Impeach Trump for the Good of the Country

[Tombs]

I have no issues voting for Trump's son in 2024

Don Jr. is even better than old man Trump.

He'd certainly be far better on the 2A.

 

[KG1]

Ah. I see. So you asked for an example of “elected democrats” who participated in similar instances. I gave multiple examples of such, and your reply is about some republicans believing Trump “has culpability in the DC riots“.

I’ll take moving the goal post for $500, Alex.

Not sure if was mentioned but howbout when Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in front of a riled up crowd? Trump did'nt even come close to issuing threats to Congress in his speech.

Opinion: Chuck Schumer's despicable attack on the Supreme Court

If we ever needed a pristine example of why justices are bestowed lifetime appointments , Schumer has provided us with one, writes Harsanyi

www.detroitnews.com

 

[jamil]

It is what it is, if you cant satisfy the requirement, then you haven't answered the question. And FYI, I will allow you to use the same standard of specifics whenever you would like to challenge something I've stated. 'tis only fair.

Okay. What’s the question. I’d be happy to answer it.

 

[jamil]

It was the worst attack on U.S. Soil since 9/11!! It was literally Pearl Harbor all over again too!! I mean c'mon man, haven't you seen the pictures? There were papers on the floor and everything!

Obviously it wasn’t 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. But it wasn’t nothing either. It was an insurrection at the Capitol. That’s a pretty significant action.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Okay. What’s the question. I’d be happy to answer it.

I’d rather you hop over to the other thread and give your opinion of the difference between patriotism and nationalism; if you think there is.
And most importantly, while not trying to avoid the ire of membership if you disagree with them.

 

[jamil]

I’d rather you hop over to the other thread and give your opinion of the difference between patriotism and nationalism; if you think there is.
And most importantly, while not trying to avoid the ire of membership if you disagree with them.

I’m pretty sure I already have their ire.

 

[buckwacker]

Not sure if was mentioned but howbout when Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in front of a riled up crowd? Trump did'nt even come close to issuing threats to Congress in his speech.

Opinion: Chuck Schumer's despicable attack on the Supreme Court

If we ever needed a pristine example of why justices are bestowed lifetime appointments , Schumer has provided us with one, writes Harsanyi

www.detroitnews.com

I warned that asking for the comparisons of who uses the most inciting language was a dangerous road for dems to go down. I mean, we have the internet, we don't have to rely on people's memories, and they say a LOT of crazy stuff, and have just throttled to max crazy.

 

[Libertarian01]

So I have a serious legal question, one that can probably NEVER be fully explained - unless it really happens.

Here goes - Impeachment is basically "...A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office..." Apparently the concept goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks. (If it went back to the Germans there would be blood or money involved, or both.)

So let us presume that Trump has people around him that are not dumb. Let us also presume that they are persuasive. They convince Orange Man to RESIGN (See Nixon) just two (2) days before the Senate meets. Guessing January 17th.

Can then FORMER President Donald James Trump BE impeached????? You cannot remove him from office as he as already taken himself out of office. Ergo, the mechanism of impeachment is void.

Would any attempt to impeach a person who is no a public official have merit? If so, why? If not, why not?

Just curious. (Note: There was no alcohol, tobacco, or other pharmaceutical product used in the formation of this thought.)

Regards,

Doug

 

[Chewie]

So I have a serious legal question, one that can probably NEVER be fully explained - unless it really happens.

Here goes - Impeachment is basically "...A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office..." Apparently the concept goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks. (If it went back to the Germans there would be blood or money involved, or both.)

So let us presume that Trump has people around him that are not dumb. Let us also presume that they are persuasive. They convince Orange Man to RESIGN (See Nixon) just two (2) days before the Senate meets. Guessing January 17th.

Can then FORMER President Donald James Trump BE impeached????? You cannot remove him from office as he as already taken himself out of office. Ergo, the mechanism of impeachment is void.

Would any attempt to impeach a person who is no a public official have merit? If so, why? If not, why not?

Just curious. (Note: There was no alcohol, tobacco, or other pharmaceutical product used in the formation of this thought.)

Regards,

Doug

To me it will all depend on just how badly the left wants to destroy President Trump and how well the MSM can twist the wodding of the laws currently on the books or the Constitution. I believe there hatred of the man far exceeds their ability to think logically or clearly.

 

[jamil]

So I have a serious legal question, one that can probably NEVER be fully explained - unless it really happens.

Here goes - Impeachment is basically "...A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office..." Apparently the concept goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks. (If it went back to the Germans there would be blood or money involved, or both.)

So let us presume that Trump has people around him that are not dumb. Let us also presume that they are persuasive. They convince Orange Man to RESIGN (See Nixon) just two (2) days before the Senate meets. Guessing January 17th.

Can then FORMER President Donald James Trump BE impeached????? You cannot remove him from office as he as already taken himself out of office. Ergo, the mechanism of impeachment is void.

Would any attempt to impeach a person who is no a public official have merit? If so, why? If not, why not?

Just curious. (Note: There was no alcohol, tobacco, or other pharmaceutical product used in the formation of this thought.)

Regards,

Doug

I don’t think so. But there is a precedent. Not POTUS, but I think someone posted an example in one of these threads where someone in a much lesser office was impeached after leaving office. The only purpose here to impeach Trump after he left office would be to ensure that he could never run again. I’m sure that would be the pursuit.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I don’t think so. But there is a precedent. Not POTUS, but I think someone posted an example in one of these threads where someone in a much lesser office was impeached after leaving office. The only purpose here to impeach Trump after he left office would be to ensure that he could never run again. I’m sure that would be the pursuit.

I think it was senator William Blount, c1799
could have also been Belknap.
Blount, no trial
Belknap acquitted

 

[buckwacker]

So Pelosi comparisons to a mob boss are a compliment, but when used for Trump it's a term of derision and disgust? I'll add this to the giant heap of lefty hypocrisy.

'She is mob boss level': Social media can't get enough of Nancy Pelosi's 'impeachment suit'

The Speaker of the House sent a message with her memorable fashion look.

www.yahoo.com

 

[amboy49]

I’m far from being informed enough to really be able to enter into this discussion with theory or fact, but I seem to recall there have been convicted felons that have successfully run for public office on a national level (?)

 

[Libertarian01]

I don’t think so. But there is a precedent. Not POTUS, but I think someone posted an example in one of these threads where someone in a much lesser office was impeached after leaving office. The only purpose here to impeach Trump after he left office would be to ensure that he could never run again. I’m sure that would be the pursuit.

I don't know that there is precedent for someone who resigns before being impeached, as the sole, singular power of impeachment is to remove from office. I could be wrong which is why I ask specifically.

I think it was senator William Blount, c1799
could have also been Belknap.
Blount, no trial
Belknap acquitted

In both of those it would appear that they "rode the wave" as it were.

My question goes to Trump controlling events and NOT riding the wave. If he resigns he is no longer a public official, therefore he cannot be removed from office. As removal of office is the singular purpose of impeachment I don't know that it can be done, or can it?

Regards,

Doug

 

[KG1]

Looks like the Democrats want to convict an empty chair of impeachment.

 

[jamil]

I don't know that there is precedent for someone who resigns before being impeached, as the sole, singular power of impeachment is to remove from office. I could be wrong which is why I ask specifically.

In both of those it would appear that they "rode the wave" as it were.

My question goes to Trump controlling events and NOT riding the wave. If he resigns he is no longer a public official, therefore he cannot be removed from office. As removal of office is the singular purpose of impeachment I don't know that it can be done, or can it?

Regards,

Doug

Removal from office is not the single power of impeachment. It's up to the Senate what the remedy would be. With Clinton, it was censure, and revoking his license to practice law, because they didn't have the votes to remove from office, and they also didn't have the political capital to pay for doing so anyway.

The Senate also has the power to prohibit the person from holding public office again. And as I said, if it is possible to impeach an elected or appointed official after leaving office, the purpose here would be to prevent Trump from running again.

Like I said, I'm unsure if they can impeach a person after leaving office, but they sure are acting like they can.

 

[KG1]

Removal from office is not the single power of impeachment. It's up to the Senate what the remedy would be. With Clinton, it was censure, and revoking his license to practice law, because they didn't have the votes to remove from office, and they also didn't have the political capital to pay for doing so anyway.

The Senate also has the power to prohibit the person from holding public office again. And as I said, if it is possible to impeach an elected or appointed official after leaving office, the purpose here would be to prevent Trump from running again.

Like I said, I'm unsure if they can impeach a person after leaving office, but they sure are acting like they can.

Congress doesn't have the authority to convict a private citizen of impeachment. No where in the Constitution does it give them that authority. They can only convict and remove an office holder. It will be interesting to see where this would go if it went to SCOTUS.

 

[foszoe]

Congress doesn't have the authority to convict a private citizen of impeachment. No where in the Constitution does it give them that authority. They can only convict and remove an office holder. It will be interesting to see where this would go if it went to SCOTUS.

Dershowitz is that you?

 

[KG1]

Dershowitz is that you?

Nope. I've never met Epstein.

 

[foszoe]

Nope. I've never met Epstein.

HARDtalk - Alan Dershowitz: Trump's second impeachment - BBC Sounds

Should President Trump be impeached again - and how will he defend himself?

www.bbc.co.uk

Worth listening