Is the 2nd Trump Impeachment Constitutional?

[Northcountryman]

I've been watching the trial-- here and there--when I can, and I can't help but feel alot of anger towards  our elected officials for actually pursuing this charade.  Specifically, I'm of the opinion that the impeachment trial is a total waste of time in that it will accomplish nothing besides further dividing a country that is already deeply divided.  Several times during the impeachment proceedings to date,  prosecutors have cited the impeachment trial of  William Blount (1798-99)as evidence which establishes historical precedent and thus,  validates their endeavor on jurisdictional grounds; but an analysis  of the Blount case suggests otherwise. 

Here's the background:

William Blount served in the North Carolina Legislature and signed the Declaration of Independence; he also served in the Revolutionary army, the Continental Congress, and the Constitutional Convention.  He was appointed in 1790 by George Washington to be the governor of the territory south of Ohio, and secured statehood for Tennessee, becoming one of that state's first two U.S. senators in 1796.  On July 3, 1797, however, he was named as a conspirator in a complex scheme offering to assist Great Britain with gaining possession of the Spanish-controlled possessions of Florida and Louisiana.  Blount had apparently devised the scheme to prevent the Spanish from ceding the territories to France, which would have depressed the value of his extensive southwestern landholdings. 

Priot to the impeachment proceedings , Blount was expelled by the Senate for his conduct  and so, no longer held public office; moreover, Blount refused to appear for the proceedings, instead going back to his home state of Tennesee. 

In the impeachment trial of Blount,  the senate considered two resolutions, the first --which essentially addressed the overruling of Blounts plea for dismissal of the charges--  failed, and the second-- considering the defendants plea that the court did not hold jurisdiction in the matter --which passed. 

So, in summary, the Senate found that they COUND NOT proceed with the impeachment DUE TO THEIR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER (i.e., because he no longer held public office) and would NOT OVERRULE HIS MOTION TO HAVE THE CHARGES DISMISSED. 

Based on the Senate rulings from this case, I would say that the precedent established for the Trump imeachment trial --- in stark contrast to what the Prosecution contends--is that the Senate no longer holds jurisdiction over Trump and that the charges should be summarily dismissed as requested. 

 

Now, I have alot of other points that i could mention , but just considering the historical precedent established by the Blount case, I dont need to--right??

 

 

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

This is a necessity for the left becasue their biggest fear is that Trump will run again.  Easier to do this than to try to steal another election. 

[BowmanMike]

The impeachment started while he was in office. As everything in politics,nothing happens overnight. 

Can a bankrobber be charged after he robbed the bank? 

Doesnt really matter since not enough Republicans will cross the line to impeach him this time either.

[DoubleDose]

The issue for impeachment is did the DJT speech on that day call for and incite the Capitol riot?  After also watching some, it is ridiculous to even consider this a trial.   1) About half of the plaintiffs are the jurors.  2) Gratuitous video of the riot itself which has no bearing on the question, 3) Showing tweets & photos of the rioters, which incriminates themselves not DJT, and 4) Gratuitous history of DJT speeches and tweets which again has no bearing on the question for that day.  In a criminal court with a fair and impartial  objective judge this would all be not allowed.  This should all be focused on dissecting his speech that day.  This is a true kangaroo court of political theater and only further solidifies and divides this country.

Edited February 11, 2021 by DoubleDose
clarification

[Lever action]

They are also sending a message to any outsider that is thinking about running for President.

If you don't play by our rules this is what will happen. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

17 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

 

Can a bankrobber be charged after he robbed the bank? 

 

I would hope in  our system that would be exactly how it happens. 

[9jNYstarkOH]

2 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

The impeachment started while he was in office. As everything in politics,nothing happens overnight. 

Can a bankrobber be charged after he robbed the bank? 

Doesnt really matter since not enough Republicans will cross the line to impeach him this time either.

You can’t have it both ways The Chief Justice would be needed in a constitutional impeachment of a president or the impeachment is not valid as he is not president. Attached link and picture are from senate web site.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

Edited February 11, 2021 by 9jNYstarkOH

[Grouse]

Just proof of the fact Democrats NEVER follow the Rule of Law and ALWAYS follow the Rule of Men.

That is called collectivist tyranny.

[Northcountryman]

5 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

The impeachment started while he was in office. As everything in politics,nothing happens overnight. 

Can a bankrobber be charged after he robbed the bank? 

Doesnt really matter since not enough Republicans will cross the line to impeach him this time either.

Yes, of course, but not a comparable analogy Mike. The issue here is whether the Senate has jurisdiction to impeach a government official--in this case the  Prez-- after they have left office when one of the consequences of a conviction clearly spelled out in the constitution is removal from office.  Since that point is moot and, based on the precedent established in th blount case, I say they cannot as they no longer have jurisdiction for adjudication of  the matter. 

[Grouse]

[Shoots100]

8 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

The impeachment started while he was in office. As everything in politics,nothing happens overnight. 

Can a bankrobber be charged after he robbed the bank? 

Doesnt really matter since not enough Republicans will cross the line to impeach him this time either.

The impeachment vote for Inciting a Riot started while he was in office.

They have shown no proof that his words incited the riot, as was pointed out in above posts.

This is nothing else, than a tactic to divert attention from the mentally challenged president in office now.

You know, the one that's saying "China would eat our Lunch".

This is the wet noodle that's leading our country now, while their trying to Impeach a President that actually sold rice to China.

After this kabuki theatre is over, they'll have no other Trump diversions to use and then we'll see how Ol' sniffy Joe Biden will fare in the spotlight.

It might get so bad, they might try to impeach Trump a third time ?

[JJBat150]

21 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

This is a necessity for the left becasue their biggest fear is that Trump will run again.  Easier to do this than to try to steal another election. 

It's also necessary for the left because they know that this impeachment will split the Republican party into 2  factions - the pro Trumper and and Anti Trumper.   

Much easier to defeat Republican when they are divided.

[Grouse]

This is a show trial, designed to satisfy the left’s ravenous base that is out for blood and to teach anyone who thinks he (or she) can reform Washington to think again.

[Uncle Nicky]

[Northcountryman]

I fear that the double impeachment trials orchestrated by the Left sets a  precedent that essentially weaponizes  it in order to control and manipulate future Presidents, especially Republicans. Historically, impeachment has been an exceedingly rare perogative invoked by  the House; in fact, prior to Trumps presidency, its been used only 2 other times , although Nixon would have clearly been impeached had he not resigned prior.  And now, Congress has inoked impeachement twice in 2 years!!  A little out of control , dont you think?

And you know, this brings up another issue: IF the Democrats are right and they're impeachment of Trump this time is constitutional and valid, then  should the congress have impeached Nixon back in 1974, even after he had resigned?? I mean, if you follow their logic, then why the hell not?   

[9jNYstarkOH]

The impeachment trial is to get people talking about it and not talking about the election fraud and the 50 plus EO’s and EA’s Beijing Biden has signed.

Edited February 12, 2021 by 9jNYstarkOH

[Grouse]

And distract from Biden's executive action spree

[New York Hillbilly]

13 hours ago, 9jNYstarkOH said:

The impeachment trial is to get people talking about it and not talking about the election fraud and the 50 plus EO’s and EA’s Beijing Biden has signed.

Finally, somebody gets it! 

[Uncle Nicky]

[BowmanMike]

Two impeachments and he didnt even get  a Bj,Bill Clinton is still laughing...

[Northcountryman]

Maybe, but justice was done yeaterday as this impeachment was unconstituional from the outset.

[Shoots100]

4 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

Two impeachments and he didnt even get  a Bj,Bill Clinton is still laughing...

But the American Taxpayers got screwed again, so it wasn't a big loss to the left, right ?

[Grouse]

The left isn't done trying to take Trump out.  They are going to go after him with all sorts of legal shenanigans to try and convict him of something at the felony level, wasting millions more tax dollars in the process, and costing Trump millions in harassing legal fees.  It's political abuse of power by evil people.

They want to insure the man can never be elected to a public office again.  That's how much they fear this man.  That's how much of their corruption he exposed.  That's how much of an obstacle he is to their drive to bring us all under their tyrannical control.

Here's a man who went into politics to save the country from the massive corruption in our government, and the corrupt government is trying to destroy him for doing it, while 80 million clueless useful idiots cheer them on to their own demise.

America has proven we either have experienced a fraudulent election or we have an idiot electorate.  Either way, the future looks bleak for our freedom and liberty.

[New York Hillbilly]

On 2/15/2021 at 12:52 AM, Grouse said:

The left isn't done trying to take Trump out.  They are going to go after him with all sorts of legal shenanigans to try and convict him of something at the felony level, wasting millions more tax dollars in the process, and costing Trump millions in harassing legal fees.  It's political abuse of power by evil people.

They want to insure the man can never be elected to a public office again.  That's how much they fear this man.  That's how much of their corruption he exposed.  That's how much of an obstacle he is to their drive to bring us all under their tyrannical control.

Here's a man who went into politics to save the country from the massive corruption in our government, and the corrupt government is trying to destroy him for doing it, while 80 million clueless useful idiots cheer them on to their own demise.

America has proven we either have experienced a fraudulent election or we have an idiot electorate.  Either way, the future looks bleak for our freedom and liberty.

We are very close to being on the same page. The exception is; I see no left or right when it comes to what is going on. That is basically ignoring the obvious and giving a free pass to the likes of Mitch, Cheney, Romney, et al, who I do not believe are too "weak" or "polite", rather they are complicit.  If they are what it is to be a "Republican" let them have the brand. Their values in my opinion do not represent the ideology or spirit of the 75 million of Trump voters. If they, the Entitled/Entrenched are what Republican is, the 75 million need to recognize the term RHINO as a good thing, and embrace  they are the true RHINO's.

It is a huge, diverse group who only signed on as Republican because it is the Party Trump chose to run in, and then with their votes win.  

[Grouse]

I have not forgotten all of the "Never Trump" Republican's knife attacks, nor the RINO's.  They are not on the "right". They are on what ever side enhances the quality of their personal fortune. 

I'm talking about true, die hard Conservatives who honor the Rule of Law and the US Constitution.  The party they belong to means nothing.

The left is leading the attacks on Trump and Conservatives and many Republicans are allowing it to happen for their own benefit.  That doesn't dismiss the fact it IS happening.