Is The Pending Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump UnConstitutional? (Poll)

[colfax_m]

I see your "opinion" but no legal justification.

My opinion has a rationale which you are not addressing. What good is it to have a consequence that can be avoided by resignation?

It makes no sense. What is the justification to prevent former office holders from being impeached?

 

[kyzr]

I see your "opinion" but no legal justification.

My opinion has a rationale which you are not addressing. What good is it to have a consequence that can be avoided by resignation?

It makes no sense. What is the justification to prevent former office holders from being impeached?

Your rationale' is based on your unqualified "opinion" and not the Constitution.
The ABA article has two groups of Law Professors and judges that disagree on "the current office holder issue".
IMHO the USSC would need to make a decision on constitutionality, it is not a "no-brainer" as you suggest.

p.s. Trump did not resign, his term expired, as did congress' and their impeachment articles.

 

[colfax_m]

I see your "opinion" but no legal justification.

My opinion has a rationale which you are not addressing. What good is it to have a consequence that can be avoided by resignation?

It makes no sense. What is the justification to prevent former office holders from being impeached?

Your rationale' is based on your unqualified "opinion" and not the Constitution.
The ABA article has two groups of Law Professors and judges that disagree on "the current office holder issue".
IMHO the USSC would to make a decision on constitutionality, it is not a "no-brainer" as you suggest.

p.s. Trump did not resign, his term expired, as did congress' and their impeachment articles.

So this is just an appeal to a authority?

Boring. My opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. Either you want to make an argument or you want to let others do the thinking for you.

The courts have stated in the past they have no power to decide on constitutionality of impeachment. The constitution gives them no authority to do so.

 

[kyzr]

I see your "opinion" but no legal justification.

My opinion has a rationale which you are not addressing. What good is it to have a consequence that can be avoided by resignation?

It makes no sense. What is the justification to prevent former office holders from being impeached?

Your rationale' is based on your unqualified "opinion" and not the Constitution.
The ABA article has two groups of Law Professors and judges that disagree on "the current office holder issue".
IMHO the USSC would to make a decision on constitutionality, it is not a "no-brainer" as you suggest.

p.s. Trump did not resign, his term expired, as did congress' and their impeachment articles.

So this is just an appeal to a authority?

Boring. My opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. Either you want to make an argument or you want to let others do the thinking for you.

The courts have stated in the past they have no power to decide on constitutionality of impeachment. The constitution gives them no authority to do so.

1. This is a debate to see who is smart enough to pick the right answer before the USSC tells us the answer. Partisan blinders/leanings are always a hindrance.

2. True, we all have opinions, but you need to recognize that one unqualified opinion is no more correct than another, until proven.

3. The courts always want to avoid ruling on the "high crimes" issue, since the House has that "sole power" and the Senate has the "sole power" to determine innocence or guilt. However, interpreting the Constitution is in their wheelhouse.

 

[colfax_m]

I see your "opinion" but no legal justification.

My opinion has a rationale which you are not addressing. What good is it to have a consequence that can be avoided by resignation?

It makes no sense. What is the justification to prevent former office holders from being impeached?

Your rationale' is based on your unqualified "opinion" and not the Constitution.
The ABA article has two groups of Law Professors and judges that disagree on "the current office holder issue".
IMHO the USSC would to make a decision on constitutionality, it is not a "no-brainer" as you suggest.

p.s. Trump did not resign, his term expired, as did congress' and their impeachment articles.

So this is just an appeal to a authority?

Boring. My opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. Either you want to make an argument or you want to let others do the thinking for you.

The courts have stated in the past they have no power to decide on constitutionality of impeachment. The constitution gives them no authority to do so.

1. This is a debate to see who is smart enough to pick the right answer before the USSC tells us the answer. Partisan blinders/leanings are always a hindrance.

2. True, we all have opinions, but you need to recognize that one unqualified opinion is no more correct than another, until proven.

3. The courts always want to avoid ruling on the "high crimes" issue, since the House has that "sole power" and the Senate has the "sole power" to determine innocence or guilt. However, interpreting the Constitution is in their wheelhouse.

1. You’ve not described a debate, you’ve described a bet. If this is just a bet, very well. But in a debate, you argue one’s opinion against another.

2. Opinions are qualified based on arguments. Appeal to authority is not an argument.

3. They’ve interpreted the constitution to determine that the courts have no role in matters of impeachment. This is a simple separation of powers argument.

 

[kyzr]

I see your "opinion" but no legal justification.

My opinion has a rationale which you are not addressing. What good is it to have a consequence that can be avoided by resignation?

It makes no sense. What is the justification to prevent former office holders from being impeached?

Your rationale' is based on your unqualified "opinion" and not the Constitution.
The ABA article has two groups of Law Professors and judges that disagree on "the current office holder issue".
IMHO the USSC would to make a decision on constitutionality, it is not a "no-brainer" as you suggest.

p.s. Trump did not resign, his term expired, as did congress' and their impeachment articles.

So this is just an appeal to a authority?

Boring. My opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. Either you want to make an argument or you want to let others do the thinking for you.

The courts have stated in the past they have no power to decide on constitutionality of impeachment. The constitution gives them no authority to do so.

1. This is a debate to see who is smart enough to pick the right answer before the USSC tells us the answer. Partisan blinders/leanings are always a hindrance.

2. True, we all have opinions, but you need to recognize that one unqualified opinion is no more correct than another, until proven.

3. The courts always want to avoid ruling on the "high crimes" issue, since the House has that "sole power" and the Senate has the "sole power" to determine innocence or guilt. However, interpreting the Constitution is in their wheelhouse.

1. You’ve not described a debate, you’ve described a bet. If this is just a bet, very well. But in a debate, you argue one’s opinion against another.

2. Opinions are qualified based on arguments. Appeal to authority is not an argument.

3. They’ve interpreted the constitution to determine that the courts have no role in matters of impeachment. This is a simple separation of powers argument.

1. If you read the entire thread, I think you'd agree that we beat the crap out of these issues, from the Belknap precedent, to "stare decisis", to reading the Constitution, and then some. I think it was a well debated thread.

2. There comes a time when the debate points have all been aired, then it gets repetitive.

3. You may be right that the USSC or Justice Roberts if he's presiding, won't make any rulings on constitutionality, we'll see.

4. Pat Cippolone will be Trump's lead lawyer for the impeachment trial. He and Barr warned Trump not to self-pardon. I'm curious how many more pardons Trump will issue before leaving on Wednesday.

White House counsel and Barr warned Trump not to self-pardon

White House counsel Pat Cipollone and former Attorney General Bill Barr have warned President Donald Trump that they do not believe he should pardon himself, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

www.cnn.com

 

[airplanemechanic]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

I'm a little late at reading this thread and now it is over 100 posts, that I have not read through all of them, so if this has been mentioned already, I'm sorry!!!

We had a Secretary of War that was impeached after he no longer held office..... he resigned in tears before the impeachment in the House took place....

They impeached him anyway! After he no longer held the office.....and the Senate tried him about 3 weeks later....

The Senate deliberated first, on whether they could impeach and try an office holder after they no longer held office...and they determined they could!

U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page

404 Error Page

www.senate.gov

May 1876

​

An impeachment trial for a secretary of war occupied much of the Senate’s time during May 1876.
At issue was the behavior of William Belknap, war secretary in the administration of President Ulysses Grant. A former Iowa state legislator and Civil War general, Belknap had held his cabinet post for nearly eight years. In the rollicking era that Mark Twain dubbed the Gilded Age, Belknap was famous for his extravagant Washington parties and his elegantly attired first and second wives. Many questioned how he managed such a grand lifestyle on his $8,000 government salary.
By early 1876, answers began to surface. A House of Representatives committee uncovered evidence supporting a pattern of corruption blatant even by the standards of the scandal-tarnished Grant administration.
The trail of evidence extended back to 1870. In that year, Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory. Marsh’s promise of generous kickbacks prompted Secretary Belknap to make the appointment. Over the next five years, the associate funneled thousands of dollars to Marsh, who provided Belknap regular quarterly payments totaling over $20,000.
On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.
This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”
The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.
On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles. As each vote fell short of the necessary two-thirds, however, he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further; he died in 1890.

Irrelevant. This was a secretary of war. Not the President of United States. Apples to car tires comparison.

I don't know why you would think that? The impeachment clause includes all three, the President, the vice President and office holders in the same sentence as equals in impeachment.

It was a failed attempt. While the senate voted that they had the authority to try him, when they voted on the merits of it it failed.

So citing a failed attempt to remove a war activist 140 years ago as a reason to impeach Trump after he's gone is a major fail.

Also, why didn't they carry through with Nixon's impeachment after he left office? Because they decided he's gone, they can't do anything else. Impeachment would be futile and unconstitutional.

A Harvard Law Scholar by the name of Alan Dershowitz has said the same things I have. So you have nobody substantial to back up your opinion, I have a Harvard Law Scholar.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The Senate cannot create jurisdiction where none exists. Trump cannot be impeached once he leaves office.

WTF is that supposed to mean "create jurisdiction"...

It means the senate cannot try a private citizen. They have no jurisdiction to do so. Thus they would have to "create" it in order to try a private citizen.

Email the Pres with this. I hear he is looking for a good lawyer.

He doesn't need me, he's got Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law Scholar who taught law at Harvard for 49 years that will help him. He probably forgot more about law than you will ever know.

 

[bripat9643]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

Watch the Democrat Reich minions try to justify this assault on logic.

 

[Rogue AI]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

They can't ban him from holding future office. They have no enforcement authority to make such nonsense a reality. You folks are still terrified of Trump, it makes you look more and more pathetic every day.

 

[bripat9643]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

LOL!! Think about what you are reading without the partisan TDS filter. Ready.... Okay, read the words again:
it is limited to office holders
Okay, read the words again:
it is limited to office holders (not former office holders!!)

If that doesn't sink in, then you are one of those stupid democrats that think the island of Guam will capsize.

"Impeached Trump" got 10m more votes in 2020 than the unimpeached Trump got in 2016.
Think about that, now Trump was impeached TWICE!!

Then it should say CURRENT office holders. Sorry, but a second impeachment is perfectly constitutional.

The term "office holders" means current office holders, you fucking moron. If it wasn't limited to that, then they could impeach my grandma.

 

[DrLove]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

They can't ban him from holding future office. They have no enforcement authority to make such nonsense a reality. You folks are still terrified of Trump, it makes you look more and more pathetic every day.

You have been chronically misinformed.

EXPLAINER: Barring Trump from holding office again

WASHINGTON (AP) — Now that President Donald Trump has been impeached by the House of Representatives a second time, keeping him from holding office again could be Congress' next step.

apnews.com

 

[Rogue AI]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

They can't ban him from holding future office. They have no enforcement authority to make such nonsense a reality. You folks are still terrified of Trump, it makes you look more and more pathetic every day.

You have been chronically misinformed.

EXPLAINER: Barring Trump from holding office again

WASHINGTON (AP) — Now that President Donald Trump has been impeached by the House of Representatives a second time, keeping him from holding office again could be Congress' next step.

apnews.com

Your ignorant propaganda is not reality. The Constitution sets the standards to run for president, and whiny liberals in Congress can't override that. Trump isn't trying to be appointed as a federal judge, meaning all that nonsense your 'experts' are spouting, is just that, total bullshit that doesn't apply to elected office. You folks keep getting misled by whatever moron says what you want to hear.

 

[DrLove]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

They can't ban him from holding future office. They have no enforcement authority to make such nonsense a reality. You folks are still terrified of Trump, it makes you look more and more pathetic every day.

You have been chronically misinformed.

EXPLAINER: Barring Trump from holding office again

WASHINGTON (AP) — Now that President Donald Trump has been impeached by the House of Representatives a second time, keeping him from holding office again could be Congress' next step.

apnews.com

Your ignorant propaganda is not reality. The Constitution sets the standards to run for president, and whiny liberals in Congress can't override that. Trump isn't trying to be appointed as a federal judge, meaning all that nonsense your 'experts' are spouting, is just that, total bullshit that doesn't apply to elected office. You folks keep getting misled by whatever moron says what you want to hear.

This ^ from another Dumpster Rumpster who's been swallowing Dear Leaders lies for 5 long years.

 

[Polishprince]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

If Congress can impeach former Presidents, why not impeach Bush and Cheney? Or impeach deceased Presidents like Reagan and Nixon?

And when the R's get in , they can impeach FDR and Woodrow Wilson for Racism? And Truman for his membership in the Triple K.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

Interesting op

I have no idea how this will go so I can't vote.

 

[DrLove]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

If Congress can impeach former Presidents, why not impeach Bush and Cheney? Or impeach deceased Presidents like Reagan and Nixon?

And when the R's get in , they can impeach FDR and Woodrow Wilson for Racism? And Truman for his membership in the Triple K.

You people are dangerously prone to exaggeration. The articles of impeachment were drawn up prior to Emperor Donald leaving office and they involve an incident of sedition and insurrection against the United States of America. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley need to be tossed out on their ear as well for the same crime.

If we cannot hold pols liable for high crimes and misdemeanors in their final days, then imagine what happens when another authoritarian populist more clever than Rump takes office and waits until their final days AFTER they've lost an election to commit their most heinous crimes.

 

[Polishprince]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

If Congress can impeach former Presidents, why not impeach Bush and Cheney? Or impeach deceased Presidents like Reagan and Nixon?

And when the R's get in , they can impeach FDR and Woodrow Wilson for Racism? And Truman for his membership in the Triple K.

You people are dangerously prone to exaggeration. The articles of impeachment were drawn up prior to Emperor Donald leaving office and they involve an incident of sedition and insurrection against the United States of America. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley need to be tossed out on their ear as well for the same crime.

If we cannot hold pols liable for high crimes and misdemeanors in their final days, then imagine what happens when another authoritarian populist more clever than Rump takes office and waits until their final days AFTER they've lost an election to commit their most heinous crimes.

Why should Jimmy Carter escape justice for his heinous crime of fucking up my country?

And FDR's Jim Crow Army was un fucking constitutional. Why shouldn't he be tried as well?

The punishment for conviction is expulsion from office, Trump isn't in the office, he can't be expelled.


But , actually, I agree with the idea of a trial. Puts Trump on the Front Page, forces Republicans to toe the Trump line, and installs Trump as undisputed front runner in 2024 after he is exonerated.

 

[DrLove]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

If Congress can impeach former Presidents, why not impeach Bush and Cheney? Or impeach deceased Presidents like Reagan and Nixon?

And when the R's get in , they can impeach FDR and Woodrow Wilson for Racism? And Truman for his membership in the Triple K.

You people are dangerously prone to exaggeration. The articles of impeachment were drawn up prior to Emperor Donald leaving office and they involve an incident of sedition and insurrection against the United States of America. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley need to be tossed out on their ear as well for the same crime.

If we cannot hold pols liable for high crimes and misdemeanors in their final days, then imagine what happens when another authoritarian populist more clever than Rump takes office and waits until their final days AFTER they've lost an election to commit their most heinous crimes.

Why should Jimmy Carter escape justice for his heinous crime of fucking up my country?

And FDR's Jim Crow Army was un fucking constitutional. Why shouldn't he be tried as well?

The punishment for conviction is expulsion from office, Trump isn't in the office, he can't be expelled.


But , actually, I agree with the idea of a trial. Puts Trump on the Front Page, forces Republicans to toe the Trump line, and installs Trump as undisputed front runner in 2024 after he is exonerated.

Ehhh no, the punishment for conviction is CONVICTION. And never being able to hold another elected office.
Jimmy Carter was not a great president, but he was a man of integrity and generally underrated.

 

[Polishprince]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

If Congress can impeach former Presidents, why not impeach Bush and Cheney? Or impeach deceased Presidents like Reagan and Nixon?

And when the R's get in , they can impeach FDR and Woodrow Wilson for Racism? And Truman for his membership in the Triple K.

You people are dangerously prone to exaggeration. The articles of impeachment were drawn up prior to Emperor Donald leaving office and they involve an incident of sedition and insurrection against the United States of America. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley need to be tossed out on their ear as well for the same crime.

If we cannot hold pols liable for high crimes and misdemeanors in their final days, then imagine what happens when another authoritarian populist more clever than Rump takes office and waits until their final days AFTER they've lost an election to commit their most heinous crimes.

Why should Jimmy Carter escape justice for his heinous crime of fucking up my country?

And FDR's Jim Crow Army was un fucking constitutional. Why shouldn't he be tried as well?

The punishment for conviction is expulsion from office, Trump isn't in the office, he can't be expelled.


But , actually, I agree with the idea of a trial. Puts Trump on the Front Page, forces Republicans to toe the Trump line, and installs Trump as undisputed front runner in 2024 after he is exonerated.

Ehhh no, the punishment for conviction is CONVICTION. And never being able to hold another elected office.
Jimmy Carter was not a great president, but he was a man of integrity and generally underrated.

Jimmy Carter fucked up our country. Did you see what happened to the economy, interest rates, oil prices, unemployment during the Carter Regime?

Shouldn't he be punished for it?

How about Roosevelt? Is a Jim Crow Army "ok"? We embarrassed ourselves, Mr. Hitler was laughing at our hypocrisy. We said we were fighting for fair play and against German discrimination against the Jews in the Holocaust, but we were discriminating ourselves.