Democrats Cannot Impeach Trump

a reply to: elevatedone

There is historical precedent for moving forward with a Senate trial after the impeached individual has left office.

Although impeaching a former president would be a first, there is some scant precedent for impeaching someone already removed from office. In 1797, Sen. William Blount of Tennessee was charged with treason for a scheme to help the British take land from Florida controlled by the Spanish. (Fortunately, Florida land speculation is no longer considered a treasonable offense.) Blount was unanimously impeached by the House, then expelled by the Senate (a process separate from impeachment). The Senate decided to go ahead with its impeachment trial although in the end it acquitted Blount because he was no longer in office. William Belknap, secretary of war under Ulysses Grant, was impeached by the House on bribery charges and resigned from office. Though the Senate went ahead with his trial, he, too, was acquitted because he was no longer in office.

slate.com...

So, yeah they can move forward with a trial in the Senate.

a reply to: eManym

Blah blah blah...

What happened at the Capitol Building is reprehensible and indefensible. Period. There is no excuse for what happened.

Likewise for the burning, looting and mayhem in the name of "Black Lives Matter" all summer.

There should be absolutely no question by anyone of either. And that's the problem.

The same people condemning Trump and his supporters are the same people who applauded the "BLM" violence. And trying to tar all Trump supporters with the same broad brush, refusing to recognize or acknowledge that just as the vast majority of BLM protesters were peaceful, so too were the majority of Trump supporters at the rally.

This is far more than "whataboutism." This is about elected (and unelected) officials and equal application of the law by those officials. They have failed. They provided bail for their violent protesters, and want to put Trump protesters before a firing squad.

They have no moral high ground... no moral credibility... no morals at all.

a reply to: elevatedone

Here's the reason: They want to get it done quick so he can never run for office again. As we all know, they ignore the rules, laws and constitutional limits when it suits them. And it does in this case.

a reply to: Boadicea

Hope so...so sick of all the disinfo.

Dumb@ss disgruntled employees always to blame. That kind of crap is dangerous.

originally posted by: Phantom423
The goal might be to prevent Trump from running again in 2024. In order for that to happen, the Senate needs a 2/3 vote to impeach and then another vote to ban him from running for any federal office again as a punishment.
Can it happen? Yes. But the probability is low.

I think the law of probabilities flew out of the window last November.

Expect the unexpected.

a reply to: Boadicea

What happened to Nancy today? Why wasn't she at her precious impeachment hearing?

a reply to: QUANTUMGR4V17Y

We even have Pelosi publicly stating that they didn't want COVID relief flowing through BECAUSE they didn't want to attribute it to Trumps re-election.

And when they finally did pass something, they gave the American people scraps and their cronies billions.

These politicians don't care about average Americans and every day they are showing their cards more.

That's it exactly. But we see them. And they know it.

Increasingly, we are seeing the last desperate gasps from desperate people. This is waaaaaaay over the top. And not for nothing.

a reply to: elevatedone

Dershowitz' has often be proven to be wrong. Like here, for example.

“And the Constitution specifically says, ‘The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.’

If what Dershowitz said was true, Trump would have been removed from office last January, when he was impeached. Dershowitz is wrong. The Constitution doesn't say that. It does say: "the President “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,”.

The House impeaches, the Senate convicts.

Further,

The Constitution provides that the President “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but it says nothing about the timing of when the impeachment and trial may take place. That omission makes sense, since presidents – and any other impeachable officials – could commit impeachable offenses at any time while they are in office, including in their last months or days in their positions. It certainly makes no sense for presidents who commit misconduct late in their terms, or perhaps not discovered until late in their terms, to be immune from the one process the Constitution allows for barring them from serving in any other federal office or from receiving any federal pensions.

Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else,” he said.

The problem with this argument, however, is that presidents and the other officials who are subject to impeachment are not like the rest of us. Once they leave office and return to their private lives, they are still ex-presidents and former officials who may have committed impeachable offenses in office. A core principle of the Constitution is that no one, not even the president, is above the law, and an abuse of power, by definition, is a violation of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. What’s more, the special penalties upon conviction in impeachment are designed to protect the republic from the very type of people who have abused public office in such a grave manner that they should never have the opportunity to be entrusted with public power again. It would make no sense for former officials, or ones who step down just in time, to escape that remedial mechanism.

www.justsecurity.org...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Boadicea

What happened to Nancy today? Why wasn't she at her precious impeachment hearing?

Excellent question... I've heard things.

But it's too good to be true. Maybe you've heard the same?

a reply to: Boadicea

They provided bail for their violent protesters, and want to put Trump protesters before a firing squad

And Trump allowed firing squads to be used again.

This stinks.

I want to know why firing squads are legal again.

The only reason firing squads are needed is to dispatch a lot of people quickly.

Wtf is going on?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: eManym

Blah blah blah...

What happened at the Capitol Building is reprehensible and indefensible. Period. There is no excuse for what happened.

Likewise for the burning, looting and mayhem in the name of "Black Lives Matter" all summer.

There should be absolutely no question by anyone of either. And that's the problem.

The same people condemning Trump and his supporters are the same people who applauded the "BLM" violence. And trying to tar all Trump supporters with the same broad brush, refusing to recognize or acknowledge that just as the vast majority of BLM protesters were peaceful, so too were the majority of Trump supporters at the rally.

This is far more than "whataboutism." This is about elected (and unelected) officials and equal application of the law by those officials. They have failed. They provided bail for their violent protesters, and want to put Trump protesters before a firing squad.

They have no moral high ground... no moral credibility... no morals at all.

"Whataboutuism" is just a cheap deflection when someone points out the raging hypocrisy of the anti-Trumpers. Literally everything they accuse Trump of is something they are doing themselves.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Wtf is going on?

Good question. I would very much like to know too.

Although I have a feeling I would be horrified to find out. There are some very very sick critters everywhere.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I want to know why firing squads are legal again.

They were having a problem with the lethal drug cocktail they were using, and big pharma was refusing to supply the federal government with lethal drugs for the purpose of killing people. That's why so many death sentences were temporarily suspended.

a reply to: elevatedone
If the function of impeachment is removing someone from office, and there is no other penalty, then of course it' can't be done afterwards. Logically, there is no reason why it should work against a future president either, so she can't raise a legal barrier against a renewed candidacy.

All the same, better not tell her about the precedent of Warren Hastings.
en.wikipedia.org...

It’s so funny that people actually believe we still have rules for the left. Elections and. Ousts are fixed. Now tell me again how they can’t do something.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I want to know why firing squads are legal again.

They were having a problem with the lethal drug cocktail they were using, and big pharma was refusing to supply the federal government with lethal drugs for the purpose of killing people. That's why so many death sentences were temporarily suspended.

I bet bullets are cheaper too!

What happens when bullets aren't efficient enough?

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

"Whataboutuism" is just a cheap deflection when someone points out the raging hypocrisy of the anti-Trumpers. Literally everything they accuse Trump of is something they are doing themselves.

You're point is well taken, and I don't disagree. But I also think the legal and Constitutional distinctions are crucial here!

It's not "whataboutism" when it's elected (and unelected) officials in positions of trust, power and authority granted -- but also defined -- by the Constitution. Equal application of the law is a Constitutional duty on their part. Not a suggestion... not a request... not an option. It is required.

We're not gossiping about which presidents have strayed on their wives. We're not talking which congress critters have driven drunk. This isn't a judgment call. This is an absolute duty and obligation of public officials.

And it does need to be pointed out, and these officials do need to be called on it.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Nothing new under the sun.

President Trump said he barely noticed the first impeachment. It didn't slow Administration down one bit with continuing accomplishments. Democrats can impeach him two or three more times if they want, over the next eight days.

a reply to: Boadicea

Here is more blab -

I don't condone the actions of BLM, Antifa, right-wing extremists or any other radical groups. A mob attacking the US Capital building with very bad intent while all topmost government officials were in session is much different than the burning and looting peoples' insured businesses in a city or attacking less significant government buildings.