Donald Trump acquitted in second impeachment trial

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, still wrong.

The US Constitution is not subject to the whims of senators, or anyone.
There is an established process to change it, if needed, which was not done.

And Trump was out of office when this circus trial ( complete with doctored evidence from democrat prosecutors) was held, e.g. invalid.

He was impeached when in office, there is nothing in the American constitution to say the following trial could not take place once he left.

Read your own statement above, slower.

Even though you are clearly far left, I have hope that you have a few brain cells that *might* pick up the obvious logical contradiction.

Good luck.

It's fairly obvious, although a bit embarrassing that I need to tell you.

Impeachment occurred when Trump was in office, not enough time or inclination to rush trial through before he left.

Trial took place after he left office. Although his defence says that is against the constitution, there is nothing in the constitution to say that it is. If there was then it wouldn't have got as far as it did.

I'm not quite sure what you don't understand about that, it couldn't really be much more simple.

" the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibilities of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from appointment to a political office ever again in the jurisdiction where they were removed"
en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia/Google is your friend

And...Trump was already out of office.



Logic fail....again....but then you are a leftist.....expected...

a reply to: uncommitted

The point you are missing is the POINT of HAVING A IMPEACHMENT. What does the law say about the POINT of a impeachment? It is to REMOVE a SITTING president. Thats is it.

So he was the president at the time,so what?

The man was gone by the time they tried it and we do not prosecute people who are already gone and find them guilty.

Mitch did this on purpose so they could use it as political bait in 2022.

If this was a criminal case the punishment for the crime would be moot seeing as how they were punished already.

a reply to: M5xaz

No. You see the comment about the subsequent trial?

You do realise that if the defence can't prove it's not constitutional, it means there is no proof it's not constitutional don't you? A big mouthed idiot on a conspiracy site doesn't really change that.

Your additional comments really just show your level of intellect, but then you've done the same with Covid in the past so I guess I shouldn't expect better.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: M5xaz

No. You see the comment about the subsequent trial?

You do realise that if the defence can't prove it's not constitutional, it means there is no proof it's not constitutional don't you? A big mouthed idiot on a conspiracy site doesn't really change that.

Your additional comments really just show your level of intellect, but then you've done the same with Covid in the past so I guess I shouldn't expect better.

Kinda rich coming from someone with clearly no grasp of logic.

Good luck

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: uncommitted

The point you are missing is the POINT of HAVING A IMPEACHMENT. What does the law say about the POINT of a impeachment? It is to REMOVE a SITTING president. Thats is it.

So he was the president at the time,so what?

The man was gone by the time they tried it and we do not prosecute people who are already gone and find them guilty.

Mitch did this on purpose so they could use it as political bait in 2022.

If this was a criminal case the punishment for the crime would be moot seeing as how they were punished already.

Did you see how in the wiki clip that M%xaz used to try and show I was in error? Have a look at the peace about the 'subsequent trial' post impeachment, the purpose of which is to prevent the person taking any government role in the future.

It's really not hard, you just need to get over the fact you are wrong. It's not a criminal trial, that's not the point of it.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: M5xaz

No. You see the comment about the subsequent trial?

You do realise that if the defence can't prove it's not constitutional, it means there is no proof it's not constitutional don't you? A big mouthed idiot on a conspiracy site doesn't really change that.

Your additional comments really just show your level of intellect, but then you've done the same with Covid in the past so I guess I shouldn't expect better.

Kinda rich coming from someone with clearly no grasp of logic.

Good luck

You're welcome, if you have any other issues interpreting your constitution, please shout out and I'll be glad to help.

a reply to: uncommitted

No I am not wrong. YOU are. you cannot remove a removed president already,OR break the federal discrimination law for political beliefs to prevent him from running for office,UNLESS HE WAS FOUND GUILTY AND THEN THEY ADDED IT ON. Trump was not found guilty,so the disbarment argument is MOOT.

I used the criminal thing as a EXAMPLE of what this would be IF IT WAS a criminal trial. I did not say his impeachment was criminal at all.

TRUTH

Former President Donald Trump issued a caustic and highly personal statement against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday.

“Mitch is a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack, and if Republican Senators are going to stay with him, they will not win again,” Trump said in the statement released by his PAC.

www.politico.com...

TRUTH

originally posted by: carewemust
TRUTH

Former President Donald Trump issued a caustic and highly personal statement against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday.

“Mitch is a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack, and if Republican Senators are going to stay with him, they will not win again,” Trump said in the statement released by his PAC.

www.politico.com...

TRUTH

Even after two acquittals they continue to bear falsehoods against Trump and slander him in a way that tells the world they are doing because they believe it will help their own image.

That is the most relevant truth to be said about Mitch. He's always just played the game either way, never really standing FOR anything. Just pandering, always pandering. A fence sitter mostly.

These people who have been in office so long have become zealots and buffoons. Not having stood tall with any honor to them. Yellow bellied cowards and pie slingers the lot of them. Mitch Romney is another one who deserves to be flogged publicly.

Judgement will catch up to all these bearers of false witness, and those hypocrites who give birth to each other's foul back room deals.

That day is coming.

Trump has destroyed these people by doing good things for America, when all they want to do is hurt Americans with this thing, or that thing.
They keep proving that over and over again.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: uncommitted

The point you are missing is the POINT of HAVING A IMPEACHMENT. What does the law say about the POINT of a impeachment? It is to REMOVE a SITTING president. Thats is it.

So he was the president at the time,so what?

The man was gone by the time they tried it and we do not prosecute people who are already gone and find them guilty.

Mitch did this on purpose so they could use it as political bait in 2022.

If this was a criminal case the punishment for the crime would be moot seeing as how they were punished already.

Did you see how in the wiki clip that M%xaz used to try and show I was in error? Have a look at the peace about the 'subsequent trial' post impeachment, the purpose of which is to prevent the person taking any government role in the future.

It's really not hard, you just need to get over the fact you are wrong. It's not a criminal trial, that's not the point of it.

But you ARE in error.
Trump was OUT of office at the time of the "trial"

With respect to your "brilliant" comment: "there is nothing in the American constitution to say the following trial could not take place once he left."

- Yes, because the framers of the Constitution could not imagine the rise of the ignorant for whom stating the obvious would be required



But then, Uncommitted, similarly, by your "logic", there is nothing on the Gorilla Glue bottle to say that this glue should not be used in your hair !!!
nypost.com...

Moron.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

a reply to: M5xaz

So basically then you agree that the trial was not unconstitutional then. Glad we sorted that out.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: uncommitted

No I am not wrong. YOU are. you cannot remove a removed president already,OR break the federal discrimination law for political beliefs to prevent him from running for office,UNLESS HE WAS FOUND GUILTY AND THEN THEY ADDED IT ON. Trump was not found guilty,so the disbarment argument is MOOT.

I used the criminal thing as a EXAMPLE of what this would be IF IT WAS a criminal trial. I did not say his impeachment was criminal at all.

No, you are just making things up. He was impeached, the trial is to prevent the impeached person holding office again, not to remove them from the presidency (although of course if he was still sitting then that would have been different).

You mentioned criminal trial in a thread about a trial, careless use of language if that wasn't why you were using it.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: M5xaz

So basically then you agree that the trial was not unconstitutional then. Glad we sorted that out.

Hmmmm....no.....read again....slower...smh....

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: M5xaz

So basically then you agree that the trial was not unconstitutional then. Glad we sorted that out.

Hmmmm....no.....read again....slower...smh....

Your comments suggest it's not in the constitution, therefore there was nothing unconstitutional. Best leaving thinking to the grown ups in the room, you know the risk - Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: M5xaz

So basically then you agree that the trial was not unconstitutional then. Glad we sorted that out.

Hmmmm....no.....read again....slower...smh....

Your comments suggest it's not in the constitution, therefore there was nothing unconstitutional. Best leaving thinking to the grown ups in the room, you know the risk - Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

Keep right on projecting, cupcake.

a reply to: Tempter

Get Ready for Trump to DESTROY the Leftist Social Media Empire at their Own Game ...............

a reply to: M5xaz


She is a Lost Cause , kind of Like the Leftist Media will be in the Next 4 Years.............