Former President Trump -- In Shame, Ineffective, and in Trouble
What is the fate of this man? Can he reinvent himself? Would the Senate impeach him? America is now free to do better. What would she do with this opportunity? Trump will always be remembered as the worse U. S. President in America's History. CM
Comments
-
@C Mc , have a look in the mirror, think about your hatred and then about "what a man sows is what he reaps" .... and you might get a glimpse of your own fate ... "Hatred Eats The Soul Of The Hater Not The Hated", is a well known proverb.
-
Did anyone else notice this on inauguration day, January 20, 2020?
There were more US American people gathered at JB Andrews Base for the farewell of president Trump and far more people lining the streets in Florida upon his arrival there, than there were at the inauguration of president Biden in Washington DC ?? That is, not counting the 25.000 National Guard soldiers who were ordered "to protect" the inauguration procedures from {hmn .... the grass lawn? Covid-19 aerosols of invisible ghosts? or who? or what?} This inauguration was bizarre, weird, not unlike a really bad, bad lunatic movie ...
-
Hold up, Mr. Wolfgang,
I was not the U. S. President for the last four years. I am not in the Senate. History writes its own story. Trump is in trouble with lawsuits, taxes, and NY State. He left office in a less than gracious manner. What is "hateful" about holding up a mirror to this man's presidency? Are all historians "hateful" people? Come on, Wolfgang, lighten up!
Wolfgang, are you reaping what you had sown when you spent the last four years, using every opportunity you get, to talk about the Clintons, Hillary, in particular, and the Obamas? Have you received "a glimpse of your own fate" for doing so? Were you showing hatred then? Have you experienced the reality of the "well-known proverb, ... "Hatred Eats The Soul Of The Hater Not The Hated"? Are you trying to help me avoid what you have experienced, namely, about your dislike for your lady Chancellor? The finger you are pointing at me behooves you to notice the four fingers pointing back at you.
America and all peace-loving people need to continue to talk about the five hundred (500) families whose children were taken from them. Trump and his administration (recently admitted) knew there were plans in place to reunite the children with their parents. That is mean and "hateful" on its face. Wolfgang, how can you forget this and defend a man who takes away small helpless innocent children from their parents? Separating children and parents is equivalent to familial rape and kid-nipping! You are so in love with Trump you cannot feel the pain of the children and mothers?
So, Wolfgang, check the target of your condemnation. Your anger and disappointment of Trump's loss are better focused elsewhere and not toward me. CM
-
Wolfgang,
"Size matters"?
Why do I believe you're so much bigger than some of the nebulous things you post in these forums, especially, in the area of politics? CM
-
Actually he is one of the best presidents we have ever had. Senate can't legally hold an impeachment trial as he is not the current president. Any trial that is held is unconstitutional and illegal.
In less than one week of a Biden administration America is already much worse off than any day with Trump. Transgenderism is now the matra of America. LGBT is on the loose. Freedom is no longer.
-
@reformed wrote
In less than one week of a Biden administration America is already much worse off than any day with Trump. Transgenderism is now the mantra of America. LGBT is on the loose. Freedom is no longer.
Indeed, very true ... some like it muddy / "swampy".
The blind can't see the obvious .... but the blind will eventually feel it. Those who won't listen will suffer the consequences.
-
Wolfgang and Reformed, the two of you, in your recent post, sound like left-behind QAnon believers. The sky is not falling. Stop fearing anything not Trump. CM
PS. I will give you my take on the Biden Administration in another thread. CM
-
Corrections: Corrections: Corrections: Corrections:
I incorrectly said:
America and all peace-loving people need to continue to talk about the five hundred (500) families whose children were taken from them. Trump and his administration (recently admitted) knew there were plans in place to reunite the children with their parents. That is mean and "hateful" on its face.
I intended to say (see the bold print):
America and all peace-loving people need to continue to talk about the five hundred (500) families whose children were taken from them. Trump and his administration (recently admitted), THEY knew there were NO PLANS in place to reunite the children with their parents. That is mean and "hateful" on its face...
There you have it. CM
-
America and all peace-loving people need to continue to talk about the five hundred (500) families whose children were taken from them.
When parents are involved in illegal activities, there may well be a separation of parents from their children as a consequence in the course of unfolding of the events. There is a family in our neighborhood who take in at times children in such situations and provide care for them ... how things develop in the future is up to how the parents deal with their legal problem(s).
Trump and his administration (recently admitted), THEY knew there were NO PLANS in place to reunite the children with their parents. That is mean and "hateful" on its face...
That may be how it seems to you not knowing the details of each situation ...
There you have it.
Is misusing a child to attempt to gain entrance into a country the proper way of going about such a matter? No ... it knowingly mistreats the child as an instrument to supposedly "outwit" immigration laws. If such crime then results in severe consequences such as separation / deportation etc., the parents are responsible for it.
Btw, that would have happened and will happen in cases in the USA as long as there is a president and authority to uphold such legal regulations.
-
@C Mc you realize in states across America every day that children are REGULARLY taken from their parents who are involved in illegal activities right? Why should this be any different with immigration?
-
Well, Mr. Wolfgang? In light of you own past actions, who the "hater"?
-
Reformed,
In the cases you mentioned, there is system in place to return children to their families. Secondly, the children are not put into cages like animals. Thirdly, children are not further traumatized. Fourthly, children as mentioned above, in over ninety percent of the time are sent to, closest, next of kin.
So, you see, there is no comparison. CM
-
- Yes but that often does not happen. There is also a system in place to return illegals to their families so this is a pointless argument.
- The immigrants are not put in cages like animals either.
- Yes, many Foster kids ARE traumatized further. You should do some study.
- That depends on the state.
So I see you have no argument.
-
For the record, he is not in shame, nor should he be. He was a great president. Can't truly be impeached, he is no longer President. The trial is illegal. America has fallen very dark over the last week now with the satanic Biden Administration.
-
@reformed posted:
For the record, he is not in shame, nor should he be. He was a great president. Can't truly be impeached, he is no longer President. The trial is illegal. America has fallen very dark over the last week now with the satanic Biden Administration.
"For the record," according to Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, "the sole Power of Impeachment" rests with the House of Representatives. The House impeached Donald Trump on January 13, 2020, while Mr. Trump still held the office of president. Therefore, he was in fact "truly" impeached.
According to Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, "the sole Power to try all Impeachments" rests with the United States Senate. As of the date of this post, the Senate has launched but not completed its trial of the January 13 impeachment.
Therefore, Mr. Trump was and will forever remain "truly" impeached a second time, but the Senate's trial of that second impeachment - whether to convict him of the charges, and if it convicts, whether to ban him from ever holding federal office again (also Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution) - will take place when Mr. Trump "is no longer President." Whether such Senate action would be "illegal" is "truly" debatable, but is not the subject of this post.
-
Conviction completes the impeachment process. The reality an impeachment is nothing more than a charge. The charge itself means nothing. It must be charged in court. But the charge, in this situation, is first of all absurd and lacked due process. Second, was unnecessary as Trump was going to leave office in a week, and third, the Senate trial will be null and void if in the off-chance they actually vote to convict. Liberal scholars have said as much.
The Democrats are a circus, nothing more. They are a side-show and detached from reality. They are scum and the servants of Satan himself.
-
@reformed posted:
Conviction completes the impeachment process.
No. Impeachments and Senate trials of impeachments are, according to the Constitution, separate processes. Officeholders are impeached once the House votes to approve one or more articles of impeachment against them, whether the Senate holds a trial or not (as I'm sure you know, the Senate can vote not to try an impeached officeholder). The "impeachment process" ends when the House votes on articles of impeachment, and gives way to the trial process. The trial process ends when the Senate makes a final determination on House-passed impeachment articles.
The Senate voted not to convict Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton after each was impeached by the House, yet both today are former presidents who were impeached, in part because impeachments and Senate trials of impeachments are separate processes.
The reality an impeachment is nothing more than a charge. The charge itself means nothing. It must be charged in court.
Impeachment articles are akin to, but consequentially different from, criminal indictments. Yes, both issue charges against persons, and officeholders removed from office can face criminal proceedings, but the penalties of those two forms of accountability upon conviction are not similar. Criminally indicted persons face possible fines and imprisonment. Impeached officeholders face expulsion from office and, via a successful additional vote, disqualification from holding office in the future. In addition, criminal indictments are judicial proceedings, whereas impeachments are legislative proceedings.
But the charge, in this situation, is first of all absurd and lacked due process.
You're welcome to your views on the impeachment article passed by the House.
As for its "due process," according to the Constitution, the House holds the "sole power of impeachment," which means the House decides the process by which impeachments are handled. In this particular impeachment, due to time constraints and the clarity/urgency of the charge against Mr. Trump, the House decided to forgo a Judiciary Committee hearing, and in so doing established the "due process." As the body with the "sole" power of impeachment, the House had the right to do so. You're welcome to disagree with the House's decision, but as you do, I invite you to cite an example of a grand jury indictment that resulted from what you have in mind as "due process." Recall that neither suspects nor their attorneys are allowed in grand jury rooms and do not present their cases to those bodies. Is THAT "due process"? Yes.
Second, was unnecessary as Trump was going to leave office in a week
Is it your view that lame duck presidents can do anything they want - violate any laws they choose - during the last weeks of their terms in office without Congressional oversight? I encourage you to read Federalist 65, in which Alexander Hamilton explores the rationale behind legislative bodies' involvement in the impeachment process. Hamilton describes the offenses that impeachment and trial tribunals will consider this way:
"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
He argues that impeachable offenses deserve legislative body oversight because they reflect politically-rooted violations of public trust and inflict societal injury. Do you argue that Hamilton had a lesser view of the severity of alleged impeachable offenses committed in the final weeks of a presidential term?
and third, the Senate trial will be null and void if in the off-chance they actually vote to convict. Liberal scholars have said as much.
We can always find somebody who supports any view, including your "null and void" theory (though I don't know what "null and void" means in this instance). To my understanding, there is certainly historical precedent for trying impeachments after the impeached officeholder has left office, the consensus opinion among scholars is that a trial so-scheduled IS constitutional, an impeached and convicted former president would always remain an impeached and convicted former president, and should the Senate then also vote to bar the removed officerholder from any future federal office, such a consequence would be far from "null and void."
-
@Bill_Coley this is absurd. There were no time constraints. He was never going to be removed from office via the impeachment process and they know that. It was a political show, nothing more. There is only one historical instance for this scenario, actually there are three. 2 of the 3, Congress rightly did not continue with the unconstitutional trial. In the one that did, it was fundamentally different, the officer resigned because of the impeachment. That could rightly be seen as trying to avoid the trial but that is not the situation Trump was in. Furthermore, you can't say this is a legal precedent as it has not been taken up in court.
-
@reformed posted:
There were no time constraints.
No time constraints on what? So what? The House sets the rules, including the time frames, for impeachment proceedings, as does the Senate for trials of impeachments.
He was never going to be removed from office via the impeachment process and they know that. It was a political show, nothing more.
You're welcome to your views, but in my view, whether a president will ultimately be removed from office is not the constitutional standard for deciding whether to impeach. The constitutional standard for deciding whether to impeach is whether a president has committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" (Article II, Section 4). If the House believes the president has committed one or more of those offenses, it should impeach, whether the Senate will remove the president from office or not. On what constitutional grounds do you raise your objection that Mr. Trump "was never going to be removed from office via the impeachment process"?
There is only one historical instance for this scenario, actually there are three. 2 of the 3, Congress rightly did not continue with the unconstitutional trial. In the one that did, it was fundamentally different, the officer resigned because of the impeachment. That could rightly be seen as trying to avoid the trial but that is not the situation Trump was in. Furthermore, you can't say this is a legal precedent as it has not been taken up in court.
The Constitution explicitly provides for the barring of a person from ever holding Federal office again as one of the two consequences for impeachable offenses for which he or she is convicted (Article I, Section 3, Clause 7; the other consequence is removal from his or her current office). If a trial of an impeachment can't be held once the person has left office, can't impeached officeholders avoid being barred from future office simply by resigning before their trials? Do you contend that such was our framers' intention?
For an excellent review of this issue grounded in historical fact and precedent, I encourage you to read THIS ARTICLE.
-
Bill the PURPOSE of impeachment is to remove from office so yes that is the standard. It is also for high crimes and misdemeanors. Neither of which are applicable here.
Barring the person is only a remedy for someone convicted of impeachment, not the purpose of impeachment. And I have already told you, someone resigning from their office to dodge impeachment is fundamentally different. And sorry, I'm not going to read NPR. It's trash.
-
@reformed posted:
Bill the PURPOSE of impeachment is to remove from office so yes that is the standard. It is also for high crimes and misdemeanors. Neither of which are applicable here.
No. "Impeachment" is a distinct, standalone outcome, and NOT the same as removal from office. Impeachment is the result of the approval by the House of charges against an officeholder. Once a majority of House members votes to approve one or more articles of impeachment, the "impeachment" process ends, and the officeholder is forever "impeached." Removal from office, which indeed requires impeachment, is an action taken only by the Senate. Of course, approved impeachment articles mean the House contends that the officeholder is guilty and should be removed from office, but whether the Senate will vote to remove the officeholder is NOT the constitutional standard for the House's impeachment action.
Did the Republican House in 1998 believe the Senate would remove Bill Clinton from office when they impeached him for lying to a grand jury? I don't think so. But did they think the Senate SHOULD remove Bill Clinton for so lying? Yes, and because of that, they impeached him. As a result, Bill Clinton today remains one of three "impeached" American presidents, AND one of three impeached American presidents whom the Senate did not subsequently remove from office.
Do you contend that the House should not impeach an officeholder unless it has good reason to believe the Senate will remove the officeholder, which, in effect, is to argue that officeholders who can rally at least 1/3 of the Senate plus one to their sides should not be impeached? Do you contend Bill Clinton should not have been impeached since, given the partisan divide in the body at that time, there was no way the Senate was going to remove him?
In my previous post I asked you for the constitutional grounds for your objection to Mr. Trump's second impeachment because Mr. Trump "was never going to be removed from office via the impeachment process." I ask again.
It is also for high crimes and misdemeanors. Neither of which are applicable here.
We agree as to "...high crimes and misdemeanors," but there is NO constitutional basis for refusing to impeach an officeholder on the grounds that the Senate will not vote to remove the officeholder from office.
You're welcome to your personal views as to whether Mr. Trump's conduct merited a second impeachment, but that's not the issue we're discussing.
Barring the person is only a remedy for someone convicted of impeachment, not the purpose of impeachment
Because words matter: An officeholder will never be "convicted of impeachment." Impeachment is a Congressional process, not a chargeable offense. Officeholders can be convicted of the charges for which they were impeached, but not of impeachment itself.
The consequences of conviction are never the "purpose" of the process by which those convictions are sought. Life in prison without the possibility of parole is not the "purpose" of a murder trial; it's a possible sentence if the accused is convicted in the trial. So while I agree that being barred from future office is not the "purpose" of impeachment, it's also not intended to be.
And I have already told you, someone resigning from their office to dodge impeachment is fundamentally different.
So you propose that those who resign after they're impeached but before they can be tried should be treated differently than those who are impeached but complete their terms before they can be tried ? What is the constitutional basis for that distinction?
And the larger question: Why should officerholders who the House believes are guilty of conduct worthy of a bar from ever holding federal office again be able to escape that consequence for their actions simply because their terms happen to end before they can be tried? Yes, with most criminal offenses there are statutes of limitation that impose time limits on prosecution, but such statutes are measured in years, not weeks or months. On what constitutional basis should presidents who do something that should bar them from future office be able to avoid that consequence simply because they are impeached near the end of a term in office? Doesn't that say to future presidents, "time your misconduct for the last weeks and months of your term. You might get impeached, but at least you'll be able to run again"?
Impeached presidents should be tried on their offenses and be subject to ALL applicable consequences, including the ban from future officeholding, whenever the trial on those offenses takes place.
In my previous post, I asked whether you believe our framers intended that a different standard of punishment be imposed on presidents whose conduct worthy of a permanent ban on holding federal office occurs late in their terms than on presidents who so behave earlier in their terms. I ask again.
And sorry, I'm not going to read NPR. It's trash.
If you can't beat the message, beat the messenger.
-
Here is what I think. Democrats have twice in the last two years weaponized impeachment on bogus grounds.
-
@reformed poisted:
Here is what I think. Democrats have twice in the last two years weaponized impeachment on bogus grounds.
My last post proposed Constitution-based definitions of the impeachment and trial processes, and asked history-based questions about the ramifications of the view that presidents can't be tried after they leave office. In addition, I asked again about the constitutional grounds for one of your views, and whether your view on this matter is consistent with our Founders' intentions.... YOUR most recent post was an 18 word missive that failed to address ANYTHING I wrote or asked in my post, in favor of a single-sentence, fact- and evidence-free assertion of your partisan political views. If nothing else, we're both consistent in our approaches to posting.
-
Fact free? FACT: The President's comments do NOT meet the legal standard of inciting a riot. FACT: he was not given due process. FACT: Democrats have decided his guilt before a hearing. All of these things are fact.
No, a president should not be tried after leaving office as the PURPOSE of impeachment is to try and remove a President from office. He is already removed. FACT: He did not hinder the peaceful transition of power. He left peacefully on the date he was supposed to.
FACT: Impeachment is for the purpose of facilitating a removal from office. Nothing more. FACT, the provision of not holding future office is only after conviction of impeachment and removal from office, not a primary purpose or reason for impeachment.
-
@reformed posted:
Fact free?
Yes. Fact free.
FACT: The President's comments do NOT meet the legal standard of inciting a riot.
- This is not a "fact;" it's your opinion.
- Neither impeachment, removal from office, nor being barred from holding future federal office for incitement requires the meeting of any "legal standard." Each of those penalties is a political and legislative, not judicial, outcome.
FACT: he was not given due process.
- This is not a "fact;" it's your opinion.
- Section 1 of the 14th Amendment guarantees "the due process of law" protection from deprivation of "life, liberty, and property." Neither impeachment nor removal from federal office deprives officeholders of any of those things.
- Section 1 of the 14th Amendment provides "due process" protection in criminal and civil judicial processes, not political or legislative ones.
- The Supreme Court has held that impeachment and removal from office are the purview of the legislative, not judicial, branch. (Nixon v. United States, 1993). That being the case, technically, "due process" claims are therefore not applicable, and practically, the House and Senate have the "sole" authority (Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution) to decide what's "due process" when it comes to impeachments and removals from office.
FACT: Democrats have decided his guilt before a hearing. All of these things are fact.
- I agree. Do you agree that it's a "fact" that some Republicans have decided to acquit Mr. Trump before a hearing?
- The Democrats I've heard express an opinion about Mr. Trump's guilt have done so before the hearing, but NOT before knowing the evidence, and in fact, before having witnessed and been among the targets of the insurrection for whose incitement the House impeached Mr. Trump.
No, a president should not be tried after leaving office as the PURPOSE of impeachment is to try and remove a President from office.
- This too is your opinion, and not a fact.
- It's not true that the purpose of impeachment and Senate trials is solely to remove a President from office, if for no other reason than that Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says that the Vice-President and "all civil Officers of the United States" can also be removed by impeachment followed by conviction.
- Even if the president were the only officer subject to impeachment and removal from office, the Constitution's language on the consequences of conviction in impeachment trials gives no indication that barring from future office holding is an outcome only available if a trial can be held before the officeholder's term expires: "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." (Article I, Section 3, Clause 7) That is, impeached officeholders face two possible consequences: removal from office and a ban from future Federal office. The section contains NO suggestion that the trial must be held during the officeholder's term. It says only that conviction from such a trial opens the convicted officeholder to two possible punishments.
- And you STILL have not addressed the most important set of objections to your point of view on this matter: Do you contend that our Founders intended to exempt from bans on future Federal office those officeholders whose trials could not be completed before the ends of their terms? That is, do you believe our Founders included in the Constitution such a ban in case an officeholder's conduct called for it, but NOT if the deserving conduct occurred too late in office to permit their trial to be completed before the end of their term? If so, what possible rationale could the Founders have had for such a decision? - "Anybody who behaves THAT way while in office should NEVER hold office again!... unless, of course, the conduct happened late in his or her term, in which case, we drop our objection and think that people who behave THAT way SHOULD be able to run for Federal office again." That makes NO sense whatsoever to me. Please explain how it does to you.
He is already removed.
In the context of this issue, removal from office refers to removal by Senate conviction. Mr. Trump has NOT been so removed.
FACT: He did not hinder the peaceful transition of power. He left peacefully on the date he was supposed to.
It is your opinion, not a fact, that Mr. Trump didn't "hinder the peaceful transition of power." For example, across the Trump administration, Biden transition teams were prohibited from receiving briefings and other information that would have been useful to give them a running start. In every past "peaceful transition of power" that I can remember, the outgoing administration welcomed the incoming administration with every possible. Not so with Mr. Trump's administration. In my view - my "opinion," not fact - that wasn't "peaceful."
Yes, he left on the date he was supposed to. Impressive. It's testimony to the horrors of his presidency that his doing so prompted the nation's attention and applause.
FACT: Impeachment is for the purpose of facilitating a removal from office. Nothing more.
Your opinion, not a fact.
FACT, the provision of not holding future office is only after conviction of impeachment and removal from office, not a primary purpose or reason for impeachment.
One final time, this is your opinion, not a fact. And as I posted previously, in response to basically the same point you made:
"Because words matter: An officeholder will never be 'convicted of impeachment.' Impeachment is a Congressional process, not a chargeable offense. Officeholders can be convicted of the charges for which they were impeached, but not of impeachment itself.
"The consequences of conviction are never the "purpose" of the process by which those convictions are sought. Life in prison without the possibility of parole is not the 'purpose' of a murder trial; it's a possible sentence if the accused is convicted in the trial. So while I agree that being barred from future office is not the 'purpose' of impeachment, it's also not intended to be."
-
Not opinion. Fact. https://blog.logos.com/400-year-old-bible-preface-can-teach-us-translations/ Trump did not incite a riot by the legal definition.
You can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors so yes, there is, in FACT, a legal standard.
FACT: Impeachment does deprive of liberty especially if saying you cannot run for office in the future. Due process is required.
I agree that Republicans are being rational and know he didn't break any laws or incite a riot by the legal standard and is not responsible for the actions of a few.
Bill you are arguing about semantics, we are talking specifically about impeaching a President. I am fully away that is not the only office that can be impeached and you know that.
And yes, I fully hold that the framers did not intend for former officials to be impeached and tried for that impeachment.
Yes, Trump has already been removed from office. Last I checked he is not the POTUS.
Biden didn't become POTUS until Jan 20. He did not have to be given anything until then.
-
@reformed posted:
Not opinion. Fact. https://blog.logos.com/400-year-old-bible-preface-can-teach-us-translations/ Trump did not incite a riot by the legal definition.... You can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors so yes, there is, in FACT, a legal standard.
To my reading of it, the link you offered to the logos.com blog doesn't have obvious relevance to our discussion. Please explain.
I repeat what I posted in my previous post: Impeachment and removal from office are political and legislative proceedings, NOT, NOT, NOT judicial ones. According to the Constitution, as I have also pointed out in previous posts, the House and Senate have "sole" authority over their respective tasks, which means the House and Senate, NOT "legal definitions," determine the "standards" by which they judge an officeholder's conduct in office. In other words, the House - not the courts - decides what's impeachable, and the Senate - not the courts - decides what's worthy of removal from office and a ban on holding future Federal office.
Impeachment does deprive of liberty especially if saying you cannot run for office in the future. Due process is required.
The "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment does not extend to a person's job prospects.
In addition, the Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. The United States (1993, esp. sections 228ff) that the "process" the Senate affords to an impeached officeholder is "non-justiciable" - that is, it's up to the Senate, not the courts. So "due process" in a Senate trial is what the Senate decides it will be. If you disagree, please cite Supreme Court precedent to support your view.
I agree that Republicans are being rational and know he didn't break any laws or incite a riot by the legal standard and is not responsible for the actions of a few.
You're welcome to your views, but again "legal standards" need not apply in political and legislative proceedings the same way they apply in judicial ones.
Bill you are arguing about semantics, we are talking specifically about impeaching a President. I am fully away that is not the only office that can be impeached and you know that.
I argued the text of the Constitution, which your previous post inaccurately summarized, so I offered a correction. I'm glad to know that we agree as to what the Constitution says as to whom can be impeached and face a Senate trial.
And yes, I fully hold that the framers did not intend for former officials to be impeached and tried for that impeachment.
The issue isn't whether our Founders intended for former officials to be impeached and tried. The issue is whether they intended for former officials who were impeached while still in office, as was Donald Trump, to be tried on those charges. So I ask you again: When it comes to impeached but not yet tried officeholders - that is, people formally impeached while still in office - whose conduct deserves a ban from ever holding federal office again, did our Founders intend for them to be subject to that specific consequence only if their ban-worthy conduct occurred early enough in their terms to permit the conclusion of a Senate trial, or did our Founders rather intend for officeholders who behave in ban-worthy ways to be subject to that consequence regardless of when in their terms in office the conduct occurred? If you believe our Founders intended such officeholders to evade the ban when the misconduct occurs late in terms, what do you believe was their basis for treating ban-worthy conduct differently simply on the basis of when it occurred? PLEASE answer directly.
Yes, Trump has already been removed from office. Last I checked he is not the POTUS.
In this discussion, it's not relevant that Mr. Trump is no longer in office. Only officeholders who are removed from office via impeachment and conviction are subject to the Constitution's ban on ever holding federal office again. In my view, ban-worthy conduct is ban-worthy whenever it occurs in an officeholder's term, and people impeached for such conduct while still in office should not be able to escape the possibility of the ban just because their conduct occurred too late to permit a completed Senate trial. It would be as if parents said to their child, "you kicked over all the plants in the living room, and ordinarily we'd lower the boom on you for that, but since you did it so close to your bedtime, we're not going to punish you the way we would have had you kicked them over a couple of hours ago." How can that possibly make sense?
Biden didn't become POTUS until Jan 20. He did not have to be given anything until then.
You and I disagree as to what makes for peaceful - and effective - transfers of power. I assume you also believe the Trump administration did not deserve the running start it received from multiple departments and agencies in the outgoing Obama administration in 2016-17?
-
Trump has already been removed from office, despite what @Bill_Coley thinks. The impeachment trial is a political sham and theatre, nothing else. It is Unconstitutional. That is why Roberts will not preside. Bill will say Roberts will not preside because Trump is not the POTUS but you can't have it both ways. He is either former President or President, he can't be both. @Bill_Coley has said that Trump was impeached while POTUS so trial must go on. By that standard, Roberts must also preside.
-
@reformed posted:
Trump has already been removed from office, despite what @Bill_Coley thinks. The impeachment trial is a political sham and theatre, nothing else. It is Unconstitutional. That is why Roberts will not preside. Bill will say Roberts will not preside because Trump is not the POTUS but you can't have it both ways. He is either former President or President, he can't be both. @Bill_Coley has said that Trump was impeached while POTUS so trial must go on. By that standard, Roberts must also preside.
- I agree that Mr. Trump is no longer in office, removed by his election loss, which in multiple posts in these forums you called fraudulent and illegitimate. Perhaps YOU don't believe Mr. Trump has been removed from office?
- You're welcome to your views on the impeachment trial.
- As for John Roberts and the impeachment trial, I heard majority leader Chuck Schumer say Roberts "didn't want to" preside, and a statement from Senate president pro tempore Patrick Leahy reports that presidents pro tempore have "historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents." I see no reason both of those statements can't be true.
- As for whether Mr. Trump is currently president or former president, Mr. Trump is clearly a former president.
- As for whether Mr. Trump was "impeached while POTUS," I contend that he was, but also that as of January 20, 2021, he no was longer POTUS.
- Must Mr. Roberts preside? Evidently neither the Chief Justice himself nor the Senate's current leadership believes that he must. That's good enough for me.
In the least surprising development CD forums have experienced today, you didn’t mention, let alone engage, any of the questions I posed to you in my previous post. Here’s an inventory of those questions.
- I asked you about the relevance of a link you had offered to the logos.com blog.
- If you disagree with me that it’s up to the House and Senate, not the courts, to decide what “due process” looks like in their respective proceedings, I asked you for Supreme Court precedent that supports your view and countermands the SCOTUS decision I cited.
- For the third or fourth time I asked whether you believe our Founders intended for former officeholders who were impeached but not tried while still in office to be immune from the Constitution’s ban on future federal office holding simply because their misconduct occurred too late in their terms to complete a Senate trial. If you believe our Founders DID intend such calendar-based immunity, I also asked on what grounds you believe our Founders would have wanted ban-worthy officeholder conduct to be treated differently just because it happened late in a term.
- And finally, I asked whether you believe the Trump administration deserved the running start it received from multiple departments and agencies in the outgoing Obama administration during its transition to power in 2016-17.
Your years-long practice in these forums of either refusing to respond at all to questions or waiting till they’ve been asked anywhere from three to ten times before you will even mention them gives me no hope that you will address these now, but I asked them in good faith and believe they deserve a response, so there they are.
-
The logos article was a mistake, I had copied that for something else. I had a link from Cornell Law I was meaning to post though I can't remember what I was posting now.
I do not believe that the founders saw impeachment as a means to prevent future office. They saw impeachment and intended it as a removal from office. And, if removed, could use the next step as further remedy.
I honestly don't think any administration "deserves" a running start. Especially if the election is under protest. Once the results were certified there was no hesitation to help with the transition. That is a peaceful transfer of power no matter how liberals want to twist it. I should remind you Clinton also didn't immediately comply with the transition either.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
