House Managers now are asking to call witnesses! They know they got destroyed yesterday

[Jim H - VA USA]

The Constitution doesn't allow for a private citizen to be impeached.

I fully understand that argument. If it were true, then this trial, which costs tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money, should not be taking place. I will expand on why it makes sense below, and why the Constitutionality of impeachment of a former president has not been strongly challenged by Team Trump.

For the record, I am completely against impeachment & a strong Trump supporter.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 & 7 state:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

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.

It is quite interesting.

Since Trump is not president, Chief Justice Roberts would not have to preside.

The word "and" in Clause 7 is rather interesting, but I suppose only doing disqualification of future offices does not "extend further" than doing both. I would bet that despite there being three or more Constitutional orignalists on the SCOTUS, they would prefer not to get involved in the legislature, just like they did for the election lawsuits, even though it would seem completely appropriate.

Clearly, the last sentence about a legal trial could extend until the statute of limitations ran out. So if you can conduct a legal trial after the fact (they always are), then I suppose you can conduct an impeachment trial of someone who you think is unfit to hold future office, after they leave office, just because it makes sense.

Let's say a president does something actually treasonous like taking bribes from China or some covert deal with another nation that results in US troops getting killed. I would be all for impeachment after leaving office.

Interesting point: In order to bar the offender from holding future office, only a majority vote is required, but to proceed to that step, the Senate first has to impeach with a 67 majority.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

The Constitution doesn't allow for a private citizen to be impeached.

I fully understand that argument. If it were true, then this trial, which costs tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money, should not be taking place. I will expand on why it makes sense below, and why the Constitutionality of impeachment of a former president has not been strongly challenged by Team Trump.

For the record, I am completely against impeachment & a strong Trump supporter.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 & 7 state:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

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.

It is quite interesting.

Since Trump is not president, Chief Justice Roberts would not have to preside.

The word "and" in Clause 7 is rather interesting, but I suppose only doing disqualification of future offices does not "extend further" than doing both. I would bet that despite there being three or more Constitutional orignalists on the SCOTUS, they would prefer not to get involved in the legislature, just like they did for the election lawsuits, even though it would seem completely appropriate.

Clearly, the last sentence about a legal trial could extend until the statute of limitations ran out. So if you can conduct a legal trial after the fact (they always are), then I suppose you can conduct an impeachment trial of someone who you think is unfit to hold future office, after they leave office, just because it makes sense.

Let's say a president does something actually treasonous like taking bribes from China or some covert deal with another nation that results in US troops getting killed. I would be all for impeachment after leaving office.

Interesting point: In order to bar the offender from holding future office, only a majority vote is required, but to proceed to that step, the Senate first has to impeach with a 67 majority.

Regards,
Jim

Imprachment after leaving office is unconstitutional. If a former president took bribes from China, that's a prosecutable offense and can be pursued in a criminal court. The reason the Democrats are going impeachment and a bar from future candidacy is because they know they don't have a criminal case.

 

[2aguy]

There is an FBI investigation into this whole thing, why didnt these assholes just wait for the investigation to end?

Because they knew that the agitators were not Trump supporters and they cant have that known by the general public... Evidence is now coming out that ANTIFA was in fact the lead agitators and that Nancy Pelosi refused National Guard troops to protect the Capitol Hill Complex TWO DAYS PRIOR to January 6, when TRUMP OFFERED THEM TO HER. Now why would ANTIFA loving Nancy refuse protection of the complex unless she was part of the insurrection planning?

Yep.....the democrat party wanted their brown shirts in the Trump crowd to vandalize the capitol and attack the police......that is why she pulled the police back and refused national guard....

It is the Republican brown shirts that attacked the capitol. The far right militias are Republicans' secret police. The Republican majority leader in Michigan held a public event with several militia members who were arrested for plotting to kidnap the Democrat governor. Wonder if he wqas told about it.

Those guys who were planning on kidnapping Governor Witless were anti-Trumpers you doofus.....

The republican party doesn't have brown shirts, you dumb ass.....antifa and blm are the democrat party brownshirts.....as the Time article revealed, they were ordered to stand down on election night and the following nights, and they did....the democrat party brown shirts burned our cities for 7 months and murdered 30 Americans ....they actually attacked court houses, police stations and public buildings and targeted black owned businesses for burning and looting....

The democrat party has been evil since it was founded by slave owners.

 

[ColonelAngus]

There is an FBI investigation into this whole thing, why didnt these assholes just wait for the investigation to end?

Because they knew that the agitators were not Trump supporters and they cant have that known by the general public... Evidence is now coming out that ANTIFA was in fact the lead agitators and that Nancy Pelosi refused National Guard troops to protect the Capitol Hill Complex TWO DAYS PRIOR to January 6, when TRUMP OFFERED THEM TO HER. Now why would ANTIFA loving Nancy refuse protection of the complex unless she was part of the insurrection planning?

Yep.....the democrat party wanted their brown shirts in the Trump crowd to vandalize the capitol and attack the police......that is why she pulled the police back and refused national guard....

It is the Republican brown shirts that attacked the capitol. The far right militias are Republicans' secret police. The Republican majority leader in Michigan held a public event with several militia members who were arrested for plotting to kidnap the Democrat governor. Wonder if he wqas told about it.

Those guys who were planning on kidnapping Governor Witless were anti-Trumpers you doofus.....

The republican party doesn't have brown shirts, you dumb ass.....antifa and blm are the democrat party brownshirts.....as the Time article revealed, they were ordered to stand down on election night and the following nights, and they did....the democrat party brown shirts burned our cities for 7 months and murdered 30 Americans ....they actually attacked court houses, police stations and public buildings and targeted black owned businesses for burning and looting....

The democrat party has been evil since it was founded by slave owners.

Sanders should have been removed from office for the Scalise shooting, according to liberal pretzel logic.