Impeachment

Yes, the Senate May Hold Trump's Impeachment Trial After He Leaves Office

History and precedent both support impeachment trials for former federal officials.

|

Writing in The Washington Post, Judge J. Michael Luttig, a Republican appointee who sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit from 1991 to 2006, asserts that even if the House of Representatives votes swiftly to impeach President Donald Trump, the timing of that impeachment vote would effectively prevent the Senate from taking any action. "It appears that even if the House of Representatives impeaches President Trump this week," Luttig writes, "the Senate trial on that impeachment will not begin until after Trump has left office and President-Elect Biden has become president on Jan. 20. That Senate trial would be unconstitutional."

Would it? Both constitutional history and congressional precedent tell a different story.

In 1797, the House of Representatives impeached and the Senate expelled Sen. William Blount of Tennessee for committing "high crimes and misdemeanors" after President John Adams charged Blount with taking part in a British plot. The Senate held Blount's impeachment trial after he was kicked out of office.

In 1827, Vice President John C. Calhoun took the unusual step of requesting a congressional impeachment investigation of himself for misdeeds that his political opponents said he committed while he was serving as secretary of war. In other words, Calhoun wanted to be investigated after the fact in order to clear his name. That congressional impeachment investigation occurred after Calhoun had left office as secretary of war.

In 1846, former president (and son of another former president) John Quincy Adams, who was then serving in Congress as the senior representative from Massachusetts, gave a full-throated defense of the impeachment of federal officials after they left office. "I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body," Adams declared, "amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office."

In 1876, the House impeached ex-Secretary of War William Belknap after he resigned from office over a corruption scandal. What is more, as the legal scholar Brian C. Kalt notes in his exhaustive study, "The Constitutional Case for the Impeachability of Former Federal Officials," "the House unanimously voted and the Senate ruled specifically that resignation could not terminate the congressional impeachment process."

The text of the Constitution also cuts against Luttig's position. According to 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 or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." On its face, the penalty of "disqualification" applies to both current and former federal officials, both of whom Congress may deem it necessary to bar from holding future office.

Another problem with Luttig's case is that, if adopted, it would disfigure the constitutional impeachment power by undermining its role as a deterrent against future bad behavior by federal officials.

The House is not only planning to impeach Trump as punishment for his part in the attack on the Capitol but also in order to send a message to all future presidents that Trump's misdeeds are beyond the pale. Holding a Senate impeachment trial after Trump leaves office is an entirely constitutional way to do both.

NEXT: Supreme Court Ends Pandemic Permission To Prescribe Abortion Pills Remotely

Impeachment Donald Trump Election 2020 Constitution

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

272 responses to “Yes, the Senate May Hold Trump's Impeachment Trial After He Leaves Office

  1. Wellcome to the online job. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.… Read More

    1. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months fdc and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started….. Visit Here

      1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office XKP job and even a little child KERD can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..READ MORE

  2. But no impeachment trial held after somebody was out of office has ever resulted in a conviction, and that has apparently been because at least a 3rd of the Senate disagreed that it was constitutional. That might have been worth mentioning.

    My personal opinion is that it’s probably OK to hold the trial after somebody has left office, so long as the House actually impeached while they were still in office. But this is by no means the settled matter you make it out to be.

    1. Nah, Reason is going full New Nazi

      1. …which will go down as well as New Coke.

    2. Can you cite documentary evidence that the convictions failed because Senators considered it unconstitutional as oppose to refusing to convict on the merits?

      No impeachment of a US President has ever resulted in an conviction either, that does not mean that impeaching a President is unconstitutional.

      1. It was noted by Kalt in the paper referenced above, in regards to Belknap:

        “Unlike the speculative and inferential arguments detailed in the previous Parts of this Article, the arguments from precedent in this Part are concrete and take the issue of late impeachment head on. In two cases—those of William Blount and William Belknap—the Senate debated late impeachment at length. Unfortunately for our purposes, they did not reach a decisive result in either case. In Belknap’s case, the Senate did rule formally that late impeachment was acceptable, but while enough senators agreed to allow the trial to go forward on the merits, the minority of senators who disagreed was large enough that
        Belknap was acquitted.

      2. There is an excellent precedent for this sort of thing. When Charles II was restored to the throne of Britain in 1660 after Cromwell’s death in 1658, Cromwell’s body was dug up, decapitated, and his head stuck on a pike on London Bridge.

        The Democrats want to do the same thing to Trump’s political corpse. Apparently they’re afraid that the Biden administration will be so awful that the nation will turn to a zombie rather than trust Harris.

    3. Manchin: Impeachment Seems Unwise, and I’m Still Against Nuking the Filibuster and Court Packing
      https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2021/01/13/manchin-interview-n2583006

      1. Will Democrats kick Joe Manchin out of the party? Manchin responds
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=32&v=zR7DQp8k8WM&feature=emb_title

        1. West Virginia is about to get some nice shiny new toys.

          1. If Manchin is mercenary is his views, then that is a salient point, but if he actually believes in his principles it isn’t. However as most progressives don’t understand principles I can understand why you think this way.

            1. All progressives have principles. Most of them are even good principles. You don’t know the first thing about progressives other than what fat pasty assholes on TV tell you to think.

              Trump doesn’t have any principles (except that he’s the greatest). I’m not saying that like you’re saying it, to dehumanize entire groups of people. I’m saying it as a fact that you know perfectly well is true.

              1. “Progressives” never hold to a principle, that’s why they are hypocritical, with virtually every claim they make.
                Principles that are fluid aren’t principles, at all.

                1. Sure they are. No principle was ever handed down by the laws of the universe. You should constantly reexamine your principles to make sure they’re still good. What’s wrong with that? And what’s good about blind devotion to them?

                  1. Yes, reexamine as in forgive your side for what you condemn the other side for. That isn’t reexamining that is partisan hypocrisy and double standards.

            2. He had a commercial of him shooting obama care didnt he? and then he voted for it I believe

    4. In 1801, John Pickering’s caseload as a judge was transferred to someone else because he was unable mentally to do his job. Technically he wasn’t removed but that is limbo. Three years later, he was impeached and removed from office (and died a year after that).

      In 1862, West Humphreys – a judge in TN – was impeached and removed from office for having seceded earlier but technically didn’t resign his US judgeship either.

      Neither of those are technically what you are asserting. But they provide ample evidence that the Senate has NEVER ruled on the supposed ‘constitutionality’ or lack thereof based on whether someone ‘is in office’. Something you claim is apparent.

      Fact is that both the House and Senate could obviously view Trump’s unwillingness to leave office or transfer power or view the election as legitimate as ONGOING threats. Trump’s already said he is not going to attend the Biden inauguration which raises a legitimate question as to whether he will continue to contest the office after Biden is inaugurated.

      To claim that the constitution is going to be silent on that is asserting that the Constitution is a suicide pact via legal loopholes. Which is crap and is a big reason that impeachment is political not legal

      1. Honestly – I think there is one element of potential TDS here re media coverage. Or not. But at any rate – totally crappy media coverage of everything as usual.

        I have never seen such a complete lack of information about a transfer of power from one President to another in that transition period. I have lived in places during coups and other stuff where this sort of peaceful transition didn’t happen. And for my entire adult life I have viewed that sort of news coverage as a bit of a relief. That things are OK. That there will be a transition – which means that there will likely be another one by the guy in power.

        That coverage is noticeable by its complete absence now with a Trump to Biden transfer. But was also significantly diminished in 2016 with an Obama to Trump transfer.

        So is the media just choosing not to cover what is actually happening. Or are they choosing not to cover it because it is not happening?

        1. They cover the sensational stuff for clicks .

    5. You’re right. Plus, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, and in the modern era they’re the ones with the final say on constitutionality. And they wouldn’t likely take up the matter until the issue is ripe, that is, after a conviction. I’m pretty sure they’d try hard to sidestep a declaratory judgment action.

    6. Apparently?

      Please show your work.

  3. Great information. I didn’t know about the legal precedents for impeachment after a term of office ended

  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.”

    So after Biden takes the oath, will Trump be a president, a vice-president, or a civil officer of the United States?
    How can a private citizen be “removed from office”?

    1. There are other consequences of an impeachment conviction, including being barred from future public office. The major goal of impeaching Trump is to disqualify him from running for president again.

      1. Article I, Section 3.7, says that the punishment for conviction on impeachment is removal from office AND, not OR, disqualification from office. The two come together, not separate.

        Once he leaves office he is subject to criminal prosecution, which will send a far more significant message than an retroactive impeachment would.

        1. …disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…

          Offices of honor, Trust, or Profit are not elected offices.

          1. Although once they are done packing the courts I’m confident this will have been changed.

          2. Offices of honor, Trust, or Profit are not elected offices.

            Not even if the office profits the office-holder?

          3. Just guessing here, but could it be:
            Honor = elected office
            Trust = appointed office, like cabinet member or judge
            Profit = government contractor
            ?

        2. Article I, Section 3.7, says that the punishment for conviction on impeachment is removal from office AND, not OR, disqualification from office. The two come together, not separate.

          That is not only dumb – it can be proven to be dumb by the number of people who have in fact been impeached/removed and have continued on. The current name would be Alcee Hastings but there are others

          1. I think the problem is that the media, including in this piece doesn’t differentiate between impeachment, which the house does, and vote to remove from office, which the Senate does. They common vermicular is to refer to both as impeachment. It is like how people say theory, when what they actually are doing is hypothesizing.

      2. The major goal of impeaching Trump is to disqualify him from running for president again say fuck you to 70 million people.

        1. I’ll say it for them: Fuck you 70 million people if you don’t respect the rule of law, federalism and constitutional processes and institutions. And while you’re at it, 70 million people, bring it on, whatever “it” is. The other 260 million of us (your kids will turn on you) aren’t afraid of your threats.

        2. As those 70 million people are unamerican pieces of shit, I’m good with that.

          Fuck you, Trumpists, you America-hating scumbags. Kill yourselves.

      3. There are no consequences to an impeachment.

        Did you forget that Trump has already been impeached? And that did not bar him from further office – or else he wouldn’t have been campaigning for re-election.

    2. There’s impeachment and then there’s conviction. These are two different things.

      Impeachment, basically, is ‘enough of us don’t like you’. That’s it. No specific laws need be broken. Only allegations of ‘improper conduct’ – and that’s very malleable.

      So, they need to be impeached AND THEN there’s a separate trial for those specific crimes – upon conviction they will be removed from office.

      Conviction for other crimes does not automatically get you removed from office and impeachment for anything doesn’t as its not a criminal process, merely a procedural . . . thingy with no real teeth behind it.

    3. Exactly. If you read the plain text, it is not possible. The power does not extend to people who are no longer in their position.

      1. There is nothing in the text which prevents it from being applied to people who are no longer in office.

        1. It doesn’t explicitly say they can’t — but it goes against a natural reading of the text to conclude they can.

          The mention of impeachment powers in Art I (legislative branch) mirrors the mention of impeachment in Art II (executive branch) where it says officers are removed by impeachment. Also, textually people are right to point out the “and” between removal and disqualification, not just because its there rather than an “or”, but also because there’s a comma right before the “and,” suggesting the pre-eminent importance of removal to disqualification. If they expected former office holders to be disqualified without being removed, they would have worded the sentence differently.

          Aside from that, there’s historical context of documents that did allow disqualification from office for former officials, which showed a different wording that you would have expected the framers to adopt if they meant that.

      2. Get $192 hourly from Google!…Yes this is Authentic since I just got my first payout of $24413 and this was just of a single week…TYUjmnb I have also bought my Range Rover Velar right after this payout…It is really cool job I have ever had and you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it…….Home Profit System

    4. This^^^

      The language is plain as can be. Trump will no longer be president on Jan 20th 2021. He will also hold no other public office as described by the Constitution and as such cannot be impeached or removed from office beyond that point. If everyone’s greatest fear comes true and Trump is somehow still president on Jan 21st 2021 he remains eligible for impeachment and removal from office along with the other consequences thereof.

      I can’t believe how god damn afraid half the nation is of this guy….he’ll be gone in 7-days….chill the fuck out. I’m sorta surprised that Democrat leadership is even worried about losing another Presidential election now that they have mail-in voting figured out.

    5. You obviously didn’t read the article. Make sure you have done your homework, or don’t come to class.

  5. Hey, anything that slows down the Biden/Harris agenda should have our full support.

    1. Hmm. Hadn’t thought of that angle.

    2. And then in 2022 when Republicans take the house, they can impeach all the Dems and so forth. The cycle of life continues.

      1. What makes you think there will be Republicans in 2022?
        Or elections, for that matter.

      2. No it doesn’t. Elections no longer have consequences for Democrats. Welcome to the new Permanent Party, citizen.

    3. It certainly won’t be good for the Democrats.

      1. As previously stated, elections are now Democrat-majority controlled. Other party candidates will win only to provide the appearance of “free and fair”. Get used to it. Enough with the pollyanna dreaming. It’s over.

    1. Yes, the Senate May Hold Trump’s Impeachment Trial After He Leaves Office

      That sounds like a good use of taxpayer money.

  6. But wait: there’s more!

  7. They are bound and determined to make Trump a martyr to the populist cause.

  8. So…

    Why shouldn’t Trump directly call for insurrection/insurgency/revolution against an illegitimate corrupt government that’s openly stated its totalitarian plans and intent to fundamentally change America?

    1. Real answer? He lacks enough ass to get away with it. Seriously, if he called for a coup/temporary state of emergency/martial law whatever, who would come along for the ride? Nowhere near enough people or resources to pull it off.

      Nice situation we’re in though huh, where we’re seriously talking about questions like these?

    2. Because violent revolutions very rarely end well, and would be very unlikely to get anywhere in the present situation.

      1. Absolutely. However, if you believe that a Biden/Harris administration will literally result in concentration camps, then that argument becomes less persuasive.

        1. Hey they only say they want re-education camps it’s not like they hired execs from tech companies that explicitly stated they also want re-education camps

          1. Hey, if the US descends into a CCP-style hellhole in the next four years, I’ll admit that I was wrong. In the meantime, I’ll be worrying about things that actually have a chance of happening in the near future.

            1. Like companies that have strong ties to the Democratic party punishing people for wrong think, even groups only tangently related to Trump’s movement? The CCP and 1930s Germany didn’t happen overnight.

              1. And waiting for it to become the CCP is to late to stop it.

      2. Whomever is on this thread entertaining the notion that Trump was in any way, shape, or form calling for violent revolution of insurrection is a complete and utter moron.

    3. Because the people on the side of limited government are outnumbered At this point a revolution in this country would result in a constitution that would resemble that of the Soviet Union more than the current one that is ignored.

      Better the devil you know.

      1. Maybe. Depends on how you define who they are. If we consider most conservatives also support limited government for the most part, they control most of the natural resources, food production, manufacturing facilities, make up the majority of the military, and control access to electricity, water and other essentials that the urban areas, where most of those who support larger government tend to congregate, it is not a given. In fact wars are won by logistics. The Iraqi Army outnumbered the coalition both times, but logistics did them in (the March on Baghdad and Schwarzkopf’s hail marry end around were both only possible because of sophisticated logistics. The Mexican Army was larger than the US Army but defeated mainly because of logistics. The American Army was usually outnumbered during the Indian Wars, but was able to defeat them by logistics and by destroying the indians access to their logistical base. I just finished Lakota America, and one thing is striking, even after Custer’s defeay, the US Army didn’t have many victories but they still ultimately won because they had better logistics and denied the Lakota access to their logistical base.
        Number of troops doesn’t matter if those troops aren’t eating, drinking, have fuel and bullets. In the Army we are taught it is beans and bullets that ultimately decide who will win.

        1. As the saying goes, “amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics.”

      2. A revolution now in the USA would result in the expulsion and/or secession of some parts of it. Probably considerably different constitutions in the various pieces. But they’d all adopt term limits for their elected and maybe even appointed officials.

        1. Also a civil war today would be more rural vs urban then state vs state. It would be like Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri during the Civil War not like New York and South Carolina.

          1. Partition of India at best. Taiping Rebellion at worst. It would be unbelievably ugly.

            Of course, so would sliding down into Venezuela-dom.

  9. Who cares? It’s a political stunt, again, and there is no way the senate would vote to impeach. Take a fucking breather. If you are so worried about Trump getting reelected then listen to the people that voted for him. Idiots.

    1. If you are so worried about Trump getting reelected then listen to the people that voted for him.

      Well, let’s not go crazy here.

    2. The only real goal of impeaching, holding on to the articles until past Biden’s 100 days (which I heard was Pelosi’s plan) then running a show trial in the Senate which not enough Republicans will vote in favor of convicting, is mostly so they can continue to depict any opposition to their glorious people’s agenda as being rabid pro-Trumpers.

      Without the boogey-man who must be stopped at all costs, it becomes harder to continue stomping any opposition into the ground.

      1. No, Democrats and their fake news machine will call out a new boogey-man. That is the really pathetic part, all the Republicans siding with Democrats think it wont happen to them. That is how dumb they are.

    3. Thanks, sole sane poster today.

    4. The Senate doesn’t vote to impeach or not to impeach, MAGAt. That’s what the House does. The Senate votes to convict or acquit.

  10. “beyond the pale”

    That expression originated as an insult against the free parts of Ireland, outside the reach of British rule.

    You…you…Hiberniphobe!

    1. Thanks. I use that all the time and always meant to look up its origin. I will still use it; I’m Irish so its ok.

      1. I’m Irish so its ok.

        It’s OK even if you aren’t Irish.

  11. Okay, yeah, I think I’m fine with an impeachment going forward. Because we all know Trump 2024 is on the horizon otherwise, a truly horrifying prospect.

    1. impeach because you have TDS? Shouldn’t the bar be a bit higher?

  12. Damon, Damon, Damon; I am disappointed in you.

    The case of Sen. Blount, and J.Q. Adams’ comments about being held accountable for his conduct as a House member, are distinguishable. The impeachment of the President, VP and “civil officers” is governed by Article II, Section 4, and Article I, Sections 3.6 and 3.7. But the disciplining of members of the houses of Congress (like Blount and Adams) falls under Article I, Section 5.2, which grants each house the power to determine its own rules, expel “members,” and “punish its Members for disorderly behavior.” That the Senate or House of Representatives chooses to pursue miscreant “members” even after they leave office tells us nothing about Congress’ ability to pursue former “office holders” under Article II, Section 4, and Article I, Sections 3.6 and 3.7.

    Calhoun may no longer have been Secretary of War but he was in office as Vice President. That tells us nothing about whether former office holders who no longer hold any office can be pursued under Article II, Section 4, and Article I, Sections 3.6 and 3.7.*

    That leaves the Belknap case. One case does not constitute a practice. The passage you quote from Kalt suggests that the impeachment process began before Belknap resigned. And was it the case that Belknap was only days away from his term ending?

    The historical case for retroactive impeachment is nowhere near as clear as you suggest. And – why didn’t anyone even suggest this in the case of Richard Nixon?
    ____
    *Besides, citing Calhoun as precedent for anything automatically makes your argument racist and therefore invalid on its face. (sarc)

    1. Please be advised; since the last election, there is no such thing as (sarc).

    2. I should also have added that Calhoun, as a sitting VP, asking to be impeached so that he could “clear his name” hardly strikes us as a reliable precedent for cases like Trump. I will stick my neck out here and suggest that Calhoun would likely not have invited impeachment onto himself if he thought that Congress was in control of those who were anxious to have him removed.

    3. You meant “precedent,” not “practice.” FWIW, there’s plenty of precedent in British parliamentary practice, which was the model for the Founders. But the main argument for not accepting the Belknap precedent, as far as I can see, is that it undermines the argument for declaring the Trump impeachment trial unconstitutional. Can’t have that. So it doesn’t count.

  13. “‘I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body,’ Adams declared, ‘amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office.'”

    Democrats are just going to keep impeaching Trump forever, aren’t they?

    1. The other day I posted about doing the Senate trial as a lead-in to the 2022 Super Bowl. Verdict to be announced at halftime. Think of the spectacle!!

      But I was thinking too small. Instead we should make it a New Year’s tradition. The Winter Trump Impeachment Extravaganza. Every year, house vote before Christmas, senate trial right after Christmas (or even Christmas Day?). I mean, you could do this for decades – if you can remove him from office after he’s no longer in the office, why would his death stop it?

      Seriously, this is a complete waste of time. There are those of us that were sick of Trump pretty much initially, and damned if we aren’t wasting government time and resources to keep the stupid son of a bitch in the forefront for months after he should be gone.

      As bad as he is, Trump fucking owns our political media and a good chunk of the Democrats. They can’t let him go.

      1. Can Jan 6th become the American Guy Fawke’s day where we burn him in effigy while wearing V for Vendetta masks?

        1. V for violence.
          As in speech, or silence.

          1. Oh it was scary, the 6th of January
            Buffoonery, shamans, and plot
            I see no reason that “QAnon Treason” should ever be forgot.

            Someone better than me at poetry needs to take a stab at it.

            1. Don’t you mean Buffalofoonery.

            2. Someone better than me at poetry needs to take a stab at it.

              Do we include the verse about hanging the Pope and burning him with cigarettes or is the left suddenly cool with the fact that The Government and The Church are aligned?

        2. “Can Jan 6th become the American Guy Fawke’s day where we burn him in effigy while wearing V for Vendetta masks?”

          Damn straight. We’re gonna end up replacing Mardi Gras before this is over.

          1. Instead of beads for tatas, you hand a campaign contribution to your lawyer and he pays women to take their clothes off.

        3. To celebrate the successful overcoming of oppressive government power that is the election of Joe Biden? Sure.

      2. You’re thinking too small.

        It should be part of a weekly – or even daily ritual. Everyone should be required to line the streets and scream ritual rage at the passing parade of Trump pictures.

        This should be agreeable and all should be able to make time in their schedules for something that would take two minutes, tops.

        1. I like the way you’re thinking.

          And whenever the covid increases, or the economy falters, we can say it’s Trump and his crew of saboteurs and wreckers behind all the bad news.

          Weed out the hidden Trumpskyites.

          1. Exactly. Pointing out that Trump could not be the cause of such things is REASON ENOUGH to remove your kids from your despicably toxic household! Also, public Facebook shaming.

    2. Only for as long as they need to to ensure that no one else dare challenge them.

      Remember that its not just the Dems – even the R’s that have profited and enjoyed success under the status quo hate the man.

    3. Until he stops being an evil, fetid piece of nazi shit, yes.

  14. Law&Crime spoke with Tulane Law professor and impeachment expert Ross Garber, who said, “Impeachment could only happen while Trump is in office, not after he leaves.”

    On its face, Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution does not appear to allow for impeachment of former federal officials. It reads:

    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.

    https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/could-trump-be-impeached-after-he-leaves-office-would-conviction-prevent-him-from-holding-office-in-the-future/

    Thought reason was all about constitutional norms these days.

    1. Reason these days, as for the last few years, is about clicks.

      1. Mission accomplished.

  15. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job But a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

  16. I was gonna see these guys before the stupid government reaction to the super-cold.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boy6adw7FbM

    Am I the only Pack A.D. fan here?

    1. That was them live, this is there actual video.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xb_ulhXyjw

      1. THEIR THEIR THIER I MADE A MISTAKE THEIR!!1!1one!!!1!!!

        1. So broken.

  17. That expression originated as an insult against the free parts of Ireland, outside the reach of British rule.

    http://bit.ly/35CGwu0

  18. The House is not only planning to impeach Trump as punishment for his part in the attack on the Capitol but also in order to send a message to all future presidents that Trump’s misdeeds are beyond the pale.

    Who determines what is beyond the pale? Is sending 1.5 billion in stacks of cash to a state that will utilize the money for terrorist actions beyond the pale? What about the drone killing of a US citizen without consult of the judiciary? Is that beyond the pale?

    Just admit you want this done for political reasons and not moral.

    We have had multiple politicians support the BLM riots that resulted in 30 dead, 2 billion in damages, and thousands of buildings lost. Are their action beyond the pale?

    Are we taking as fact that Trump caused incitement in your little morality play? Which line from his speech was incitement? Can you even prove that, or are we to merely assume?

    This article is a great example of what a joke the writers at this site have become. Not shocked Sarcasmic is defending it though. He’s Biden’s little cultist.

    1. “What about the drone killing of a US citizen without consult of the judiciary? Is that beyond the pale?”

      Ever since that happened I’ve been just stunned that nobody anywhere has thrown a fuss. The people in our society that Speak Truth to Power should be screaming to high heaven about this.

      But instead it’s silence. Which is violence, from what I’m told. People talk about Trump saying the thing about shooting someone on 5th avenue and getting away with it, but turns out it’s Obama that can literally get away with murder.

  19. Has Root been admitted to the bar of any state?

    Has Root ever gone to law school?

    1. What do you call 5,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

      A good start.

      1. Some jobs opening up…

        Speaking of which, I imagine Biden is going to be very good for the legal profession. If he does expand the federal judiciary, all of those judge & magistrate seats, never mind staff positions, are going to have to be filled by someone.

      2. “What do you call 5,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?”

        More like, a drop in the bucket.

        “What do you call all the lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

        Success and a fresh start.

    2. No, he stayed at a Holiday Inn though. And the TDS makes his logic unassailable.

  20. Great news! Now a future Republican administration can impeach Obama for illegally exporting firearms to Mexico.

    1. And Hillary for malfeasance as SecState.

      1. And Billy Jeff for rape and perjury.

        1. And Schiff for being Schiff.

    2. If they’ve got the votes, and the evidence, and the stones, let ’em go for it.

  21. Yes, the Senate May Hold Trump’s Impeachment Trial After He Leaves Office

    Which would be perfect, because once Trump is gone, they’re going to be fighting the Trump in their head for the next four years.

    1. They’ve been fighting the Trump in their head for the last 4 so they have plenty of experience.

  22. Seriously twisted reasoning. Leaps in logic. Fake precedent. What else you got reason?

  23. Every day the next Senate schedules/holds a trial for Trump is a day they don’t consider/enact legislation to further destroy America.

    1. Between the various Green New Deals alone there has to be at least a million-page stockpile of ideas ready to go. Not to mention that it seems like COVID lockdown nonsense, at the Federal level, has been on autopilot since it began.

  24. Wouldn’t following their example be horribly racist? I mean I thought we had to tear down all their statues because of how terrible and racist they all were.

    Now we’re looking to them for legal advice? I hope this “we give a shit what all those old white dudes thought about the Constitution” extends beyond just trying to impeach Trump.

  25. The Senate held Blount’s impeachment trial after he was kicked out of office.

    Uh, no. The Senate didn’t hold any trial at all for Blount, because they held that a senator was not subject to impeachment. The Senate expelled him, but that was pursuant to the authority of each house under Article I section 5 clause 2 authority to expel its own members by a two-thirds vote.

    1. See my comment above

  26. O/T – Harsh Stuff

    A Short History Of How Anthony Fauci Has Kept Failing Up Since 1984

    As a result, a single drug, AZT, was the only AIDS treatment that came out of Fauci’s government research system, and only after help from the private sector. In 1988, the playwright and prominent AIDS activist Larry Kramer published an “Open Letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci” in the Village Voice, writing, in part:

    You admitted that you are an incompetent idiot. Over the past four years, $374 million has been allocated for AIDS treatment research. You were in charge of spending much of that money. . . . Yet after three years you have established only a system of waste, chaos, and uselessness.

    1. He hasn’t been involved in anything important in decades, the idea that he’s some kind of expert is laughable. The medical field is constantly changing, hanging out at a bureaucracy instead of in a research lab or hospital means he’s nowhere near the most qualified person in the country to be making decisions.

      I have to renew certifications in my profession and I’m just an IT weenie, not a doctor. When was the last time Fauci’s knowledge and competence was evaluated by an unbiased 3rd party?

      1. Again, Trump’s downfall is his poor choice of advisors.

  27. Do they support impeachment of officials for conduct they did *before* taking office?

    I wanna know if Harris is eligible for impeachment for speech inciting violence against the government and providing support for terrorists.

    1. checks Kamala’s party affiliation

      Nope.

  28. Stories starting to pop up that McConnell is going to call the Senate into emergency session on Friday to do a trial.

    1. And an update….McConnell said “nah”. So never mind.

      1. Obviously their media is turning to their usual trustworthy anonymous sources.

        Someday we’ll find out that it was all a board on 4chan.

  29. Holding the second house impeachment hearings and a senate hearing does noting but stoke the division. There are 7 more days and history will correctly identify that pursuing a second impeachment and removal this late into a presidency is purely for political revenge. There is precious little honor in washington dc on either side.

    1. They know this. Its about sending a message.

      One, they talk about ‘healing the divide’ in public while sharpening the knives in private. This bit of theater is a warning to get on board – those who fail to condemn vigorously and early enough will be noted and gotten around to eventually.

      1. Hell they aren’t even sharpening the knives in public, they call for unity and healing while in the very next sentence talk about punishing wrong think. It is like their definition of compromise, which as far as it came to Obama seemed to be give me what I want this time because I could and will ask for more next time if you don’t. Unity seems to mean, unified in support of only what they believe.

    2. The division needs to be stoked. 75 million are not yet angry or disenfranchised enough. It needs to happen now, while they still have the means, power, and “tools” to mount a real opposition. Clowns taking selfies don’t count.

  30. The Dems make themselves look so weak with this petty bullshit. They’re sore winners. It’s pathetic and childish.

    1. Ice, this only has to do with the election in one way, the actions taken were done to (somehow) prevent the certification of Trump’s loss. Past that, it’s got nothing to do with the election. It has to do with a man so craven he sicks a mob on his political opponents and claps while it happens. Pettiness defines the GOP at this point, at least those who still stand with the BIG LIE of fraud and the Big Liar (Trump).

      1. Show me where he sicced the mob on them? What in his speech constitutes that definition?

        1. It was when he said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” That’s pretty clearly just another way of saying “Go lynch those motherfuckers!”

          1. Yeah, it is telling that the ones hearing Dog whistles are the same ones who labeled the summer riots peaceful protests. If you hear dog whistles and only dogs can hear dog whistles, what does that make you (figuratively and not you specifically)?

    2. Sore winners, ha!

      Donald Trump incited a terrorist attack against the United States. No Democrat made him do that. No Democrat thought he should be president at all.

      1. In your opinion, reading the text I see nowhere where he invited a terrorist attack, he called for a peaceful protest. So calling for protest is now inciting a terrorist attack? And yes his exact words were for a peaceful, patriotic protest at the capital not in it.

        1. A protest for what cause? Remind me.

          Has he corrected the lie that brought them there? Has he even really condemned this without having a lawyer holding him hostage?

          1. “A protest for what cause? Remind me”

            Election integrity.

            1. To save it, you must destroy it.

              1. Did you say the same thing when Boxer called for the same thing in 2016?

                1. Maybe one day it’ll cross your mind that Republicans are always the bad guys in all these situations.

                  Yes they papered over a Russian attack on the US election because it helped them politically.

                  Yes they played into a lie about the 2020 election because it helped them politically and they were literally scared the angry mob they created would murder them.

                  They’re always the bad guys dude. Half a century of weeding out anyone with any independent thought will do that. Authoritarianism always looks the same.

                  1. You seem real mad that people want election integrity. And that your weak ass got Trumped in this thread.

                    1. Republicans have never once stopped trying to disenfranchise people who don’t vote for him, especially black people. They don’t believe in election integrity, and I don’t think you do either.

                      After 60 lawsuits you’re not interested in facts, just power. And that’s fine. Stupid people think that way all the time. Very stupid people act on that belief while staring down the barrel of the US Armed Forces.

                      Integrity. Say more words you don’t understand.

                  2. Gee the guy stating Republicans are always the bad guys, and supports shutting down Parler be side some people said bad stuff, blocking Trump supporters nationwide from doing business or being on social media and just stated that he supports giving blacks the power and removing all whites from power is straight faced accusing the Republicans of weeding out any contrary thoughts and accusing them of being authoritarian without any sense of irony. This is what projection looks like, if you had by self awareness.

                  3. And every time you open your mouth and say shit like this and what you did downstream about racism, you just rove the points I am making. You can’t help yourself because you are so convinced of your own rightouness that you can’t understand your hypocrisy. Just as bad as any born again Christian who judges others while not being Godly themselves. In fact worse.

                    1. My hypocrisy or lack thereof isn’t the issue, as much as FOX News wants to make it the issue.

                      A normal man would shut the fuck up and hang his head in shame over what you supported here.

                      I’m not asking the terrorists to apologize for every terrible thing someone tangentially related to them did in the past. I’m just asking them to be put in a cage so they don’t kill anymore people.

                    2. Yes it is. Because you don’t realize how much it can lead to bad outcomes. You have justified group punishment and that never ends well. And you blame it on the bad actions of those bad people over there. Which is exactly what Hitler did only he called jews the bad people and you call Republicans and FNC the bad people.

                  4. Russian attack? Oh, it’s “pretend you’re a Chinese bot day at Reason. Sorry.

        2. And Brutus is an honorable man.

  31. Amazing how fast we went from a nominally functioning government and society into what resembles a degenerate ghetto. It’s anarchy only a libertarian could love.

    1. How does a libertarian love anarchy that results in punishing wrong think?

  32. The Senate can and SHOULD try him, whenever it’s convenient. I think he’ll wind up in jail anyway, but making it clear that inciting a mob and then standing by silently, including failing to authorize assistance to quell that violence, makes it plain you WANTED that violence. You WANTED to intimidate and interfere with a co-equal branch of government exercising it’s lawful responsibility when they were acting to certify the replacing of YOU. Trump wanted this, and making it clear it’s not acceptable has no time limit. Even if only symbolic, symbols matter, just ask anyone who bitches about flag burning.

    1. How did he invite the mob? His speech called for a peaceful protest of a constitutional vote, the fact that a vote is required demonstrates that it isn’t symbolic but is a requirement and that voting against certification is not unconstitutional.

      1. A vote they believed was based on fraud, falsely, something Trump did everything to continue encouraging.

        What the hell did you expect would come of this? You people need to learn to take some damn responsibility for your actions. You always ask it of other people.

        1. “You always ask it of other people.”

          Whereas you don’t. Why are you bitching that it’s being down your way?

          Because hypsocrisy? Fuck that noise you don’t care about it so why should anyone else.

          There’s something telling that you hate it when people mirror your own behavior.

          Cue the Tony non-sequiturs, gibberish and hyperbole.

          1. I’ve never even considered committing terrorism.

            The fact that you don’t understand how morality works is why you shouldn’t ever have any power over other people. That and so many other reasons.

            You imagining me to be just as bad as you doesn’t make you good.

            1. No imagination needed. You haven’t considered terrorism because you think your violence would be for a good cause. Or at least what you believe is a good cause.

              1. Is that good cause killing terrorists who want to destroy the United States?

                I live in the United States. I wouldn’t call it a good cause. Just self-defense.

                Besides, if you succeeded in taking away the constitution like you wanted, there wouldn’t be any law anyway, and that means I get to shoot whoever I want and take whatever I can grab. That’s how it works. It’s not law for me and anarchy for thee.

                1. It is when you define as terrorist people who you disagree with.
                  And it isn’t self defense if your justification is you disagree with them. Which is about all you have. You label them terrorist, not everyone agrees, and they haven’t actually been officially declared so. So killing them must be because you disagree with them, which is the actual definition of terrorism, using threats of violence or actual violence to achieve political change. Which is what you are doing. Threatening them with violence to get them to change their politics.

                  1. And terrorist groups kill each other all the time. So even if they were terrorist, your threatening them with violence to change their politics doesn’t absolves you of being a terrorist either.

                  2. “they haven’t actually been officially declared so”

                    I don’t normally flame you but you’re smarter than this stupid shit.

                    An official delcaration is fucking meaningless.

                    1. No it really isn’t. For the government to act and feet them as terrorist, in compliance with the 4A, they have to show just cause, which can’t be simply what they believe but would require some form of official action, e.g. an official declaration of them as terrorist.
                      And I was arguing against his justification for committing violence against people he disagrees with by labeling them terrorist. So my point was two parts, they aren’t terrorist just because he believes they

                    2. And that others disagree and officially they aren’t terrorist either, from how the government currently defines who and what is a terrorist. By the strict sense, any who call for violence for yo affect political change and isn’t doing so as part of a recognized uniformed service is a terrorist. But that isn’t how the government currently works. They can be charged with terrorism, but aren’t a terrorist officially until they are convicted by a court of their peers.

                    3. “No it really isn’t. ”

                      Yes it really is. It’s a meaningless rubber stamp, period.

                    4. “For the government to act and feet them as terrorist, in compliance with the 4A, they have to show just cause”

                      AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH

                      LOOK AT THIS NAIVE RETARD !!!

                    5. You obviously didn’t understand my point but I am the retard. Okay.

                  3. Do you even listen to yourself?

                    I can only assume they aren’t running the videos of the thugs invading and desecrating the US capitol and getting at least 5 people killed.

                    Yes they were extremely lucky that more of them weren’t killed. Congress was also lucky that they didn’t manage to get their hands on them.

                    It’s over man. Over. Republicans can never have power again, because they suborned the overthrowing of the United States, and definitely not for any good reason.

                    It’s not fun and games anymore. You commit violence against someone, they commit violence back. Your team just picked the strongest entity in the known universe to pick a fight with. That was ill-advised.

                    Next time don’t look to an orange freak TV game show host for your moral authority.

                    1. Never have power again because so e of them, a small minority, committed crimes? And they advocates for the subjugation (actually they advocates for Confess to vote a certain way, the fact that a vote exists men’s that it isn’t a guaranteed outcome and that you can vote however you want) of a process the same way some Democrats, such as Boxer did, in 2001, 2005,and 201u7, namely calling for congress not to certify the electoral college results.

                    2. What would you say if you applied the standards you apply to leftists to yourself? I thought I was responsible even for buildings burned down by the Proud Boys in the vicinity of a BLM protest somewhere?

                      A small minority. Egged on by the president of the United States. People who believed his lies. That’s not a minority of the Republican party. And it doesn’t take a terribly large minority to form an armed force.

                      Trump has an army. Fine. He’s not the first strongman to try to take over a country. He’s the first to try to do it against one with the most powerful army our species has ever known. But nobody said he was bright.

                    3. ” I thought I was responsible”

                      No, you just say you think that because you don’t have an argument.

                    4. And if Republicans can’t ever have power again, are you also advocating that approximately half of the country that voted for them can’t also have power? And you call them authoritarians? Here is a clue if you are advocating that one group of people you disagree with should be punished for the actions of a minority of those people (and it was a minority) you are the authoritarian. And at this point I have to conclude you saying otherwise is trolling because I refuse to believe anyone is this stupid.

                    5. I never implied that you were responsible for those who burned the buildings down not implied you should be punished for their actions. I have stated your support of the riots and your dismissal of them as protests, not actual protests but the riots, does make you partially culpable. Since a number of Republicans have denounced Trump’s fraud charges, even as far back as November condemning them all for the actions of a minority is different because you are including the ones who denounced him and voted against the way he wanted and even the ones who protested peacefully. I never stated we should punish all leftist, false equivalency.

                    6. I don’t have much of an argument, sure. I don’t really need one other than self-defense against the terrorists trying to steal something precious from me.

                      What do you think should be done to violent trespassing mobs? Serve them tea and crumpets? Well I’m not a cop.

                    7. “Tony
                      January.13.2021 at 5:12 pm
                      What would you say if you applied the standards you apply to leftists to yourself”

                      Mann of Isle
                      January.13.2021 at 4:18 pm
                      “You always ask it of other people.”

                      Whereas you don’t. Why are you bitching that it’s being down your way?

                      Because hypsocrisy? Fuck that noise you don’t care about it so why should anyone else.

                      lol Tony has one move

                    8. Yes SM, I am saying that I don’t want Republican voters to ever have power over my life again. Exactly as you feel about Democrats, except my belief is based in reality and yours is based on lies.

                      They already get every bias imaginable in elections. They would be a dead party without them. Let them die. They haven’t done a single good thing for this country in 50 years. You can’t even name one I bet.

                    9. “Tony
                      January.13.2021 at 5:22 pm
                      I don’t have much of an argument, sure.”

                      we know it’s why you’re screeching terrorist like a retard

                    10. I am saying that I don’t want Republican voters to ever have power over my life again

                      Then you should see a Psychiatrist because they seem to be living under your bed.

                    11. I have to keep it up because I know perfectly well by next week all you braying sheep will forget the terrorist attack ever happened because some black college lesbian somewhere said something that offended you.

                    12. “Cue the Tony non-sequiturs, gibberish and hyperbole.”

                      God this guy owns you!

                    13. When have I ever said I don’t want Democrats ever to have power over my life again? Also, even if I felt that way I wouldn’t advocate for them to officially not be capable of doing such. I would just campaign against their candidates and vote against them. Not make it official policy. You are projecting I’d you think you are doing what you believe I would do to Democrats.

                    14. Tony, here is a thought, one can condemn the riots, without condemning everyone who belongs to the same tribe and also at the same time denounce what someone from the other side says or does. I know it is hard for a religious zealot o do, because at this point you sound just like a religious zealot, but have replaced a spiritual being with the worship of government but government only run by your side.

            2. “Cue the Tony non-sequiturs, gibberish and hyperbole”

              “Tony
              January.13.2021 at 4:19 pm
              I’ve never even considered committing terrorism.

              The fact that you don’t understand how morality works is why you shouldn’t ever have any power over other people. That and so many other reasons.

              You imagining me to be just as bad as you doesn’t make you good.”

              That’s what I call prognostication!

              1. I realize the very idea of accountability is foreign to you people.

                You wake up in the morning and tune into some fat asshole on the radio to figure out who to blame that day for all your deficiencies.

                Mental health patients are sad victims until they take over the asylum. Then the men with guns come. You understand.

                1. The idea of group accountability for the actions of a few is foreign to anyone but authoritarians like you. Because that is what you are advocating for. And find where I ever called for all leftist to be punished collectively for the actions of the rioters this summer.

                  1. I’m not calling for collective punishment. Trump isn’t part of the collective, he’s their leader.

                    I also happen to believe, because it’s true, that he didn’t hijack an unwilling party and impose his will on it. They let him in the front door. They had 17 other choices and they wanted the one guy with absolutely no rationale whatsoever for giving him this kind of power.

                    Fix your own stupid. I’m doing fine. I’ll do much better when you guys can’t impose your stupidity on me.

                    1. Actually he rarely ever won 50% or more of the primary votes. Because their were 17 candidates it made it easier for him to win because the party was so split. So yes you are punishing a whole group for being different than they way you 2an them to be. You are calling for group punishment for the actions of a minority, or if you are basing it not on the actions of the rioters but simply because Republicans, mostly, voted for Trump and you don’t like Trump, that more than anything proves it are an authoritarian. And actually in my opinion more dangerous than Trump because you want to believe you aren’t an actually have convinced yourself that you aren’t. And I never supported Trump. I did praise him when he did something I agreed with, defended him when I thought the attacks were being unfair, and I also castivated him when I felt he deserved it. I voted for Johnson and Jorgenson, but I feel people who believe like you are extremely dangerous because you are so convinced of your roghtousness that you will justify any actions to eventually punish those who you disagree with. This is leads to actions such as genocide. It doesn’t matter that you think it can’t because you state you oppose Nazis (as if they have been the only ones to commit genocide). Because when people convince themselves that they can’t commit evil simply because they are right and the other side is wrong it eventually allows them to justify any action to punish those who are wrong.

    2. And proof Trump wanted it. I condemned the riots last week but you are unhinged and more dangerous than the rioters were. You are literally calling to impeach over speech that you disagree with. And calling for punishing him because he lobbied for senators and congressmen to use their constitutional powers to do what he desired, which was distasteful is not a crime and is protected by the 1A. And it isn’t ignoring the constitution either as the vote is required and doesn’t state they have to vote yes certification. Since the vote is required, it means they can vote yay or nay as they want for what reasons they want to.

      1. And further the idea that the vote outcome must be foreordained is simply not consistent with our form of government. And giving a speech is not interfering with a co-equal branch. And protesting is not. Arguably the riots are but the case that the riots are the result of Trump:s speech, especially as they started while he was still giving the speech, is debatable and fairly weak. And if so, all the senators, such as Schumer, who have threatened the courts with court packing, or when Obama threatened the legislatures and gave speeches about how he felt the courts should decide issues are as guilty of interfering with a co-equal branch ad Trump. And all the Congressional Democrats who voted against certification in 2001, 2005 and 2017 are equally guilts, as is Nancy Pelosi who tweeted in 2016 that Trump’s victory was illegitimate.

      2. A government employee´s speech, spoken as part of his job duties, is not First Amendment protected, per the Garcetti decision.

        1. That’s not quite right actually.

        2. So, that makes campaign speeches illegal? And makes it illegal for a President to campaign for a bill or against one?

        3. Giving a rally speech has never been ruled an official action. And if you believe in the 1A, it never should be either. And you have to prove speaking at a rally is an official actions (which as I just stated it has never been and creates a terrible precedence) and actually goes against what we were taught in the military. We could speak at a rally, but couldn’t do so by identifying ourselves as members of the military and couldn’t do so while we were supposed to be on duty. This last qualification seems not to apply to elected officials because I can’t think of a single one that hasn’t spoken at a rally while Congress and the Senate were in session (in the case of legislatures) or during work hours while President. If you argue a president is always on duty, you ban any President from speaking at a rally ever again and make guilty all previous presidents.

  33. This is only complicated for Trump haters that want to punish the president. The wording and implications of the constitution are clear and in plain english:
    “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.”
    After January 20th Trump will not be “President” and he will no longer be in “Office”, so congress no longer has the authority to impeach him and neither is there any legitimate need to do so.
    Get over it Trump haters, and move on with your life, but know that either way Trump supporters are not going away.
    What that means is that there will be 70M plus of us pushing for the same policies that Trump has been pushing.

  34. Where’s John been? The troll activity and pissing matches have decreased some recently so I ventured back into the comments section but haven’t seen John around. Without him and with sarcasmic hit-or-miss lately that leaves Ken as the undisputed best commentator.

    1. John’s moved to Nevis/Switzerland/Cayman Islands/Panama and taken his hard bitcoin wallet with him. Sayonara, suckers!

      1. I knew Government employment paid really well these days….

        Hope he’s with all the full-sized women he wants.

  35. Everyone talks about this RACE problem and says that this RACE problem will be over when the third-world pours into EVERY White country and ONLY into WHITE countries.
    Everyone says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries to “assimilate,” that is, intermarry, with all those non-Whites.
    They’re pushing White Genocide!
    They claim they are “anti-racist”, what they are is anti-White.
    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

    1. I like a Trumper who’s honest about what he believes.

      Most of them talk in this intolerable doublespeak that does nothing to make the racism less obvious.

      1. Just like you progressives. When I hear white progressives talking about their solutions to end racism, it sounds like white savior complex and racism to me. Because it invariably always is about what white people must do to save blacks.

        1. There’s definitely a lot of that. What are you doing to contribute to the solution?

          Black people saved this country from Trump. Maybe they should be in charge and white people should sit in the corner until they’re ready to be civilized again. White privilege has made them soft and stupid.

          1. Literally calling for apartheid bad segregation and white savior, because your solution isn’t sharing power it requires whites to give up power, so once again only blacks can be saved by whites. Just keep proving my point.
            Here is a solution how about not punishing anyone for who they are, and how about we don’t decide who is in charge based upon their skin color or what opportunities they can have based upon their skin color? And before you argue that is exactly what Republicans do, I have never heard a Republican states blacks shouldn’t be in power because they are black, it always requires you to interpret it a certain way to get that take. You, however, explicitly just steed blacks should be in power and whites denied power based upon being white. This is racism, period.

            1. And any republican that has, the number is exceedingly low enough that I can’t come up with a si gle example (but can come up with examples of people interpreting what they said as that) were disowned and run out of office for the most part. Even in Trump’s case you have to interpret what he has said a certain way to get to that conclusion, and others disagree with that interpretation. But you literally just said blacks should be in power and whites must be out of power simply because they are black and white. And any other justification is used is condemning a race of people and making them all guilty of any misdeeds simply because they belong to the same race.

            2. I’m asking whites to shut up and let the black save them. The blacks are the only ones with any damn sense lately.

              Your side was built on “segregation forever” and have not spent a single day since apologizing for your racism but rather double and tripling down on it.

              Except 2004 when you decided to gin up hatred of gay people for votes. Thanks for that by the way.

              Get out of my fucking life and stop telling me what to do.

              1. My side first I am not as registered Republican, I think I registered as a Libertarian or no party. And even stating whites need to be saved by blacks is no better than vice versa. It is still stating every white erson is evil, even if they didn’t commit any evils and every black person is good simply because they are black. It is racism period. You can’t run from that.

              2. Since I am a self confessed bisexual and have had relationships with men prior to 200r, why would I ever have ginned up hatred of gays? And to what purposes and get out of your life you are the one who is stating Republican should all be punished for a minorities actions, and that all whites should be punished for being white and you claim I am the one telling you how to live? In fact everything you have accused me of so far is nothing like anything I have ever stated, but is almost word for word what you have stated multiple times today, you just substituted your preferred outgroup and ingroup. You are the one deciding how people should live and why they should live that way.

                1. All the better then. Stop defending Republicans while there’s chaos all around. Nobody will notice you slip out the door. All I’m offering you is a chance to escape accountability, just like you’ve always wanted.

                  People like me are not the scary Jew stereotypes you’ve been fed. We are capitalists who believe in science and progress and not treating people like shit for how they were born.

                  Our extremists are incredibly annoying, but they don’t commit terrorism. Not lately anyway. We’ve been bullied for decades by an ascendant rightwing so we can’t so much as speak out of turn or say something controversial without it blowing up all over media like it’s the end of the world.

                  You stop taking my extremists for all of us, and I’ll pretend not to notice that you ever defended those assholes.

                  1. I am not defending Republicans I am condemning you wanting to punish people for wrong think or for simply being Republicans. And I blame the chaos also on your side. And I did condemn the rioters. But never called for group punishment or for overcharging. And I called for equal treatment not special treatment. And I oppose the actions taken by the left recently to silence and punish anyone on the right.

                    1. You see I can do both, I don’t need to do one or the other. And I don’t need to justify bad behavior as a means to punish bad behavior. Especially if it is based mainly because they voted a way I didn’t like.

                    2. I want to punish criminals, and I want the people who voted for them to feel that special sting of being woken up out of a cult. Someone should really hide their kool-aid.

                    3. Says the man who feels people should be judged by their skin color and is openly calling to punish people because they voted in ways he disagrees with. Yes punish them as you have punished similar crimes in the past. Period. And just those who actually pbroke theblawm And waking them up to the cult you first.

                  2. Don’t commit terrorism. Did you miss the 30 people killed this summer during riots, mostly by leftist?

                    1. Not blaming all leftist but pointing out that your extremist had committed violence recently as well, and that if you label what happened at the capital building as terrorism, you have to label the violence this summer as terrorism also. Because e while the goals where different, both were violence committed in the pursuance of a political goal.

    2. Umm…this is so old news, one has to wonder where you’re coming from? Incitement to racist talk? Stormfront wanderer? Time traveler from 2019?

  36. I was a little disappointed in this article. Reason writers tend to be, above all, fair — even when they strongly support a position. Yet the writer of this article never once mentions that the persons impeached after leaving office were all acquitted — most because a fair number of Senators though an ex-civil officer was not a civil officer under Article II, Section 4. My guess is that if the Senate holds a trial after Trump leaves office, he will be acquitted because just enough Republican Senators will use the literal language of Article II, Section 4 as a cover.

    1. Good. Then he can remain the king of the Republicans.

      Mitch McConnell would very much like him to go away “naturally.”

      1. And your sides actions since last Wednesday are likely to mean he has a better chance of winning in 2024 if he runs again. Good job if your aim is to make him President again. His actions over the past three months made it unlikely he could have even won the nomination which I would consider a good thing for the country and the conservative movement. But the actions you are applauding now seems to be increasing the possibility of another Trump win and even a better than average chance he also wins the presidency. Rasmussen polling, one of the most accurate polling this last year and since 2008, has his popularity the highest it’s been for over a year, while congresses and the Democrats polling is at its lowest point and far below Trump’s. Also over 60% of the country considers impeachment a complete waste of time. Based on downloads, people leaving their sites, and stock prices, FB and Twitter’s actions also appear to be increasingly unpopular. So keep up the good work.

        1. My side’s actions.

          You need to understand something about “your side.” You have no principles or plans except to have power over other people by whatever means you can achieve. You believe this is fine because we are evil. Democracy is not a principle you believe in, it’s an inconvenience.

          The fact that once you get in power you do nothing but cause disaster after disaster and make people hysterical and stupid enough to vote for you is just the cherry on the top of the sundae of fuckery.

          You are a good person who got sucked in by Republican party propaganda. We are in the middle of a pandemic you did nothing about but whine about hygiene. The economy is in the shitter and formerly middle class people are going to food banks.

          All you do is blame people who did none of that. You blame people who have better ideas because they are smarter than you. You hate them because they are smarter than you.

          You know how I feel about people smarter than me? That they should be in charge because of that fact.

          You elected Trump, the traitor, and history will see him as a villain and buffoon in equal measure. Don’t talk to me about my side.

          1. When did I suck up to Trump? And how did I elect Trump when I never voted for him? And as for smarter people being on charge, based upon my IQ, statistically speaking I am most likely smarter than you. And what is my side? You keep misstating my beliefs and keep projecting what you think I believe or how I have voted or who I support, and have been wrong every time. There isn’t just two sides Tony.

          2. As nd I’d didn’t do nothing I advocates against the policies that put the economy in the shifter, the same policies that you advocate for.

            1. It’s funny Nardz and Ken blame me for Biden winning and Tony blames me for Trump winning.

              1. Libertarians are hated by everyone. It is known.

                1. This the way.

              2. I don’t blame you for Biden winning, I blame the fraud in a handful of cities for that.
                I think your determination to pretend norms weren’t shattered by leftist totalitarianism and your faith in corrupt institutions is foolish and dangerously naive.

                1. And this too. Things have changed, people. This wasn’t like any other election as far as what it means for this country going forward. You can commit poorly excused and concealed fraud, and no one of importance will care, so long as you’re a Leftist.

                  I don’t understand why people here think that cheating isn’t going to happen again, when it delivered a win this time around, and no one got punished.

  37. Congress is great a spending other people’s money.

  38. Judge Luttig´s op-ed essay is short on analysis and long on ipse dixit.

  39. Trump’s exact words:
    His exact words were, quote, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” unquote.
    That’s impeachable? That’s called freedom of speech

    Tom McClintock Warns Democrats: ‘Be Prepared to Answer to This New Precedent
    Breitbart by Joel B. Pollak13 Jan 2021
    This is an act of political violence and vengence against a sitting President, and you want to talk about sedition? We now officially live in a banana republic. And no, I am not a Trump supporter, and I did not vote for him, or Biden for that matter. The whole Federal government system is corrupt to the core, so this does not really surprise me.

  40. So I guess the walls are closing in?

    1. I predict that after January 20th, at least for four years the walls will be fully closed. Finally.

  41. Many opinions in the Op-ed and comments that make no difference. It depends on what the courts decide if Mr T challenges.

  42. This is pure non-sense, inspired more by Trump-derangement syndrome that legitimate legal analysis. The Senate may only try the impeachment of “the President of the United States.” Donald Trump will cease to be that at noon on January 20.

    1. Yes, precisely!

    2. So your professional opinion is that a president may commit any impeachable act without repercussion so long as that act is committed at a time when the president is able to leave office before the Senate is able to try him.

      That’s an interesting opinion. Quite an escape clause. Could a president arrange with enemies of the US to make war against the US just as he completes his term of office a week or two later, and then be appointed president by the occupying enemy? And if the US military managed to break the occupation, would the president escape all consequences of his action?

  43. Yes, it would be unconstitutional. But, being unconstitutional never has and never will dissuade fanatical and rationally unstable Democrats from attempting in their new land of dystopia.

    Furthermore, the legislative branch cannot, under any circumstance, author an Act or Law that targets a single American citizen and prohibits them from taking part in legal activities afforded other citizens. I’m referring to the ridiculous restriction the Democrats want to enact against the President as stated in their asinine Article of Impeachment — that is clearly unconstitutional.

    1. Which law school awarded you your Constitutional Law J.D.?

      1. They cannot do it legally but will do it anyways. And the courts will see it and do nothing.

        ex- gun laws in NY, CA NJ…

  44. The day the National Socialist Party leader (code-name Hitler) and her loyal army of useful idiots attacked the sitting USA President and the USA as a country using the Reichstag fire (?extinguisher?) excuse.

    It was a direct threat against our Democratic National Socialist!!!! — shortened code-name “Democracy”.

  45. The Wrong; [WE] feel special by ’emPOWERing’ our ability to use Gov-Guns on ‘those’ people to follow our PLAN.
    The Right; [I] feel oppressed by a [WE] ’emPOWERed’ government.

    It’s the same stance that explains every rising dictatorship and eventual failure of every government in history. Stop trying to live other peoples lives for them! LET Individual Liberty and Justice EXIST!!!!

  46. Worried about precedent. What was that old “Laugh in” quip? “.very interesting …but also stupid” Arte Johnson

  47. Mr. Root is correct in that the Senate can try Trump after he leaves office – it just won’t actually mean anything. Come noon on January 20, Trump once again becomes a private citizen. The Congress has zero authority to try a private citizen for any crime – real or perceived. The Senate can waste its time with high theater but in the end it will be just that – theater for its rabid base. As a taxpayer, I am torn at the possibility. It is a colossal waste of money but if they are doing that, they will have less time to destroy the country with their radical leftist agenda.

    1. Jeff, i am in complete agreement and could not have stated it any better. anytime they are arranging deck chairs they are not legislating. a win for us all

  48. lets hope with trump gone the TDS will abate…you fucking retards are fatiguing

  49. The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives passed a series of procedural votes midday Wednesday to advance legislation paving the way for the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
    Trump, who could become the only U.S. president twice impeached, faces a single charge of “incitement of insurrection.” The House voted 221 to 203 to advance the resolution to be considered, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling him a “clear and present danger.”
    The stunning collapse of Trump’s final days in office, against alarming warnings of more violence ahead by his followers, leaves the nation at an uneasy and unfamiliar juncture before Democrat Joe Biden is inaugurated on Jan. 20.
    https://worldabcnews.com/u-s-house-begins-debate-on-impeaching-donald-trump-after-procedural-votes/

  50. The Senate is not a common law court. The Reason article cites “precedents.” But in the Senate (which is not a common law court), the matter is just the Constitution’s pertinent language: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

    The Reason article’s writer fails to observe that in the language “removal from office, and disqualification to hold,” the conjunction is NOT “or,” but “and.”

    Hence, if the Senate adjudges the impeached officer guilty of the charge presented by the articles of impeachment, the Senate may remove the officer from office AND disqualify him from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” The Senate may not either remove him from office or disqualitfy him from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Therefore, the case must be one in which the impeached official can be removed form office, and such case does not obtain where the official is not in office.

    Were the critical conjunction “or” (not “and”), the Senate could choose EITHER (a) to remove an impeached officer from office OR (b) to disqualify him from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” [or both (a) and (b), IF the impeached officer remained in office when the Senate tried him.]. Hence, the impeached individual need not be in office to be subject to being disqualified from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

    The article does not provide evidence that in the cases it cites, the impeached individuals argued that the Senate could not try them because they were not in office. So, the cited cases could not be precedent even IF the Senate were a common law court — since they would not bear a holding premised on resolution of the issue whether the Senate can try an impeached officer who is not in office at the time of trial.

    But worse:

    In the first federal impeachment case—that of Senator William Blount, a late impeachment, the Senate dismissed the impeachment because the Senate lacked of jurisdiction. So, the article-writer lied with his language “The Senate held Blount’s impeachment trial after he was kicked out of office.”

    Vice President John C. Calhoun’s case is not precedent, because he was not impeached but begged impeachment. Hence, any proceeding was not adversarial — not an actual charge and trial.

    John Qunicy Adams’s argument is not precedent.

    In the Belknap case, the Senate the jurisdictional vote was by a simple majority. The minority members insisted the Senate lacked jurisdiction and for THAT reason voted to acquit Belknap. Belknap was acquitted. Also, Belknap’s OFFICE had not ended. Belknap had resigned; and, therfore, he could have continued holding office.

    A more interesting case is one of a federal judge. The judge was impeached and removed from office despite his offense occurred before he held the specific federal judgship from which he was removed. But (a) he committed the offense while he was a federal District Court judge and (b) he had been elevated to a federal Court of Appeals judgeship from which judgeship he was removed (“on Impeachment”) by the Senate. So, that federal judge had not left office —federal judicial office — when, and from which, the Senate removed him (per trial of impeachment). I know no other similar case.

    If you question how that judge’s two federal judgeships can be treated as if one, consider (a) that rather often federal District Court judges sit in federal Court of Appeals three-judge panels in federal Court of Appeals cases and (b) a federal District Court or Court of Appeals judge holds office for life, unless impeached and removed for Article II § 4 cause.

    1. I noticed that I committed a few typing errors. Sorry.

      Also, I see that two paragraphs beg refinement:

      A more interesting case is one of a federal judge. The judge was impeached and removed from office despite his offense occurred before he held the specific federal judgeship from which he was removed. But (a) he committed the offense while he was a federal District Court judge and (b) he had been elevated to a higher federal judgeship from which judgeship he was removed (“on Impeachment”) by the Senate. So, that federal judge had not left office — federal judicial office — when, and from which, the Senate removed him (per trial of impeachment). I know no other similar case.

      If you question how that judge’s two federal judgeships can be treated as if one office, consider (a) that rather often federal District Court judges sit in federal Court of Appeals three-judge panels in federal Court of Appeals cases and (b) a federal District Court judge, Court of Appeals judge, or any other “Article III” federal judge holds office for life, unless impeached and removed for Article II § 4 cause.

    2. I have decided to post a much better edition of my comment. Perhaps its content will reach a politically powerful reader or Trump’s would-be impeachment trial lawyer (Rudy Giuliani of Alan Dershowitz?).

      The Senate cannot try Trump and remove Trump from Office or disqualify Trump from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,” if Mitch McConnell continues to block the Trump impeachment’s Senate trial until not earlier than 19 January (2021) and the trial does not begin until 20 January (2021), when Trump will no longer hold the Office of the Presidency.

      Some “scholars” argue that the Senate may try and adjudge the second Trump impeachment after Trump is not in Office (after his Presidency term has ended and he ceases to hold or be in Office). The arguments cite “precedents,” which I discuss below. But precedent-reliance is error.

      The Senate is not a common law court. The Senate cannot rely on or be bound by the Senate’s previous impeachment-trial judgments, as if those decisions were judicial “precedent.” In impeachment trials, the Senate’s jurisdiction depends directly and solely on this Article I § 3 clause 7 language: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

      In the Article I § 3 clause 7 phrase “removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office…,” the conjunction is not “or,” but “and.” Hence, if the Senate adjudges an impeached officer guilty of the charge presented by the articles of impeachment, the Senate may remove the officer from office AND disqualify him from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” The Senate may not either remove him from office or disqualify him from holding and enjoying “any Office…under the United States.”

      Therefore, the case must be one in which the impeached official can be removed from office. And such case does not obtain where the official is not in office.

      Were the critical conjunction “or” (not “and”), the Senate could choose EITHER (a) to remove an impeached officer from office OR (b) to disqualify him from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” [or both (a) and (b), IF the impeached Officer remained in office when the Senate tried him]. Hence, if the critical conjunction were “or,” then even if an impeached individual were not in Office, the Senate could disqualify the individual from holding and enjoying “any Office or honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” But the critical conjunction is not “or.” It is “and.”

      But suppose, in impeachment trials, the Senate were like a common law court — bound by, or entitled to rely on, Senate impeachment trial precedent. Still, never has the Senate held that the Senate can try an impeached Officer who is not in Office at the time of trial. So, no affirmative precedent exists.

      The first federal impeachment case was the 1798 impeachment of U.S. Senator William Blount. The Senate had expelled Blount for “high misdemeanor.” Blount was ordered to appear before a Senate select committee. He refused. A Senate impeachment trial began without him. The trial never reached the merits. The Senate dismissed the impeachment because the Senate lacked jurisdiction since Blount was not in Office at the time the impeachment articles reached the Senate for trial: Blount had been expelled from the Senate.

      Some “scholars” cite the 1827 case of Vice Presdident John C. Calhoun. Calhoun’s enemies were rumoring that Calhoun had engaged in financial misconduct when, earlier, he was Secretary of War. Though Calhoun had left the Office of Secretary of War and had become Vice President, Calhoun begged the House to impeach him concerning whether he abused his Office when he was Secretary of War. Calhoun wanted a forum and process in which he could refute the rumors. The House investigated Calhoun and cleared him. He was not impeached.

      One must wonder what “logic” moved some “scholars” to assert that the Calhoun case “proves” the Senate can try a person after he has left Office.

      Such “scholars” cite also the 1846 case of Daniel Webster. Webster had served as Secretary of State under President Tyler. Three years after he left the post (and four years before he returned to it), Webster found himself accused of using federal funds improperly when he was Secretary of State. Some House members thought impeachment would be a proper means of resolving whether the accusations were false.

      During the House’s debates in the Webster case, John Quincy Adams asserted that the House could impeach a person after he left Office. Adams’s assertion is oft-cited as “proof “ of the truth of its content. But impeachment did not occur. Hence the case and Adams’s assertion prove naught but the fact that some House members thought impeachment was possible though Webster had left the Office.

      Some “scholars” cite also the 1870 case of Benjamin Franklin Whittemore and John Deweese. The House censured Whittemore and Deweese or selling commissions to the Naval Academy while Whittemore and Deweese were House-Members — despite Whittemore and Deweese were no longer Members of the House. The House debated whether also the House could impeach Whittemore and Deweese. But impeachment did not issue — partly because one House-Member thought, erroneously, that the Blount case [see above] had established that Congress-Members could not be impeached.

      [Article II § 4 suggests a Congress-Member is not impeachable: “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.” A legislator is not a “civil Officer.” The term “civil Officer” denotes a member of the Executive (“executive officer”) or the Judiciary (“officer of the court”). Just so, the phrase “and all civil Officers” follows : “The President, Vice President” — so that “and all civil Officers” must denote Officers like the President and Vice President, not legislators (Members of the House or Senate).]

      Some “scholars” cite the case of Judge Mark Delahay, who was impeached in 1873. House-Members alleged that Delahay’s personal habits rendered him unfit for judicial office: he was intoxicated both on the bench and off. Delahay resigned before the House could draft specific articles of impeachment. He was not impeached. So, the case cannot be precedent, since no charge was brought and adjudged.

      In the 1876 case of Secretary of War William Belknap, the House impeached Belknap after he had resigned his Office. The Senate’s minority insisted the Senate lacked jurisdiction because Belknap had resigned his Office. For THAT reason the minority voted to acquit. Belknap was acquitted. Though the Senate’s simple majority argued that the Senate had jurisdiction and pressed the case to judgment, that argument is not precedent. The argument was not upheld by two-thirds vote. And Belknap’s OFFICE had not ended (albeit Belknap had left Office). Belknap had resigned; and, therefore, could have continued holding Office.

      A more interesting case is the 1912 impeachment of Judge Robert Archbald. At the time of his impeachment and Senate trial, Archbald was a judge of the U.S. Commerce Court, an Article III court. But of the twelve articles of impeachment, six articles addressed alleged misconduct committed while Archbald was a judge of a U.S. District Court, another Article III court. [An Article III court is a court established per U.S. Constitution Article III and having judges holding life tenture per Article III. Like the U.S. Commerce Court and U.S. District Courts, federal Courts of Appeals are Article III courts and their judges Article III judges.]

      Still, that case is not precedent for the proposition that the Senate can try a civil Officer’s impeachment when the Officer has left office. Six impeachment charges related to alleged misconduct Archbald committed while holding the Office of a U.S. Commerce Court judge. While Archbald was still a Commerce Court judge, Archbald was convicted of two of those six charges. But Archbald was acquitted on all of the impeachment charges that related to his conduct occurring while he was a District Court judge.

      Archbald had been elevated from a U.S. District Court judgeship to another federal “Article III” judgeship, a Commerce Court judgeship, when, and from which, the Senate removed him. Archbald’s two federal judgeships can be treated as one “office” — for impeachment and Senate trial purposes — for several reasons:

      (a) Often U.S. District Court judges sit in U.S. Circuit Court three-judge panels in federal appellate cases.

      (b) Commerce Court judges were reassigned to another appellate court when their term on the Commerce Court expired. Even while they served on the Commerce Court, Commerce Court judges served also as at-large appellate judges whom the U.S. Supreme Court’s Chief Justice could assign to any other appellate court.

      Commerce Court judges heard claims arising from orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Commerce Court judges rendered judicial review of such orders. So. effectively, Commerce Court judges acted hybrid trial- court/appellate-court judges. [The Commerce Court was abolished one year after Archbald was removed from that court. In 1982, the “Federal Circuit” Court of Appeals was given jurisdiction like, but broader than, that had by the Commerce Court.]

      A federal District Court judge, federal Court of Appeals judge, or any other federal “Article III judge” holds office for life, unless impeached and removed for cause provided in Article II § 4. So, even after elevated from his District Court judgeship, Archbald continued to hold the same Office — Article III judge. An Article III judge is an Article III judge — not only a judge of a specific Article III federal court. So, Archbald had not left office —Article III judicial office — when, and from which, the Senate removed him, even if the Senate removed him partly because of misconduct he committed while a U.S. District Court judge.

      Even must one question whether federal Article III judges’s impeachments rests solely on the power the Constitution’s Article II § 4 assigns to the House.

      Article III provides: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

      Since (a) per Article III Congress establishes the lower federal courts and (b) since all Article III judges, even Supreme Court Justices, are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate and (c) the Article III judge-removal standard is breach of good behavior, federal judge impeachment and removal seems a process somewhat distinct from the process of impeaching and removing other “civil Officers.” Hence, for reason of such distinction, the Archbald case may be specially not precedent for impeachments and Senate trials of Presidents, Vice Presidents, and other non-judicial civil Officers.

      The ultimate conclusion must be that the Senate cannot try an impeachment of a President, Vice President, or other federal civil Officer (except, perhaps, an Article III judge) whose Office’s term has ended and who has thus left Office.

  51. Yes let’s waste time impeaching someone who voters already defeated in the election. Not like we need to address financially failing entitlements or any other such less important matters.

  52. Trump is less likely to be convicted by a 50:50 Senate, as that would require 17 Republicans voting to convict, than he is likely to be convicted in a criminal court in DC by a Jury of 12 Democrats.

    1. I missed class the day they taught about the appeals process could you please explain it.

  53. Fair enough. When the Right has power they can impeach every Dem president since 1828, some Whigs, and Federalists…

  54. You can’t ignore one part of the constitution in favor of another…

    Article 2, 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.”

    So, there you have it. After he is no longer President, he cannot be removed from office. That is the doctrine of mootness.

  55. When does #10%Joe get impeached for his and his family’s payola scheme with China, Ukraine, Russia, and various “stan” countries? With Dems in control of Congress and the media suckling on the teat of the DNC, probably never.

  56. There is no judge presiding the trial. Doesn’t that make it a Bill of Attainder?

Comments are closed.