The Senate trial of Donald J. Trump for “Inciting an Erection... Insurrection” of the United States”

[CryptoNinja]

OMG! Did you see his lawyer cry? What could make your client look more guilty than a lawyer that cries?

[Cerveza Fria]

OMG! Did you see his lawyer cry? What could make your client look more guilty than a lawyer that cries?

A decent prosecutor.

[MumblesBadly]

Trump's lawyers were embarrassingly bad, especially the first dude. Would have loved to be a fly on the wall in Mar-a-Lago.

This clip of Chris Cuomo’s show tonight highlights one of those moments when Bruce Castor makes a statement that proves that his client (Trump) lied about the election fraud.

[duped_samaritan]

FWIW. So, I heard all of the arguments regarding the Senate having Jurisdiction and the Constitutionality of the Impeachment of a President being Impeached while no longer in office. I think the arguments on both sides were well orated. If it were me voting, I think the bill of attainder argument put forth by Trump's counsel was extremely persuasive. I think that Pelosi outsmarted herself by holding onto the Articles of Impeachment until he left office to get around the Chief Justice presiding over the trial. I think the Senate lacks Jurisdiction and if Trump were convicted, he would likely win on appeal. Before you libtards get your panties in a bind, note that this is not an opinion on the facts on the case. Just on Jurisdiction for the Senate to hold a trial on a President after he already has left office. I make my opinion based on almost 30 years experience as a lawyer, 20 of them as a trial lawyer. What most lay people don't understand is the issue of jurisdiction. Without Jurisdiction, the facts of a case don't matter.

Seems like a pretty simple argument that one can be convicted by the Senate after leaving office:

Impeachment results in removal from office and gives the House the power to make the impeached official ineligible to run for office. If someone can't be convicted because they're no longer in office, that would mean you could avoid the consequences of impeachment by leaving office.

There's already precedent.

if Trump were convicted, he would likely win on appeal.

Appeal to who? SCOTUS can't overturn an impeachment, the House has sole power to impeach, the Senate to convict. Nobody else gets to decide if someone is impeached or not. and what would retrying the case accomplish when you have the exact same jury?

[mickeycrimm]

If you haven't noticed the cancel CULT-ure media has layed off the DC Cop, Brian Slicknick story. It was the NY Times that first reported he was hit in the head with a fire exinguisher and they all ran with that. The dumb ass libtards on PFA also ran with it "They killed a cop!! They killed a cop!!" Well, you dumbfuck libtards, medical examiners couldn't find any blunt force trauma. You should have known something was up because they never announced they were looking for or named any suspects. Its looking like he died from a reaction to chemical agents. Who had the chemical agents? The DC police. So you libtard idiots are trying to blame Trump for a killing that never happened. Par for the course.

Misinformation by the NY Times. Do you think big tech will censor it? LOL!!!

[Cerveza Fria]

Seems like a pretty simple argument that one can be convicted by the Senate after leaving office:

Impeachment results in removal from office and gives the House the power to make the impeached official ineligible to run for office. If someone can't be convicted because they're no longer in office, that would mean you could avoid the consequences of impeachment by leaving office.

There's already precedent.

if Trump were convicted, he would likely win on appeal.

Appeal to who? SCOTUS can't overturn an impeachment, the House has sole power to impeach, the Senate to convict. Nobody else gets to decide if someone is impeached or not. and what would retrying the case accomplish when you have the exact same jury?

The Constitution says there is only one thing to do upon conviction -removal from office. If the Civil officer is already out of office, the matter is moot. Congress does not have th power to impeach a non-office holder. The constitution does not make a distinction for "former civil officers". This does not mean that Trump cannot be prosecuted under Criminal or Civil Law. He just can't be impeached and removed from office by Congress.

The reason for this is clear, it gives rise to political cancel culture fascism. Imagine if Congress Impeached Jimmy Carter after he left office for his handling (or bumbling) of the Iran Hostage situation. Or if President Obama was Impeached after he left office for the Iran deal (he gave them Billions of dollars to not comply with anything). The Constitution does NOT permit this. As for the Precedent you speak of, it did not happen with a President. And even if it did, 2 wrongs don't make a right. This is something liberals have a hard time understanding, which explains their support for Affirmative Action (legalized racial preference laws that discriminate against Honkys).

And yes, he could take the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decides on what is Constitutional and what is not. This was established back in Marburry v. Madison. And again, the issue is not the facts of the case, but whether Impeachment and Removal is Constitutional. But let's not let facts get in the way of your libtard argument.

[duped_samaritan]

The Constitution says there is only one thing to do upon conviction -removal from office.

You're ignoring Section 3 Clause 7

We don't need to debate this part right? Removal from office and possible disqualification from running in the future come with a conviction by the Senate. Agree?

The reason for this is clear, it gives rise to political cancel culture fascism.

But let's not let facts get in the way of your libtard argument.

There's nothing liberal about the argument.
There are plenty of respected conservative legal experts making the argument.

Charles Cooper, for example, the GOP favorite that defended Bolton and Sessions:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-con...nion_lead_pos5

There are tons of others. Look it up.

The only reason I can think of that you would call it a 'libtard argument' is because Trump is the one facing a conviction and your desire to pwn the libs is preventing you from being objective.

And yes, he could take the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decides on what is Constitutional and what is not. This was established back in Marburry v. Madison. And again, the issue is not the facts of the case, but whether Impeachment and Removal is Constitutional.

You're right, he could take it to the Supreme Court, it happened in 1993 Nixon (not Richard) v. United States. They said the constitution is clear, it doesn't matter what the argument is, SCOTUS can't get involved.

...in the first sentence of Clause 6. As noted above, that sentence provides that "[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." We think that the word "sole" is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word "sole" appears only one other time in the Constitution - with respect to the House of Representatives' "sole Power of Impeachment." The commonsense meaning of the word "sole" is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. The dictionary definition bears this out. "Sole" is defined as "having no companion," "solitary," "being the only one," and "functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference." If the courts may review the actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body "tried" an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be "functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference...."

Petitioner finally argues that, even if significance be attributed to the word "sole" in the first sentence of the Clause, the authority granted is to the Senate, and this means that "the Senate - not the courts, not a lay jury, not a Senate Committee - shall try impeachments." It would be possible to read the first sentence of the Clause this way, but it is not a natural reading. Petitioner's interpretation would bring into judicial purview not merely the sort of claim made by petitioner, but other similar claims based on the conclusion that the word "Senate" has imposed by implication limitations on procedures which the Senate might adopt. Such limitations would be inconsistent with the construction of the Clause as a whole, which, as we have noted, sets out three express limitations in separate sentences.

Another point I hadn't thought of. If the Courts get involved with impeachment, what happens if there are later criminal charges? Do they rule on the same case with the same defendant twice?

There are two additional reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments. First, the Framers recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable offenses - the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. In fact, the Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings. The Framers deliberately separated the two forums to avoid raising the specter of bias and to ensure independent judgments:

Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial should, in another trial, for the same offence, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend that error in the first sentence would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights, which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision?" The Federalist No. 65.
Certainly judicial review of the Senate's "trial" would introduce the same risk of bias as would participation in the trial itself.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...ers_upheld.htm

[Cerveza Fria]

You're ignoring Section 3 Clause 7

We don't need to debate this part right? Removal from office and possible disqualification from running in the future come with a conviction by the Senate. Agree?

The reason for this is clear, it gives rise to political cancel culture fascism.

But let's not let facts get in the way of your libtard argument.

There's nothing liberal about the argument.
There are plenty of respected conservative legal experts making the argument.

Charles Cooper, for example, the GOP favorite that defended Bolton and Sessions:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-con...nion_lead_pos5

There are tons of others. Look it up.

The only reason I can think of that you would call it a 'libtard argument' is because Trump is the one facing a conviction and your desire to pwn the libs is preventing you from being objective.

And yes, he could take the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decides on what is Constitutional and what is not. This was established back in Marburry v. Madison. And again, the issue is not the facts of the case, but whether Impeachment and Removal is Constitutional.

You're right, he could take it to the Supreme Court, it happened in 1993 Nixon (not Richard) v. United States. They said the constitution is clear, it doesn't matter what the argument is, SCOTUS can't get involved.

...in the first sentence of Clause 6. As noted above, that sentence provides that "[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." We think that the word "sole" is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word "sole" appears only one other time in the Constitution - with respect to the House of Representatives' "sole Power of Impeachment." The commonsense meaning of the word "sole" is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. The dictionary definition bears this out. "Sole" is defined as "having no companion," "solitary," "being the only one," and "functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference." If the courts may review the actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body "tried" an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be "functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference...."

Petitioner finally argues that, even if significance be attributed to the word "sole" in the first sentence of the Clause, the authority granted is to the Senate, and this means that "the Senate - not the courts, not a lay jury, not a Senate Committee - shall try impeachments." It would be possible to read the first sentence of the Clause this way, but it is not a natural reading. Petitioner's interpretation would bring into judicial purview not merely the sort of claim made by petitioner, but other similar claims based on the conclusion that the word "Senate" has imposed by implication limitations on procedures which the Senate might adopt. Such limitations would be inconsistent with the construction of the Clause as a whole, which, as we have noted, sets out three express limitations in separate sentences.

Another point I hadn't thought of. If the Courts get involved with impeachment, what happens if there are later criminal charges? Do they rule on the same case with the same defendant twice?

There are two additional reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments. First, the Framers recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable offenses - the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. In fact, the Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings. The Framers deliberately separated the two forums to avoid raising the specter of bias and to ensure independent judgments:

Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial should, in another trial, for the same offence, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend that error in the first sentence would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights, which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision?" The Federalist No. 65.
Certainly judicial review of the Senate's "trial" would introduce the same risk of bias as would participation in the trial itself.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...ers_upheld.htm

You misunderstood what i said. The Supreme Court has the power to to say whether or not the Impeachment and Removal is Constitutional or not. They will not retry the case on the facts. The issue is whether or not the Senate has Jurisdiction at this point after the President is no longer in office. And all of these professors' opinions are great and all. No court has spoken on this issue.

And it also would set a really bad precedent. Would it be ok to go back and impeach Jimmy Carter for his handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis? Or let's go back and impeach George Washington for owning slaves. Or let's Impeach President Obama for the the Iran deal. None of these options are good for our country. But, you would permit it. Thankfully, the Constitution would not. Trump would have a pretty persuasive argument that this Impeachment was nothing more that a Bill Of Attainder which is not permitted under the Constitution.

I'm not excusing President Trump's conduct. And I'm sure they are looking for ways to charge him criminally (assuming they can get around the free speech issues which may be impossible) But they could charge him with civil and criminal offenses.


That is the proper way to deal with his conduct. Impeachment and Removal is NOT. Again, Pelosi outsmarted herself by waiting until he was out of office so that the President Pro Tempore (Leahy) would preside instead of the Chief Justice.

And I used the term "Libtard" because Libtards always argue that "the end justifies the means." Thankfully, the Constitution says otherwise.

[duped_samaritan]

Would it be ok to go back and impeach Jimmy Carter for his handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis? Or let's go back and impeach George Washington for owning slaves. Or let's Impeach President Obama for the the Iran deal. None of these options are good for our country. But, you would permit it. Thankfully, the Constitution would not. Trump would have a pretty persuasive argument that this Impeachment was nothing more that a Bill Of Attainder which is not permitted under the Constitution.

Impeachment is a check on the power of the executive branch.
It offers two remedies: removal from office and disqualification from running in the future.

Do we agree on this?

Here's a worst case scenario:

2 weeks before the election, a sitting president at the end of his first term has a bunch of political opponents killed or jailed and congress fears that he will declare martial law/use the military to prevent people from voting in areas that are against him. The VP is loyal and would never consider 25th amendment.

They House impeaches him unanimously, and the Senate is set to convict him the next day and immediately vote to disqualify him from running for any office ever again.

Should the President be able to resign, take a pardon from his loyal VP, avoid being tried by the Senate, win the election, and begin his second term a few weeks later with a new congress that won't impeach him because of his illegal actions to influence the election?

The consequences of this are far greater than Impeaching George Washington or Carter.

[BCR]

Would it be ok to go back and impeach Jimmy Carter for his handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis? Or let's go back and impeach George Washington for owning slaves. Or let's Impeach President Obama for the the Iran deal. None of these options are good for our country. But, you would permit it. Thankfully, the Constitution would not. Trump would have a pretty persuasive argument that this Impeachment was nothing more that a Bill Of Attainder which is not permitted under the Constitution.

Impeachment is a check on the power of the executive branch.
It offers two remedies: removal from office and disqualification from running in the future.

Do we agree on this?

Here's a worst case scenario:

2 weeks before the election, a sitting president at the end of his first term has a bunch of political opponents killed or jailed and congress fears that he will declare martial law/use the military to prevent people from voting in areas that are against him. The VP is loyal and would never consider 25th amendment.

They House impeaches him unanimously, and the Senate is set to convict him the next day and immediately vote to disqualify him from running for any office ever again.

Should the President be able to resign, take a pardon from his loyal VP, avoid being tried by the Senate, and begin his second term a few weeks later?

The consequences of this are far greater than Impeaching George Washington or Carter.

Not to mention owning slaves wasn’t a crime at the time. Trump might be innocent legally as inciting a riot is hard to prove. It’s impulsive. It’s a shouting fire in a theater type of crime. He conditioned those people with bullshit for 4 years, but some moron drove gallows in on a flatbed the day before, they purchased the zip ties and drove to Washington before Trump started speaking.

It strikes me more as a conspiracy type charge, but I’m not going to argue with an attorney regarding proper charges, but the slippery slope argument is bullshit even a layman can grasp.

[Sanlmar]

You are wasting all kinds of energy

One thing we can all agree on regardless of which side of the aisle you poop in, if you are an elite in America there are no consequences for your actions. There is positively no chance Trump is convicted. Just stop.

The best parlor trick is that regardless of how inept his legal representation - no conviction. We have reached the point where, despite yourself, you skate.

This is a vitamin shot for populism both socialist and fascist though.

Thanks Donald.


I have been skimming back issues of Architectural Digest. Anyone know how Jenn Larsen is doing? The folk on the PFA trading cards nearly universally are living their best lives. Salty Aus should swing by Tzvetkoff’s Gold Coast compound. Ferguson and all the rest. It’s just a microcosm of society.

[Cerveza Fria]

Would it be ok to go back and impeach Jimmy Carter for his handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis? Or let's go back and impeach George Washington for owning slaves. Or let's Impeach President Obama for the the Iran deal. None of these options are good for our country. But, you would permit it. Thankfully, the Constitution would not. Trump would have a pretty persuasive argument that this Impeachment was nothing more that a Bill Of Attainder which is not permitted under the Constitution.

Impeachment is a check on the power of the executive branch.
It offers two remedies: removal from office and disqualification from running in the future.

Do we agree on this?

Here's a worst case scenario:

2 weeks before the election, a sitting president at the end of his first term has a bunch of political opponents killed or jailed and congress fears that he will declare martial law/use the military to prevent people from voting in areas that are against him. The VP is loyal and would never consider 25th amendment.

They House impeaches him unanimously, and the Senate is set to convict him the next day and immediately vote to disqualify him from running for any office ever again.

Should the President be able to resign, take a pardon from his loyal VP, avoid being tried by the Senate, win the election, and begin his second term a few weeks later with a new congress that won't impeach him because of his illegal actions to influence the election?

The consequences of this are far greater than Impeaching George Washington or Carter.

So, you're saying the end justifies the means, even if Unconstitutional? SMH Typical Libtard B.S.

Also, the 25th Amendment would not apply. The Amendment is for a transfer of power when the President is incapacitated (like when Reagan was shot, or when Bush had to have surgery and be under general anesthesia.


And, you're example is not realistic. If the President had all of his political enemies killed or jailed, then he would not get Impeached in the first place. Impeachment is a political, not a legal tool. Since all of his enemies are dead or in jail, there would not be Articles of Impeachment in the first place. So, once again, your argument Fails.

[garrett]

Would it be ok to go back and impeach Jimmy Carter for his handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis? Or let's go back and impeach George Washington for owning slaves. Or let's Impeach President Obama for the the Iran deal. None of these options are good for our country. But, you would permit it. Thankfully, the Constitution would not. Trump would have a pretty persuasive argument that this Impeachment was nothing more that a Bill Of Attainder which is not permitted under the Constitution.

Impeachment is a check on the power of the executive branch.
It offers two remedies: removal from office and disqualification from running in the future.

Do we agree on this?

Here's a worst case scenario:

2 weeks before the election, a sitting president at the end of his first term has a bunch of political opponents killed or jailed and congress fears that he will declare martial law/use the military to prevent people from voting in areas that are against him. The VP is loyal and would never consider 25th amendment.

They House impeaches him unanimously, and the Senate is set to convict him the next day and immediately vote to disqualify him from running for any office ever again.

Should the President be able to resign, take a pardon from his loyal VP, avoid being tried by the Senate, win the election, and begin his second term a few weeks later with a new congress that won't impeach him because of his illegal actions to influence the election?

The consequences of this are far greater than Impeaching George Washington or Carter.

If you don't mind I ask you are you a Lawyer?

Or have some formal Law school study or something. Your clearly an intelligent person, recently i've noticed that you seem to have a little more fun proving (factually) why /what/how this is all going to end for Trump. I always took you for a smart dude, but im just curious about this I guess.

[Cerveza Fria]

You are wasting all kinds of energy

One thing we can all agree on regardless of which side of the aisle you poop in, if you are an elite in America there are no consequences for your actions. There is positively no chance Trump is convicted. Just stop.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Finally, someone who gets it.

[Sanlmar]

If you don't mind I ask you are you a Lawyer?

Or have some formal Law school study or something. Your clearly an intelligent person, recently i've noticed that you seem to have a little more fun proving (factually) why /what/how this is all going to end for Trump. I always took you for a smart dude, but im just curious about this I guess.

He went to a little college in Boston that you might have heard of. Wicked smaht

[garrett]

You are wasting all kinds of energy

One thing we can all agree on regardless of which side of the aisle you poop in, if you are an elite in America there are no consequences for your actions. There is positively no chance Trump is convicted. Just stop.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Finally, someone who gets it.

imo Donald Trump is fucked here....

He did 100% instigate all of his followers on January 6th (with Lies LOL). And so he cant/wont run again in 4 years, I dont think this is going to go well for him. They are going for the jugular here, and they do have a case. So he doesn't/cant run again in 4 years, and imo I think its going to work. Donlad Trump is fucked here, and he did instigate that whole mess which culminated on Jan 6th, which his "Fraud" and lying bullshit. Me personally, I'm over his whole thing and I just thing for Americas sake all in all, its probably best we as a Country move forward and past this whole Donald Trump saga and drama.

Its time to just finally and wholly close this Donald Trump chapter in American history.

[nightmarefish]

Impeachment is a check on the power of the executive branch.
It offers two remedies: removal from office and disqualification from running in the future.

Do we agree on this?

Here's a worst case scenario:

2 weeks before the election, a sitting president at the end of his first term has a bunch of political opponents killed or jailed and congress fears that he will declare martial law/use the military to prevent people from voting in areas that are against him. The VP is loyal and would never consider 25th amendment.

They House impeaches him unanimously, and the Senate is set to convict him the next day and immediately vote to disqualify him from running for any office ever again.

Should the President be able to resign, take a pardon from his loyal VP, avoid being tried by the Senate, win the election, and begin his second term a few weeks later with a new congress that won't impeach him because of his illegal actions to influence the election?

The consequences of this are far greater than Impeaching George Washington or Carter.

So, you're saying the end justifies the means, even if Unconstitutional? SMH Typical Libtard B.S.

Also, the 25th Amendment would not apply. The Amendment is for a transfer of power when the President is incapacitated (like when Reagan was shot, or when Bush had to have surgery and be under general anesthesia.


And, you're example is not realistic. If the President had all of his political enemies killed or jailed, then he would not get Impeached in the first place. Impeachment is a political, not a legal tool. Since all of his enemies are dead or in jail, there would be not Articles of Impeachment in the first place. So, once again, your argument Fails.

For the record, I think this is a sham. Politicians say shit all the time to rile people up. They lie, cheat and steal, anything to win. You can find countless examples from both sides of the aisle.

However, with regards to constitutionality, you're missing the point. If only a sitting president can be impeached then what is stopping a sitting president from doing a bunch of impeachable shit that benefits him/her personality right before going out the door? It would be a freeroll, if you don't get caught nice nice but if you do get caught all you have to do is resign and nothing can happen to you. You really think this is what the framers had in mind? GTFO

Let's also not forget that the House did vote to impeach while Trump was still the sitting president. Not like they brought these articles up years after Trump was gone.

[Cerveza Fria]

Ding! Ding! Ding! Finally, someone who gets it.

imo Donald Trump is fucked here....

He did 100% instigate all of his followers on January 6th (with Lies LOL). And so he cant/wont run again in 4 years, I dont think this is going to go well for him. They are going for the jugular here, and they do have a case. So he doesn't/cant run again in 4 years, and imo I think its going to work. Donlad Trump is fucked here, and he did instigate that whole mess which culminated on Jan 6th, which his "Fraud" and lying bullshit. Me personally, I'm over his whole thing and I just thing for Americas sake all in all, its probably best we as a Country move forward and past this whole Donald Trump saga and drama.

Its time to just finally and wholly close this Donald Trump chapter in American history.

Ok, so you are trying to muddy all of your arguments together and just do an "end justifies the means" thing again. Typical Libtard stuff.

1) Lying to his supporters is NOT an Impeachable offense. Every politician does that. Every one of them. If you look up Liar in the dictionary it will say "see Politician." Are you going to impeach every single politician?
2) Apparently you can't do math. There is no way they get 67 votes to Convict. That is not a Legal interpretation, not a political interpretation, just simple math.
3) The highlighted text above is understandable, but it doesn't justify the means. This is why we have a Constitution. As despicable a person as Trump may be, he deserves the protection of Constitutional safeguards, just like you and me. This is why the ACLU defends terrorists and mass murderers.

[duped_samaritan]

Impeachment is a check on the power of the executive branch.
It offers two remedies: removal from office and disqualification from running in the future.

Do we agree on this?

Here's a worst case scenario:

2 weeks before the election, a sitting president at the end of his first term has a bunch of political opponents killed or jailed and congress fears that he will declare martial law/use the military to prevent people from voting in areas that are against him. The VP is loyal and would never consider 25th amendment.

They House impeaches him unanimously, and the Senate is set to convict him the next day and immediately vote to disqualify him from running for any office ever again.

Should the President be able to resign, take a pardon from his loyal VP, avoid being tried by the Senate, win the election, and begin his second term a few weeks later with a new congress that won't impeach him because of his illegal actions to influence the election?

The consequences of this are far greater than Impeaching George Washington or Carter.

So, you're saying the end justifies the means, even if Unconstitutional? SMH Typical Libtard B.S.

Also, the 25th Amendment would not apply. The Amendment is for a transfer of power when the President is incapacitated (like when Reagan was shot, or when Bush had to have surgery and be under general anesthesia.


And, you're example is not realistic. If the President had all of his political enemies killed or jailed, then he would not get Impeached in the first place. Impeachment is a political, not a legal tool. Since all of his enemies are dead or in jail, there would not be Articles of Impeachment in the first place. So, once again, your argument Fails.

I did not say it was unconstitutional. It's not unconstitutional. Come on now. The libtard trolling is weak, this is not about left vs right.

I was responding to your hypothetical with another hypothetical that's no more unrealistic than having George Washington impeached.

Should a president be able to avoid being convicted and disqualified from running for office in the future simply by resigning right before the verdict? Do you think the framers intended to give that as an option?


That's what you're arguing.

And we haven't even gotten to the fact that there's already precedent that shows you don't need to be in office to be Impeached and convicted by the Senate.

[Cerveza Fria]

So, you're saying the end justifies the means, even if Unconstitutional? SMH Typical Libtard B.S.

Also, the 25th Amendment would not apply. The Amendment is for a transfer of power when the President is incapacitated (like when Reagan was shot, or when Bush had to have surgery and be under general anesthesia.


And, you're example is not realistic. If the President had all of his political enemies killed or jailed, then he would not get Impeached in the first place. Impeachment is a political, not a legal tool. Since all of his enemies are dead or in jail, there would not be Articles of Impeachment in the first place. So, once again, your argument Fails.

I did not say it was unconstitutional. It's not unconstitutional. Come on now. The libtard trolling is weak, this is not about left vs right.

I was responding to your hypothetical with another hypothetical that's no more unrealistic than having George Washington impeached.

Should a president be able to avoid being convicted and disqualified from running for office in the future simply by resigning right before the verdict? Do you think the framers intended to give that as an option?


That's what you're arguing.

And we haven't even gotten to the fact that there's already precedent that shows you don't need to be in office to be Impeached and convicted by the Senate.

That is NOT what I'm arguing. He could still be prosecuted under Civil or Criminal statutes. But, he is not subject to Impeachment. You are having a difficult time understanding the difference. Impeachment and Removal is a Political tool.

And there is NO precedent involving a former President. And Trump didn't resign, his term was over. You are confusing facts..