Trump Impeachment # 2

trump's defense is out. Shockingly, it ignores that there's precedent for such a trial after someone's term ends, and ham-handedly declares this all unconstitutionl.

It's not unconstitutional




:rolleyes:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
trump's defense is out. Shockingly, it ignores that there's precedent for such a trial after someone's term ends, and ham-handedly declares this all unconstitutionl.

It's not unconstitutional




:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
They don't care if it's constitutional or not it's merely a ruse to provide cover for the Senate Republicans to vote against conviction.  The case for conviction will be overwhelming based on what we've all witnessed to date.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
It is not unconstitutional, and there is a precedent. These kinds of blatant lies have no place on this board.
Click to expand...


Guy Chamberlin said:
Since 2016, Donald Trump has declared any election result in which he didn't win fraudulent. 

Long story short: f#&% off, Joe. 
Click to expand...


I just cannot see how these posts are helpful to the community. You are arguing a very weak legal position.  And instead of quoting the US Constitution, or cases, or even the usual social media of some guy with an opinion; you are insulting me.  It may be personally gratifying but it tells everyone else I have no case.

teachercd said:
I don't think that is what gaslighting means?  Or maybe I am not as hip as I thought I was.
Click to expand...
Did you ever see it?  I saw a production of the play but not the famous movie.  It's very strange to hear it in the political context (as a synonym for trolling) because it has almost nothing to do with the source.

Gas Light - Wikipedia

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Notre Dame Joe said:
You are arguing a very weak legal position.  And instead of quoting the US Constitution, or cases
Click to expand...


I linked a case establishing precedent. Did you read it?

You don't have to think it's constitutional. That's fine. I know it is, and more importantly, the people proceeding with the prosecution know it's legal and constitutional.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Notre Dame Joe said:
I just cannot see how these posts are helpful to the community. You are arguing a very weak legal position.  And instead of quoting the US Constitution, or cases, or even the usual social media of some guy with an opinion; you are insulting me.  It may be personally gratifying but it tells everyone else I have no case.
Click to expand...


Well I honestly thought I was in the Shed, and the post appears to have been pulled, but my point for people who actually read the posts is that there is NO legal burden for impeachment, and Donald Trump's actions -- which I listed in some detail -- are the most dangerous and appalling in presidential history.  It's an opinion shared by most sentient grown-ups and requires no Constitutional quote -- though it's pretty much textbook sedition.

It's an open and shut case, as the folks who spent two years trying to prosecute Benghazi would understand if they were the slightest bit honest.

Here's another word I'm comfortable using: evil. This s#!t is evil. I'm really tired pretending it isn't and I will continue to insult you if you continue to sugarcoat it. 

 
Notre Dame Joe said:
I just cannot see how these posts are helpful to the community.
Click to expand...
I would imagine it’s more frustration that your posts scream ignorance to the widely held belief that Donald Trump was, as a whole, a very bad president who at the end of his term, did some very bad and un-presidential things.  Things that any reasonable person who values morals and integrity would denounce.  Why you continue to fight this—who knows?  Maybe you just enjoy the contrary stance on Trump topics.  Maybe you still support Trump?  God help you if, that’s true.  

 
knapplc said:
I linked a case establishing precedent. Did you read it?

You don't have to think it's constitutional. That's fine. I know it is, and more importantly, the people proceeding with the prosecution know it's legal and constitutional.
Click to expand...
What you know is actually an opinion.

The Unconstitutional opinion rests on the plain language of the Constitution.


Article II 



  • Section 4


    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.

    Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

    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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    [SIZE=16.4px]It does not say 'President or former President'  nor does it say 'removal from Office, OR disqualification.'   The Founders were good writers and it's simply bad to say they actually meant something very different from what they wrote. [/SIZE]

    The Ex-Presidential Impeachment is Constitutional opinion rarely cites the actual Constitution but rests on a 'precedent' that in 1876 a minor officer was impeached after he resigned.   

    This is weak for any number of reasons.  It isn't a 'precedent' if it wasn't ruled on by a Court.  Congressmen were angry and incorrect in 1876 and 2021.   

    That guy  Belknap resigned just as the House was formally voting on Impeachment.  Belknap was acquitted because enough Senators voted Nay on the grounds they had no jurisdiction over former officers; everyone agreed that he had taken a bribe.  

    And that is just jurisdiction.  There is also no legal case even if Trump was still president.   

    Guy Chamberlin said:
    Uhm.....they are the precise opposite of petty. 
    Click to expand...
    pretty?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top