat, it wasn’t because the lower house asked them to, it was because he refused to return to the Senate and was trying to flee.

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.

---

I keep hearing Blount being trotted out as an example.. but it didn't end the way you believe it did. Might want to hit the google and actually read the link. Here.. I'll even provide it for you:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...mpeachment.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

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.

---

:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Scroll up.

---

If you could just go through a simple timeline of events for us.. I would just like to read it.

I'm sure you're right though... really...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

I keep hearing Blount being trotted out as an example.. but it didn't end the way you believe it did. Might want to hit the google and actually read the link. Here.. I'll even provide it for you:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...mpeachment.htm

---

It is almost like the Senate said exactly what people are saying now, dude isn’t a Government official anymore so he isn’t under Congressional jurisdiction anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

It is almost like the Senate said exactly what people are saying now, dude isn’t a Government official anymore so he isn’t under Congressional jurisdiction anymore.

---

My favorite part is they are using Eric Swalwell as an Impeachment Manager.... and his claim to fame is farting on camera and falling for a Chinese Honeydew trap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XK7...veningStandard