Posted on 01/10/2021 10:12:08 AM PST by knighthawk
> Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor... <
But that is not a statement involving time. It is just saying that you can’t do anything more to the convicted person than what is listed. You cannot, for example, sentence him to prison or exile him.
It would have been nice if the Founders had included something like “No person not currently holding federal office can be impeached.” That would have prohibited a revenge impeachment like the one the Democrats are currently planning.
He is no longer in office so you have no person to prosecute
Dershowitz is okay but even he’s not a constitutional attorney. He’s a criminal defense attorney. But Rudy? WTF. It’s hard to be sympathetic when my President wants to use the same guy (Rudy) who helped create the mess he’s in to defend impeachment. Please people, this isn’t some brilliant 6D strategy. If true, it’s utterly stupid.
What a bunch of crap. Why anyone even thinks impeachment could even happen is a moron. Seven working days until Trump leaves office. Congressmen are most likely sleeping in until Sleepy Joe is inaugurated.
It’s their version of “Lock Her Up!” fires up the base, that’s all.
> He is no longer in office so you have no person to prosecute <
That is an excellent argument. And I myself am not sure just what the Founders meant with their impeachment rules. Did they omit any time references because they agreed with you?
Or did they omit any time references because they wanted to give Congress a tool - a way to bar for life some former office-holder who was just no good?
Your argument makes more sense. But I’ve read opinions by scholars on both sides of the issue. So if the Democrats persist in trying to impeach Trump after he leaves office, I guess the whole mess will end up in the Supreme Court.
From US President to a martyr for defending the US Constitution. Law is dead in America! Where now does that leave the common citizen?
LOL
Funny thing about experts: They aren’t climate scientists so there is no settled opinion.
“Two sources” told CNN, who Jim Acosta and Nicole Wallace?
Except the jury in the show trials wasn’t the United States Senate nor were the defendants afforded representation.
There already WAS a second impeachment.
We the People elected all 100 Senators. Are you opposed to the republican form of government?
What is it in President Trump’s make-up that attracted so many Judases? Does it at all reflect on his judgement that he hired droves of them?
I think it does reflect on Mr Trump’s judgement, that he himself chose so many staff members who later on, aggressively turned on him. I haven’t seen it to this level before. It appears Trump tends to take people at their word and move on. If he has much of an active future in politics, he should delegate the duties of staff selection much more.
“We the People elected all 100 Senators. Are you opposed to the republican form of government?”
I am against a show trial in which the “jury” have rushed to the news media cameras to render their predetermined verdict.
So I’ll take a pass on any trial used only for political purposes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.