PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on January 25, 2021, 10:52:06 AM
-
D.C., we have a problem.
Now we are in uncharted waters. Seems the Chief Justice read the Constitution and will not preside over the trial of citizen Trump.
Where does that leave us?
Can the Senate conduct a trial without the Chief Justice?
By what authority would they be able to do that?
Hang on, it's going to be a wild ride Mr. Toad
-
They'll just make it up as they go.
If we only had some conservative leadership in the senate........................
-
They'll just make it up as they go.
If we only had some conservative leadership in the senate........................
They don't like Trump as well. Swamp protects swamp, no matter the side of the isle.
-
Now Chief Justice Roberts has declined to oversee a trial.
And the dims are going to put Leahy over it.
This is turning into a kangaroo court if there was ever one. Oh, and the senators are requesting private ballots.
When is someone in DC going to step up and put a stop to this shitshow?
-
Yeah. The Chief Justice presides over the trial if it's against a sitting president. Not in other cases, so by the constitution, he can't. Expect that this is going to be a kangaroo court with democrats in charge. They can approve / decline whatever evidence they want. This will be a made for media shit show.
-
Yeah. The Chief Justice presides over the trial if it's against a sitting president. Not in other cases, so by the constitution, he can't. Expect that this is going to be a kangaroo court with democrats in charge. They can approve / decline whatever evidence they want. This will be a made for media shit show.
-
Maybe they'll put President Trump on double secret probation?
-
Now Chief Justice Roberts has declined to oversee a trial.
And the dims are going to put Leahy over it.
This is turning into a kangaroo court if there was ever one. Oh, and the senators are requesting private ballots.
When is someone in DC going to step up and put a stop to this shitshow?
That’s fine. The Chief Justice presides when the President is tried. Trump isn’t President, ergo no trial.
Whatever the fuck Leahy is doing is nothing ensconced in the Constitution. Private citizens cannot be impeached. I guess Leahy can preside over Senatorial prostate exams happening on the floor of the chamber, and it would have the same legal effect.
-
Yeah. The Chief Justice presides over the trial if it's against a sitting president. Not in other cases, so by the constitution, he can't. Expect that this is going to be a kangaroo court with democrats in charge. They can approve / decline whatever evidence they want. This will be a made for media shit show.
So where is it written they can hold a trial without a sitting judge?
-
How can a Senator from either side of the aisle preside at this trial?
-
With Roberts bowing out, isn't that an acknowledgment that the whole trial in unconstitutional?
-
How can a Senator from either side of the aisle preside at this trial?
They have gone off the rails. This is nothing but a sham.
The real purpose? To keep Trump in the news and get everyone's attention away from Xiden, and more importantly what congress is trying to pass.
-
How can a Senator from either side of the aisle preside at this trial?
It’s not a trial, so they can do whatever they want apparently.
-
So where is it written they can hold a trial without a sitting judge?
The Chief Justice is only required for a trial of the President. Trump is not the president, so it is proceeding as it would for the impeachment of any other official, such as a judge. One of the Senators is taking the position.
Far from being "uncharted waters", it is the norm for impeachment trials. Or impeachment hearing is you prefer.
-
Can the Senate conduct a trial without the Chief Justice?
Yes
By what authority would they be able to do that?
Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6. Also Article 1, Section 5, clause 2.
Whatever the fuck Leahy is doing is nothing ensconced in the Constitution.
Incorrect. The Senate is solely in charge of their own rules for process (Article 1, Section 5, clause 2). The Senate rules direct that a member of the Senate will be the judge in impeachment hearings. It is only for a presidential trial that the Chief Justice is the judge.
Private citizens cannot be impeached.
Irrelevant since Trump was impeached when he was in office. However, the House has the sole authority of impeachment, so it's entirely up to them to decide. Also precedent tells us that private citizens can be impeached for what they did in office. Obviously they cannot then be removed from office, but the other sanction of disqualification is still in play.
I encourage Democrats to stretch this as far as they can because it makes them look weak and petty. The last impeachment trial, they lost a lot of credibility and this abuse of power is going to cost them again. Additionally, this overshadows Biden's first 100 days, which mean he will largely look weak and pitiful.
It’s not a trial, so they can do whatever they want apparently.
The Constitution empower both houses of Congress to make their own rules, they almost can do what they want, subject to staying within the Constitution.
-
I encourage Democrats to stretch this as far as they can because it makes them look weak and petty. The last impeachment trial, they lost a lot of credibility and this abuse of power is going to cost them again. Additionally, this overshadows Biden's first 100 days, which mean he will largely look weak and pitiful.
nope - it will allow the fake to hide his actions while the press is distracted by their ORANGE MAN BAD syndrome.
-
nope - it will allow the fake to hide his actions while the press is distracted by their ORANGE MAN BAD syndrome.
Because you're afraid they'll find 17 republicans to vote to convict Trump? I think it's more likely Democrats will suddenly wake up and realize all the negatives they're accruing.
When your enemy is self destructing, get out of their way and encourage them.
Bottom line, they are perfectly in line with the Constitution here.
-
https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/25/barr-a-motion-to-dismiss-for-lack-of-jurisdiction-should-swiftly-end-the-senate-impeachment-farce/
If there was perhaps one mistake our Founders made in drafting the Constitution, it was presuming that future members of the Legislative Branch would be sufficiently competent to actually read the document to which they all had sworn an oath. It is, however, increasingly clear that many – perhaps most — sitting United States senators cannot read the plain text of the Constitution.
The relevant wording in the Constitution is at the very end of Article II, establishing that a constitutionally errant “President, . . . shall be removed from Office” if he first has been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Unlike other sections of the Constitution where clarity may be obscured by arcane wording, this particular provision is clear and concise, and it applies to “the President.” The language pointedly does not provide in any way, shape, or form that a “Former President” or an “Ex-President” may be similarly punished, only the President.
The 100-member Senate at this moment is split right down the middle between those who identify as Republicans and those who identify as Democrats. Democrat leader Chuck Schumer has declared openly and without hesitancy that as the self-styled “Majority Leader,” he will move forward within days to try Donald Trump. The goal of such a trial would be to find Mr. Trump guilty of the single Article of Impeachment passed on Jan. 13 by a majority of representatives on the other side of the Capitol Dome.
While many GOP senators remain openly opposed to Schumer’s plan, it appears that a number of Republican senators, notably including the most recent “Majority Leader” – Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell – have signed on to the notion that there will be a trial as demanded by Schumer.
The basis on which Schumer and his Democrat colleagues are proceeding against Trump can best be understood by their all-consuming hatred for the former president, a sentiment they share with their House colleagues. Their zeal to punish Mr. Trump appears to have blinded them even to common sense and to the plain meaning of words – factors that otherwise and in less toxic times would lead them to realize that no matter how powerful and exalted they might view themselves as “senators,” a person cannot be “removed” by them from an office that he or she does not in fact occupy.
It is black-letter law that a court cannot punish someone for a crime if it does not have jurisdiction over that person. Just as courts of law have no power over individuals outside their defined jurisdiction, the United States Senate has no power over a former President of the United States.
No matter the degree to which Sen. Schumer despises Mr. Trump and hopes to prevent him from being able to run again for office at some future date (as unlikely as that may be), the body of which Schumer is a long-serving member does not have power under the Constitution to thus punish the ex-president.
It is less clear what accounts for Sen. McConnell’s decision to buy into the legally baseless presumption that the Senate magically has acquired jurisdiction to conduct a trial of and to then punish a former president. Perhaps it is the fact that Trump’s behavior leading to the twin loss of Georgia’s Senate seats in the Jan. 5 runoff cost McConnell his job as Majority Leader. Maybe it is four years of pent-up dislike for Trump’s personal behavior contrary to establishment norms. Regardless of why McConnell is behaving so foolishly as to read into the Constitution’s impeachment trial power of the Senate something that clearly and legally is not there, it is making the Senate appear unmoored from history, the law, and common sense.
Mitch McConnell is a lawyer. He seems, however, to have forgotten that a prosecutor who oversteps his authority and tries to convict someone over whom the court has no jurisdiction, will be hit with a swift – and ultimately successful – motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This is precisely what Trump’s lawyers need to file, and by so doing let the American people know that at least they can read the Constitution.
-
Because you're afraid they'll find 17 republicans to vote to convict Trump? I think it's more likely Democrats will suddenly wake up and realize all the negatives they're accruing.
When your enemy is self destructing, get out of their way and encourage them.
Bottom line, they are perfectly in line with the Constitution here.
They are in line with the Constitution only inasmuch as they can make their own senate rules to do whatever they want within the Constitution.
It is NOT a trial as constituted in the Constitution.
-
Because you're afraid they'll find 17 republicans to vote to convict Trump? I think it's more likely Democrats will suddenly wake up and realize all the negatives they're accruing.
When your enemy is self destructing, get out of their way and encourage them.
Bottom line, they are perfectly in line with the Constitution here.
I don't understand why you think that was in any way related to what I posted.
You made some claims wrt to overshadowing the fake, etc. My point was that the fake would benefit because it distracts people from the fake's actions.
My post had absolutely nothing to do with the Constituion or any fear that former President Trump will be convicted.
none
zip
zilch
-
I don't understand why you think that was in any way related to what I posted.
You made some claims wrt to overshadowing the fake, etc. My point was that the fake would benefit because it distracts people from the fake's actions.
My post had absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution or any fear that former President Trump will be convicted.
I was asking a question. Your answer is that isn't what you were going for, so I don't know.
-
They are in line with the Constitution only inasmuch as they can make their own senate rules to do whatever they want within the Constitution.
I'm confused why you say that.
That the Senate can make their own procedures says to me that whatever procedure they determine for conducting impeachment trials is, by definition, in line with the Constitution. Combined with them being the sole authority on impeachment trials says they can't really be wrong.
What do you believe is not in line with the Constitution and what clause do you think is being violated?
-
I encourage Democrats to stretch this as far as they can because it makes them look weak and petty. The last impeachment trial, they lost a lot of credibility and this abuse of power is going to cost them again. Additionally, this overshadows Biden's first 100 days, which mean he will largely look weak and pitiful.
So do I. Not only will it make them look weak and petty, as well as hateful, vengeful and spiteful, but it will also add fuel to the fire in the belly of Trump's supporters.
If Biden really desires any form of unity, as he says, he will use his pulpit to put an end to this farce.
-
I was asking a question. Your answer is that isn't what you were going for, so I don't know.
The portion of the post (reply #14) I quoted, no question. So....
-
So do I. Not only will it make them look weak and petty, as well as hateful, vengeful and spiteful, but it will also add fuel to the fire in the belly of Trump's supporters.
If Biden really desires any form of unity, as he says, he will use his pulpit to put an end to this farce.
Unity is the LAST thing the Democrats want. They want us divided and at each other's throats. Their Media, Tech, Chinese, Corporate, Globalist controllers know that is the way to further consolidate their wealth and power.
-
I'm confused why you say that.
That the Senate can make their own procedures says to me that whatever procedure they determine for conducting impeachment trials is, by definition, in line with the Constitution. Combined with them being the sole authority on impeachment trials says they can't really be wrong.
What do you believe is not in line with the Constitution and what clause do you think is being violated?
Here we go again.
Article I, Section 3. The Senate’s ONLY power under the Constitution is to convict, or not convict, an INCUMBENT president.
Article II, Section 4 says the PRESIDENT shall be removed from office upon impeachment. It does NOT say former president. The jurisdiction is limited to an incumbent president.
Once Trump left office at noon on January 20, Congress loses all authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him. End of story.
This is not even close. The articles of impeachment weren’t delivered to the Senate prior to Trump leaving office, and in fact were supposed to be delivered to the Senate today - 5 days after Trump became a private citizen.
Chief Justice Roberts will not be presiding over this “trial” because there is no president to try. So the Senate will convene to try a private citizen for removal from office that he does not hold. Do you not see how idiotic this is?
The Senate may well convene for this show. It won’t be a trial. It can’t be according to the Constitution. So if they decide to prohibit Trump from running for future office, Trump can quite legally tell them all to fuck off, and run in 2024.
-
Notice that "the walk" took place shortly after 7:00 pm this evening. Just so happens to coincide with the network news shows.. ::)
-
Where in the Constitution say the Senate can try a private citizen?
-
Here we go again.
Article I, Section 3. The Senate’s ONLY power under the Constitution is to convict, or not convict, an INCUMBENT president.
Article II, Section 4 says the PRESIDENT shall be removed from office upon impeachment. It does NOT say former president. The jurisdiction is limited to an incumbent president.
Once Trump left office at noon on January 20, Congress loses all authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him. End of story.
This is not even close. The articles of impeachment weren’t delivered to the Senate prior to Trump leaving office, and in fact were supposed to be delivered to the Senate today - 5 days after Trump became a private citizen.
Chief Justice Roberts will not be presiding over this “trial” because there is no president to try. So the Senate will convene to try a private citizen for removal from office that he does not hold. Do you not see how idiotic this is?
The Senate may well convene for this show. It won’t be a trial. It can’t be according to the Constitution. So if they decide to prohibit Trump from running for future office, Trump can quite legally tell them all to fuck off, and run in 2024
You’re inserting words and ideas that aren’t there. I know you wish they were, but they aren’t.
So - where does it require the House to have delivered the articles prior to his leaving office? It isn’t the removal clauses. The House has sole authority over impeachments and the Senate has sole authority over trials. The SCOTUS cannot tell them they are wrong unless they are violating another clause, such as trying to convict without a 2/3 majority.
Article 1, section 3 allows two penalties but does not require both of them. The Senate has removed people from office without disqualifying them, so it is logical they can do the reverse - disqualify without removing from office.
Maybe my copy of the constitution is defective. - it was printed about 25 years ago. I don’t read the word INCUMBENT in my copy. I didn’t miss an Amendment adding that, did I?
You are also misreading article 2, Section 4. The words say that the President/vp/officer MUST be removed for treason/bribery/high crimes. Stated another way, when the crime is X, the officers are required to be removed from office. That is just minimum sentencing.
You are claiming that because the Senate cannot remove him from office, they lose their authority of a trial. Yet nothing in the Constitution ties the clauses together, therefore they are independent. Neither affect the other.
On top of that - it is established that a former officer of the state can be impeached after they leave office for things they did while in office, so they certainly can be tried after leaving office too.
If Trump is convicted and disqualified, he can say whatever he likes in 2024, but Democrats will sue and the SCOTUS will keep him from running. I don’t expect that to happen, but the Senate has that authority.
Rather than making this stuff up, I’d suggest that you step back from the partisan position and just read the words without adding meaning that isn’t there. You will stop misleading yourself.
-
Where in the Constitution say the Senate can try a private citizen?
Article 1, Section 3, clause 6, first sentence.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
Whether or not they can hold a trial for an officer who has left office is based on a decision by the Senate. Sole power means nobody, not even the Supreme Court, can tell them they’re doing it incorrectly. The constitution vests that authority in the Senate.
And for completeness, yes, they cannot violate other clauses, such as the 2/3 majority. They cannot add additional penalties beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold office and honors.
They actually aren’t required to use either. It’’s conceivable they could convict someone (not for treason, bribery or high crimes) and neither remove them from office, nor disqualify them.
-
And BTW - the sole authority clauses do mean Republicans could impeach Biden for Burisma. It would be monumentally foolish to do so, but it is within the authority granted by the Constitution.
-
“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.”
An analysis from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/judgment-removal-and-disqualification (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/judgment-removal-and-disqualification):
“The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.854 This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.856”
it is logical they can do the reverse - disqualify without removing from office.
Suppose Trump were still president and the Senate failed to convict with a 2/3rd vote, but went ahead and voted on disqualifying him from holding office and did so with simple majority vote, a scenario possible per your claim. Then the curious case would exist where he’d remain in office yet be disqualified from holding that office now or in the future. When politics are involved anything is possible, but I’d not consider logic as being involved in such a scenario.
Speaking of logic, I don’t see the Republicans going along unless they have a metaphorical death wish. Even if, according to one item I saw, the vote was secret, it would be obvious to the Republican base that a large number of their Senators voted against Trump. That would split the party - a secret vote might even be worse if a conviction occurred - all of them would be suspected as turn coats.
-
Section 2 does require removal under certain crimes. If those crimes were absent, removal is not required.
No, the senate must convict by 2/3 majority first before they can disqualify. I was getting bad information. Judgment cannot be rendered unless a conviction is determined first.
-
I should add - confirmation that conviction is required before a judgement is passed comes from the senate procedural rules. Those rules are subject to change, but it takes a 2/3 vote to do it, so that isn’t happening any time soon.
-
You’re inserting words and ideas that aren’t there. I know you wish they were, but they aren’t.
So - where does it require the House to have delivered the articles prior to his leaving office? It isn’t the removal clauses. The House has sole authority over impeachments and the Senate has sole authority over trials. The SCOTUS cannot tell them they are wrong unless they are violating another clause, such as trying to convict without a 2/3 majority.
Article 1, section 3 allows two penalties but does not require both of them. The Senate has removed people from office without disqualifying them, so it is logical they can do the reverse - disqualify without removing from office.
Maybe my copy of the constitution is defective. - it was printed about 25 years ago. I don’t read the word INCUMBENT in my copy. I didn’t miss an Amendment adding that, did I?
You are also misreading article 2, Section 4. The words say that the President/vp/officer MUST be removed for treason/bribery/high crimes. Stated another way, when the crime is X, the officers are required to be removed from office. That is just minimum sentencing.
You are claiming that because the Senate cannot remove him from office, they lose their authority of a trial. Yet nothing in the Constitution ties the clauses together, therefore they are independent. Neither affect the other.
On top of that - it is established that a former officer of the state can be impeached after they leave office for things they did while in office, so they certainly can be tried after leaving office too.
If Trump is convicted and disqualified, he can say whatever he likes in 2024, but Democrats will sue and the SCOTUS will keep him from running. I don’t expect that to happen, but the Senate has that authority.
Rather than making this stuff up, I’d suggest that you step back from the partisan position and just read the words without adding meaning that isn’t there. You will stop misleading yourself.
This could have been a good discussion, again going nowhere, until your last paragraph where you demonstrated, once again, that you’re just a little asshole who can’t possibly be wrong. Don’t be a cunt. Put on your big boy pants and maybe do some reading.
I inserted nothing that a textualist would disagree with. You on the other hand are holding that since the text doesn’t specifically prohibit trying a private citizen, it must be allowed.
You would be wrong. That was the English impeachment model, but the Founders thought better of it.
Here’s liberal Jonathan Turley’s take in it. Turkey supported the impeachment of Trump right up until his last day in office, but says the Senate trial for a former president is not within the bounds of the Constitution.
“For my part, I am admittedly fixated on the fact that impeachment refers to the removal of “the President” and other officials in office. I understand that many do not adhere to a strong textualist approach to the Constitution. However, there is a glaring anomaly in the text. Indeed, the primary stated purpose of the trial is to determine whether “the President . . . shall be removed.” At the second Trump impeachment trial, the president will be Joe Biden, not Donald Trump. So the Senate will hold a rather curious vote to decide whether to remove a president who has already gone. Moreover, Chief Justice John Roberts is not expected to be present to answer these questions because there is no president to try. Article I states “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” So the Senate will get someone else. The question is who is being tried. Is he a president? Obviously not. Is he a civil officer? No, he is a private citizen. A private citizen is being called to the Senate to be tried for removal from an office that he does not hold.
“Every other part of the Constitution using the term “the President” or such specific officeholders is a reference to the current officeholder, not anyone who has ever held that office. Otherwise, Donald Trump could still be issuing pardons.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/22/the-case-against-retroactive-impeachment-trials-a-response-to-the-open-letter-of-scholars/
And, smartass, the term incumbent was a contextualist term. Former circuit court judge Michael Luttig also agrees with me.
“The reason for this is found in the Constitution itself. Trump would no longer be incumbent in the Office of the President at the time of the delayed Senate proceeding and would no longer be subject to “impeachment conviction” by the Senate, under the Constitution’s Impeachment Clauses. Which is to say that the Senate’s only power under the Constitution is to convict — or not — an incumbent president.
“The purpose, text and structure of the Constitution’s Impeachment Clauses confirm this intuitive and common-sense understanding.
The very concept of constitutional impeachment presupposes the impeachment, conviction and removal of a president who is, at the time of his impeachment, an incumbent in the office from which he is removed. Indeed, that was the purpose of the impeachment power, to remove from office a president or other “civil official” before he could further harm the nation from the office he then occupies.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/12/once-trump-leaves-office-senate-cant-hold-an-impeachment-trial/
-
Let's say for a moment that the Senate votes to impeach and then votes to ban President Trump from future office. Is there anything to prevent a future Senate from voting to un-ban him from holding office? 51 votes to ban, then 51 votes to un-ban? I've seen nothing about this, but it seems reasonable.
-
This could have been a good discussion, ... once again, that you’re just a little asshole who can’t possibly be wrong. Don’t be a cunt.
Oh, you've got me hooked right there. I'm so enthused to agree with you on anything now. ::) ::)
I inserted nothing that a textualist would disagree with. You on the other hand are holding that since the text doesn’t specifically prohibit trying a private citizen, it must be allowed.
You would be wrong. That was the English impeachment model, but the Founders thought better of it.
If that's true, then the founders failed to embed that in the Constitution. In fact, they explicitly left the decisions about almost everything related to impeachment up to the Senate.
I do agree that impeachment covers actions while in office and that the actions of private citizens are out of bounds. Impeachment exists as a guard against the misconduct of public men. Trump was not impeached for private actions, he was impeached for what he did as president. Would you suggest that someone could commit all sorts of non-criminal mischief at the end of their term, but be legally saved from consequences because they leave office?
I think Democrats were idiots for going down this path again, especially with evidence that says "Trump made a speech and then some people did some things" AND a Senate that will never convict him.
A private citizen is being called to the Senate to be tried for removal from an office that he does not hold.
Why do you keep ignoring that there are two judgements possible? I get the impression it is because you want to artificially weaken the case for a trial by falsely presenting it as irrelevant. This falseness hurts your argument, it does not improve it. If you have to resort to hiding the truth to strengthen your point, it just highlights the flaw.
Obviously he will not be removed. But if 2/3 of the Senators believe he has committed sedition, then he should barred from holding future office.
Bottom line - it is the job of the Senate to decide whether or not Trump's actions as president is subject to their jurisdiction. They have the sole power to try him for his actions while in office and the sole power to decide if they can. Nobody else gets a say in it.
-
So now bflynn is more knowledgeable then Jonathan Turley, Democrat Law Professor.
-
Me thinks bflynn's hatred of all things Donald Trump over rules all logic.
-
Me thinks bflynn's hatred of all things Donald Trump over rules all logic.
That's funny, I think your hatred makes you irrational.
I do not hate trump. I don't particularly care for him as a person, but he was an ok president. I'm sure that because I don't agree that he was the greatest man since Jesus is the reason you qualify my feelings about him as hate.
-
Oh, you've got me hooked right there. I'm so enthused to agree with you on anything now. ::) ::)
If that's true, then the founders failed to embed that in the Constitution. In fact, they explicitly left the decisions about almost everything related to impeachment up to the Senate.
I do agree that impeachment covers actions while in office and that the actions of private citizens are out of bounds. Impeachment exists as a guard against the misconduct of public men. Trump was not impeached for private actions, he was impeached for what he did as president. Would you suggest that someone could commit all sorts of non-criminal mischief at the end of their term, but be legally saved from consequences because they leave office?
I think Democrats were idiots for going down this path again, especially with evidence that says "Trump made a speech and then some people did some things" AND a Senate that will never convict him.
Why do you keep ignoring that there are two judgements possible? I get the impression it is because you want to artificially weaken the case for a trial by falsely presenting it as irrelevant. This falseness hurts your argument, it does not improve it. If you have to resort to hiding the truth to strengthen your point, it just highlights the flaw.
Obviously he will not be removed. But if 2/3 of the Senators believe he has committed sedition, then he should barred from holding future office.
Bottom line - it is the job of the Senate to decide whether or not Trump's actions as president is subject to their jurisdiction. They have the sole power to try him for his actions while in office and the sole power to decide if they can. Nobody else gets a say in it.
The text you cite:
“A private citizen is being called to the Senate to be tried for removal from an office that he does not hold.”
is from Jonathan Turley. Did you not read the article, or notice the quotation marks? I presume you didn’t check the other source that I cited as well.
I’ve read up on this. You may want to do a little research before practicing as a keyboard counselor.
-
Y’all so funny, arguing over what the Constitution allows, as if we still have a constitutional republic.
-
So now bflynn is more knowledgeable then Jonathan Turley, Democrat Law Professor.
Well, it appears I disagree with him. I don't believe that a public person can hide from consequences by leaving office. Otherwise the end of a term becomes a free for all because there's no time for impeachment and therefore no consequences.
-
Well, it appears I disagree with him. I don't believe that a public person can hide from consequences by leaving office. Otherwise the end of a term becomes a free for all because there's no time for impeachment and therefore no consequences.
Is impeachment that only consequence possible?
-
Y’all so funny, arguing over what the Constitution allows, as if we still have a constitutional republic.
The constitution is only applicable to the standards set forth by the DCP. Any conservative opinion shall be questioned, and disavowed.
-
Is impeachment that only consequence possible?
I don't know of anything else.
Obviously voters can decide not to endorse someone again, but that would require us to put faith in the election process.
-
I don't know of anything else.
Obviously voters can decide not to endorse someone again, but that would require us to put faith in the election process.
But we just had the cleanest, and most historic election ever conducted, so why would we need to put faith into the process?
-
Greta Van Susteren has written an op-ed suggesting censure. I'm not really sure how you censure a private citizen either.
-
With the likelihood of getting 67 votes to convict very slim, why would Schumer even move forward with this trial?
-
Greta Van Susteren has written an op-ed suggesting censure. I'm not really sure how you censure a private citizen either.
No? You think the Senate could not, for example, censure Zuckerberg or Bezos for the crap they've pulled?
-
The problem with the reasoning in this thread is twofold.
First, Trump may be a private citizen, but a private citizen with massive bennies:
Office Space and Staffing Allowances: Starting six months after a President leaves office, the General Services Administration (GSA) provides funding to establish, furnish, and staff an official office anywhere in the U.S.
Travel Expenses: Chief Executives and up to two staff members are reimbursed for up to $1 million in costs annually. Spouses of former Presidents also are eligible for up to $500,000 per year for security and official travel.
Health Benefits: Provided that they had been enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program for at least five years, former Presidents are eligible for health annuities, similar to all federal employees. (Jimmy Carter is ineligible because he only served a single term and did not hold another federal position. Trump won't either)
Funerals: Presidents are guaranteed a ceremony with full honors and the option to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
Secret Service Protection: Presidents are eligible for lifetime protection. The related costs are classified.
The above taken from https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/pensions-and-perks-for-former-presidents-archive (https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/pensions-and-perks-for-former-presidents-archive). If he's convicted in the Senate, he loses all that good stuff.
The second is far more insidious. Let's say you guys are right, and you can't convict a POTUS of anything after he leaves office. That frees a lame duck POTUS to do anything toward the end of his term. Absolutely anything. After all, if the Senate can't get a trial together before the POTUS leaves office, the POTUS can't be tried for anything and still gets all kinds of loverly benefits from the taxpayers and can run for elected office again if he or she wants to do so.
-
The problem with the reasoning in this thread is twofold.
First, Trump may be a private citizen, but a private citizen with massive bennies:
The above taken from https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/pensions-and-perks-for-former-presidents-archive (https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/pensions-and-perks-for-former-presidents-archive). If he's convicted in the Senate, he loses all that good stuff.
The second is far more insidious. Let's say you guys are right, and you can't convict a POTUS of anything after he leaves office. That frees a lame duck POTUS to do anything toward the end of his term. Absolutely anything. After all, if the Senate can't get a trial together before the POTUS leaves office, the POTUS can't be tried for anything and still gets all kinds of loverly benefits from the taxpayers and can run for elected office again if he or she wants to do so.
You don’t even read the stuff you posted, did you?
I didn’t go back to the 1958 Act, but the article says he loses these benefits if he’s REMOVED FROM OFFICE THROUGH THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
You may not have heard, but Trump left office in January 20, 2021. He’s a private citizen and can’t be removed from an office he no longer holds.
As for your last paragraph, you can wish all you want, but an impeachment is a Constitutional remedy, period. It’s not a remedy to punish a president beyond what is envisioned in the Constitution.
Congress believed, correctly, that it had no Constitutional authority to impeach Richard Nixon after he resigned, so they did not attempt to do so.
Sorry the left hates the result, but if you want to be able to impeach private citizens, move to England. They used to have that in their laws. Our founders rejected that.
-
First, Trump may be a private citizen, but a private citizen with massive bennies:
He doesn't need any of those benefits. But don't worry, he won't get convicted.
The second is far more insidious. Let's say you guys are right, and you can't convict a POTUS of anything after he leaves office. That frees a lame duck POTUS to do anything toward the end of his term.
This is correct. Impeachment is a remedy for actions while in office. Those wanting to keep Trump out of impeachment aren't thinking it through.
The Senate will vote today about whether or not they have jurisdiction over this and they'll do this because they are only ones who can. They will vote yes and they will proceed into a trial, although I understand they won't start for two weeks.
-
Michael outed himself immediately, he doesn't want Trump to have any of the benefits of having served the country for four years, four years while the left attacked him on a daily basis. When will the left apologize to him about the Russia hoax?
-
Michael outed himself immediately, he doesn't want Trump to have any of the benefits of having served the country for four years, four years while the left attacked him on a daily basis. When will the left apologize to him about the Russia hoax?
Correct, but his envy is not original. That line of thinking is rampant on leftists sites - “Oh my God, Trump won’t get any Secret Service after he’s convicted. I hope his family is watching their six.” And other similar heartwarming wishes.
Liberalism is a mental illness.
-
Michael outed himself immediately, he doesn't want Trump to have any of the benefits of having served the country for four years, four years while the left attacked him on a daily basis. When will the left apologize to him about the Russia hoax?
No, I simply pointed out what I feel is faulty reasoning. I may not much like Trump, but I honestly don't want to see any ill come to him. I would like to see him barred from public office, if only to ameliorate his corrosive effect on American politics. But I stand by what I say. If you can't impeach a POTUS on his or her way out then there is no check whatsoever on Presidential behavior, and that is a bad thing.
I think the Senate trial is going to have nothing to do with the reality on the ground. I think the majority of the facts are already commonly known. I suspect what's going to happen will be a struggle within the GOP over who is going to exercise control, Trump or the more establishment Republicans like Romney and his ilk. We will see if the GOP wants to put Trump behind him or follow his lead. Should be quite interesting.
-
Romney is a member of the democrat wing of the republican party.
He's eyeing a 2024 run for president knowing he won't get re-elected to the senate in Utah. Romney want's desperately to gain control of the GOP. He hasn't figured out yet that he's highly disliked and wouldn't stand a chance in hell in getting nominated, much less elected.
-
Romney is a member of the democrat wing of the republican party.
He's eyeing a 2024 run for president knowing he won't get re-elected to the senate in Utah. Romney want's desperately to gain control of the GOP. He hasn't figured out yet that he's highly disliked and wouldn't stand a chance in hell in getting nominated, much less elected.
I only mentioned Romney because he's the only one who came quickly to mind. I did add "and his ilk". There are quite a few GOP Senators who have been less than enthusiastic about Trump's brand of politics and would like to put him in the rear view mirror. There are lots of others who are loyalists. It will be interesting to see who wins out in the end.
-
I only mentioned Romney because he's the only one who came quickly to mind. I did add "and his ilk". There are quite a few GOP Senators who have been less than enthusiastic about Trump's brand of politics and would like to put him in the rear view mirror. There are lots of others who are loyalists. It will be interesting to see who wins out in the end.
The "establishment" of the GOP has alienated more than half of their constituents. As they continue their death march, they are not garnering any new supporters. Conversely, the new DCP has gone so far into fascism/socialism that the party moderates are also bailing on them. Expect Xiden to polish them off, and also expect to see His Fraudulancy usher in republican control of the House and Senate in 2022.
In the free states we should expect to see more R seats gained and the establishment R's primaried out. The blue shit hole states have roughly 18 months to try to clean up their voting systems before they go to a one party state like California.
Xiden is making the most compelling argument of why to never let DCP members have power again. One week in and he's already creating one disaster after another.
-
Forty-five Republicans voted that the trial is unconstitutional.
-
As expected.
If Democrats are sensible, they will quickly dispose of the trial. But, they'll probably drag it out, believing they're hurting Trump's image. Who knows, with the media willingly carrying their water, they might be able smear him good with outrageous lies.
-
As expected.
If Democrats are sensible, they will quickly dispose of the trial. But, they'll probably drag it out, believing they're hurting Trump's image. Who knows, with the media willingly carrying their water, they might be able smear him good with outrageous lies.
You speak in future tense. The media has been doing that for 5+ years. Why should they stop doing what works?
-
Forty-five Republicans voted that the trial is unconstitutional.
As Rand Paul says - it’s dead on arrival.
-
Idiocy. Sheer idiocy. And not even close to being legal.
https://bangordailynews.com/2021/01/27/politics/proposal-from-susan-collins-led-group-would-bar-trump-from-presidency/
A censure effort led by U.S. Sen. Susan Collins would bar former President Donald Trump from holding the office again while avoiding an impeachment trial, a Democrat drafting it with her said on Wednesday.
The proposal from Collins and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, was criticized by some as toothless after it was first reported by Axios on Tuesday. But it was fleshed out in interviews over the course of Wednesday in which Democrats pitched the effort as a bid to disqualify the president from running again — perhaps without a trial.
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, told reporters in Washington that Collins and Kaine’s censure will “include the elements of the 14th Amendment” — a response to the Civil War that says those who have engaged in insurrection against the country cannot serve in federal office and allows Congress to enforce that provision — “that lead to disqualification from future office.”
“This is an alternative that would impose, in my view, a similar consequence but it does not require a trial and it does not require a two-thirds vote,” Kaine told CNN on Wednesday. “That’s what I have drafted.”
The wording has not been finalized and the legal theory is questionable. It is also unclear whether it would gain enough support to move forward with Democrats looking to try the former president and his fellow Republicans generally resisting it. But the development could mark a major escalation from Collins, a Republican who opposed House Democrats’ first attempt to remove the former president from office last year and has not said how she would vote in the second impeachment trial against Trump to begin next month.
Trump is accused by Democrats this time of inciting the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. A Senate trial is set to begin in February. Collins has been one of the former president’s harshest critics within the party and was one of only five Republicans to join Democrats in a Tuesday vote on letting that trial proceed.
That vote, opposed by 45 Republicans, showed the impeachment effort is doomed to fail. Two-thirds of senators must vote to remove Trump from office — even though President Joe Biden has already taken over — to trigger a majority vote to disqualify him from running again.
Courts may not agree with Kaine’s untested legal theory on disqualifying a president with majority votes in both houses of Congress, given the established two-thirds threshold for removing a president after an impeachment trial. Any vote in the Senate would likely be subject to the 60-vote threshold needed to break the filibuster, requiring 10 Republicans.
Collins’ office did not directly answer questions on the 14th Amendment part of the censure or whether she agreed with Kaine’s view that it allowed for disqualification. Kaine said the measure could be introduced by next week.
In Washington on Wednesday, Collins also did not answer a reporter’s question about the 14th Amendment portion, according to a readout provided by her office, saying “we’re still going through language” but saying the measure would be “in lieu of a trial.” She added that it was being advanced as an acknowledgement of a political reality that Trump is unlikely to be convicted.
“Senator Collins and Senator Kaine are working on language, which is not final and will not be released until they have reached agreement,” Collins spokesperson Annie Clark said in a statement late Wednesday.
-
insurrection? pretty low bar to call it insurrection (not to mention the problem of inciting something that was already occurring...)
-
They all sure are afraid of Trump
-
I believe that the Court has consistently ruled that the qualifications for president in the Constitution are comprehensive and complete. The Senate does not have the authority to disqualify someone from the office except through the judgement after the 2/3 vote.
Democrats are so desperate that they’re making mistakes.