It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Although impeaching a former president would be a first, there is some scant precedent for impeaching someone already removed from office. In 1797, Sen. William Blount of Tennessee was charged with treason for a scheme to help the British take land from Florida controlled by the Spanish. (Fortunately, Florida land speculation is no longer considered a treasonable offense.) Blount was unanimously impeached by the House, then expelled by the Senate (a process separate from impeachment). The Senate decided to go ahead with its impeachment trial although in the end it acquitted Blount because he was no longer in office. William Belknap, secretary of war under Ulysses Grant, was impeached by the House on bribery charges and resigned from office. Though the Senate went ahead with his trial, he, too, was acquitted because he was no longer in office.
originally posted by: Phantom423
The goal might be to prevent Trump from running again in 2024. In order for that to happen, the Senate needs a 2/3 vote to impeach and then another vote to ban him from running for any federal office again as a punishment.
Can it happen? Yes. But the probability is low.
We even have Pelosi publicly stating that they didn't want COVID relief flowing through BECAUSE they didn't want to attribute it to Trumps re-election.
These politicians don't care about average Americans and every day they are showing their cards more.
“And the Constitution specifically says, ‘The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.’
The Constitution provides that the President “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but it says nothing about the timing of when the impeachment and trial may take place. That omission makes sense, since presidents – and any other impeachable officials – could commit impeachable offenses at any time while they are in office, including in their last months or days in their positions. It certainly makes no sense for presidents who commit misconduct late in their terms, or perhaps not discovered until late in their terms, to be immune from the one process the Constitution allows for barring them from serving in any other federal office or from receiving any federal pensions.
Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else,” he said.
The problem with this argument, however, is that presidents and the other officials who are subject to impeachment are not like the rest of us. Once they leave office and return to their private lives, they are still ex-presidents and former officials who may have committed impeachable offenses in office. A core principle of the Constitution is that no one, not even the president, is above the law, and an abuse of power, by definition, is a violation of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. What’s more, the special penalties upon conviction in impeachment are designed to protect the republic from the very type of people who have abused public office in such a grave manner that they should never have the opportunity to be entrusted with public power again. It would make no sense for former officials, or ones who step down just in time, to escape that remedial mechanism.
They provided bail for their violent protesters, and want to put Trump protesters before a firing squad
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: eManym
Blah blah blah...
What happened at the Capitol Building is reprehensible and indefensible. Period. There is no excuse for what happened.
Likewise for the burning, looting and mayhem in the name of "Black Lives Matter" all summer.
There should be absolutely no question by anyone of either. And that's the problem.
The same people condemning Trump and his supporters are the same people who applauded the "BLM" violence. And trying to tar all Trump supporters with the same broad brush, refusing to recognize or acknowledge that just as the vast majority of BLM protesters were peaceful, so too were the majority of Trump supporters at the rally.
This is far more than "whataboutism." This is about elected (and unelected) officials and equal application of the law by those officials. They have failed. They provided bail for their violent protesters, and want to put Trump protesters before a firing squad.
They have no moral high ground... no moral credibility... no morals at all.
I want to know why firing squads are legal again.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wide-Eyes
I want to know why firing squads are legal again.
They were having a problem with the lethal drug cocktail they were using, and big pharma was refusing to supply the federal government with lethal drugs for the purpose of killing people. That's why so many death sentences were temporarily suspended.
"Whataboutuism" is just a cheap deflection when someone points out the raging hypocrisy of the anti-Trumpers. Literally everything they accuse Trump of is something they are doing themselves.