-->
@Greyparrot
Who? lol!
Alcee Hastings from Florida’s 8th District I think. I just found about this the other day. He was impeached and convicted on accounts of bribery in getting a lesser sentence for someone in the mafia
Impeachment Trial Thread
Posts
Total:
146
-->
@ILikePie5
Alcee Hastings from Florida’s 8th District I think. I just found about this the other day. He was impeached and convicted on accounts of bribery in getting a lesser sentence for someone in the mafia
I googled this. He was charged with those crimes an acquitted. There was no evidence he had actually done anything wrong.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I googled this. He was charged with those crimes an acquitted. There was no evidence he had actually done anything wrong.
Literally the first sentence of your source:
“U.S. District Judge Alcee L. Hastings was convicted by the Senate yesterday of engaging in a "corrupt conspiracy" to extort a $150,000 bribe in a case before him.”
The Senate did convict him and he’s currently a member of The House of Representatives.
-->
@ILikePie5
The Senate did convict him and he’s currently a member of The House of Representatives.
You clearly didn't read either the source or what I wrote. I said he was charged with those crimes and acquitted, which is true. He had his day in court and was found innocent of all charges. He was then impeached and convicted without any real evidence being presented.
The courts found him innocent, but congress decided to impeach him anyway without much, if any, evidence.
-->
@HistoryBuff
You clearly didn't read either the source or what I wrote. I said he was charged with those crimes and acquitted, which is true. He had his day in court and was found innocent of all charges. He was then impeached and convicted without any real evidence being presented.The courts found him innocent, but congress decided to impeach him anyway without much, if any, evidence.
You didn’t specify what you were talking about lol. He got impeached and convicted in the Senate, that’s what matters imo lol.
-->
@ILikePie5
You didn’t specify what you were talking about lol. He got impeached and convicted in the Senate, that’s what matters imo lol.
So he was found innocent of the charges, but politicians chose to punish him anyway without any evidence. Why is that what matters in your opinion? Surely the trial and being found innocent because there was no evidence is the important point.
-->
@HistoryBuff
So he was found innocent of the charges, but politicians chose to punish him anyway without any evidence. Why is that what matters in your opinion? Surely the trial and being found innocent because there was no evidence is the important point.
11th Circuit Court Judges found that he had lied in the trial and was guilty of perjury and bribery, and that he had fabricated his defense. The panel of 27 judges agreed that he committed impeachable offenses and this referred him the House for impeachment.
The fact still remains that he was impeached 413-4 and convicted on like 8 Articles with 67+ votes, because they all believed he had committed impeachable offenses.
He was acquitted anyway. Show's over. Time to move on.
-->
@Death23
He was acquitted anyway. Show's over. Time to move on.
As predicted
-->
@Death23
Damn, I really wanted to see this set as a precedent.
-->
@ILikePie5
The only people that the Senate can constitutionally convict are the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers. I’ll ask you once again, where does “former President” fit into that?
That would be in the word “all”.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
He was impeached as president, the senate therefore had the power to convict. It’s basic English, since we’re going with the semantic argument.
Name one offense that is impeachable but not criminally prosecutable
Taking a 2 year long vacation with no security briefings
nowhere does it say that it can be used to ban a person from holding office after he’s left office.
A vote to bar a federal official from holding future office can literally only be held after they are no longer in office.
Setting that aside, this entire line of argument is completely absurd. You keep saying that they can’t do X because it doesn’t specifically say that in the constitution. Damn near all the rules they’re operating under are not in the constitution. No where in the constitution does it say that they need 67 votes to convict. What it actually said is you need 2/3rds majority. Guess what that means... you actually have to think about how the words in the constitution apply. That’s how it works.
-->
@ILikePie5
Impeach all former presidents lol! That will solve every problem the public has. Did you get the 2000 dollars Biden promised? Impeach him for lying.
-->
@Double_R
That would be in the word “all”.Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.He was impeached as president, the senate therefore had the power to convict. It’s basic English, since we’re going with the semantic argument.
If we are using “all” then can the House impeach a member of the US Senate? Can the House impeach an American Citizen? They cannot. Impeachment is inherently limited meaning that Conviction is limited by Article 2 Section 3 that states on the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers. It’s not that hard, otherwise the House can impeach anyone in the United States.
Taking a 2 year long vacation with no security briefings
Pretty sure that amounts to treason lol.
A vote to bar a federal official from holding future office can literally only be held after they are no longer in office.
False. After being removed from office, not after their term expires. Impeachment was designed to remove a President that posed a current threat in office if you read the Federalist Papers. A preemptive ban is 100% unconstitutional.
Setting that aside, this entire line of argument is completely absurd. You keep saying that they can’t do X because it doesn’t specifically say that in the constitution. Damn near all the rules they’re operating under are not in the constitution. No where in the constitution does it say that they need 67 votes to convict. What it actually said is you need 2/3rds majority. Guess what that means... you actually have to think about how the words in the constitution apply. That’s how it works.
“X” isn’t in the Constitution? Wtf does this even mean? 2/3rds is 67 lol. What’s your point. If we were being literal with 2/3 then it would still amount to 67 Senators. The fact of the matter is that Article 2 Section 3 clearly lays out that only the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers can be Convicted by the Senate. Trump is neither of those, which is a sheer fact. You can impeach whoever the hell you want with your definition but Constitutionally you can only convict a President, Vice President, or other Civil Officers
-->
@Greyparrot
Impeach all former presidents lol! That will solve every problem the public has. Did you get the 2000 dollars Biden promised? Impeach him for lying.
Hell ya, impeachment party.
-->
@ILikePie5
If we are using “all” then can the House impeach a member of the US Senate? Can the House impeach an American Citizen? They cannot. Impeachment is inherently limited meaning that Conviction is limited by Article 2 Section 3 that states on the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers. It’s not that hard, otherwise the House can impeach anyone in the United States.
Do you read anything I write? Do you stop and and think about any of it?
I’ve already quoted you the part of the constitution that says who can be impeached. Private citizens are not on there. This is a classic slippery slope fallacy and an absurd one at that - the idea that if we convict a former president who was impeached as the sitting president then this would lead to private citizens like you or I being impeached. You can’t be serious.
And while you entertain the absurdity of this leading to private citizens being impeached for being private citizens, you ignore the absurdity of your own position. How do you hold a president *politically* accountable for lighting a match on his way out the door? How do you bar any public official from holding future office if they just resign right before the vote? Explain that to me, then we can further discuss your slippery slope.
Pretty sure that amounts to treason
No, it doesn’t.
Oh, and just to make another... how about using federal aid to extort a foreign nation into attacking your political opponents?
False. After being removed from office, not after their term expires. Impeachment was designed to remove a President that posed a current threat in office if you read the Federalist Papers. A preemptive ban is 100% unconstitutional.
This is pure confirmation bias. You focus on everything the constitution says that affirms your view and then ignore everything about it that doesn’t.
Impeachment’s primary purpose is to remove a current office holder who abused his/her power, that’s not the only one. There is a reason why the framers included a provision that bars them from holding office again, because in some cases even the prospect of that official holding office again is dangerous. Trump is the prime example the founders feared. A demagogue who is willing to burn everything down if he loses.
You can impeach whoever the hell you want with your definition but Constitutionally you can only convict a President, Vice President, or other Civil Officers
There is no argument that the impeachment itself was anything but constitutional, and the senate clearly has the power to try *all* impeachments. Repeating your semantic argument does not change this.
-->
@Double_R
Do you read anything I write? Do you stop and and think about any of it?
To the contrary I don’t think you’ve read anything I’ve posted lol.
I’ve already quoted you the part of the constitution that says who can be impeached. Private citizens are not on there. This is a classic slippery slope fallacy and an absurd one at that - the idea that if we convict a former president who was impeached as the sitting president then this would lead to private citizens like you or I being impeached. You can’t be serious.
If you want to remain consistent with your logic, I already said that the Chief Justice should be presiding, but you seem to even disagree with that. The Constitution clearly states only the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers can be convicted. It’s not rocket science.
And while you entertain the absurdity of this leading to private citizens being impeached for being private citizens, you ignore the absurdity of your own position. How do you hold a president *politically* accountable for lighting a match on his way out the door? How do you bar any public official from holding future office if they just resign right before the vote? Explain that to me, then we can further discuss your slippery slope.
The Founding Fathers explicitly designed the impeachment power to remove a sitting threat. After they get out of office they aren’t a threat lol. In fact most of the impeachment trials haven’t resulted in officials barred from future office Lol, just take a look at your buddy Alcee Hastings. The Constitutional text is very clear. Your question about resignation is irrelevant to this when the Constitution clearly states you cannot convict a private citizen. Deal with it. Unless you want to set a precedent that Obama can be impeached and convicted too. Hell why not George Washington for that matter.
-->
@ILikePie5
If you want to remain consistent with your logic, I already said that the Chief Justice should be presiding, but you seem to even disagree with that. The Constitution clearly states only the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers can be convicted. It’s not rocket science.
There’s nothing inconsistent about my position. The difference between us here is about an inclusive interpretation vs. an exclusive one. You are taking it exclusively, that is to say only these positions strictly interpreted can be impeached and tried. There is nothing in the constitution of federalist papers that supports that interpretation.
The line in the constitution for example that states that the cheif justice shall president of its the outsider on trial, that is strict to the sitting president. Why? Because we know the reason why that is in there... it is to avoid a scenario where the Vice President presides over a proceeding that could potentially result in themselves becoming president.
And as far as your rocket science comment... it’s also not rocket science that the word “all” means “all”.
Your question about resignation is irrelevant to this when the Constitution clearly states you cannot convict a private citizen
Show me that part of the constitution. Quote the texts you are referring to that discuss what happens with an official whose time in office ran out during the trial. I’ll wait.
Unless you want to set a precedent that Obama can be impeached and convicted too. Hell why not George Washington for that matter.
Trump was impeached while he was the sitting president. Neither Obama or Washington can be impeached as sitting presidents. That’s the difference. Why is that so hard for you?
Also, remember that the *two* questions the senate is tasked with answering during a trial are “should this individual remain in office” and “should this individual be disqualified from holding future office”.
The first question is no longer relevant. The second question still is, which is why the George Washington example is particularly nonsensical.
-->
@Double_R
There’s nothing inconsistent about my position. The difference between us here is about an inclusive interpretation vs. an exclusive one. You are taking it exclusively, that is to say only these positions strictly interpreted can be impeached and tried. There is nothing in the constitution of federalist papers that supports that interpretation.
“All” is inherently inclusive to everyone in the United States, dead or alive lol. The “all” is qualified by Article 2 Section 4 where it clearly states only the President, VP, and Civil Officers can be convicted. Trump is neither of those period.
The line in the constitution for example that states that the cheif justice shall president of its the outsider on trial, that is strict to the sitting president. Why? Because we know the reason why that is in there... it is to avoid a scenario where the Vice President presides over a proceeding that could potentially result in themselves becoming president.
Lmfao, the Articles of Impeachment clearly name the President of the United States Donald John Trump. That means Chief Justice John Roberts has to preside. Or you have to interpret that for the Senate trial, “The President of the United States Donald John Trump” does not exist and therefore the Articles don’t apply at all.
And as far as your rocket science comment... it’s also not rocket science that the word “all” means “all”.
Yes “all” means everyone in the United States, what’s the problem with that? Oh wait, it’s qualified by the fact that only the President, VP, and Civil Officers can be convicted.
Show me that part of the constitution. Quote the texts you are referring to that discuss what happens with an official whose time in office ran out during the trial. I’ll wait.
You have the burden to prove the positive lol not me proving the negative. And either way if you disagree we can go to the Courts to interpret the Constitution - the job they have. We all know how Roberts feels about the trial lol.
Trump was impeached while he was the sitting president. Neither Obama or Washington can be impeached as sitting presidents. That’s the difference. Why is that so hard for you?
Your premise is that Presidents are liable for impeachment based on what’s happened in their term. Therefore you can impeach someone who’s out of office because they’re liable for what they did in office. You can’t cherry-pick who can get impeached or not lmfao cause it destroys your entire premise.
Also, remember that the *two* questions the senate is tasked with answering during a trial are “should this individual remain in office” and “should this individual be disqualified from holding future office”.
But the second has to go with the first. That’s what “and” means lol. With one the first your cannot have the second.
The first question is no longer relevant. The second question still is, which is why the George Washington example is particularly nonsensical.
Historically you can remove from office and then choose to not ban from public office, that’s what happened to Alcee Hastings. But there is no where the latter is the sole decision because every effort has failed on the grounds of unconstitutionality whether you look at the Blount trial, Belknap trial, or this trial.
-->
@ILikePie5
“All” is inherently inclusive to everyone in the United States, dead or alive lol. The “all” is qualified by Article 2 Section 4 where it clearly states only the President, VP, and Civil Officers can be convicted. Trump is neither of those period.
The “all” isn’t inclusive to everyone in the United States. I already explained why, did you read it?
Article 2 section 4 establishes who can be impeached. That is an inclusive passage. I already explained why this matters. Did you understand it?
Lmfao, the Articles of Impeachment clearly name the President of the United States Donald John Trump. That means Chief Justice John Roberts has to preside.
I already explained why this is false. Did you read it?
Yes “all” means everyone in the United States, what’s the problem with that?
You would have understood the problem with that if you had actually bothered to read my response, or the constitution.
But the second has to go with the first. That’s what “and” means lol. With one the first your cannot have the second.
They’re not even the same passage.
You have the burden to prove the positive lol not me proving the negative.
The burden of proof rests on the person who makes the claim.
You are the one claiming “the Constitution clearly states you cannot convict a private citizen”. Prove your claim. Show me the passage you claim exists where the framers discussed what happens in a scenario where a sitting president is constitutionally impeached towards the end of his term and then time runs out before the senate can finish the trial.
Your premise is that Presidents are liable for impeachment based on what’s happened in their term. Therefore you can impeach someone who’s out of office because they’re liable for what they did in office. You can’t cherry-pick who can get impeached or not lmfao cause it destroys your entire premise.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether an officer no longer in office can be impeached, constitutional scholars do not largely agree. But the question of whether a sitting officer who has been impeached can be tried is a different question, and there is very little disagreement on that.
I haven’t taken a position on that either way. What I’ve argued is
A) Trump’s impeachment was constitutional
B) This according to the constitution gives the senate the power to try him
There is nothing explicit in the texts to rule out convicting someone in this scenario, so it takes interpretation. That is where your argument monumentally fails.
Every law comes down to two different ways it can be interpreted; by the “spirit of the law” or “the letter of the law”. You aren’t even bothering to argue the spirit of the law on this, and I don’t blame you cause you have nothing there.
The letter of the law takes much less interpretation than the spirit, but still requires some. Words are written in context, and that context is what determines what they mean. If you are just going to ignore the context of the passage then you’re not even trying to understand it, you’re just putting on your partisan glasses to block out anything inconvenient. That’s clearly what’s going on here as evidenced by the fact that your responses continually ignore my arguments and just re assert the same tired talking points.
-->
@Double_R
The “all” isn’t inclusive to everyone in the United States. I already explained why, did you read it?Article 2 section 4 establishes who can be impeached. That is an inclusive passage. I already explained why this matters. Did you understand it?
Ah good so it is a qualification that only the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers can be impeached. The also is the same for conviction by the Senate lol. Trump is neither of those.
I already explained why this is false. Did you read it?
If you think this is false then Trump is a private citizen and therefore cannot be impeached.
The burden of proof rests on the person who makes the claim.You are the one claiming “the Constitution clearly states you cannot convict a private citizen”. Prove your claim. Show me the passage you claim exists where the framers discussed what happens in a scenario where a sitting president is constitutionally impeached towards the end of his term and then time runs out before the senate can finish the trial.
That is absurdly false lol, it’s your job to prove that a private citizen can be convicted. Until then status quo states you cannot.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether an officer no longer in office can be impeached, constitutional scholars do not largely agree. But the question of whether a sitting officer who has been impeached can be tried is a different question, and there is very little disagreement on that.
The opinion of constitutional experts is irrelevant to what the Constitution actually says.
I haven’t taken a position on that either way. What I’ve argued isA) Trump’s impeachment was constitutionalB) This according to the constitution gives the senate the power to try himThere is nothing explicit in the texts to rule out convicting someone in this scenario, so it takes interpretation. That is where your argument monumentally fails.
The Constitution inherently is limiting the power of the government lol: it limits conviction to the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers. If the Founding Fathers wanted former officials to be included they’d say that they didn’t because they wanted to limit the power.
Every law comes down to two different ways it can be interpreted; by the “spirit of the law” or “the letter of the law”. You aren’t even bothering to argue the spirit of the law on this, and I don’t blame you cause you have nothing there.
The Spirit of the Law is also very clear. You cannot convict a private citizen because you’d literally be committing to a bill of attainder, which is definitely unconstitutional in a plethora of ways not to mention statutory.
The letter of the law takes much less interpretation than the spirit, but still requires some. Words are written in context, and that context is what determines what they mean. If you are just going to ignore the context of the passage then you’re not even trying to understand it, you’re just putting on your partisan glasses to block out anything inconvenient. That’s clearly what’s going on here as evidenced by the fact that your responses continually ignore my arguments and just re assert the same tired talking points.
Your arguments hold no value to the words of the Constitution. No Bill of Attainders against private citizens, what does this Senate trial amount to? It’s goal was literally a bill of attainder lol.
Either way why don’t you and I have a formal debate over this rather than just chit chatting over a forum. Let the voters decide who’s more convincing.
-->
@ILikePie5
Either way why don’t you and I have a formal debate over this rather than just chit chatting over a forum. Let the voters decide who’s more convincing.
Fine, send me a challenge. No more than 8,000 characters, and how many days to respond can we have? 3 days is rough for me cause I can only log on in spurts.
Oh and no (or at least minimal) quoting each other. It just ruins the quality of the debate. If you’re cool with that I’ll accept.
-->
@Double_R
Fine, send me a challenge. No more than 8,000 characters, and how many days to respond can we have? 3 days is rough for me cause I can only log on in spurts.
However long you want. I’m a college student so I’m busy as well and fully understand.
Oh and no (or at least minimal) quoting each other. It just ruins the quality of the debate. If you’re cool with that I’ll accept.
I mean isn’t quoting and responding the whole purpose of the debate?
-->
@ILikePie5
I mean isn’t quoting and responding the whole purpose of the debate?
You don’t need to quote to respond. The voters just read the argument, they don’t need to read it again.
But whatever that’s just my opinion. Not a big deal, I’ll draft my arguments how I wish and you are of course free to do the same.
-->
@Double_R
You don’t need to quote to respond. The voters just read the argument, they don’t need to read it again.But whatever that’s just my opinion. Not a big deal, I’ll draft my arguments how I wish and you are of course free to do the same.
I’ll keep it minimal just so voters know what I’m referencing.
-->
@fauxlaw
Trump is now the most acquitted president in history.
-->
@Greyparrot
There's a positive spin on it. Have you heard that Pelostomy is angling a bill [HB 484] to prevent specifically all Presidents with two impeachments on their record to be denied burial at Arlington? I think that is a very selective group, and I don't think the measure is constitutional, anyway [Article I, sec 9 - ex post facto]. But her heart is not full of hate for the man, according to repeated statements.