• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My Thoughts on the Impeachment

The AntiDonald

Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
4,506
Reaction score
2,446
Location
N. Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What actions, specifically, do you believe rise to the level of a high crime?
If not his speech before the riot at the capitol, the lack of engagement during the insurrection as many people were calling and begging for help. He ignored the calls.
That is clearly a violation of his oath. He was enjoying it. He's a traitor.
 

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
13,367
Reaction score
4,538
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Which was my precisely my point: since you cannot remove someone from an office which they no longer hold (via impeachment ‘conviction’) then nothing can be additionally done (via impeachment ‘conviction’).
Not necessarily true (bolded part).

Can a president be impeached after leaving office?

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states:

“The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Legal scholars are divided on whether that allows for former civil officers to be impeached after they leave office.

What the Democrats were trying to do is the following:

If a former president is impeached and convicted by the Senate, could they run for office again?

If Congress moves forward with a second impeachment of President Trump, and the Senate votes to convict, very likely after January 20, what would that result in?

Again, looking to the Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, it states:

“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.”

So, whether or not a civil officer is still in office, if they are found guilty by the Senate, they face losing their job and getting banned from future office.
 

Master Debator

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
5,443
Reaction score
1,875
Which was my precisely my point: since you cannot remove someone from an office which they no longer hold (via impeachment ‘conviction’) then nothing can be additionally done (via impeachment ‘conviction’).
Yeah your link says none of that. You just made all that up. In addition to means exactly that. If you are impeached then you are barred from holding office in addition to being removed from the office you currently hold. You're trying to turn the meaning of and into some sort of stipulation where you must remove someone from office before you can bar them from holding office but that version of and is no where to be found in your link.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not necessarily true (bolded part).

Can a president be impeached after leaving office?

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states:

“The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Legal scholars are divided on whether that allows for former civil officers to be impeached after they leave office.

What the Democrats were trying to do is the following:

If a former president is impeached and convicted by the Senate, could they run for office again?

If Congress moves forward with a second impeachment of President Trump, and the Senate votes to convict, very likely after January 20, what would that result in?

Again, looking to the Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, it states:

“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.”

So, whether or not a civil officer is still in office, if they are found guilty by the Senate, they face losing their job and getting banned from future office.
How can one face losing a job which they no longer hold? If one is no longer “the president” then they cannot have that status (title?) removed.
 

The AntiDonald

Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
4,506
Reaction score
2,446
Location
N. Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It’s interesting that expressing an election fraud fantasy is deemed impeachable, yet expressing a Russian collusion fantasy is not.
When you have a republican controlled senate and all of them but for one (Romney) are a member of the Trump cult, no one can honestly say the first impeachment had a fair trial. It was obstructed by every one and their brother. It was a pre-determined outcome, a sham trial. Perhaps we can do better this time.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
15,648
Reaction score
8,833
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Uh, it's called the Constitution. Specifically Article II Section 4. Article I Section 3 also states that “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.” Further, a good argument is that since he won't be removed from office even if they have a trial that the Senate cannot disqualify him from further office becasue of the "and" between the two penalties.
If the senate does convict and then disqualifies him from further office, he can take it to court...
 

Blue Donkey

Democratic Voter
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
9,093
Reaction score
2,273
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't believe the House voted to impeach thinking that Trump would actually be impeached. The reason why they did it is because impeaching him again opens the door for a simple censure vote by a 1 vote majority (which they can get now but could not get in the previous impeachment) and a censure vote will prevent Trump from ever running for office again. That (preventing Trump from running for office again) was the real reason they decided to impeach.

This was already explained several times by some of the media people. You had not heard about it before?
I had no idea what CNN was talking about when they used the word censure, but it sounded like an alternative to trying and convicting Donald Trump after impeachment because he had only one week left.

Not surprisingly, Mitch McConnell refused to begin a trial before he becomes the Senate Minority Leader. Based on that CNN report, why should anyone believe him when he claims to be undecided about which way to vote?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yeah your link says none of that. You just made all that up. In addition to means exactly that. If you are impeached then you are barred from holding office in addition to being removed from the office you currently hold. You're trying to turn the meaning of and into some sort of stipulation where you must remove someone from office before you can bar them from holding office but that version of and is no where to be found in your link.
Nope, “and” is not about the order of (or choice between) events - “and” is about the combination of (addition to) events. Using the example of “red and white flags” - that does not include flags which are only red, only white, blue and white or green and red.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
When you have a republican controlled senate and all of them but for one (Romney) are a member of the Trump cult, no one can honestly say the first impeachment had a fair trial. It was obstructed by every one and their brother. It was a pre-determined outcome, a sham trial. Perhaps we can do better this time.
I would not get your hopes up. In the House, 10 of 207 republicants (under 5%) voted for impeachment. If that trend holds anywhere close in the Senate then getting 17 republicant votes (over 30%) for conviction is extremely unlikely.
 

Master Debator

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
5,443
Reaction score
1,875
Nope, “and” is not about the order of (or choice between) events - “and” is about the combination of (addition to) events. Using the example of “red and white flags” - that does not include flags which are only red, only white, blue and white or green and red.
😂

What a silly example. Red and white flags does include flags that are only red and only white or flags that are red and white. What it doesn't mean is that white flags can't be white until red flags are red. That's creating a whole narrative where none exists.
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
29,746
Reaction score
17,504
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I want to thank Donald Trump for standing up in front of the nation, or on Twitter, and saying the words that impeached a president.

At least our kids now know what total scum looks like.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
😂

What a silly example. Red and white flags does include flags that are only red and only white or flags that are red and white. What it doesn't mean is that white flags can't be white until red flags are red. That's creating a whole narrative where none exists.
In your opinion “red and white flags” (which I take to mean as flags which contain both red and white) is no different than “red flags and white flags” (which you then equate to meaning “red flags or white flags”).

This also applies to the 2A which is a right of the people to keep and bear arms - which is different from a right of the people to keep or bear arms.
 

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
13,367
Reaction score
4,538
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How can one face losing a job which they no longer hold? If one is no longer “the president” then they cannot have that status (title?) removed.
Valid question. Impeachment may be more than just losing a job. You have to ask the experts
 

Linuxcooldude

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
216
Reaction score
103
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I can answer your last point at least. There is precedence of officials being impeached after leaving office. In one case, it was the founders that did it.

No they didn't. He wasn't actually impeached. From your own article:

Debate among Federalists and Democratic Republicans swirled around whether they had the right to (a) impeach a senator and (b) impeach an official who had already been expelled. In the end, they voted to stop an impeachment trial without deciding the question.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,636
Reaction score
22,220
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No they didn't. He wasn't actually impeached. From your own article:
Yeah, but if the founders didn't think this was an acceptable possibility, they would have never started the process.
 

Linuxcooldude

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
216
Reaction score
103
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah, but if the founders didn't think this was an acceptable possibility, they would have never started the process.
Still a big difference saying someone was impeached when he actually wasn't.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yeah, but if the founders didn't think this was an acceptable possibility, they would have never started the process.
The constitution requires (or at least appears to require) the Senate to act (have a floor vote on?) on articles of impeachment received from the House.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,636
Reaction score
22,220
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The constitution requires (or at least appears to require) the Senate to act (have a floor vote on?) on articles of impeachment received from the House.
There were founders in the house too.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Still a big difference saying someone was impeached when he actually wasn't.
Someone is impeached by simply by the House passing articles of impeachment. Whether or not that (later) results in a Senate ‘conviction’ does not matter.
 

Master Debator

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
5,443
Reaction score
1,875
In your opinion “red and white flags” (which I take to mean as flags which contain both red and white) is no different than “red flags and white flags” (which you then equate to meaning “red flags or white flags”).
No it's not my opinion. The definition of those words allow for all those possibilities and until you are more specific they are all equally valid interpretations. What isn't a valid interpretation is adding on a stipulation that you invented out of whole cloth. You're better off arguing whether you can even impeach someone who isn't currently holding office than trying to argue that you can't bar them from office before you remove them from office because the actual language says and and not before.

ttwtt78640 said:
This also applies to the 2A which is a right of the people to keep and bear arms - which is different from a right of the people to keep or bear arms.
😂

You're the one changing terms my guy. The 2nd amendment also doesn't say you have to keep arms before you bear arms.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No it's not my opinion. The definition of those words allow for all those possibilities and until you are more specific they are all equally valid interpretations. What isn't a valid interpretation is adding on a stipulation that you invented out of whole cloth. You're better off arguing whether you can even impeach someone who isn't currently holding office than trying to argue that you can't bar them from office before you remove them from office because the actual language says and and not before.


😂

You're the one changing terms my guy. The 2nd amendment also doesn't say you have to keep arms before you bear arms.
At least you (finally) acknowledge that my interpretation is as valid as yours is. BTW, how could one carry a gun which they do not yet possess?
 

Irwin Corey

Proud AmeriCAN
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
8,164
Reaction score
3,227
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
It’s interesting that expressing an election fraud fantasy is deemed impeachable, yet expressing a Russian collusion fantasy is not.
Russian collision wasn't a fantasy, Mueller couldn't subpoena the sources he needed to prove it. But even if it was a fantasy it didn't end with the Capitol being stormed and sacked.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
65,112
Reaction score
37,208
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Russian collision wasn't a fantasy, Mueller couldn't subpoena the sources he needed to prove it. But even if it was a fantasy it didn't end with the Capitol being stormed and sacked.
You seem to be missing the point. The Capitol having been attacked does not prove Trump’s causing it any more than Russian election interference being found proves Trump’s collusion caused it.
 
Top Bottom