Who thinks Pelosi will do this?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Just because I'm to lazy to find an appropriate thread, start a new thread and I'm done for tonight, I'll just slap it here.



Don Lemon just suggested, well, outright said, that all 74 million people that voted for Trump are guilty in the death of the police officer. I wonder if you could say that on Twitter and Facebook since that sounds a lot like hate speech that could incite violence against anybody that voted for Trump but was nowhere near Washington DC on that day.


Helluva way to start unifying the country huh?

I put Don Lemon in the same category as people like Tucker Carlson. Very little of what they say is based in reality.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Like Trump said - be careful what you wish for - you might just get it.

Originally Posted by Alyssa XOXO

Heh!

You two should be careful wtf you wish for....Trumps Justice Department thinks you should have no platform to advertise on.



.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I put Don Lemon in the same category as people like Tucker Carlson. Very little of what they say is based in reality.

Their reality is to generate ad revenue.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Sc has nothing to do with impeachment except for the Chief Justice presiding over the trial.

well it takes a bit of awareness, and i can give you partial credit, but the senate trial wasn't what i was talking about, its the getting to a senate trial

there is an open question, constitutionally speaking, as to whether or not a private citizen can be tried by the senate

the wording is about officials and it has been debated but not adjudicated per se

there is an impeachment where the official resigned so as to escape trial but not where one's term had ended

[1blackman1]

It’s not an open question unless all you listen to is Newsmax and Fox.

[Alyssa XOXO]

Originally Posted by WTF

You should be careful wtf you wish for....Trumps Justice Department THOUGHT you should have no platform to advertise on.

*(AE is an awesome retired hussy)*


.

Fixed it for ya

I think we'll survive... thanks for lookin out though

The real shitshow hasn't even begun

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

So by your logic a president could resign to avoid impeachment and then run again because there is no way to hold him/her accountable.


Sure there is, the people can hold him accountable. Do you see the irony in your statement? You are all for the "popular vote" determining the President but when you don't like the idea of an unpopular President in the party that did not support his election, you would rather have that party decide if he should be elected again instead of leaving it to the people to decide.

I’m not sure that was intended by the founders

And those few words should give you pause the next time you decide to tell us what the founding fathers would want.

since they included the possible punishment of precluding a subsequent run.

Since we are taking liberties with what the founding father may or may not want, my guess is, the majority would leave it to the people instead of a party with a grudge.

That would have no meaning as any president could side step the process.

And leave it to the people to decide

My suspicion is that you can’t impeach a non-President but you can have a trial and convict one.

OK, I've read that sentence 3 times now just to make sure what you said. Can you cite anything, anybody that thinks you can have a trial without first an impeachment? My suspicion is that you can't because that leaves out half the equation, the House and it's sole responsibility to "prepare" the trial by sending the Senate, the justification if you will, for a trial.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" ( Article I, section 2 ) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…

So being a textualist that I am, I read that to say there can't be a trial without impeachment.

[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" ( Article I, section 3 ). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.
The concept of impeachment originated in England and was adopted by many of the American colonial governments and state constitutions. As adopted by the framers, this congressional power is a fundamental component of the constitutional system of “checks and balances.” Through the impeachment process, Congress charges

And by Congress, they mean the House. No where that I can see does it say the Senate may charge. And where would that leave the House managers who present the evidence? Out in the cold I presume.

and then tries an official of the federal government for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The definition of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was not specified in the Constitution and has long been subject to debate.
In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate.

So if the House is left out of the process, there might be no managers, no manager, no trial.

Think about the situation taken to it’s ridiculous conclusion.

I think I just did.

President A totally ignores the laws of congress, budgets etc. they hold an impeachment hearing in an election year. He wins the election and the senate trial begins. He resigns. The senate can’t convict him. He then gets sworn in for his next term.

The primary purpose of Impeachment is removal from office. Only then and only "sometimes" will it be considered to bar the ex President from running. Not sure you can make the case for a trial with the sole purpose of keeping him from running again, hence the need for a SC decision if any of this is possible, Constitutional.

The non-president bypassing the conviction or trial is folly. The SC may have to decide it but there’s nothing to suggest that it’s logical.

So after all this, you admit "may have to decide it". I guess I could have saved some time and started and ended with that but what fun would that be.

Edit
OH boy! After further research which I now wish I had done before my lengthy argument, I came across this which would seem to suggest, at least give more credence to your theory.


https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/13/senate-impeachment-trial-biden-presidency-shorten-459052

Adopting a summary-judgment approach could work because, although it is true that the Constitution stipulates that the House of Representatives must pass an article of impeachment by a majority vote, and the Senate must “try” those articles of impeachment and vote to convict by a two-thirds margin to remove the president, the Constitution does not impose any particular trial rules or procedures on the Senate. In

Nixon v. United States

, decided in 1993, the Supreme Court squarely held that the Senate may decide for itself how to conduct impeachment trials; the federal courts will not impose any particular procedures on the Senate nor will they hear appeals of the Senate’s impeachment trial verdicts.

Upon further reflection, I'm going to give this one to you although you did say the SC may have to decide so you did hedge your bet. Remember, by your rules, hedging is a bad thing.

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever
The SC just might have a say on whether you can have a trial of a President already out of office since the purpose of impeachment is to immediately remove a President that is a threat. What threat is an Ex President other than he might run again and if they do try him and can't convict him, they can't stop him from running again.

Don Lemon just suggested, well, outright said, that all 74 million people that voted for Trump are guilty in the death of the police officer. I wonder if you could say that on Twitter and Facebook since that sounds a lot like hate speech that could incite violence against anybody that voted for Trump but was nowhere near Washington DC on that day.


Helluva way to start unifying the country huh?

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

So by your logic a president could resign to avoid impeachment and then run again because there is no way to hold him/her accountable. I’m not sure that was intended by the founders since they included the possible punishment of precluding a subsequent run. That would have no meaning as any president could side step the process.

My suspicion is that you can’t impeach a non-President but you can have a trial and convict one.

Think about the situation taken to it’s ridiculous conclusion. President A totally ignores the laws of congress, budgets etc. they hold an impeachment hearing in an election year. He wins the election and the senate trial begins. He resigns. The senate can’t convict him. He then gets sworn in for his next term.

The non-president bypassing the conviction or trial is folly. The SC may have to decide it but there’s nothing to suggest that it’s logical.

And - by your logic - your whataboutism response is meaningless. Trump is too old - he will not run again, and doubtless has had enough of teh rage and hatred of theDPST/CCP party.

Don Lemon is further dividing the country - and casting false aspersions on every person who voted for Trump. It is inflammatory rhetoric - and grossly inappropriate to speak such of 74 million people. it also shows the depths that XiNN will go to spread propaganda and hatred.

Such rhetoric on Fox or OANN would bring howls of indignation - and justifiably so.



Is that part of teh DPST/CCP plan to marginalize, censor, penalize everyone in
America with a different opinion on political issues than marxist harris and AOC???
A fact of life already in clear evidence by teh DPST/CCP cancel culture.

Be PC or be Banned !

That is the DPST message loud and clear.


Rest Assured - Biden will not pardon Trump - in order to have him prosecuted on "Trumped up " charges after his Presidency ends. .

[Kinkster90210]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

So by your logic a president could resign to avoid impeachment and then run again because there is no way to hold him/her accountable. I’m not sure that was intended by the founders since they included the possible punishment of precluding a subsequent run. That would have no meaning as any president could side step the process.

My suspicion is that you can’t impeach a non-President but you can have a trial and convict one.

Think about the situation taken to it’s ridiculous conclusion. President A totally ignores the laws of congress, budgets etc. they hold an impeachment hearing in an election year. He wins the election and the senate trial begins. He resigns. The senate can’t convict him. He then gets sworn in for his next term.

The non-president bypassing the conviction or trial is folly. The SC may have to decide it but there’s nothing to suggest that it’s logical.

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

If the President resigns, how does he get sworn in? At that point, they swear in the Vice President elect - just as if the President-elect had died after the election.

Also, a person can only be elected to two terms. If he resigned before the second term began, he wouldn't even be able to run for a third term after that.

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by WTF

You two should be careful wtf you wish for....Trumps Justice Department thinks you should have no platform to advertise on.



.

It is now the DPST/CCP DOJ - a partisan arm of teh DPST party - and is the death of the
non-partisan judiciary in America. The DOJ is returning to what it was under Obama/biden
i agree - be careful what you wish for - because teh DPST/CCP party has only teh SC to subvert to gain total power.

and - biden will pack the SC with radical Marxists.

[HedonistForever]

I see Chris Cuomo, who knew Lemon had gone to far tried to get him to dial it back but Lemon wouldn't. Anybody that voted for Trump was a Klan member and complicit in the murder of a police officer according to Lemon.


That's rich. Using Lemon's reasoning, he is complicit in the murder of every cop killed by peaceful protesters that he incited.


Then over on MSNBC, they are having a discussion on "how are we going to re-program 74 million Trump voters". "Where do we start"? Re-education camps maybe?

[1blackman1]

Impeachment and trial are separate processes.

So , back to what I said. Let’s start with the language of the constitution. Where does it preclude trying an ex president. The article begins agnostic as to impeachment and trial. It then tells you what’s required if the President is the subject of the impeachment. It an impeachment occurs it is mandatory for the senate to have a trial. Has nothing at all to do with whether the person remains in office at the time.

The reason I said an ex president might not be able to be impeached is that it’s the house process that might require that the subject be in the office when the articles are voted on. I suspect it could still happen but I’m not sure without doing some research.

Nonetheless, once the house impeaches, even if the person resigns, the senate still has to have a trial.

In my example. President Asshole is currently serving term 1. Gets impeached. But concurrently there’s an election. He wins. But a senate trial is going to find him guilty and preclude his serving term 2. He resigns. VP finishes term 1.

By the logic that his resignation side steps the trial and punishment. He would then get sworn back in as president for his 2d term. Escaping his punishment simply by resigning in lieu of getting punished.

[oeb11]

That logic is flawed.

The Senate makes its' own rules - as pointed out above - and must accept the Articles of Impeachment.

What type of 'Trial' is up to the Senate.

in the case of an out of office POTUS - they could decide to have a brief Hearing - and let it go.

however- the Senate may bar , if it chooses, a person from again holding federal office - a reason for a trial.

IMHO - the reason the DPST/CCP party is putting on this charade of governance - may be to prevent Trump from Running again . They are terrified of Trump - and how teh nation ran so well before Xi loosed his Wuhan virus on us - and was that done in conjunction with the DPST/CCP leadership?
biden, Swalwell and Feinstein certainly have close ties to the Chinese dictatorship - who else does???

as i pointed out - Trump will be older, and likely sick of the insane and incessant hating attacks by the DPSY/CCP party. Cannot blame Trump for that. he will not run again.



Pelosi , et al , and Schumer, etal, are making a laughingstock of our system of governance to the world - their hatred and need for Revenge is palpable and is teh motivation behind this DPST/CCP charade of impeachment/trial.

It is a Shame the Republican leadership does not stand up to them and tell them -' This is ridiculous' - and it is ridiculous on their part.

Just as nazi pelosi and her little impeachment march to the Senate - her signing ceremony with 'Pelosi pens' - followed by her gaggle of schiff/nadler/ and other lying luminaries of teh DPST/CCP party.

Quite a pathetic little spectacle she made - Hope she does it again - it is a good Laugh!

[matchingmole]

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

schumer/pelosi pushes it..all likely will wind up in the sc

What's "SC" stand for? Solitary Confinement, lol. That's where they should end up.