Live Updates: Biden weighs in on Trump impeachment, says Dems won't have the votes to convict

Keep in mind, former President Trump was impeached while still in office.

So the “trial” could take place at the Senate’s convenience.

This is still nothing but a sham endeavor to keep Trump from ever holding any office in the future. Everybody knows it.

I personally think this will come back to bite the Dems in the future.

NGIT is thoughtful and well written as usual
DPST/ccp reply is just a flippant retort - and as usual - has no use for the Constitution in the Trump hate milieu.

Impeaching a deposed POTUS is the most embarrassing thing hateful nazi pelosi has done - she will go down as the worst speaker ever- totally controlled by her hatred of Donald J Trump.

Keep in mind, former President Trump was impeached while still in office.

So the “trial” could take place at the Senate’s convenience.

This is still nothing but a sham endeavor to keep Trump from ever holding any office in the future. Everybody knows it.

I personally think this will come back to bite the Dems in the future. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The dem to send folks to attack the castle should be impeached as well

NGIT is thoughtful and well written as usual
DPST/ccp reply is just a flippant retort - and as usual - has no use for the Constitution in the Trump hate milieu.

Impeaching a deposed POTUS is the most embarrassing thing hateful nazi pelosi has done - she will go down as the worst speaker ever- totally controlled by her hatred of Donald J Trump. Originally Posted by oeb11

the dims ought be careful

as the article of impeachment likely gives former President Trump the ability to present the evidence of fraud, irregularity and law breaking no court has yet decided

and present such in front of the American people

A common characteristic of the DPST/c party is its' inability to see consequences of actions.

the dims ought be careful

as the article of impeachment likely gives former President Trump the ability to present the evidence of fraud, irregularity and law breaking no court has yet decided

and present such in front of the American people Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I’m sure that’ll be welcomed. Should be a very short presentation.

Did you not read the post I made to Gonad specifically quoting the constitution. I guess you missed it.

Anyway. Ya can’t have it both ways. The Chief is only necessary if the President is the defendant (not really the right word but it will work for now). Ex-President is not the president so no Chief Justice is required.

As I noted in my prior post, that you missed, I’m not sure that you can start an impeachment proceeding in the house for someone no longer in govt. the language of the constitution doesn’t appear to preclude it but the court could say no I suppose. As for the trial, as I posted prior, which I guess you missed, once the house sends over article(s) the senate must take it up. Whether the defendant is still in office or not is not germane.

As I also noted before, which maybe you missed, the rules governing the impeachment and trial of anyone by the house and senate doesn’t matter whether it’s a judge, cabinet member or president are all the same (except in the instance where the president -of which we only have one at a time - where the Chief Justice presides). Historically on at least 2 occasions they have tried someone that was no longer in their position. The precedent is that it’s constitutional to do so. Just because the ex-president is the defendant makes no difference under the constitution. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

If we are going to look at history, let's go back to the very first impeachment trial of Blount


https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...d-and-expelled


I'll skip to the relevant part.


During Blount’s absentee proceedings in early 1799, the Senate didn’t move forward with a trial against Blount, deciding that he had already been expelled from the Senate. By a 14-11 vote, a resolution was defeated that read that “William Blount was a civil officer of the United States and therefore liable to impeachment.”


So the very first time the Senate had the chance to convict someone that had already been expelled, they punted. No reason the Senate couldn't do the same thing. A trial is not mandatory apparently.

If we are going to look at history, let's go back to the very first impeachment trial of Blount


https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...d-and-expelled


I'll skip to the relevant part.


During Blount’s absentee proceedings in early 1799, the Senate didn’t move forward with a trial against Blount, deciding that he had already been expelled from the Senate. By a 14-11 vote, a resolution was defeated that read that “William Blount was a civil officer of the United States and therefore liable to impeachment.”


So the very first time the Senate had the chance to convict someone that had already been expelled, they punted. No reason the Senate couldn't do the same thing. A trial is not mandatory apparently.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever

And subsequent to that Belknap was impeached and tried even after he resigned in an attempt to prevent his impeachment

"On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.

This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.

On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles. As each vote fell short of the necessary two-thirds, however, he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further; he died in 1890."

But you knew this already and only provided what you thought helped your point. As I have noted time and again, the Senate has precedent to try an ex-official, which an ex-president is.

Keep in mind, former President Trump was impeached while still in office.

So the “trial” could take place at the Senate’s convenience.

This is still nothing but a sham endeavor to keep Trump from ever holding any office in the future. Everybody knows it.

I personally think this will come back to bite the Dems in the future. Originally Posted by Jackie S

If they can't convict the Dems will have a big Orange Stain on their panties where Trump's foot meets their asses, lol.

The Democrats and some Republicans are pursuing this because it's necessary. An act of insurrection occurred on January 6th and I don't think very many people will refute that. Right before this occurred the president and his cronies whipped the crowd into a frenzy and let them loose on the Capitol. The actions that Trump took afterword to stop the insurrection can also be called into account. Did he hesitate because he's incompetent or because he wanted it to happen. Whether this was all intentional or not is up for debate. That's what impeachment is for.

Guess what - ts.dot - Trump is no longer POTUS
revenge, hatred, and foolish stupidity are not excuses for making an embarrassment of the nation in displaying the hatred and need for revenge.

Sec 3 art 1 Head justice SHALL

This is still nothing but a sham endeavor to keep Trump from ever holding any office in the future. Everybody knows it. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Why are they so afraid of trump? He fucked up the GOP and helped elect 2 far-left idiots to the US Senate in Georgia, so now the dim-retards control both Houses of Congress in addition to the White House.

If the dim-retards had any fucking sense they would WANT Trump to stay politically active and continue to act like a wrecking ball within the Republican party from now through 2024.

But of course the dim-retards have no sense. That's why we call them dim-retards!!

We want him active, just diminished. He is the type of crazy that will hurt those around him so that is good. Diminished is better since he is also the kind of crazy that will demand more respect than he deserves and his foolish followers will do the same. But it is all goo as long as he is less than he and his followers believe him to be.

We want him active, just diminished. He is the type of crazy that will hurt those around him so that is good. Diminished is better since he is also the kind of crazy that will demand more respect than he deserves and his foolish followers will do the same. But it is all goo as long as he is less than he and his followers believe him to be. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Its all Goo? What?

bahahahhahahhahahahahhahaha