ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2 of 8
< 12 3456 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Dershowitz Says You Can NOT Impeach a President After He Leaves Office
BucEyedPea 10:28 AM 01-13-2021
He's right ya' know. The language of the Constitution does not say that.
“And the Constitution specifically says, ‘The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.’ It doesn’t say the former president. Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else,” he said.
Which mediots bought this media lie?

He also said this:
“The case cannot come to trial in the Senate. Because the Senate has rules, and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until, according to the majority leader, until 1 p.m. on January 20th, an hour after President Trump leaves office,” Dershowitz said in a Fox Business interview on Sunday.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/democr...z_3650853.html

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...leaves-office/

[Reply]
cosmo20002 10:59 AM 01-13-2021
He's going to be impeached before he leaves office, so that's not even an issue.

Stop saying "impeached" when you mean "convicted/removed." :-)
[Reply]
Pawnmower 11:06 AM 01-13-2021
Ive always liked Dershowitz. He is a registered Dem , but also a strict constitutionalist. Hes not afraid to take positions
that many on his 'side' would disagree with. I don't agree with him on political issues but I appreciate the candid & non
'party line' style that he has. I think he is a pretty good dude. I am kind of like a more right leaning dershowitz who isnt
afraid to disagree with my "side" too.
[Reply]
Shields68 11:14 AM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by cosmo20002:
Too many people use "impeached" when they mean "convicted/removed from office." They are separate.
Sure, I doubt Dershowitz is one of them. The actual argument is can a impeachment trial proceed if the person is already out of office. seems like the trial to remove him from office becomes moot.

Could see the Supreme Court coming down on either side and most likely say it is moot and we are done. Not going to make a private citizen spend time money fighting a moot issue.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 11:18 AM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by Shields68:
Sure, I doubt Dershowitz is one of them. The actual argument is can a impeachment trial proceed if the person is already out of office. seems like the trial to remove him from office becomes moot.

Could see the Supreme Court coming down on either side and most likely say it is moot and we are done. Not going to make a private citizen spend time money fighting a moot issue.
Only thing they could do is indict him for incitement to riot—then rig the trial with a tainted jury as in the Stone case, because the DC courts are politicized and they all hate Trump. I mean something 92% or more did not vote for him.
[Reply]
kstater 11:24 AM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by Shields68:
Sure, I doubt Dershowitz is one of them. The actual argument is can a impeachment trial proceed if the person is already out of office. seems like the trial to remove him from office becomes moot.



Could see the Supreme Court coming down on either side and most likely say it is moot and we are done. Not going to make a private citizen spend time money fighting a moot issue.
But are they a private citizen though if they have SS detail, an office budget and pension?

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
[Reply]
BigBeauford 11:25 AM 01-13-2021
No one cares what the kid diddler has to say.
[Reply]
jd1020 11:33 AM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by kstater:
But are they a private citizen though if they have SS detail, an office budget and pension?

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
Thats the only shit that matters. Who gives a shit if he is removed from office with a week to go. What needs to happen is all of the perks of being a POTUS be removed post presidency.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 11:35 AM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by Shields68:
Sure, I doubt Dershowitz is one of them. The actual argument is can a impeachment trial proceed if the person is already out of office. seems like the trial to remove him from office becomes moot.

Could see the Supreme Court coming down on either side and most likely say it is moot and we are done. Not going to make a private citizen spend time money fighting a moot issue.
It does appear moot if the person is already out of office. Of course, if the Senate wants to go through the motions of having an impeachment trial, who is going to stop them? The if potential result of the trial (removal from office) is moot, then is the SC going to stop the Senate from going through an exercise of their choosing that allegedly has no relevant result?

All this stuff is a bit fuzzy legally, but if conviction opens the door to being barred from holding future federal office or being denied presidential perqs, then maybe it isn't entirely moot.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 11:39 AM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by BigBeauford:
No one cares what the kid diddler has to say.
Who, pedo Jo?
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 11:40 AM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by kstater:
But are they a private citizen though if they have SS detail, an office budget and pension?

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
That's not even remotely revelant per the Constitution's words.
That's no different than claiming they get a pension so the clause would apply. It's just too big a stretch, and shows the lengths of what hate does to people's judgement.

Look, every president has done some impeachable acts. Bush for lying a country into an uncessary war resulting in maiming and deaths of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of innocents in the Levant. Obama for supplying arms and support to ISIS for a proxy war in Syria, where people were butchered with crucifixations and beheadings. I said both were impeachable but it would be politically bad if Obama was because it would likely incite a race war. I was for Bush being impeached. LBJ, Wilson, and FDR could be too. How about Jefferson for his actions in the Lousiana Purchase? Should we go back and impeach all of them too? It's a very bad precedent.

Yet you want to do a post presidency impeachment of Trump because of what a fraction of those at the rally did, while ignoring antifa's role. You ignore the Trump supporters who tried to stop them and the hundreds of thousands who were peaceful. The order of magnitude between the acts of some former president is massive.

You keep telling us to move on, but yet your side won't.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 11:42 AM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Who, pedo Jo?


[Reply]
Shields68 11:44 AM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by cosmo20002:
It does appear moot if the person is already out of office. Of course, if the Senate wants to go through the motions of having an impeachment trial, who is going to stop them? The if potential result of the trial (removal from office) is moot, then is the SC going to stop the Senate from going through an exercise of their choosing that allegedly has no relevant result?

All this stuff is a bit fuzzy legally, but if conviction opens the door to being barred from holding future federal office or being denied presidential perqs, then maybe it isn't entirely moot.
At some point I would guess the Supreme court will probably have to weigh in on this issue. Guessing a motion be filed before the trial starts, and appeal after. Doubt the Supreme Court can duck the issue of constitutional law being decided without any real president.

Guess that will be the case if Trump's defense team actually believes the votes are there to impeach.
[Reply]
Garcia Bronco 11:46 AM 01-13-2021
He needs to be disqualified for running from office again, where I disagree is the secret service detail. We can't have a ex-president get hurt because we didn't protect them for the allotted amount of time.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 11:49 AM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by Shields68:
At some point I would guess the Supreme court will probably have to weigh in on this issue. Guessing a motion be filed before the trial starts, and appeal after. Doubt the Supreme Court can duck the issue of constitutional law being decided without any real president.

Guess that will be the case if Trump's defense team actually believes the votes are there to impeach.
They do not need to get the SC involved. The plain and simple reading means anyone can see it for what it says. The SC is not the sole arbiter of the Constitution. Each member of congress, including yourself can simple read it and cite it openly.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 11:53 AM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
He needs to be disqualified for running from office again, where I disagree is the secret service detail. We can't have a ex-president get hurt because we didn't protect them for the allotted amount of time.
Most of this shit is fuzzy, but I read something the other day about how presidential perqs (pension, office/expenses) can be potentially be taken away, but secret service protection is guaranteed. I don't know...I think even the experts are just making educated guesses at this point because of the (potentially) unusual angle of a conviction coming after leaving office because the term expires.
[Reply]
Page 2 of 8
< 12 3456 > Last »
Up