User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:18:18 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They need two thirds of the senate votes to convict. The question is how many rinos can they get to vote with them. Or they can just decide that only the dems vote this time - or they can decide it only takes 1/3 to convict. Or or or. We're beyond such trivial matters as "rules". What matters are results. The dems damn well intend to get results. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:19:10 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Leahy can preside because Trump is no longer a sitting president. If he were still in office, a Chief Justice would preside. Well, that’s kind of the rub here. The Chief Justice doesn’t have to preside because it isn’t an impeachment of the President, but that just begs the question of what the hell position he’s getting impeached from. Unless we’re going to take the position that Congress can impeach random citizens who do not hold federal office in order to make them ineligible to hold federal office in the future (the reason they insist they have to follow through on this stupid sideshow), they’ve kind of put themselves between a rock and a hard place. The Chief Justice doesn’t have to preside because this impeachment of Trump isn’t impeaching him from the only federal position he has ever held? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:19:51 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: who was going to cross it with him? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: When they are done with impeachment they will segue into treason. Trump will regret not crossing the Rubicon when he had the chance. who was going to cross it with him? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:19:59 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. he's not the president anymore. plus, the rule of law is dead, including that constitution |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:21:28 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sorry but what's the constitutional justification for having an impeachment trial for someone that is a private citizen now? Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. HAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for the laughs! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:22:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Leahy can preside because Trump is no longer a sitting president. If he were still in office, a Chief Justice would preside. It’s mooted by the fact he’s no longer an officer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:22:34 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I hope no-one shows up. Just the Dems and Ben Sasse. Don't forget Mitt |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:23:08 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. Yet not convicted because many congressmen didn’t believe proceedings against a private citizen were legitimate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:25:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Should have just put AOC in charge of the kangaroo court. Alcee Hastings would be a better choice. He was a US District judge, was impeached for taking a bribe and removed from the bench. He is now a US Representative FL-20. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:25:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Fuvk every democrat that has ever lived.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:25:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. Totally different circus and monkeys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:25:56 PM EDT
[#12]
Five days under the new administration and they've already set up kangaroo courts
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:26:31 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They need two thirds of the senate votes to convict. The question is how many rinos can they get to vote with them. Probably not enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:26:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I posted in a dupe thread, that if Roberts did not show up and take his place (displacing anyone sitting there), then we have crossed the threshold. It is impossible to read the Constitution any other way, impossible to twist what is plainly prescribed. you mean plainly described as in "shall not be infringed", that plainly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:27:01 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: HAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for the laughs! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sorry but what's the constitutional justification for having an impeachment trial for someone that is a private citizen now? Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. HAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for the laughs! While you're laughing, get on your google machine and look up William Belknap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:28:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Five days under the new administration and they've already set up kangaroo courts I'm shocked too. I thought they'd do this four days ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:30:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. To my knowledge there has been exactly one instance of a federal officer being convicted in an impeachment proceeding after “leaving” office - and even that wasn’t after a resignation or his term ending, it was “abandoning his office.” He was a federal judge during the Civil War who accepted a position as a confederate judge - and one of the charges he was convicted of was refusing to hold court, which suggests they treated him as someone who was a federal judge but refused to do his job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:30:21 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. The articles of impeachment were filed before Trump left office ( there was a reason they rushed to do it). As such, Roberts has the obligation to preside. Refusing to do so opens him up to impeachment for failure to perform his sworn obligation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:30:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Does Trump get an actual trial? Can he call witnesses? Can he compel testimony?
And if Leahy is the "Judge" in the trial yet is obviously biased, then how can the trial be considered fair? Especially when Leahy will be called as a hostile witness by the defense when Trump's defense proves that Leahy and the entire Democrat party was in a conspiracy to commit insurrection for the last 4 years. I know, if Democrats respected the Constitution, the law, or basic fairness they wouldn't be Democrats. . It's a Stalinistic show trial and that's all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:33:47 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's the Constitution say? Quote HistoryQuoted: What's the Constitution say? The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. 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. The 'President of the United States' is generally interpreted to mean the sitting potus. Because Trump is no longer the sitting potus the chief justice isn't required to preside, it's just a 'normal' impeachment, ala a judge or senator. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:33:51 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The articles of impeachment were filed before Trump left office ( there was a reason they rushed to do it). As such, Roberts has the obligation to preside. Refusing to do so opens him up to impeachment for failure to perform his sworn obligation. We could only hope they are so stupid as to try that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:34:37 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 'President of the United States' is generally interpreted to mean the sitting potus. Because Trump is no longer the sitting potus the chief justice isn't required to preside, it's just a 'normal' impeachment, ala a judge or senator. Aside from the fact you can’t have a trial for someone who doesn’t hold office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:35:37 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fuvk every democrat that has ever lived. Lol awesome |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:35:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Political theater
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:39:26 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Political theater Or the Dems playing 4D chess. Try to convict Trump in this idiotic kangaroo court, if they succeed let Trump take the constitutionality of it to SCOTUS, then when SCOTUS says they can’t do that howl “see, the Supreme Court is broken, they won’t even admit that Orange Man Bad!! This is why we have to pack the Court to fix it!” |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:40:46 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What’s the Constitution say? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:43:17 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While you're laughing, get on your google machine and look up William Belknap. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sorry but what's the constitutional justification for having an impeachment trial for someone that is a private citizen now? Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. HAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for the laughs! While you're laughing, get on your google machine and look up William Belknap. Dont have to, already did, thats why its funny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:43:47 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Political theater Not seen since the French Revolution |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:44:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While you're laughing, get on your google machine and look up William Belknap. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sorry but what's the constitutional justification for having an impeachment trial for someone that is a private citizen now? Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. HAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for the laughs! While you're laughing, get on your google machine and look up William Belknap. Trump didn't resign. Anything else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:44:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The articles of impeachment were filed before Trump left office ( there was a reason they rushed to do it). As such, Roberts has the obligation to preside. Refusing to do so opens him up to impeachment for failure to perform his sworn obligation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. The articles of impeachment were filed before Trump left office ( there was a reason they rushed to do it). As such, Roberts has the obligation to preside. Refusing to do so opens him up to impeachment for failure to perform his sworn obligation. Lol! God this post is full of laughs today! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:45:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 'President of the United States' is generally interpreted to mean the sitting potus. Because Trump is no longer the sitting potus the chief justice isn't required to preside, it's just a 'normal' impeachment, ala a judge or senator. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What's the Constitution say? The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. 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. The 'President of the United States' is generally interpreted to mean the sitting potus. Because Trump is no longer the sitting potus the chief justice isn't required to preside, it's just a 'normal' impeachment, ala a judge or senator. Can a “normal impeachmen” prohibit a person from running for President since the qualifications are expressly stated in the Constitution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:45:12 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: https://nationalfile.com/democrat-patrick-leahy-to-preside-over-trump-impeachment-trial-instead-of-chief-justice-roberts/ This tells me the Dems knew better than to even bother approaching Chief Justice John Roberts with this sham, knowing he'd refuse to preside over it. What a farce. The US is now officially a Banana Republic. Then it is not a legal process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:46:01 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sorry but what's the constitutional justification for having an impeachment trial for someone that is a private citizen now? Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. T$ didn't resign |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:46:21 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryDidnt he predict all of this ? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:46:48 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While you're laughing, get on your google machine and look up William Belknap. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sorry but what's the constitutional justification for having an impeachment trial for someone that is a private citizen now? Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. HAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for the laughs! While you're laughing, get on your google machine and look up William Belknap. Who wasn’t a President and hadn’t just finished his only term in office. Not even remotely related. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:47:27 PM EDT
[#36]
Article 1, part of section 3 of the US constitution of the US.
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:49:02 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the Republicans had any balls they'd walk out of the chamber if Roberts doesn't preside. The Constitution is very clear. McConnell is plotting and planning the whole thing right alongside Schumer. McConnell has always hated Trump. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:50:58 PM EDT
[#38]
Trump needs to attend, without a lawyer.
Each time he is addressed, he should slowly lean forward into the microphone and slowly say "Suck my fucking balls, Senator." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:51:07 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They need two thirds of the senate votes to convict. The question is how many rinos can they get to vote with them. Rumor has it that they are pushing for a secret vote/ballot. If they can convict without having to admit they did it, they likely will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:53:08 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rumor has it that they are pushing for a secret vote/ballot. If they can convict without having to admit they did it, they likely will. Let’s just do the whole thing in secret just to be sure. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:53:59 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What’s the Constitution say? Constitution says if the President is being tried the CJ presides. But Trump isn’t president, they’ll say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:54:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Fuck them all...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:54:17 PM EDT
[#43]
Why arent the R's screaming in disagreement with all this? JFC, it is unconscionable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:57:47 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Constitution says if the President is being tried the CJ presides. But Trump isn’t president, they’ll say. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What’s the Constitution say? Constitution says if the President is being tried the CJ presides. But Trump isn’t president, they’ll say. Therefore he is a private citizen and the senate can not try him. EDIT: Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:59:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who wasn’t a President and hadn’t just finished his only term in office. Not even remotely related. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sorry but what's the constitutional justification for having an impeachment trial for someone that is a private citizen now? Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. HAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for the laughs! While you're laughing, get on your google machine and look up William Belknap. Who wasn’t a President and hadn’t just finished his only term in office. Not even remotely related. He was Secretary of War, and resigned when he realized he was in trouble for accepting bribes. The Senate impeached him regardless after he was out of office. More than remotely related. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:59:45 PM EDT
[#46]
What a load of commie bull.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:59:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. Perhaps because Trump is no longer POTUS they figure they don't need the Cheif Justice to preside over the trial? EDIT- POTUS or not, Senate majority wants their circus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 8:00:27 PM EDT
[#48]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 8:01:11 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He was Secretary of War, and resigned when he realized he was in trouble for accepting bribes. The Senate impeached him regardless after he was out of office. More than remotely related. And despite all Senators agreeing he took bribes was acquitted by the Senate why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 8:01:13 PM EDT
[#50]
Look at these faggots walking in with the articles of impeachment. As if they are above the rest of us.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
