Breaking news: The 2nd Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump....

Definitely not my problem that you have LIMITED insight into the HARSH REALITY of racist white supremacists supporting YOUR biggest *LOSER*.

 

The ones supporting YOUR biggest *LOSER* of course!

How MANY more TIMES do you need to be WRONG about the same point?

 

I didn't care what Trump thought any more than I care what Obama thought or what Biden thinks

I do not make my life decisions based upon a what a figure head says

I simply look to see how peoples economic lives are when there is Democrat control vs not Democrat control

the past several years, covid-19 aside, the avg person's stock in life improved. Moral of the story, the less that DC does, the better it is for the rest of us.

 

1436 times.

 

Feel better now?

 

Read the case and please explain to me how you arrived at the conclusion in your first sentence. I'm not making leaps here. They agreed with the defense but did not say which of their arguments warranted dismissal. I assume that means both arguments had merit.

 

This appears to be an outright lie. Can you please produce this list of officials impeached while out of office?

 

Next time you accuse me of lying you WILL be reported! This will be your ONLY warning!

The Belnap case has been all over the media.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/me...impeached-tried-after-leaving-office-n1255516

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...rump-impeachment-ex-president-founders-468769

ALL of the ABOVE factually SUPPORTS my STATEMENTS.

The VIEW of the FOUNDING FATHERS was that Impeachment was common AFTER people had LEFT office as a means of PREVENTING them from ever holding office ever again.

They EXPANDED that to include REMOVAL from office because they were concerned about dictator wannabe's EXACTLY like YOUR biggest *LOSER*.

 

"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."
This makes absolutely perfect sense.

 

Of course it does...to anyone able to think about it clearly and logically.

It would be like a bank robber claiming that he could not be charged with the theft AFTER he left the bank because he was no longer robbing the bank.

No sane and rational person would buy that BS but apparently supporters of the biggest *LOSER* believe that once he left office his CRIMES against We the People no longer apply or should have no consequences either.

 

The contention was that impeachment while out of office during the founder's lives was common. That is NOT true.

You can move the goalposts with Belnap, but that happened decades after the last founder was in the ground, and it was the SOLE case of Congressional impeachment while out of office except Blount's. Blount was impeached by the founders while out of office, but they dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

Maybe you are trying to move the goalposts again, so I'll rephrase: Impeachment of officials while out of office, BY THE US CONGRESS, DURING THE LIVES OF THE FOUNDERS, was not common; it happened once, and they dismissed it.

If I am wrong, please provide this list of officials. This was a shady tactic used by Dem leaders and pundits to normalize the outrageous Congressional action on this impeachment.

 

I'm tempted to ask, how many angels can dance on a pin head.
We seem to have moved from Trump should not be impeached because he has left office, to, not many people have been impeached after they left office.
So?

 

It makes -zero- sense.
People who leave office can be criminally charged for their actions - thus, leaving office does not prevent them from being held accountable for said actions..

 

But impeachment specifically prevents them taking public office again.

 

Irrelevant to the point you agreed with.

"...otherwise, officeholders would simply resign to escape conviction or impeachment."
You said it made "absolute perfect sense" - despite the fact it is false.

 

Anything that points out gaps in your argument is irrelevant.

 

Nothing here changes the fact you, in glowing terms, agreed with a false statement.

 

I'm happy to let others judge.

 

Because you won't accept the fact you agreed with a false statement?

 

Until you realize that we have a justice system, then it makes zero sense to say resigning = escape.

 

So does the punishment for the crime they accused him of. Same with treason. If convicted, disqualification from holding office. So yah see, we already have legal ways to hold "wannabe dictators" to account, and we don't need to crap all over the Constitution to do it. You just need that pesky little thing called evidence.

 

TROLLING kneejerk denial of the PROVEN FACTS duly noted for the record!

Sad!

 

That rather depends if the reason for impeachment is also a criminal offence.

 

Which it was here. Which is why we should demand they try him for the crime accused, or not run their mouths accusing someone of a specific crime with no intent to try them.

 

As Kissinger said, power is an aphrodisiac, as Bill and Monica proved. Thank you for the cowboy compliment but I don't think women need to be 'looked after', they can take care of themselves.