Impeach Trump for the Good of the Country

[jamil]

Nope. I've never met Epstein.

 

[KG1]

Dershowitz is that you?

Is this meant to be an insult?

 

[foszoe]

Is this meant to be an insult?

No. That Dershowitz interview I posted made the point you did over and over so I thought you had either read or heard him discussing it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

If Trump was already out of office, prior to the start of impeachment proceedings, I'd agree. Since he is in office, and the process already started, it stands to reason that it's followed through to its conclusion if the Senate wishes it. I hold this opinion because impeachment penalties can go beyond simply removal from office, and to barring someone from ever holding office in the future. In theory, a person who has been impeached, may resign before the trial, in hopes of maintaining their ability to run for office again, thus taking that decision out of the hands of the Senate. The accused don't get to set their terms.

 

[foszoe]

If Trump was already out of office, prior to the start of impeachment proceedings, I'd agree. Since he is in office, and the process already started, it stands to reason that it's followed through to its conclusion if the Senate wishes it. I hold this opinion because impeachment penalties can go beyond simply removal from office, and to barring someone from ever holding office in the future. In theory, a person who has been impeached, may resign before the trial, in hopes of maintaining their ability to run for office again, thus taking that decision out of the hands of the Senate. The accused don't get to set their terms.

The purpose of an impeachment trial is to remove from office. If one is not in office, then it doesn't make sense to hold a senate trial. ATtthat point Trump is a private citizen.

 

[Aggar]

The purpose of an impeachment trial is to remove from office. If one is not in office, then it doesn't make sense to hold a senate trial. ATtthat point Trump is a private citizen.

Their entire goal is to make it to where trump can’t run again. They ha e been on a mission for 4 years to get him out. Plain and simple.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The purpose of an impeachment trial is to remove from office. If one is not in office, then it doesn't make sense to hold a senate trial. ATtthat point Trump is a private citizen.

Our system has already one, possibly two examples for persons where the impeachment trial took place after leaving office. So the precedent is set. Even outside of govt, there are plenty of examples of people quitting before being fired, and post event are disqualified from being rehired. Why should be different, especially since there is a precedent?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Their entire goal is to make it to where trump can’t run again. They ha e been on a mission for 4 years to get him out. Plain and simple.

And honestly it's been surprisingly successful/

 

[buckwacker]

Our system has already one, possibly two examples for persons where the impeachment trial took place after leaving office. So the precedent is set. Even outside of govt, there are plenty of examples of people quitting before being fired, and post event are disqualified from being rehired. Why should be different, especially since there is a precedent?

If you're using those examples as precedent, at least one was acquitted because senators believe a conviction after the impeached left office was unconstitutional. You can't dissect precedent, use the parts you like, and throw out the rest.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Our system has already one, possibly two examples for persons where the impeachment trial took place after leaving office. So the precedent is set. Even outside of govt, there are plenty of examples of people quitting before being fired, and post event are disqualified from being rehired. Why should be different, especially since there is a precedent?

If my memory is correct it is one, and he was not a elected official, he was a member of the cabinet (Secretary of War) and that was 145 years AGO.

 

[KG1]

No. That Dershowitz interview I posted made the point you did over and over so I thought you had either read or heard him discussing it.

No I haven't seen it. I did listen to the interview in the link that you posted and it doesn't surprise me that Dershowitz has taken the position. I've heard bits and pieces from others elsewhere discussing the topic.

 

[foszoe]

No I haven't seen it. I did listen to the interview in the link that you posted and it doesn't surprise me that Dershowitz has taken the position. I've heard bits and pieces from others elsewhere discussing the topic.

I thought he articulated the argument against pretty well.

 

[KG1]

I thought he articulated the argument against pretty well.

Yeah that interviewer was really trying to throttle Dershowitz pretty hard for his position but he did counter punch him pretty well.

 

[foszoe]

Yeah that interviewer was really trying to throttle Dershowitz pretty hard for his position but he countered him pretty well.

I wish American interviewers were that hard on guests. Now its a few questions and what book are you promoting.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If my memory is correct it is one, and he was not a elected official, he was a member of the cabinet (Secretary of War) and that was 145 years AGO.

There is no “elected official” requirement for impeachment. One need only be a civil official. As far as 145 years ago, there are rulings today that cite precedents even older than that (ie Marbury v Madison)

 

[Doug]

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.

 

[BugI02]

If Trump was already out of office, prior to the start of impeachment proceedings, I'd agree. Since he is in office, and the process already started, it stands to reason that it's followed through to its conclusion if the Senate wishes it. I hold this opinion because impeachment penalties can go beyond simply removal from office, and to barring someone from ever holding office in the future. In theory, a person who has been impeached, may resign before the trial, in hopes of maintaining their ability to run for office again, thus taking that decision out of the hands of the Senate. The accused don't get to set their terms.

That makes no sense. If the fact that impeachment has already started means that the senate can convict Trump even after his term expires and he is no longer president, then why would resignation make any difference? Impeachment has already started and you say being out of office makes no difference once that happens

 

[BugI02]

Our system has already one, possibly two examples for persons where the impeachment trial took place after leaving office. So the precedent is set. Even outside of govt, there are plenty of examples of people quitting before being fired, and post event are disqualified from being rehired. Why should be different, especially since there is a precedent?

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

 

[Tombs]

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.

 

[indyblue]

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.

According to Dove Fisher at spectator.org

After Joe Biden’s January 20 inauguration, Donald Trump simply will not meet the definition of “the President of the United States” to be tried. He no longer would be subject to “removal from [o]ffice.” Thus, although the House would have impeached the President in a foolishly rushed Kangaroo Court reminiscent of Josef Stalin’s Show Trials where political opponents were accused, tried, convicted, and then lost on appeal all within a week, the Senate would not be trying the President of the United States but a private citizen, and there would be no office from which to remove him. Under the Constitution, the Senate almost surely would have no legal authority under which to pursue a trial on the House’s impeachment because it would be mooted by reality. Let’s say. Just for fun.