CBO: "Most scholars" conclude that the Senate CAN try a former President

[easyt65]

'Most scholars do not believe solar-powered trains will EVER replace commercial air travel.'

 

[JoeMoma]

If I understand the constitution correctly (I could be wrong), the primary purpose of the senate trial is to remove the president from office if convicted. After the conviction vote, a separate vote has to be taken to bar that person from holding federal office again. Conviction on the impeachment vote does not automatically result in baring from holding federal office again.

Since Trump is no longer president, could the senate skip the vote to convict and move directly to the vote to bar from holding federal office again? I sure lawyers can make the argument for either yes or no for this question, and which side a lawyer falls on usually depends on which side pays him.

 

[Slade3200]

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."

I missed the part where it says, "If the Chief Justice is busy doing something more important, they can just give it to some old, fat political hack from Vermont."

I wonder what "most scholars" would say about that.

The Chief Justice wants no part of this Kangaroo Court. For good reasons.

Don't need a scholar to translate "when the President of the US is tried".
Who is President of the US? (hint: Joe Biden)
Who is the impeachment trial for? (hint: Trump)
See how simple that is?

Trump was President. He is being tried for crimes committed while president. POTUS doesn’t get a free pass to break laws and do whatever they want. This is the constitutional method of holding them accountable. Simple

 

[Slade3200]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

 

[easyt65]

'Most scholars know the government does not create revenue or create jobs. They know the private sector does these things. They know every dime the government has and spends is either seized from American citizens through taxation or is 'deficit dollars., and they know government destroys jobs that others create.'

 

[MisterBeale]

The "FACTS," will be ignored on this, as they always are.

This whole kangaroo trial is a distraction from truth, as are all things in D.C.

Enemies of the Deep State: The Government’s War on Domestic Terrorism Is a Trap

www.blacklistednews.com

Exclusive: Proud Boys leader was ‘prolific’ informer for law enforcement

https://archive.is/qqbQn#selection-197.0-197.72

INFORMATION OPERATIONS ROADMAP: ONE RIGHT TURN AND WE’RE THERE

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a469629.pdf

“Q Anon” May Have Been an FBI Psyop - Global Research

A recent Reuters investigation may indicate that “Q Anon” was in fact an FBI cyber psyop.

www.globalresearch.ca

QAnon received earlier boost from Russian accounts on Twitter, archives show

Russian government-backed social media accounts nurtured the QAnon conspiracy theory in its infancy, earlier than previously reported, according to interviews with current and former Twitter executives and archives of tweets from suspended accounts.

www.reuters.com

Army PSYOP officer resigned commission prior to leading group to DC protests

Army PSYOP officer resigned commission prior to leading group to DC protests

Capt. Emily Rainey was still on active duty during the Jan. 6 protest in D.C., but she had already resigned her commission, a defense official said.

www.armytimes.com

 

[easyt65]

'Most everyone on the planet knows the Democrats admitted their 1st Impeachment of Trump was admittedly politically partisan, based on zero crime, zero evidence, and zero witnesses'.

 

[Mac-7]

I’m not a fan of all the policies but at least the Dems are governing. It’s the Yahoo’s yelling sham and fake election fraud claims that are making a mockery of our country.

Its the election fraud that is causing anger among us “yahoos”

but the dems are definitely imitating banana republic politics by hounding trump after he left office as well as the phony russiagate witch hunt for the first two years of his term

 

[easyt65]

After Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted in an interview this 2nd Impeachment is intended to eliminate former President Trump as a political threat to the Democratic party in 2024 and beyond, most scholars and people understand this 2nd Impeachment is a tax payer-funded abuse of the Constitution being conducted only to benefit the Democrat Party and has nothing to do with benefitting the rest of America.

 

[kyzr]

If I understand the constitution correctly (I could be wrong), the primary purpose of the senate trial is to remove the president from office if convicted. After the conviction vote, a separate vote has to be taken to bar that person from holding federal office again.

Since Trump is no longer president, could the senate skip the vote to convict and move directly to the vote to bar from holding federal office again? I sure lawyers can make the argument for either yes or no for this question, and which side a lawyer falls on usually depends on which side pays him.

The only people who could possibly interpret the Constitution correctly for the circumstance you describe, an impeachment trial for a US citizen, would be the USSC if they even would render an opinion.
Your argument makes no sense : "could the senate skip the vote to convict and move directly to the vote to bar from holding federal office again."
How could you possibly vote to punish someone before establishing guilt?

 

[SC Patriot]

This has to be a mistake by the independent CBO, since several anonymous right-wing graduates of the prestigious law school USMB University told me that Trump cannot be convicted:

"The Constitution does not directly address whether Congress may impeach and try a former President for actions taken while in office," the six-page brief said. "Though the text is open to debate, it appears that most scholars who closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office."

PolitiFact | Walker overreaches claiming Senate can’t convict Trump after departure

The CBO? Financial analysts? Accountants?

Thats who you go to for legal and constitutional advice?

I bet you will never go to a judge and ask her/him to prepare your tax return.

Just a guess.

 

[Burgermeister]

"Scholars" have become a joke.

 

[TNHarley]

Guess those "scholars" cant read English.

Harley, are you seriously in the camp that’s saying the senate can’t try Trump cause he is a private citizen?

They tried to do this to a SoS one time and it ended badly. The Senate voted to not convict because the Constitution doesnt give them the power to convict a private citizen.
Plus, i can read english.

 

[easyt65]

How could you possibly vote to punish someone before establishing guilt?

Democrats attempt to punish their enemies all the time without establishing 'guilt'.

Do you not remember their 1st Impeachment, the 1st (admitted) Politically Partisan Impeachment in US History, based on ZERO crime, ZERO evidence, and ZERO witnesses?!

 

[kyzr]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

1. The ONLY object of impeachment is to remove a sitting president or "civil Officer" from office, read the Constitution. 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.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

 

[JoeMoma]

If I understand the constitution correctly (I could be wrong), the primary purpose of the senate trial is to remove the president from office if convicted. After the conviction vote, a separate vote has to be taken to bar that person from holding federal office again.

Since Trump is no longer president, could the senate skip the vote to convict and move directly to the vote to bar from holding federal office again? I sure lawyers can make the argument for either yes or no for this question, and which side a lawyer falls on usually depends on which side pays him.

The only people who could possibly interpret the Constitution correctly for the circumstance you describe, an impeachment trial for a US citizen, would be the USSC if they even would render an opinion.
Your argument makes no sense : "could the senate skip the vote to convict and move directly to the vote to bar from holding federal office again."
How could you possibly vote to punish someone before establishing guilt?

Since when do the actions of congress have to "Make Sense"?

 

[dudmuck]

President Barak Obama was a self-professed 'Constitutional Scholar', and yet he was found in violation of the Constitution numerous times, publicly declared he did not have the Constitutional authority to alter Immigration law...and then did so anyway, and was found to be in 'Contempt of Court' at least twice for disobeying Judges' (multiple) orders.

SO...someone saying 'most scholars' doesn't mean a damn thing.

The Constitution does not allow for a US citizen to be Impeached.

The Chief Justice of the USSC REFUSING to preside over the Impeachment (as required by the Constitution for a Constitutional Impeachment) speaks for itself. Roberts wants no part in this crap...yet he is too gutless to come out and make a decision / declaration about the Constitutionality. He is just letting the Democrats do whatever they want.

He did the same thing with the election / election fraud. He publicly acknowledged that the Democrats in Pa violated BOTH state and Federal Constitutions AND election laws / rules / processes by altering them in the Middle of an election, by-passing the Legislature, as required, to make the changes. He then stated the USSC would not hear this case and wanted no part of cleaning up the mess.

(I would love to know what someone has on him and who that someone is, as he has obviously been 'neutered'. Evidence provided has exposed the fact that Barry & his administration illegally spied on EVERYONE, from reporters to the media to US Senators and even to USSC Justices. The FISA court released a report w/evidence exposing the CIA & FBI have been committing FISA Court crimes and illegally spying on everyone for DECADES.)

two falsehoods youre spewing:

Obama hedged but didn't say he lacked legal right on DACA

President Donald Trump sat with congressional leaders for an open conversation about cutting a deal on the fate of about

www.politifact.com

Did Obama Get Caught 'Spying' on Trump's 2016 Campaign?

U.S. President Donald Trump claimed his predecessor, or unidentified political opponents, "spied on our campaign illegally" numerous times.

www.snopes.com

Obama never said he didnt have legal right for DACA.

" no evidence showed Obama, or any member of the White House, directed counterintelligence agents to illegally monitor the Trump campaign "

 

[easyt65]

Obama never said he didnt have legal right for DACA.

Stop twisting the argument into something not said.

Barry declared publicly he did not have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to alter Immigration law - DACA.

DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted

President Donald Trump has caught a lot of heat for rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a six-month wind-down. Few people seem aware that he's ending an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal...

www.heritage.org

....but as you know, any law / edict that is UN-Constitutional is NOT legal.

 

[dudmuck]

Obama never said he didnt have legal right for DACA.

Stop twisting the argument into something not said.

Barry declared publicly he did not have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to alter Immigration law - DACA.

DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted

President Donald Trump has caught a lot of heat for rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a six-month wind-down. Few people seem aware that he's ending an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal...

www.heritage.org

....but as you know, any law / edict that is UN-Constitutional is NOT legal.

Obama didn’t say that he lacked the right to act. In contrast, he emphasized his authority to set priorities until Congress approved the DREAM Act, a measure that would formalize the legal status of this group of immigrants.

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama said June 15, 2012. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not a fan of all the policies but at least the Dems are governing. It’s the Yahoo’s yelling sham and fake election fraud claims that are making a mockery of our country.

Its the election fraud that is causing anger among us “yahoos”

but the dems are definitely imitating banana republic politics by hounding trump after he left office as well as the phony russiagate witch hunt for the first two years of his term

Yes the fake election fraud. It’s your version of the Russia hoax. every time you say or hear one of you buddy’s complain about a stolen election you should know that many of those listening are hearing it the same way you would hear the cry’s about Trumps Russian collusion.