Ok, Constitutional Scholars (Page 5): For months before the 2020 General Election on November 3rd, trump was conditioning his base to believe that if he lost, that the election was...

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

Blurryeyed wrote:

Hey Thom, in retrospect I don't like what Trump did, you do know that in polling after the election that some 40 odd percent of the country saw what they perceived to be big problems with the election, for weeks some states were tabulating votes, there were all kinds of affidavits submitted alleging voter fraud, put that together with an old man suffering dementia supposedly gains more votes than any presidential candidate in the history of our country and one has to ask just WTF is going on. Now, Trump took it too far, that is a fair statement, what the congresspersons and Senators did was absolutely called for and it is unfortunate that the riot put an end to that effort. There could be nothing wrong with a 10 day bipartisan investigation into voting irregularities in the 2020 election and I honestly don't know why the democrats would object to such an investigation other than the fact that they know that there would be irregularities uncovered that they will continue to rely on into future elections.

But, given the above screed, it is entirely possible that Trump thought that the election was indeed stolen from him and there was plenty of circumstantial evidence that supported that, in the end, although there can be little question that election fraud did occur it is not at all clear that there was enough to overturn the election. Now, was Trumps push to disqualify those 4 states the right thing to do? There can be legal arguments made that election laws were changed in a completely unconstitutional manner by organs of government that have no constitutional foundation to make those changes... So, Thom, there was a solid legal argument to be made but the courts chose to avoid being drawn into a quagmire that had the potentiality of disenfranchising millions of voters.

Bottomline Thom, the impeachment is a waste of time, and if you people had morals you would be impeaching Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi and a host of other democrat politicians that have made statements that also were calls to activism and in some cases violence in the past.

The democrats in congress have some balls thinking that it is their right to remove the ability of their political adversaries to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Hey Thom, in retrospect I don't like what Trump di... (show quote)

For months before the 2020 General Election on November 3rd, trump was conditioning his base to believe that if he lost, that the election was rigged against him.

That's public knowledge!

So now everyone who voted for trump is claiming that the 2020 General Election was rife with fraud.

Yet NO fraud was proven.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/11/12/trump-administrations-own-election-security-officials-reject-presidents-fraud-claims/

Let's not forget that President Clinton was Impeached by the GOP for a whole lot less than both of trump's impeachments!

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

mwalsh wrote:

Legal experts are taking both sides on this issue of a trial for a POTUS who has already left office. The Constitution is vague, but I think a case can sure be made, based on the wording, that the trial is for the purpose of removing a POTUS from office, which would preclude a trial for one who is already out of the office.

My opinion of course does not really matter.

Precedent does exist for a Senate Trial after the impeached person has left office.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/this-day-in-politics-may-4-1876-237816

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

SteveR wrote:

Now that I've gone back to Article 1 Section 2, I do not see that there are two separate votes. Another question comes up. It says that two thirds of the senators must be present to vote. It doesn't say that a two thirds majority is required to convict. I've read elsewhere that a two thirds majority is required to convict. Where did that come from?

I believe it says that 2/3 of the Senators who are present are required to convict. Example: if there are only 90 Senators present then 60 must vote to convict.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

Precedent does exist for a Senate Trial after the impeached person has left office.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/this-day-in-politics-may-4-1876-237816

Really?

mwalsh Loc: Houston

LoL

I did read that some are citing a precedent...it was not a POTUS impeachment trial though. Federal judge perhaps...

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

mwalsh wrote:

LoL

I did read that some are citing a precedent...it was not a POTUS impeachment trial though. Federal judge perhaps...

Secretary of War
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm#:~:text=An%20impeachment%20trial%20for%20a,post%20for%20nearly%20eight%20years.

Impeachment is impeachment, precedent was set in 1876, and stands to this day.

Sorry, but trump will be held to this precedent, no matter how much it hurts your feelings.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

They deserve to lose trump's uneducated base!

I've read posts all over the place by Biden's base. I haven't come across much that I would categorize as erudite. I must say, I've read a lot of detritus from both sides.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

For months before the 2020 General Election on Nov... (show quote)

Hardly, Clinton was impeached for perjury which is an actual crime, Trump was impeached because you bastiches just hate him. It is quite clear that the Biden's were selling influence and there is a case to be made that Joe pressured the Ukranian government to remove the prosecutor that was causing problems for the oligarch who was paying Hunter millions to do nothing other than bring US policy into line with his company's needs. The fact that Trump asked the Ukrainian president to cooperate in an investigation into the Biden's is hardly an impeachable offense. Biden is dirty as the day is long, if you choose to ignore this fact only shows your blind loyalty to a party that is concerned about anyone and everyone other than US citizens as already seen in Biden's executive orders issued the first week of his presidency. When will you people wake up?

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

Let's not forget that President Clinton was Impeached by the GOP for a whole lot less than both of trump's impeachments!

Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:

On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Article III

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

steve03 Loc: long Lsland

SteveR wrote:

Conviction of Trump in the Senate on the article of impeachment requires a two thirds majority to remove him from office. However, he's already gone. A second, optional vote, requiring only a majority, could keep him from holding office in the future. The question, however, is, must Trump first be convicted by the two thirds majority in order for the optional second vote to be taken?

Yes.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

WNYShooter wrote:

Article I br br In his conduct while President of... (show quote)

We’ve come a long way haven’t we?

Once we impeached and tried presidents for lying .....

Now some want to give a pass to a president that has lied thousands of times and incited insurrection.

Says s lot doesn’t it .

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DennyT wrote:

We’ve come a long way haven’t we?

Once we impeached and tried presidents for lying .....

Now some want to give a pass to a president that has lied thousands of times and incited insurrection.

Says s lot doesn’t it .

So, when are you going to impeach Biden, the man lies anytime he thinks it to his advantage to do so. Are you actually going to try and deny it?

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

DennyT wrote:

We’ve come a long way haven’t we?

Once we impeached and tried presidents for lying .....

Now some want to give a pass to a president that has lied thousands of times and incited insurrection.

Says s lot doesn’t it .

you are saying Biden is truthful??????? seriously????

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

SteveR wrote:

Conviction of Trump in the Senate on the article of impeachment requires a two thirds majority to remove him from office. However, he's already gone. A second, optional vote, requiring only a majority, could keep him from holding office in the future. The question, however, is, must Trump first be convicted by the two thirds majority in order for the optional second vote to be taken?

The answer is yes.

forbescat

I think we could easily make a long list of impeachable acts that Obama committed. I'll start off with a couple and you all can add to it since we now are talking about impeaching former presidents: 1. Using government agencies to spy on a political opponent and 2. Furnishing weapons to Mexican drug cartels.