Impeach Trump for the Good of the Country

[Pyroponce]

So...Nancy could hold the Articles of Impeachment until 2023 and then refuse to allow any legislation to be voted on until the Senate convicts Trump.

No. The House is the sole authority on impeachment. The Senate is the sole authority on conducting impeachment trials. Once the House passes an impeachment resolution and it is forwarded to the Senate, the Senate gets to dispose of it how they will. In theory, the Republicans could have voted to throw out the charges for the first impeachment as bogus and not even hold a trial. In any case, if the Senate declines to convict President Trump, the onus would be on the House to impeach President Trump again on new and improved charges.

And I'll throw in my two cents. Impeaching and convicting a former federal official is an unsettled question. Some legal questions you don't really know the answer to until you cross that bridge. Maybe the Constitution grants the vice president, in his presiding authority over a joint session of Congress, the power to unilaterally dispose of disputable votes. But clearly Vice President Pence isn't the kind of man to push boundaries like that.

For what it's worth, the Constitution does provide for barring a convicted official from holding federal office. I find it difficult to believe that our Founding Fathers would have overlooked the possibility that someone might resign in order to escape that particular penalty. In fact, several state constitutions at our founding provided explicitly for the possibility of impeaching a former official for that official's public conduct even after his or her service ended.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, we can impeach Biden for selling influence as VP, we don't have to wait for him to betray us again. Sweet!

You know this is a great setup to end up with biden impeached a few hundred times just for the sake of it.

Because clearly there's no investigations or evidence swaying a decision, much less any time put into it. It's just party line.

Lol, good luck with that. Keep that energy.

 

[Hawkeye]

According to Dove Fisher at spectator.org

Sort of makes the whole issue moot, doesn't it.

 

[jamil]

According to Dove Fisher at spectator.org

I don’t think it should be possible to impeach a former president. If Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, as a private citizen, he could have criminal charges brought against him. I don’t think it should even be considered constitutional for such a thing. But IANAL. I don’t know. And I don’t think it’s all that settled because they’re sure acting like they can do it, and there is at least some precedent for impeaching someone who no longer holds the office. And if they do try it, it’s basically to prevent him from running again, notwithstanding the vindictpolitical theater crap.

I hope if they do try it it gets challenged and goes to the SC, and they bitch slap that nonsense.

 

[jamil]

Lol, good luck with that. Keep that energy.

Oh. There is zero chance that Democrats would hold their own accountable, and little chance Republicans would have the backbone to do it. Biden could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it. And the media would praise him for doing it.

And Biden supporters would make excuses that at least he’s not Trump.

 

[jamil]

No. The House is the sole authority on impeachment. The Senate is the sole authority on conducting impeachment trials. Once the House passes an impeachment resolution and it is forwarded to the Senate, the Senate gets to dispose of it how they will. In theory, the Republicans could have voted to throw out the charges for the first impeachment as bogus and not even hold a trial. In any case, if the Senate declines to convict President Trump, the onus would be on the House to impeach President Trump again on new and improved charges.

And I'll throw in my two cents. Impeaching and convicting a former federal official is an unsettled question. Some legal questions you don't really know the answer to until you cross that bridge. Maybe the Constitution grants the vice president, in his presiding authority over a joint session of Congress, the power to unilaterally dispose of disputable votes. But clearly Vice President Pence isn't the kind of man to push boundaries like that.

For what it's worth, the Constitution does provide for barring a convicted official from holding federal office. I find it difficult to believe that our Founding Fathers would have overlooked the possibility that someone might resign in order to escape that particular penalty. In fact, several state constitutions at our founding provided explicitly for the possibility of impeaching a former official for that official's public conduct even after his or her service ended.

Nixon resigned to escape an impeachment trial. Impeaching a former official is pointless, although I think there should be a similar mechanism where a former offical could be barred from holding office again. Aside from that, if a former office-holder’s conduct is criminal, let the legal justice system prosecute zim.

 

[Hawkeye]

Nixon resigned to escape an impeachment trial. Impeaching a former official is pointless, although I think there should be a similar mechanism where a former offical could be barred from holding office again. Aside from that, if a former office-holder’s conduct is criminal, let the legal justice system prosecute zim.

Actually, Nixon resigned to escape impeachment. He was not impeached, let alone tried for impeachment. It was in process but never even reached the House floor for a vote.

 

[jamil]

Actually, Nixon resigned to escape impeachment. He was not impeached, let alone tried for impeachment. It was in process but never even reached the House floor for a vote.

The articles had passed out of the judiciary committee, then Nixon resigned days later because the floor vote was just a formality. Not doubt it would have passed.

And this is the curious part. The House stopped pursuing impeachment after Nixon resigned. I suppose because at that point Criminal charges could have been pursued. But then Ford pardoned him a month later.

If a former official can still be impeached, why did they consider it moot? Why is it now not moot with Trump leaving office in a few days? It appears vindictive to me.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh. There is zero chance that Democrats would hold their own accountable, and little chance Republicans would have the backbone to do it. Biden could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it. And the media would praise him for doing it.

And Biden supporters would make excuses that at least he’s not Trump.

Nope. They don’t have the backbone.

 

[jamil]

Nope. They don’t have the backbone.

Okay. Who is "they" so I understand your reply correctly.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Okay. Who is "they" so I understand your reply correctly.

Republicans.

 

[Doug]

No. The House is the sole authority on impeachment. The Senate is the sole authority on conducting impeachment trials. Once the House passes an impeachment resolution and it is forwarded to the Senate, the Senate gets to dispose of it how they will.

My point is, Pelosi has not forwarded it to the Senate. She has not gathered her entourage and solemnly marched from the House to the Senate carrying the rosewood box containing the Impeachment Documents.

I have no doubt the Democrats believe they could hold up the trial for years, if they want to. Laws, rules of evidence, rules of conduct, constitutional protections...all are meaningless when it comes to destroying Trump and his supporters.

 

[Hawkeye]

The articles had passed out of the judiciary committee, then Nixon resigned days later because the floor vote was just a formality. Not doubt it would have passed.

And this is the curious part. The House stopped pursuing impeachment after Nixon resigned. I suppose because at that point Criminal charges could have been pursued. But then Ford pardoned him a month later.

If a former official can still be impeached, why did they consider it moot? Why is it now not moot with Trump leaving office in a few days? It appears vindictive to me.

I agree. But he was not impeached.

I have no idea why the House did not pursue at that point. Maybe they ghad what they wanted - Nixon out of office and perhaps the Dems were not as vindictive back then.

I agree. THe Dmes are being vindictive. Have been since November, 2016 towards Trump.

 

[drillsgt]

I agree. But he was not impeached.

I have no idea why the House did not pursue at that point. Maybe they ghad what they wanted - Nixon out of office and perhaps the Dems were not as vindictive back then.

I agree. THe Dmes are being vindictive. Have been since November, 2016 towards Trump.

Yeah, both of these impeachments speak more about the democrats than they do Trump.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Nope. They don’t have the backbone.

Okay. Who is "they" so I understand your reply correctly.

Republicans.

The continualwill have it's consequences.

At one point in time it will matter. Republicans are not totally backed into a corner yet.

 

[Libertarian01]

Yeah, both of these impeachments speak more about the democrats than they do Trump.

They're about the show. They're putting on a big show for their base.

The republicans did the same for you. How many times did the republicans vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act? 37? 50? They did so KNOWING they didn't have the votes to do it, but for their base they put on a good show.

Now the democrats are doing so for their base. Nothing special about it, nothing out of line. When the show is over - THAT is when we'll see what the real agenda is.

Regards,

Doug

 

[IndyBeerman]

My point is, Pelosi has not forwarded it to the Senate. She has not gathered her entourage and solemnly marched from the House to the Senate carrying the rosewood box containing the Impeachment Documents.

I have no doubt the Democrats believe they could hold up the trial for years, if they want to. Laws, rules of evidence, rules of conduct, constitutional protections...all are meaningless when it comes to destroying Trump and his supporters.

You forgot to mention the PENS, she's waiting on her rush order of Impeachment pens.

Couple of problems though.

The company she got the previous pens are probably out of business because she couldn't get off her arse to pass the Covid relief plan.

Secondly, the new pen company sent them via USPS.

 

[Doug]

You forgot to mention the PENS, she's waiting on her rush order of Impeachment pens.

Couple of problems though.

The company she got the previous pens are probably out of business because she couldn't get off her arse to pass the Covid relief plan.

Secondly, the new pen company sent them via USPS.

Good Point.

 

[Doug]

I hate what they've done to the man. I believe there was some election fraud as well. I dont support any impeachments on the ground he incited riots. If that's the case then blm leaders and outspoken activists should be spending alot of time in court rooms and going to jail. Cities were literally burned

Well, election fraud is SOP for Democrats; "Vote early, vote often." They just did a lot more of it this time and more people realized it. BTW, saying, in any particular instance, "It wasn't enough to change the outcome, so it isn't important," is like saying, "They did a drive-by and put 300 bullet holes in the house, but no one was killed, so no harm done."

From the Democrat view, the businesses destroyed in the riots were run by greedy capitalists who paid slave wages and had most of their losses covered by insurance, so we don't need to be overly concerned about them. The Dems will give them a little money, but the "looting" was really reparation payments for systemic racism, so it was justified.

 

[ChazL]

You forgot to mention the PENS, she's waiting on her rush order of Impeachment pens.

Couple of problems though.

The company she got the previous pens are probably out of business because she couldn't get off her arse to pass the Covid relief plan.

Secondly, the new pen company sent them via USPS.