They're doing it to make sure he can never hold office again, if convicted. Where's their evidence. They claim he incited the "riot" at the Capitol, although his words were nothing of the sort. I read the other day that Roberts will not be presiding. If not him, then who?
Someone that leaves office is president just not sitting president. There r things they can have access to or requirement of way to act towards them. Plus Senate decided 2 things if they convict
can this person hold office ever again
should they have the title removed or removed from office if still in.
In my opinion its best to have them go through trial and all. Could bring up alot of things like Q or voter fraud or what exactly is line for inciting riot and who is president responsible for if they act up. Alot of trumps presidency was to create precedent for how future things should or shouldnt play out.
If the current government were legitimate, then the following would apply:
The Constitution is clear: “The president . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment . . . and conviction”—not by the expiration of his term before the impeachment process is complete. It also mandates that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal and disqualification“—not or disqualification.
When the Constitution was written, several states allowed impeachment of former officials. The Founding Fathers could easily have included that provision, but they didn’t. They also explicitly chose to prohibit the British practice of trial by legislature—excepting only impeachment—and “bill of attainder,” any punitive legislative act against a specific person. The courts have held that the punishments prohibited by the Bill of Attainder Clause include disqualification from holding office. Moreover, the Constitution requires the chief justice to preside “when the president of the United States is tried.”
A compelling precedent is the House’s decision not to impeach Richard Nixon. After he left office in 1974 to avoid certain impeachment and conviction, there was no movement to continue the process.
Since they are not legitimate, then no matter what they do, it means nothing.
But they haven't been delivered to the Senate - I think that would be the be the 'filing' of the charges in your scenario. Otherwise, I think it sets a bad precedent - if you hold the House, why not impeach every opposing party President in their last week and then keep an open case against them for later trial.
They clearly did not deliver to the Senate in order to keep the docket open for confirmations and other business, but to continue now just looks petty. I had a similar thread discussing this in relation to looking busy while the FEMA controls are in effect.
No, that would be like bringing charges against the ceo and saying the punishment is that the ceo needs to resign... the ceo resigns and yet there you are still talking about how the ceo needs to resign.
Sure thing. It's all smoke and mirrors. Congress is trying to hide their corruption by trying to put the attention on President Trump.
Wag the dog.
thats what everyone wants to know.......
It’s a good precedent for them to start, now that they hold all the “power”. I wonder if Obama, the Clintons, and Bushes see that yet.
They're doing it to make sure he can never hold office again, if convicted. Where's their evidence. They claim he incited the "riot" at the Capitol, although his words were nothing of the sort. I read the other day that Roberts will not be presiding. If not him, then who?
An Impeachment can only be invoked on someone occupying the Office. It cannot be used on someone that is no longer in office.
Someone that leaves office is president just not sitting president. There r things they can have access to or requirement of way to act towards them. Plus Senate decided 2 things if they convict
In my opinion its best to have them go through trial and all. Could bring up alot of things like Q or voter fraud or what exactly is line for inciting riot and who is president responsible for if they act up. Alot of trumps presidency was to create precedent for how future things should or shouldnt play out.
They dont gave any power. And they dont have sny time. Its busy work for them nothing else.
If the current government were legitimate, then the following would apply:
The Constitution is clear: “The president . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment . . . and conviction”—not by the expiration of his term before the impeachment process is complete. It also mandates that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal and disqualification“—not or disqualification.
When the Constitution was written, several states allowed impeachment of former officials. The Founding Fathers could easily have included that provision, but they didn’t. They also explicitly chose to prohibit the British practice of trial by legislature—excepting only impeachment—and “bill of attainder,” any punitive legislative act against a specific person. The courts have held that the punishments prohibited by the Bill of Attainder Clause include disqualification from holding office. Moreover, the Constitution requires the chief justice to preside “when the president of the United States is tried.”
A compelling precedent is the House’s decision not to impeach Richard Nixon. After he left office in 1974 to avoid certain impeachment and conviction, there was no movement to continue the process.
Since they are not legitimate, then no matter what they do, it means nothing.
Research that goes against our bias is highly discouraged here.
But they haven't been delivered to the Senate - I think that would be the be the 'filing' of the charges in your scenario. Otherwise, I think it sets a bad precedent - if you hold the House, why not impeach every opposing party President in their last week and then keep an open case against them for later trial.
They clearly did not deliver to the Senate in order to keep the docket open for confirmations and other business, but to continue now just looks petty. I had a similar thread discussing this in relation to looking busy while the FEMA controls are in effect.
No, that would be like bringing charges against the ceo and saying the punishment is that the ceo needs to resign... the ceo resigns and yet there you are still talking about how the ceo needs to resign.