Justice Roberts: Hell No! I Won't Go! To The Senate Impeachment "Trial"

Sorry there is only one THE President at a time and nowhere does the Constitution state that a former president is subject to trial in the Senate.

 

Which is for the States and their voters to decide now.

 

sorry, we got THE guilty President in question, like it or not

 

you can argue with the article's author or other evidence / info since, if my comment doesn't suffice. doesn't change the matter or the facts.

 

When an elected official:

- violates his oath of office over and over,
- commits corrupt acts in order to gain financially,
- harangues the president of another country to dirty up his political opponent,
- slows down the mail in order to create as much havoc as possible for those who preferred voting by mail instead of risking infection,
- calls the election a fraud in the months before the election,
- sends our endless tweets to his supporters about fighting back and stopping the final rlection process, inciting a violent insurrection,

... in my opinion, any one of those actions, and many more that I didn't list, is cause to deny that person the right to ever run for office again, no matter how popular he may be to those in his thrall.

 

Soooo not my point. I'm not arguing with your claim, I'm just asking you to make some effort to prove it. What additional measures? Ig google works on your device, you should be able to provide a link to your source.

 

Your opinion, however, does not matter.

 

it's moot as things may change often to usurp any safeguards. that's how it goes now, stay tuned lol

 

disagree, I think it's good the senate take this to trial as they are supposed to, let the public hear the witnesses

of course Republican will most likely vote they don't have standing, but the people still have a right to hear the evidence, even if republicans won't hold Trump accountable in the end

 

the constitution only mentioned removal for a sitting President, it also mentioned preventing them from ever serving again, which did not mention them being a sitting president as resigning or committing the bad acts in the last weeks of ones presidency was not meant to be a get out of consequences free card

whatever happens will just be for the history books as republicans will vote to let him off the hook anyways, but the evidence will be in the official records for future generations to read

many republicans have said they fear the domestic terrorist will get angry if they try Trump, they want to appease the terrorists

 

agree, republican should not fear the evidence coming out at trial, let it all come out

 

Where are those statutes? Perhaps we should impeach Obama for spying on the Trump campaign unleashing the IRS against citizens for thought crimes, allowing the attack on benghazi, and using his office to sell books.

 

Wrong, only of a sitting president. Nothing 8n there about impeaching someone who is no longer a sitting president as cjeif Justin e Roberts noted.

 

that was fake news, you know that right, Obama never spied on Trump

by your logic Trump spied on Stormy's lawyer as it was Trump's FBI

Obama did not incite the terrorists to attack Benghazi like Trump did the domestic terrorists

to add to that though, Obama was a two term President, so he could neither be removed or prevented from running again as the rules already prevent him from doing so (Trump was a one term loser President)

 

The public knows what happened and the states and the voters NOT partisan politicians in Congress should decide if he should hold office again, he is a private citizen.

 

THE President THE VP and other high officials. Trump is none of the above. What is happening will go down as one of them unconstitutional acts of Congress for pure political vengeance. Were there riots and terrorism last time he was impeached. The real worry is if he is not impeached and the domestic terrorist ramp up their already engaged in anarchy and insurrection as we are seeing in Portland and Seattle as I type.

 

Then arrest him and prosecute him and the public will hear all this evidence that is NOT the role of the CONGRESS. This is all about yours and the lefts obsession with punishing Trump, that is NOT what impeachment is for.

Now why do you disagree with what I said? Where does the Constitution say otherwise. Please address what I said without the simple dismissals

That is a matter for the judicial system and not the legislative system, you do understand separation of powers? You do know what is a bill of attainder? And if Trump violated the law that needs to be adjudicated in court where the Constitution DICTATES where such adjudication SHALL take place not in Congress.

 

Hate filled to go after a private citizen, you say?

“When Trump was impeached for the first time, he complained that Congress should be going after former President Barack Obama instead over comments he made about health care. "We should impeach him for that," Trump said. "Why aren't we impeaching him?"

 

Since impeachment is not necessarily about punishment for criminal behavior but rather about potential abuses of power, violations of the oath to protect the Constitution, or as Lindsey would say, "restoring integrity and dignity to the office," what about the argument impeachment is the only means to check a prez's behavior in the last days or weeks in office?
Do we want prez's to feel they can organize an insurrectionist mob in order to retain power on their way out the door with no consequence?

‘Argument Of Convenience’: Experts Dismiss GOP’s New Claim That Trump’s Impeachment Is Unconstitutional

"Republicans senators are beginning to coalesce around a new talking point: impeaching former President Donald Trump is now unconstitutional because he has left office.

“I think it’s obvious that the post-presidential impeachment has never occurred in the history of the country for a reason: that it’s unconstitutional, that it sets a bad precedent for the presidency and it continues to divide the nation,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters Friday.

Constitutional scholars of all stripes are dismissing that argument.

“I don’t buy that argument as anything other than an argument of convenience (e.g., looking for an excuse to avoid what should be easy and seemed politically hard),” Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, told TPM in an email."
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-impeachment-unconstitutional-republicans

 

this is a political process, not criminal, it sends a msg to future Presidents not to do what Trump did

 

Then don't vote for him if he runs again.

 

Portland Mayor Offended When Reporter Asks Him If Portland’s Months Of Riots Were A Precursor To The DC Riot.

 

What facts? You made a claim about safeguards to prevent Trump from running for office, but didn't make a single attempt to explain or even list them.

Reminder, so you don't have to go pack through your posts here: In response to a user who said "would be nice if he could never run again" you replied with "fortunately there are other safeguards against him attempting that goal"

I would be interested to know what those are. So one last time, I ask you, what other safeguards? It's okay if you don't know, just say so.

 

NO...we don't. We ALSO do not want one political party scamming, lying, and stealing an election but that seems to be allowed by the PTB. You folks have had your own version of reality puppeted back to you by the media 5th column for so long that you think "reality" is what YOU say it is. Get over yourselves already.

 

You're missing the point.