2nd Impeachment Trial of President Trump Has Now Started....Predictions?

[tnt]

@DougBH

Yep. He thought he was ethically responsible, not legally.

What does ‘practically’ mean to you?

[gooddad409]

@WuWei

@gooddad409

The courts wouldn’t even hear the evidence.

They didn’t have any to hear.

Your opinion.

[Rodeo]

@Camp

I hope he begs off and doesn’t run.

One thing the R have is a better crop of younger candidates.

I agree…it’s time to move on.

[WorldWatcher]

@NickN

@biggestal99

The senate ruled it constitutional. They are in charge of impeachments.

Despite the Senate self proclaiming it had jurisdiction here and even if conviction had occurred at a minimum the entire Article 2, Section 4 and the 3rd sentence of Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 would be brought into view and SCOTUS would most certainly have the final word on Constitution merits.

Please reply only if and why you disagree.

And here below are the two parts cited:

“Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

3rd Sentence of Clause 6: “When the President of the United is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.”

You left out some important parts of the Constitution on your analysis.

Article 1, Section 3: “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.”

There are TWO possible outcomes form impeachment. Removal from office AND barring of holding future positions of trust. Since President Trump** was impeached while in office and the trail held after his term expired, then the removal part was moot. However upon conviction he could still be barred from holding office.

RE: Article 1, Section3, Clause 6: “When the President of the United is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.”

When the Senate got around to holding the trial, Trump** wasn’t the President, Job Biden was the President and was not the subject of impeachment. Therefore the Chief Justice of the Supreme court was not required to preside as there is only one President at a time and Trump** wasn’t it.

RE: The Supreme Court ruling on the merits, not going to happen for a couple of reasons:
A. They will stay away from it based on it being a political doctrine question because the Constitution specifically providing that the House has the sole responsibility for impeachment (Article 1, Section 2) and the Senate has sole responsibility to try impeachments (Article 1, Section 3).
B. Secondly it would be dismissed as moot since the trial is complete and the Senate failed to convict.
.
.
.
.WW

[gooddad409]

@Rodeo

@Camp

I hope he begs off and doesn’t run.

One thing the R have is a better crop of younger candidates.

I agree…it’s time to move on.

How many of the young ones can with stand the onslaught of the media trying to destroy them?

Plus if the voting problems aren’t addressed does it even matter who runs?

[Camp]

I think the young ones can handle the media.

Voter recruitment and getting the votes is what counts.

R must adapt to the new voting ethics and then excel at them.

Pinkerton: Stacey Abrams Outlines Her Plan for Democratic Domination. So...

R need a BETTER plan…They have better ideas.

[gooddad409]

@Camp

I think the young ones can handle the media.

Voter recruitment and getting the votes is what counts.

R must adapt to the new voting ethics and then excel at them.

Pinkerton: Stacey Abrams Outlines Her Plan for Democratic Domination. So What's the Republican Plan?

R need a BETTER plan…They have better ideas.

All i can say is wow.

[Camp]

The article makes some very good points.

The R are way behind in this respect.

[gooddad409]

@Camp

The article makes some very good points.

The R are way behind in this respect.

I wish i could buy into everything Abrams and others did was legit but i can’t.

I listened to too many state hearings to buy into that.

Unless we get back to real ID’s, real registrations, and signature checks, paper ballots(away from mass mail in ballots, ballot harvesting, it doesn’t matter who we run. IMO.

I’m very discouraged and disillusioned with our current system.

[Camp]

I hear you.

By the letter of the law what they did with this shadow effort was legal in terms of process and counting the votes.

Their argument is a powerful one. More people voting is better. More people voting IS better. R need to get on board…get ballots into hands…get ballots completed and submitted…get voters to the polls…these are the rules now. They are not going to change back especially if the new VRA goes through and it almost certainly will…even though it is Unconstitutional and usurps states authority over election process.

The rules to win have changed.

[WorldWatcher]

@Camp

They are not going to change back especially if the new VRA goes through and it almost certainly will…even though it is Unconstitutional and usurps states authority over election process.

A plain language reading of the text of the Constitution specifically empowers to Congress to set rules (i.e. laws) for federal election. This thought that laws passed by congress pertaining to federal election are unconstitutional at face value is incorrect.
.
.
.
.WW

[gooddad409]

@Camp

I hear you.

By the letter of the law what they did with this shadow effort was legal in terms of process and counting the votes.

Their argument is a powerful one. More people voting is better. More people voting IS better. R need to get on board…get ballots into hands…get ballots completed and submitted…get voters to the polls…these are the rules now. They are not going to change back especially if the new VRA goes through and it almost certainly will…even though it is Unconstitutional and usurps states authority over election process.

The rules to win have changed.

We will have to agree to disagree. I don’t think a lot of what went on was legal.

Without some common sense changes we aren’t going to have honest elections in the future either imo.

[Rodeo]

@gooddad409

How many of the young ones can with stand the onslaught of the media trying to destroy them?

That I don’t know? There’s not a politician who wouldn’t have wilted under the onslaught on negative media Mr. Trump received…

Would they dare do the same to Tim Scott (a black man), to Kristi Noem or Nikki Haley if they ran? I don’t know…

I guess we’ll see how things play out. The first month of Biden’s presidency has been a joke…canceling pipelines re opening the border signing executive orders like they are m & m’s on Halloween…

A bunch of the nonsense he’s pulled now could backfire in the next couple of years (not that I expect that man finish his term), but maybe the voters will wise up before the midterms…if gas and groceries start costing more that might turn some people’s heads.

[NickN]

@WorldWatcher

RE: The Supreme Court ruling on the merits, not going to happen for a couple of reasons:
A. They will stay away from it based on it being a political doctrine question because the Constitution specifically providing that the House has the sole responsibility for impeachment (Article 1, Section 2) and the Senate has sole responsibility to try impeachments (Article 1, Section 3).
B. Secondly it would be dismissed as moot since the trial is complete and the Senate failed to convict.

Your rebuttal fails to address the practical application of the appeal process playing out IF the Senate on Saturday had a conviction. Please continue…

[gooddad409]

@NickN

@WorldWatcher

RE: The Supreme Court ruling on the merits, not going to happen for a couple of reasons:
A. They will stay away from it based on it being a political doctrine question because the Constitution specifically providing that the House has the sole responsibility for impeachment (Article 1, Section 2) and the Senate has sole responsibility to try impeachments (Article 1, Section 3).
B. Secondly it would be dismissed as moot since the trial is complete and the Senate failed to convict.

Your rebuttal fails to address the practical application of the appeal process plays out IF the Senate on Saturday had a conviction. Please continue…

At least the latest clown show “trial” is over.

[WorldWatcher]

@NickN

@WorldWatcher

RE: The Supreme Court ruling on the merits, not going to happen for a couple of reasons:
A. They will stay away from it based on it being a political doctrine question because the Constitution specifically providing that the House has the sole responsibility for impeachment (Article 1, Section 2) and the Senate has sole responsibility to try impeachments (Article 1, Section 3).
B. Secondly it would be dismissed as moot since the trial is complete and the Senate failed to convict.

Your rebuttal fails to address the practical application of the appeal process playing out IF the Senate on Saturday had a conviction. Please continue…

Appeal on what grounds?
.
.
.
.WW

[WuWei]

@gooddad409

@WuWei

@gooddad409

The courts wouldn’t even hear the evidence.

They didn’t have any to hear.

Your opinion.

No, it’s a fact.

[WorldWatcher]

@gooddad409

At least the latest clown show “trial” is over.

Not to worry, the clown was not convicted.
.
.
.
.WW

[gooddad409]

@WuWei

@gooddad409

@WuWei

@gooddad409

The courts wouldn’t even hear the evidence.

They didn’t have any to hear.

Your opinion.

No, it’s a fact.

“Right”. I’m well aware of your opinion sneaky. Adios and have a nice day.

[NickN]

Appeal related to running for future public office.