ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 6 of 8
« First < 23456 78 >
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]
tatorhog 07:54 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
Because the followup to a successful impeachment would be to try and bar Trump from holding any public office in the future.
So that’s essentially the end game for this round of impeachment. They just want to prevent him from being elected to any office going forward.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 07:59 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
Oh, my apologies because I should have been clearer but I just meant that they'd ask SCOTUS to take on the case and provide a ruling.
Right, but I think SCOTUS would likely stay out of it.

The Senate schedules the trial. Maybe Trump tries to get the DC US District Court to enjoin it. Court declines, Court of Appeals affirms the order denying an injunction, Trump petitions for certiorari in the USSC, and they deny cert.

That’s my guess, if Trump challenges it. Still not sure why he would bother at this point.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 08:14 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by gblowfish:
Well, Dershowitz said OJ was innocent too...so, take that for what its worth...
Zero proof he isn't.

You're not questioning our judicial institutions, . . are you George?

You wouldn't slander a fellow citizen like Orenthal, would you George?

:-)
[Reply]
cosmo20002 10:08 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
I say it's not an open question because the words are pretty darn clear. You're just listening to media who want to twist the document into pretzles. I bet it's a left wing professor. I noticed you didn't name him or her. Or should that be an "it."

Higher education is where such professors teach because they like to inculcate leftism in their students.

I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS refuses to hear it.
BEP, who claims every ruling she doesn't like is because of left-wing judges who weren't trained properly or because of right-wing judges who are being blackmailed, wants to tell us that she is the real expert.
[Reply]
banyon 10:11 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
In the case of William Belknap, you're right, as the Senate held a special vote as to whether or not to impeach him, even though he resigned. A trial was held but there weren't enough votes to convict.

I just read that there were a few others in which the Senate either tried to hold trials or just dismissed them altogether because there was no point.

I guess this is pretty confusing because there's no real precedent.
There were some judges who tried to stall out their impeachments past their retirements or resignations but it doesn’t work.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 10:14 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by tatorhog:
That wasn’t the question, but I’m not surprised you, of the ones that answered, missed the mark entirely.
It literally was the question.

Originally Posted by tatorhog:
Seriously asking.

What is gained by impeaching a president after he leaves office? I guess I don't understand the reason to pursue that.

[Reply]
ForeverChiefs58 07:02 AM 01-14-2021
“The Senate under its rules and precedents cannot start and conclude a fair trial before the president leaves office next week,”

“Under these circumstances, the Senate lacks constitutional authority to conduct impeachment proceedings against a former president”:
[Reply]
tatorhog 07:43 AM 01-14-2021
Originally Posted by cosmo20002:
It literally was the question.
Um, no. It wasn't.

He leaves office on the 20th. They've talked about continuing impeachment well into Biden's term. Just because the house voted to proceed doesn't mean anything actually happens yet. So yeah, he currently IS still in office...which has nothing to do with my question.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 08:21 AM 01-14-2021
Judge Napolitano
Trump's Speech Is Protected Speech
If he were impeached for uttering words that are not obviously criminal, Congress would be violating the Constitution.

I write this as a constitutional analysis, not a political one. The First Amendment protects the speech we hate and fear. It even protects the speech that harms. The remedy for harmful speech is not punishment; it is more speech. The courts know this. Congress needs to know it as well.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/01/...tected-speech/
Wow! This is a first, impeaching a president for using his First Amendment rights and trying to convict for impeachment when he's out of office.
Too long to post whole analyses but he breaks it all down including that case someone else cited Brandenburg v. Ohio.

The Democrats have lost their minds.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 08:42 AM 01-14-2021
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Zero proof he isn't.

You're not questioning our judicial institutions, . . are you George?

You wouldn't slander a fellow citizen like Orenthal, would you George?

:-)
LAPD and the prosecution fucked that up. “Here OJ, try this glove on.” Brilliant.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 08:46 AM 01-14-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Judge Napolitano
Trump's Speech Is Protected Speech
If he were impeached for uttering words that are not obviously criminal, Congress would be violating the Constitution.

I write this as a constitutional analysis, not a political one. The First Amendment protects the speech we hate and fear. It even protects the speech that harms. The remedy for harmful speech is not punishment; it is more speech. The courts know this. Congress needs to know it as well.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/01/...tected-speech/
Wow! This is a first, impeaching a president for using his First Amendment rights and trying to convict for impeachment when he's out of office.
Too long to post whole analyses but he breaks it all down including that case someone else cited Brandenburg v. Ohio.

The Democrats have lost their minds.
There are a lot of idiot judges out there. He’s one of them.
[Reply]
displacedinMN 08:57 AM 01-14-2021
charging a man for a crime after he is dead
[Reply]
Gravedigger 09:01 AM 01-14-2021
I love it when the Trumpers post articles like this, but the secret is, they post it because they know it could happen, regardless of what the piece writes about. So they have no belief in the article they're posting, they're posting out of fear. It must suck living your lives afraid of everything, but it is entertaining for me so please continue.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 09:02 AM 01-14-2021
Major Twist in US Capitol Storming Might Have Gutted the Democrats' Narrative on Trump Impeachment

Some of you Trump haters, are in such a rush you don't give truth time to put on its pants.

Evidence now coming forward this was indeed a planned event BEFORE Trump's speech meaning Trump's speech did not incite the surge at Capitol. Even CNN is reporting it.
So, after the articles were passed today after a day of political theater from these clowns, getting reports that this whole incident may have been pre-planned. Yes, our great and hopelessly anti-Trump FBI finally came in promptly to drop this development after the Democrats had set this remove Trump train into motion. And of all outlets, CNN was the one to report on it:...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ttack-n2583122

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/polit...ion/index.html
I have more eyewitness accounts on video coming but later I will post.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 09:40 AM 01-14-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Major Twist in US Capitol Storming Might Have Gutted the Democrats' Narrative on Trump Impeachment

Some of you Trump haters, are in such a rush you don't give truth time to put on its pants.

Evidence now coming forward this was indeed a planned event BEFORE Trump's speech meaning Trump's speech did not incite the surge at Capitol. Even CNN is reporting it.
So, after the articles were passed today after a day of political theater from these clowns, getting reports that this whole incident may have been pre-planned. Yes, our great and hopelessly anti-Trump FBI finally came in promptly to drop this development after the Democrats had set this remove Trump train into motion. And of all outlets, CNN was the one to report on it:...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ttack-n2583122

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/polit...ion/index.html
I have more eyewitness accounts on video coming but later I will post.
The riot being planned in no way proves Trump's innocence. I'm not in favor of impeachment because I don't see the point, but I'm pretty sure attempting to incite violence is a crime, and Trump would not have known the riot was planned.
[Reply]
Page 6 of 8
« First < 23456 78 >
Up