Impeachment but non-removal

[archives]

How many constitutional and institutional norms are going to be run over [by democrats] in the age of Trump?

No need to be a constitutional scholar to understand that the primary purpose of impeachment is removal from office. Otherwise, what’s the point? Impeachment becomes a censure vote with a ribbon tied around it.

That’s what Impeachment 1.0 was—a House censure vote with a ribbon tied around it. It was barely mentioned by the Biden campaign because by then it didn’t mean anything. What if you whiff on a Senate conviction *twice* on the same President?

I’ve said this before: Democrats clearly can’t help themselves, but they are going to run afoul with moderates with this impeachment push. There’s no point in it. Trump is out of office in 48 hours. Not all voters loathe Trump and you never know, you might even need a few disaffected Trump voters in the midterms. I have a strong hunch you’re going to need more than a few. This is NOT the way to get them.

Good point, but it has been done before, with Judges, State and Federal, largely to insure they would never hold office as a Judge again. The same idea would apply to Trump, to ban him prematurely from ever again running for office. Awful precedents have been set by both sides over rate last few decades, don’t recall Jonathan offering views on Mitch making the SCOTUS simply a majority vote

I do believe part of the strategy was to get Trump to resign, like Nixon, seeing the possibility existed he may be found guilty in the Senate. And if you believe Trump was guilty of insurrection, knowing you don’t, but many do, holding him responsible is logical regardless of how it plays out in the future

[Darth Omar]

The whataboutism is off the charts since 1/6.

Harris denounced the riots. She was encouraging protest.

And nothing related to BLM came close to resembling an insurrection at our Capitol. They actually showed a guy yesterday right outside the chamber during the riot saying, "we may as well set up a new government now."

There is literally zero comparison, whatsoever. There is a reason Presidential candidates concede elections when they lose them. It's not easy to do, but it's the only way to heal the country after a hard-fought contest. Trump went the opposite direction, and we saw the results last Wednesday.

Well, Trump was encouraging the protests.

What’s the problem?

[BartenderElite]

Well, Trump was encouraging the protests.

What’s the problem?

Trump specifically told the rioters "we love you." It wasn't directed at merely the protestors - he was talking about the people who he was asking to be more peaceful, and go home (i.e. the rioters).

He said "we love you," and said they were special people.

After an entire summer of you guys screaming that Dems needed to be more forceful in condemning rioters - you would think a pander like that might get some reaction out of you.

[Rune]

Good point about manufacturing ‘crises’ where none exists.

The current ‘crisis’ is the prospect of Trump running again [omg]. He’s ‘so dangerous’ that can’t be allowed to happen. Sadly, it’s almost comical.

Rather than allowing voters [who can’t be trusted—literally the way they think] to deal with that prospect, democrats risk opening a constitutional Pandora’s box by ‘removing’ a president who is no longer in office. Think of what that could mean down the road.

According to the constitutional rules, the only president that can be removed from office—starting Wednesday afternoon, is Biden.

Insanity.

Bullshit you lying fucking retard.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 provides that the sanctions for an impeached and convicted individual are limited to removal from office and potentially a bar from holding future office,

[Darth Omar]

Bullshit you lying fucking retard.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 provides that the sanctions for an impeached and convicted individual are limited to removal from office and potentially a bar from holding future office,

Do you know the distinction between ‘and’ and ‘or’?

How humiliating will it be when SCOTUS tosses it? Or will democrats pack the court in time?

[Rune]

Do you know the distinction between ‘and’ and ‘or’?

How humiliating will it be when SCOTUS tosses it? Or will democrats pack the court in time?

Unfucking real.

The SCOTUS plays no part in impeach process you retard.

Next time research then post.

[Darth Omar]

Unfucking real.

The SCOTUS plays no part in impeach process you retard.

Next time research then post.

Try thinking before you post.

It’s a simple matter of Trump challenging the senate conviction. Assuming one happens.

[Phantasmal]

Try thinking before you post.

It’s a simple matter of Trump challenging the senate conviction. Assuming one happens.

Nixon vs US

https://casetext.com/case/nixon-v-united-states-4

https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-...le-impeachment



Trump can not appeal to the SCOTUS

[Walt]

How humiliating will it be when SCOTUS tosses it?

The Supreme Court already decided in Nixon v. US that they do not have the right to "toss it." That was a unanimous decision. The Constitution says impeachment is solely up to the House, and the trial is solely up to the Senate. You want this tossed, you need to convince the Senate to toss it, because the Senate has sole say in this.

[Rune]

Try thinking before you post.

It’s a simple matter of Trump challenging the senate conviction. Assuming one happens.

Again, Dopey there is no appeal of a senate conviction.

SCOTUS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IMPEACHMENT.

Seriously, research then post.

[Walt]

Try thinking before you post.

It’s a simple matter of Trump challenging the senate conviction. Assuming one happens.

It is not a simple matter, because there is no one to appeal it to. At least if it was a Supreme Court decision, there would be later Supreme Courts to appeal it to. I am not even sure if later Senates could "un-convict" trump.

[Rune]

Bullshit you lying fucking retard.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 provides that the sanctions for an impeached and convicted individual are limited to removal from office and potentially a bar from holding future office,

Do you understand the differences between singular and multiple you flaming retard?

[Darth Omar]

The Supreme Court already decided in Nixon v. US that they do not have the right to "toss it." That was a unanimous decision. The Constitution says impeachment is solely up to the House, and the trial is solely up to the Senate. You want this tossed, you need to convince the Senate to toss it, because the Senate has sole say in this.

Nixon was actually President. Trump won’t be when/if the conviction happens.

Does SCOTUS sit back while the Senate mangles the language to the constitution in any other instance? Has the Senate ‘convicted’ someone who isn’t president before. Would it stand as a conviction?

What stops them from convicting you?

[Sailor]

The Democrats have won the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential Elections.
Seems like America likes 'The Modern Day Democrat' even though you don't.

And??? This has what to do with them never finishing anything? Not a damn thing. You just proved my point.

[Joe Capitalist]

And??? This has what to do with them never finishing anything? Not a damn thing. You just proved my point.

Poor Soiler is confused.