Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

[Walrus]

Article II, 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."

Article I, 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..."

It clearly states you have to "be in office" to be impeached. The democrats voted to change the law just because of their "feelz". That should scare the shit out of everyone on here. It also clearly states that you can only be disqualified from future office if you must also be removed from office. Since it's impossible to remove Trump, who has already been fired, this cannot happen.

I have to admit that it is funny that Pelosi has been trying to impeach Trump before he was president and after. But this 2021 and the feelz has been given too much importance.

Harris could be on trial because she bailed out thugs who went on to commit acts of violence. Will it happen? Only if the republicans win back seats in 2022. Will she get convicted? Very unlikely. I don't see 67 votes happening on that.

You're welcome.

[Deleted User 89]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN2A91DP

100+ constitutional scholars and lawyers, many of whom are prominent republicans (federalist society), think differently

but you’re right, lobster...you’re special, and waaaaay better informed and educated on the matter

[jfish26]

Article II, 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." 1

Article I, 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..." 2

It clearly states you have to "be in office" to be impeached. 3 The democrats voted to change the law just because of their "feelz". 4 That should scare the shit out of everyone on here. It also clearly states that you can only be disqualified from future office if you must also be removed from office. Since it's impossible to remove Trump, who has already been fired, this cannot happen. 5

I have to admit that it is funny that Pelosi has been trying to impeach Trump before he was president and after. But this 2021 and the feelz has been given too much importance.

Harris could be on trial because she bailed out thugs who went on to commit acts of violence. Will it happen? Only if the republicans win back seats in 2022. Will she get convicted? Very unlikely. I don't see 67 votes happening on that.

You're welcome.

I can't believe I'm doing this, but.

1 - That deals with a consequence of impeachment and conviction: removal. That consequence is mandatory.

2 - And here is another consequence of impeachment and conviction: disqualification. That consequence is permissive.

3 - Trump was in office when impeached.

4 - They did not.

5 - This is asinine. If the law against dog fighting says you automatically lose all your dogs when you're convicted and you can be put in jail, and you set your (living) dogs free after you're arrested but before you're convicted, you can very much still be sent to jail upon conviction even though your dogs are dead and/or gone.

[Walrus]

How do you remove a guy who has already been removed?

[jfish26]

Read, try again.

[Walrus]

This really should be required viewing for all Americans. Really hits the nail on the head with the media circus.

[Walrus]

Read, try again.

Well, I'm not surprised a person who's job is to attempt to bend the law so he can try to transfer wealth from one person to another (and to himself) is trying to bend the law. It's very clary in English that a fired president cannot be impeached.

[sdoyel]

Let’s apply the “both sides” test:


I wonder how any impeachment proceedings would have been handled if, say, Obama was accused of inciting a riot that left 5 dead and more injured and millions of dollars of damage to the Capitol....

Or heck, if Obama was caught asking a foreign leader to interfere in our elections?

Trick question, Obama is a foreign leader.

Lol! That’s Hussain Obama to you!

[ousdahl]

Read, try again.

Well, I'm not surprised a person who's job is to attempt to bend the law so he can try to transfer wealth from one person to another (and to himself) is trying to bend the law. It's very clary in English that a fired president cannot be impeached.

I wish it was worth engaging lobster on any substantive discussion, but since it’s not, I’ll at least point out that “very clary in English” is quite the ironic typo

[sdoyel]

This really should be required viewing for all Americans. Really hits the nail on the head with the media circus.

Slip and Fall lawyer. Lol

[sdoyel]

Trump could’ve literally had Bozo the clown present his defense... would’ve gotten the same result.

[ousdahl]

Well, Bozo could have at least brought some giggles to go with it.

All this guy brings is lulz.

[Sparko]

Bozo required upfront money from Trump. What was left were guys who had to be reminded to STFU the fix was in. Cruz was bragging about his role. I was hoping for the 14th Amendment, and maybe that was the better route.

[sdoyel]

[Deleted User 863]

Bump...

[ousdahl]

Whaddya smell, scrappy doo?

[Deleted User 863]

Whaddya smell, scrappy doo?

I smell republicans looking for some sort of payback...

[ousdahl]

ohhh!


do you think there will be witnesses at the trial?

[TDub]

I dunno....then you'd have president Harris. I don't know if many people think thats better.


A number of the conspiracy types said that the dems weren't going to enact the 25th on Joe themselves and that it was all a scheme to get President Harris in the first place. Very reliable sources I'm sure.

[Deleted User 863]

None other than Lindsay Graham getting the ball rolling/planting the seed this morning...