Serious Question

[Faun]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

 

[Faun]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

 

[Faun]

Although Trump is certainly not a gifted orator that is no excuse for his continuing suggestions of the need for violence, praise for those that commit violent acts.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. There was absolutely nothing unlawful about Trump's speech, and he did not incite violence or praise those who commit violence.

I didn't claim that any speech was unlawful. Incitement to riot or insurrection is the advocacy of any act of violence or assertion of the the right to commit such acts in the minds of the perpetrators of those acts.

That's the legal definition for unlawful speech. You didn't directly claim that he engaged in unlawful speech; rather, you obfuscated the matter as you falsely accused him of insinuating "the need for violence . . . [and praising] . . . those that commit violent acts."

That was my point.

My point was whether the speech is illegal or not depends on how it is perceived by the audience and what action they take. Look at the old example of a person screaming fire in an crowded auditorium when that person knows there is no fire. If the crowd responds by fighting to leave the auditorium and people are trampled to death, you can be sure that speech will be considered illegal. However, if the audience looked at the person and laughed and did nothing, then the courts would not consider his speech a crime because because of how it was perceived it. Courts have ruled throughout our history that advocating a crime is wholly outside of the 1st amendment right. However, when that advocacy is judged responsible for crime, then the person can be charged depending the action.

Doublespeak. That is not the constitutional standard for unlawful speech, and Faun, who gave you a thumbs up for that gibberish is a fool.

Brandenburg v. Ohio is the prevailing standard in case law.

One who falsely yelled fire! in a crowded theater would at the very least be slapped with a severe fine and/or a jail sentence in most all instances for disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, or even criminal mischief regardless of the perception or reaction of the crowd.

As for incitement, mere advocacy is not enough. Unlawful speech is that which is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action." A finding for unlawful speech would entail a very narrowly interpreted combination of factors: intent, likelihood, and immediacy of a resulting crime. Generally speaking, the perception or reaction of others would be irrelevant sans these factors and an unmistakably emphatic declaration directing others to engage in lawlessness.

Utterly unrelated. You're actually trying to compare a criminal case with an impeachment. That's not a precedent that will benefit Trump. Shit, that's not even a precedent for a civil trial as evidenced by racist Tom Metzger who was found culpable of inciting a murder which took place in a state he wasn't even in.

 

[Flopper]

Surely, you are not saying people voted for Biden because his of his charismatic personality. There is no Biden charisma. He’s not young, handsome, eloquent or interesting. There is no Biden catchphrase. He doesn’t have “hope and change” or “make America great again.” If the party had decided to order up a generic representative, with nothing original to say and a campaign utterly untouched by new thinking or methods, it couldn’t have done any better than Joe Biden. In essence, his entire campaign platform could have been, I'm not Trump. Occasional we get a leader that is so bad, the best campaign is assuring voters he will not be anything like the opposition. Throughout Biden's 50 years in politics he has been just left of center, but willing to move to far left on some issues and occasion moving to right of center. I think this is exactly what American voters wanted after 4 years of Trump. The people were simply tired of the mad tweeter's insane comments, lies, catering to far right, and refusing to take leadership in one of the worst diesters in American history .

Trump's leadership was great during this tragedy. With his help we had a vaccine in one years time, he purchased the first 100 million doses with a contract rider for another 500 million doses on demand. He's allowed Drs. Fauci and Birx speak dozens of times providing advice. The people who did poorly with the virus are people like Cuomo who deliberately killed old people in nursing homes and then tried to hide how many he actually killed

Thank you for making my point. Joe is a complete failure, ran barely campaigning, a dope head son under FBI investigation that according to their former business partner, Democrat supporter Tony Bobulinski, Joe was part of, worked in federal government for 47 years with 0 accomplishments all that time, including his 8 years as VP, had the most economic destructive policies than any other presidential candidate in our time, and yet he won with a new record in voters. And you can't understand how we see this election as fraudulent?

So how did a misfit like this win anyhow? By Democrats using mail-in voting to attract the most politically ignorant and stupidest people to vote, because they knew they would vote on their dislike of Trump's personality instead of the many great accomplishments during his four year term. And that is exactly what I said.

Biden won for the same reason Trump won in 2016. Voters simply did not like the alternative.

We are seeing the greatness of Trump leadership in the Covid-19 statistics, better known to Donald as the common flu, 442,000 dead and expected to become the deadliest epidemic in American history. Trump's leadership in getting a vaccine amounted to an advanced purchase contract with Moderna. Phizer, the first company to get FDA approval was not part of Warp Speed. Like everything Trump touched, he fucked this up. We are getting half the number of vaccines we need and it is critical we get the country vaccinated before we get a strand that proves to be the superbug.

Trump had his opportunity to lead the country out this disaster last March and he decide the election was more important to him so he dumped the leadership on the states in April. Since the people hated masks and closures of businesses, he made this a campaign issue and thus millions of American abandon the only weapon we had against the virus. The CDC, the group with the most knowledge and experience fighting epidemics was relegated to counting cases and deaths and states were left to struggle while Trump campaigned.

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

Been posted and mentioned several times in this thread, feel free to go look it up. Don't come in the thread on the 12th day and expect to be pampered.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Surely, you are not saying people voted for Biden because his of his charismatic personality. There is no Biden charisma. He’s not young, handsome, eloquent or interesting. There is no Biden catchphrase. He doesn’t have “hope and change” or “make America great again.” If the party had decided to order up a generic representative, with nothing original to say and a campaign utterly untouched by new thinking or methods, it couldn’t have done any better than Joe Biden. In essence, his entire campaign platform could have been, I'm not Trump. Occasional we get a leader that is so bad, the best campaign is assuring voters he will not be anything like the opposition. Throughout Biden's 50 years in politics he has been just left of center, but willing to move to far left on some issues and occasion moving to right of center. I think this is exactly what American voters wanted after 4 years of Trump. The people were simply tired of the mad tweeter's insane comments, lies, catering to far right, and refusing to take leadership in one of the worst diesters in American history .

Trump's leadership was great during this tragedy. With his help we had a vaccine in one years time, he purchased the first 100 million doses with a contract rider for another 500 million doses on demand. He's allowed Drs. Fauci and Birx speak dozens of times providing advice. The people who did poorly with the virus are people like Cuomo who deliberately killed old people in nursing homes and then tried to hide how many he actually killed

Thank you for making my point. Joe is a complete failure, ran barely campaigning, a dope head son under FBI investigation that according to their former business partner, Democrat supporter Tony Bobulinski, Joe was part of, worked in federal government for 47 years with 0 accomplishments all that time, including his 8 years as VP, had the most economic destructive policies than any other presidential candidate in our time, and yet he won with a new record in voters. And you can't understand how we see this election as fraudulent?

So how did a misfit like this win anyhow? By Democrats using mail-in voting to attract the most politically ignorant and stupidest people to vote, because they knew they would vote on their dislike of Trump's personality instead of the many great accomplishments during his four year term. And that is exactly what I said.

Biden won for the same reason Trump won in 2016. Voters simply did not like the alternative.

We are seeing the greatness of Trump leadership in the Covid-19 statistics, better known to Donald as the common flu, 442,000 dead and expected to become the deadliest epidemic in American history. Trump's leadership in getting a vaccine amounted to an advanced purchase contract with Moderna. Phizer, the first company to get FDA approval was not part of Warp Speed. Like everything Trump touched, he fucked this up. We are getting half the number of vaccines we need and it is critical we get the country vaccinated before we get a strand that proves to be the superbug.

Trump had his opportunity to lead the country out this disaster last March and he decide the election was more important to him so he dumped the leadership on the states in April. Since the people hated masks and closures of businesses, he made this a campaign issue and thus millions of American abandon the only weapon we had against the virus. The CDC, the group with the most knowledge and experience fighting epidemics was relegated to counting cases and deaths and states were left to struggle while Trump campaigned.

You lies have been debunked.

FACT CHECK: MSNBC’s Joy Reid Claims Moderna And Pfizer ‘Were Not Involved In Operation Warp Speed’

'Pfizer is one of various vaccine manufacturers participating in Operation Warp Speed as a supplier of a potential COVID-19 vaccine'

checkyourfact.com

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Biden won for the same reason Trump won in 2016. Voters simply did not like the alternative.

We are seeing the greatness of Trump leadership in the Covid-19 statistics, better known to Donald as the common flu, 442,000 dead and expected to become the deadliest epidemic in American history. Trump's leadership in getting a vaccine amounted to an advanced purchase contract with Moderna. Phizer, the first company to get FDA approval was not part of Warp Speed. Like everything Trump touched, he fucked this up. We are getting half the number of vaccines we need and it is critical we get the country vaccinated before we get a strand that proves to be the superbug.

Trump had his opportunity to lead the country out this disaster last March and he decide the election was more important to him so he dumped the leadership on the states in April. Since the people hated masks and closures of businesses, he made this a campaign issue and thus millions of American abandon the only weapon we had against the virus. The CDC, the group with the most knowledge and experience fighting epidemics was relegated to counting cases and deaths and states were left to struggle while Trump campaigned.

If you are going to blame Trump for the 442,000 deaths from Covid, are you willing to do the same with DumBama who had over 200,000 Americans die from the common flu during his two terms? And if not, why not? Please go into detail.

Phizer was the first company to get the vaccine by two weeks ahead of Moderna. However Phizer refused to sign an exclusive contract with the US. They wanted to sell their vaccine around the world and we would have to just take a place in line. With the contract Trump secured with Moderna, Americans came first. The US is vaccinating over 1 million Americans every day. How much faster do you want it to go? Now incompetent Joe is trying to hitch his wagon to Trump's success, and the media will surely be giving him credit instead of the person that deserves it.

States are to be responsible for their own citizens. A President leads the federal government, not states. Again, look up states rights in the US Constitution. In spite of that, Trump responded to the states request for help. He got ships retrofitted to take care of the Covid patients their state could not. He sent the military to NYC to do the same with places like the Javits center, and Cuomo decided he wasn't going to use these facilities, he was going to ship those infected people into nursing homes killing many of them.

Trump never made masks a campaign issue. He did however recommend that states keep their businesses and schools open. They stated they were trying to contain the virus, and it had nothing to do with politics. Well if that's the case, why is it after slow Joe won, they are now making plans to do what Trump desired them to do when the cases are twice as bad now as they were when they originally shut them down?

You just don't understand that the commies main focus is on power. They don't care how many die, how many are forced out of business, how many kids commit suicide from being separated from their friends in school. As long as they can make the opponent look bad to win an election, F those people.

 

[Ringtone]

Utterly unrelated. You're actually trying to compare a criminal case with an impeachment. That's not a precedent that will benefit Trump. Shit, that's not even a precedent for a civil trial as evidenced by racist Tom Metzger who was found culpable of inciting a murder which took place in a state he wasn't even in.

You idiot. My post is utterly unrelated to impeachment and matters of civil law BECAUSE IMPEACHMENT AND MATTERS OF CIVIL LAW HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT FLOPPER AND I ARE DISCUSSING NOW.

Now drop and give me 50, and make it snappy!

Pull your head out of your ass and read the exchange between Flopper and I. That's what the arrows next to our names is for. LOL!

And by the way, silly, how did you manage to make this error after giving Flopper's previous post in our exchange about CRIMINAL INCITEMENT, NOT IMPEACHMENT AND MATTERS OF CIVIL LAW a thumbs up?

Faun: "I don't actually read the posts I rate. I just see another lefty's name and go derp derp thumbs up."

LOL!

 

[Ringtone]

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are. [OKTexas said to Faun.]

The obtuse is strong in this one. Observe: Serious Question

 

[OKTexas]

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

The obtuse is strong in this one. Observe: Serious Question

FOAD, if you come into a thread 12 days and 31 pages in and start making demands, you should get the same response. The Constitution says "the President", not the former president. The senate is not following the Constitution or original precedent. Deal with it.

.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

Been posted and mentioned several times in this thread, feel free to go look it up. Don't come in the thread on the 12th day and expect to be pampered.

.

That is not a precedent. They voted to not hold a trial because a Senator can't be impeached.

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.​

Senators are not civil officers.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

 

[Ringtone]

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

The obtuse is strong in this one. Observe: Serious Question

FOAD, if you come into a thread 12 days and 31 pages in and start making demands, you should get the same response. The Constitution says "the President", not the former president. The senate is not following the Constitution or original precedent. Deal with it.

.

Hey, OK, I think you may have misunderstood my post. It was addressed to you, albeit, about Fuan. Your last post was meant for Faun, apparently, not me.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

The obtuse is strong in this one. Observe: Serious Question

FOAD, if you come into a thread 12 days and 31 pages in and start making demands, you should get the same response. The Constitution says "the President", not the former president. The senate is not following the Constitution or original precedent. Deal with it.

.

Hey, OK, I think you may have misunderstood my post. It was addressed to you, albeit, about Fuan. Your last post was meant for Faun, apparently, not me.

That's good -- kiss and make up.

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

Been posted and mentioned several times in this thread, feel free to go look it up. Don't come in the thread on the 12th day and expect to be pampered.

.

That is not a precedent. They voted to not hold a trial because a Senator can't be impeached.

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.​

Senators are not civil officers.

Not what the senate said. A precedent that has stood for 222 years.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

Long standing precedent says they are not moving forward according to the Constitution, a precedent set during the founding era. In fact Blount signed the Constitution and worked for its ratification. I would say congressional actions in that era would conform constitutionally more accurately than actions further removed from the founding. I wonder why you commies always try to bastardize the Constitution to push you agenda. Nah, we all know why.

.

 

[OKTexas]

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

The obtuse is strong in this one. Observe: Serious Question

FOAD, if you come into a thread 12 days and 31 pages in and start making demands, you should get the same response. The Constitution says "the President", not the former president. The senate is not following the Constitution or original precedent. Deal with it.

.

Hey, OK, I think you may have misunderstood my post. It was addressed to you, albeit, about Fuan. Your last post was meant for Faun, apparently, not me.

If I misunderstood your intent, you have my apologies.

.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

Been posted and mentioned several times in this thread, feel free to go look it up. Don't come in the thread on the 12th day and expect to be pampered.

.

That is not a precedent. They voted to not hold a trial because a Senator can't be impeached.

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.​

Senators are not civil officers.

Not what the senate said. A precedent that has stood for 222 years.

.

That's exactly what they said. They voted against this...

That William Blount was a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore liable to be impeached by the House of Representatives; That as the articles of impeachment charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors, supposed to have been committed while he was a Senator of the United States, his plea [to dismiss the charges] ought to be overruled.​

And then voted to dismiss the trial on that.

The only thing mentioned in there which is in violation of the Constitution is that he was called a "civil officer," which Senators are not. At most, you could argue that Senate was not clear enough on whether their reason was because Blount wasn't a civil officer or because they had already expelled him -- but you lose the argument there too as ambiguity is not precedence.

Even worse for you, Belknap was impeached in 1876 and then resigned to avoid the Senate trial -- they tried him anyway because there is no such precedent as you claim.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

Long standing precedent says they are not moving forward according to the Constitution, a precedent set during the founding era. In fact Blount signed the Constitution and worked for its ratification. I would say congressional actions in that era would conform constitutionally more accurately than actions further removed from the founding. I wonder why you commies always try to bastardize the Constitution to push you agenda. Nah, we all know why.

.

The Constitution fails your argument too. It states...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.​

Emphasis mine