Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UNLV2001

trump Impeachment Trial Thread

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Okay. You still can't impeach and convict someone who is not president.  There is no authority for this. The Chief Justice is refusing to provide over any trial. This is dumb. Trump isn't president anymore. lets move on please. 

If this is dumb wait until you fully comprehend that what you're saying is that the President can attempt or do anything he wants...sedition, treason, bribery, sell off intelligence...without consequence, as an outgoing lame duck, as long as it is pretty close to January 21st.

That's one hell of a loophole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

There's plenty of precedent for officials being impeached after they leave office, and it is constitutional for Congress to impeach in order to prevent another run at office. It's unclear if Roberts was even asked to oversee the impeachment, so there's no evidence he refused.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-chief-justice-roberts-refuse-preside-over-trumps-impeachment-trial-1564300

You don't want the impeachment, and that's why you think it's unconstitutional. That's fine... I think it's a reasonable argument that the impeachment trial will be a net negative. But let's not confuse your convictions for those of the Senate GOP who are saying this is unconstitutional. They want to continue to refuse to publicly rebuke Trump and hold him accountable for his reckless and dangerous behavior without having to defend that behavior. 

Couple of things: 

The Chief Justice is required to preside over any impeachment, it says so in the constitution. The fact that he won't do it means he thinks the whole thing is nonsense. 

The Constitution specifically lays out the process for impeachment. It says zip about impeachment of a former president. You can;t impeach a president who is not the president. The constitution supersedes any other government policy for impeaching other elected officials. Ill state it again - there is no constitutional authority to impeach a former president. Read that again. 

I think Trump certainly deserved to be impeached for the bullshit he pulled. He is no longer the president though, and can;t be impeached. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, toonkee said:

If this is dumb wait until you fully comprehend that what you're saying is that the President can attempt or do anything he wants...sedition, treason, bribery, sell off intelligence...without consequence, as an outgoing lame duck, as long as it is pretty close to January 21st.

That's one hell of a loophole. 

They could have voted for impeachment and convicted in the senate the day after the riot at the capital WHEN HE WAS STILL PRESIDENT!

You can't impeach someone who is not the president 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Couple of things: 

The Chief Justice is required to preside over any impeachment, it says so in the constitution. The fact that he won't do it means he thinks the whole thing is nonsense. 

The Constitution specifically lays out the process for impeachment. It says zip about impeachment of a former president. You can;t impeach a president who is not the president. The constitution supersedes any other government policy for impeaching other elected officials. Ill state it again - there is no constitutional authority to impeach a former president. Read that again. 

I think Trump certainly deserved to be impeached for the bullshit he pulled. He is no longer the president though, and can;t be impeached. 

 

He's already been impeached, and he was impeached while he was president. He is about to be tried. 

If the supes intercede and dismiss, I'll buy you a cup of coffee. If they don't, it's on its face constitutional. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

They could have voted for impeachment and convicted in the senate the day after the riot at the capital WHEN HE WAS STILL PRESIDENT!

You can't impeach someone who is not the president 

4vfvjf.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

He's already been impeached, and he was impeached while he was president. He is about to be tried. 

If the supes intercede and dismiss, I'll buy you a cup of coffee. If they don't, it's on its face constitutional. 

Show me in the constitution where it says you can try a president for impeachment who is not the president. Take your time? I will wait 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Show me in the constitution where it says you can try a president for impeachment who is not the president. Take your time? I will wait 

All sorts of things that are constitutional are not explicitly stated in the constitution. 

Like I said, if Trump's legal team successfully gets the charge dismissed by the supreme court based on this argument then I'll admit you were right. Otherwise, congress gets to decide whether an impeachment is constitutional. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bornontheblue said:

image.png.d7119549172bdb745c6e43fb86519aa5.png

It says "And all civil officers of the United States" right next to it. They've been impeached after being out of office before. Seems to hold water to me. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

It says "And all civil officers of the United States" right next to it. They've been impeached after being out of office before. Seems to hold water to me. 

Never argue the fine details with an accountant. 

It says removed from office. How do you remove someone from office who is not in office?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

All sorts of things that are constitutional are not explicitly stated in the constitution. 

Like I said, if Trump's legal team successfully gets the charge dismissed by the supreme court based on this argument then I'll admit you were right. Otherwise, congress gets to decide whether an impeachment is constitutional. 

No you dummy-  Congress doesn't get to decide what is constitutional. Google Marbury vs Madison 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Show me in the constitution where it says you can try a president for impeachment who is not the president. Take your time? I will wait 

They impeached him while he was the President. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bornontheblue

Your legal argument is that a provision in the constitution to prevent someone from ever holding office again, is thwarted by the clock, is just poor reasoning and not consistent with precedent.   

  

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/meet-other-american-who-was-impeached-tried-after-leaving-office-n1255516

But there is historical precedent for impeaching and trying to convict a former federal officeholder.

 

In 1876, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on articles of impeachment against Secretary of War William Belknap over corruption charges, Belknap walked over to the White House, submitted his resignation letter to President Ulysses S. Grant and burst into tears.

The House still went ahead and impeached Belknap, and the Senate tried him, with the impeachment managers arguing that departing office doesn’t excuse the alleged offense — otherwise, officeholders would simply resign to escape conviction or impeachment.

And the Senate voted in 1876, by a 37-29 margin, that Belknap was eligible to be impeached and tried even though he resigned from office.

But Belknap was eventually acquitted, with the Senate failing to muster the two-thirds vote needed to convict. (A significant number of senators believed the Senate lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he no longer held office.)

So the Belknap precedent is instructive.

Nearly 150 years ago, a majority of senators voted that you could impeach and try a former officeholder — for high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office.

But just enough senators were persuaded that it was pointless to convict.

  

 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, retrofade said:

They impeached him while he was the President. 

True. But you cannot convict a former president. It says so in the text of the constitution I posted earlier. 

My apologies for conflating impeachment and the trial process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

No you dummy-  Congress doesn't get to decide what is constitutional. Google Marbury vs Madison 

When it comes to impeachment, they almost certainly do.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, toonkee said:

@bornontheblue

Your legal argument is that a provision in the constitution to prevent someone from ever holding office again, is thwarted by the clock, is just poor reasoning and not consistent with precedent.   

  

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/meet-other-american-who-was-impeached-tried-after-leaving-office-n1255516

But there is historical precedent for impeaching and trying to convict a former federal officeholder.

 

In 1876, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on articles of impeachment against Secretary of War William Belknap over corruption charges, Belknap walked over to the White House, submitted his resignation letter to President Ulysses S. Grant and burst into tears.

The House still went ahead and impeached Belknap, and the Senate tried him, with the impeachment managers arguing that departing office doesn’t excuse the alleged offense — otherwise, officeholders would simply resign to escape conviction or impeachment.

And the Senate voted in 1876, by a 37-29 margin, that Belknap was eligible to be impeached and tried even though he resigned from office.

But Belknap was eventually acquitted, with the Senate failing to muster the two-thirds vote needed to convict. (A significant number of senators believed the Senate lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he no longer held office.)

So the Belknap precedent is instructive.

Nearly 150 years ago, a majority of senators voted that you could impeach and try a former officeholder — for high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office.

But just enough senators were persuaded that it was pointless to convict.

  

 
 

I will stick to what the constitution says. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Never argue the fine details with an accountant. 

It says removed from office. How do you remove someone from office who is not in office?????

It seemed to hold water in instances when other civil officers of the united states. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smltwnrckr said:

It seemed to hold water in instances when other civil officers of the united states. 

We are not talking about other civil officers. The constitution specifically addresses this when it comes to the president of the United States. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

They could have voted for impeachment and convicted in the senate the day after the riot at the capital WHEN HE WAS STILL PRESIDENT!

You can't impeach someone who is not the president 

While I get it is factually incorrect it is not accurate as a admin official already tried to avoid impeachment by resigning and was impeached anyway.   So what you are saying can’t be done has already been done.   
 

it’s just more profiles in cowardliness by the Republican Senate.   If they want to acquit him then do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...