Former President Trump’s Defense Team Comes Storming Back.

he is saving his Brownie points for establishing the AOC re-education/concentration camps for more than 100 million caucasian conservatives.

Schumer fails to comprehend that AOC includes Him in her camp deportee list.

I think you true patriots that think the election was stolen should hold your tiny hands together and storm the capitol on March 4 in support of the biden/trump body double and the pre-planned takeover of the government

The silence from the libs here is very telling! Not gonna be a happy valentines day!

bahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahah hahha


Acquitted!

The silence from the libs here is very telling! Not gonna be a happy valentines day!

bahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahah hahha


Acquitted! Originally Posted by winn dixie

Did ANYONE really think the Senate would find him guilty? I'm somewhat surprised that as many as 7 Republicans voted to convict. And what might the vote have been if the other 43 Republican Senators voted primarily on whether or not Trump was guilty of the charges and not whether or not he should ever have been brought up on charges since he was no longer POTUS? He probably would still have been acquitted but that is okay with me.

The interesting question to me is how much power Trump will maintain in the coming years over the Republican party.

The silence from the libs here is very telling! Not gonna be a happy valentines day!

bahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahah hahha


Acquitted! Originally Posted by winn dixie

"President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he's in office," McConnell said during a speech on the Senate floor following Trump's acquittal. "He didn't get away with anything

Did ANYONE really think the Senate would find him guilty? I'm somewhat surprised that as many as 7 Republicans voted to convict. And what might the vote have been if the other 43 Republican Senators voted primarily on whether or not Trump was guilty of the charges and not whether or not he should ever have been brought up on charges since he was no longer POTUS? He probably would still have been acquitted but that is okay with me.

The interesting question to me is how much power Trump will maintain in the coming years over the Republican party. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

amazing how much Power the DPST/ccp marxist ideology has over the foolish minions.

Who believe and and all Lies and propaganda of the Party and LSM
Goebbels trained their current propaganda of teh DPSTR marxists well.



Keep up your violent rhetoric - AOC camps - Waters assaults, LSM Tapper accusing all caucasian/conservatives/republicans of Terrorism


While the DPST party fawns over teh Violence of Seattle, Portland.Minneapolis - and on and on
Not One DPST nomenklatura has ever condemned any of the Violence done in the name of their marxist DPST party in America


Keep it up - DPST - you have had an example of how fed up with the marxist sedition aimed at Destroying teh Constitution Middle America 's opinion is.



'Remember January 6' - is becoming the new "Remember Pearl harbor"!!!


Go ahead and turn me into your NSA and FBI - corrupted to spy on and serve only marxist Nomenkjlatura.



From My cold , dead hands.

You do a great job if long windedness counted.

You're average at best....cut down on the verbiage and I'll improve your grade. Originally Posted by WTF

How about if he just posts "your mother sucks cocks in hell" to everything you say?

Would that make him an effective advocate like you pretend to be?

How about if he just posts "your mother sucks cocks in hell" to everything you say?

Would that make him an effective advocate like you pretend to be? Originally Posted by lustylad

You can't post that. I got points for continually posting that about oeb's mom.

Evidently he can continually post the same DPST/teh in every single post but you can not post about another's posters mom. It is considered rude. I'd hate to see you get points for it lustylad.

Do you have Trump's final GDP numbers?

Mueller, Mueller, Mueller


Tax, Tax, Tax - until there is no more money to tax -

only illegals living off teh bought and paid for 'votes' for teh DPST/ccp marxist party.

Mueller, Mueller, Mueller


Tax, Tax, Tax - until there is no more money to tax -

only illegals living off teh bought and paid for 'votes' for teh DPST/ccp marxist party. Originally Posted by oeb11

What is the matter oeb....afraid you're not getting enough attention? Awwwwwwwwww

Acquittal wtf Acquittal!
live with it.

Acquittal wtf Acquittal!
live with it. Originally Posted by oeb11

I never thought he would get convicted and was not for the impeachment.

So I'm not sure wtf you're clicking about.

Did ANYONE really think the Senate would find him guilty? I'm somewhat surprised that as many as 7 Republicans voted to convict. And what might the vote have been if the other 43 Republican Senators voted primarily on whether or not Trump was guilty of the charges and not whether or not he should ever have been brought up on charges since he was no longer POTUS? He probably would still have been acquitted but that is okay with me.

The interesting question to me is how much power Trump will maintain in the coming years over the Republican party. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It was an interesting thought put forward, what if it was a secret vote and nobody would know who voted guilty or not guilty. There very well may have been a few more to vote guilty if they had no concern on what their vote might mean to their political career, but I choose to believe the un-Constitutionality of the trial was the correct reason for the vote of not guilty.

If you believed that, how could you vote other wise?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...achment-trial/

Opinion: Once Trump leaves office, the Senate can’t hold an impeachment trial

Opinion by J. Michael Luttig

Jan. 12, 2021 at 5:42 p.m. EST

J. Michael Luttig served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit from 1991 to 2006.

It appears that even if the House of Representatives impeaches President Trump this week, the Senate trial on that impeachment will not begin until after Trump has left office and President-Elect Biden has become president on Jan. 20. That Senate trial would be unconstitutional.[/COLOR]

On Sunday, House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) said that, while House Democrats would take up articles of impeachment this week against President Trump, the House might delay sending to the Senate any articles passed by the House until after President-elect Biden’s first 100 days in office. Biden proposed an alternative, under which the new Senate would immediately begin working on his legislative agenda and confirming his Cabinet appointments in the mornings and conduct the impeachment trial in the afternoon.

The sequencing of the House impeachment proceedings before Trump’s departure from office and the inauguration of the new president, followed by a Senate impeachment trial, perhaps months later, raises the question of whether a former president can be impeached after he leaves office.

The Constitution itself answers this question clearly: No, he cannot be. Once Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him — even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment.

Therefore, if the House of Representatives were to impeach the president before he leaves office, the Senate could not thereafter convict the former president and disqualify him under the Constitution from future public office.

The reason for this is found in the Constitution itself. Trump would no longer be incumbent in the Office of the President at the time of the delayed Senate proceeding and would no longer be subject to “impeachment conviction” by the Senate, under the Constitution’s Impeachment Clauses. Which is to say that the Senate’s only power under the Constitution is to convict — or not — an incumbent president.
The purpose, text and structure of the Constitution’s Impeachment Clauses confirm this intuitive and common-sense understanding.

The very concept of constitutional impeachment presupposes the impeachment, conviction and removal of a president who is, at the time of his impeachment, an incumbent in the office from which he is removed. Indeed, that was the purpose of the impeachment power, to remove from office a president or other “civil official” before he could further harm the nation from the office he then occupies.

The plain text of the Constitution’s several Impeachment Clauses confirms this understanding of this limit on Congress’ impeachment power. For example, Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In the same constitutional vein, Article I, Section 3 provides in relevant part: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

It has been suggested that the Senate could proceed to try the former president and convict him in an effort to disqualify him from holding public office in the future. This is incorrect because it is a constitutional impeachment of a president that authorizes his constitutional disqualification. If a president has not been constitutionally impeached, then the Senate is without the constitutional power to disqualify him from future office.

Some constitutional scholars take support for their view that the Congress can impeach a former president from two instances in which early Congresses impeached “civil officials” after they had resigned their public offices — the impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and the impeachment of Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876.

These congressional impeachment cases provide some backing for the argument that Congress can conclude that it has the power under the Constitution to impeach a former president. And Congress’s understanding of its constitutional powers would be a weighty consideration in the ultimate determination whether the Congress does possess such authority. When and if the former president goes to court to challenge his impeachment trial as unconstitutional, Congress is sure to make its argument based on these congressional precedents, as well as others, a case that would almost certainly make its way to the Supreme Court.


In the end, though, only the Supreme Court can answer the question of whether Congress can impeach a president who has left office prior to its attempted impeachment of him. It is highly unlikely the Supreme Court would yield to Congress’s view that it has the power to impeach a president who is no longer in office when the Constitution itself is so clear that it does not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/13/senate-impeachment-trial-constitutional-after-trump-leaves/


Opinion: The Senate can constitutionally hold an impeachment trial after Trump leaves office

Laurence H. Tribe

Jan. 13, 2021 at 5:31 p.m. EST

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School and most recently the co-author of “To End A Presidency: The Power of Impeachment.”

The Senate appears unlikely to take up the article of impeachment against President Trump before his term ends next Wednesday. That does not require the end of proceedings against him. The Senate retains the constitutional authority — indeed, the constitutional duty — to conduct an impeachment trial against the soon-to-be-former president.


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4, provides that the president and other civil officers “shall be removed from Office” following impeachment and conviction by the Senate. Some scholars, most prominently former federal appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig, have argued that because Trump’s term will have already ended and he, by definition, cannot be removed, the impeachment power no longer applies


With all respect, I disagree. The Constitution references impeachment in six places but nowhere answers that precise question.



So if the question is never really answered and the SC has never weighed in on the Constitutionality, it is subject to interpretation and neither party can claim "they are right".



Article I, Section 3 comes closest to delineating the contours of the Impeachment Power, instructing that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

These “judgments” — removal and disqualification — are analytically distinct and linguistically divisible. Their divisibility was first established by the Senate during the 1862 trial of federal-turned-confederate Judge West Humphreys and reaffirmed by a parliamentary inquiry during the 1936 trial of impeached Judge Halsted Ritter. The only court to address the issue agreed with the Senate that an impeachment trial could proceed even after the individual was no longer in office.


To be sure, a former officer may no longer be “removed” even upon conviction by a two-thirds vote. But that has no bearing on whether such an ex-officer may be barred permanently from office upon being convicted. That separate judgment would require no more than a simple majority vote.


Concluding otherwise would all but erase the disqualification power from the Constitution’s text: If an impeachable officer became immune from trial and conviction upon leaving office, any official seeing conviction as imminent could easily remove the prospect of disqualification simply by resigning moments before the Senate’s anticipated verdict.


And if it was that serious, the DOJ could indict and a court convict. This is something one must keep in mind when worrying about whether such a law breaker should ever be allowed to hold office. And consider this, it doesn't preclude this person from running but "holding office" So if this person can run but can not hold office, we are going to tell all those people that voted for him knowing his past must have their votes thrown in the trash? Don't they call that "disenfranchisement"?



The clear weight of history, original understanding and congressional practice bolsters the case for concluding that the end of Donald Trump’s presidency would not end his Senate trial.
The impeachment power derives from the power of the British Parliament. One particular British impeachment featured prominently in the framers’ conception of the power: that of the former colonial governor of India, Warren Hastings. Led by Edmund Burke, the Hastings impeachment was repeatedly referenced during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and, critically, was conducted entirely after Hastings had left office. Given the prominence of the Hastings’s impeachment to the framers, the absence of debate on the question at the federal or state ratifying conventions — not to mention the silence of the Constitution’s text on the point — speaks volumes.


So it’s unsurprising that Congress has throughout the nation’s history considered the power to try and judge impeachments to extend past an officeholder’s term. The question was first raised during the attempted 1797 impeachment of Sen. William Blount. One of the lead House prosecutors, Rep. James Bayard, and Blount’s lawyer agreed that a civil officer could not escape impeachment through resignation. Former president John Quincy Adams, while serving as a member of Congress many years later, concurred by declaring that “I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office.”


Likewise, in 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap resigned minutes before the House was set to impeach him; the House still transmitted five articles of impeachment to the Senate. At Belknap’s trial, the Senate voted 37 to 29 that he was “amenable to trial by impeachment …notwithstanding his resignation of said office.” And the House and Senate rules have both long permitted the impeachment and trial of former officers for abuses committed while holding office.


Focusing on the purposes of the impeachment power yields the same conclusion. Its function is prospective rather than punitive: to prevent officers who have betrayed their oaths from committing further abuses and thereby inflicting future harm.


The need to protect the nation can sometimes be satisfied merely by removing a dangerous officer from power. Still, the inclusion of a separate power to disqualify is a clear recognition that removal might not always be sufficient. For such cases, the Constitution expressly provided the additional remedy of exclusion.


Disqualifying President Trump from ever again holding federal office is a particularly suitable remedy for fomenting and inciting insurrection. It is also fitting in stripping Trump of the very thing that motivated his impeachable offenses: the pursuit of future power.


To render this uniquely appropriate remedy unavailable simply because the gravest abuses of power were committed near the very end of a president’s term would be bizarre at best, self-sabotaging at worst. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that a president who has shown himself to be a deadly threat to our survival as a constitutional republic should be able to run out the clock on our ability to condemn his conduct and to ensure that it can never recur.

Or, instead of Congress taking action to disenfranchise millions of voters who in any other case Democrats would be horrified at the idea of disenfranchising any voters, why not let the people decide who they want and who they don't want.

I think the disqualification part should be stricken and the will of the people supported.

You can't post that. I got points for continually posting that about oeb's mom. Originally Posted by WTF

Well, you obviously didn't get pointed enough since it's still in your sig line.

Stay classy!

"President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he's in office," McConnell said during a speech on the Senate floor following Trump's acquittal. "He didn't get away with anything Originally Posted by WTF

Congress had their chance to make something of this. They made asses of themselves like they have been doing since 2016. It's time to let sleeping dogs lie.