Impeachment

The Constitutional Argument Against Trump's Senate Trial Is Convenient. Is It Also Wrong?

While many prominent constitutional scholars think trying a former president is perfectly legal, the dissenters make some points that are worth considering.

|

Forty-five Republican senators voted this week against trying Donald Trump on the charge that he incited the Capitol riot, maintaining that it is unconstitutional to consider the article of impeachment against him now that he is no longer president. That argument is very convenient for Republicans who do not want to alienate Trump's supporters but also do not want to defend the conduct that led to his impeachment. But the fact that the argument is convenient does not necessarily mean it is wrong. While many prominent legal scholars think Trump's trial is perfectly constitutional, the dissenters make some interesting points that are bound to come up again during the trial.

As Reason's Damon Root has noted, there is historical precedent for impeaching or trying federal officials after they leave office. William Blount's case was sent to the Senate for trial in 1798 after he had been impeached by the House and expelled from the Senate, and former Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached in 1876, after he resigned. The House conducted an impeachment investigation of Vice President John C. Calhoun in 1827 based on his conduct as secretary of war, a position he no longer held. As a congressman in 1846, former President John Quincy Adams said he was "amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office."

Last week 150 legal scholars, including Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calabresi and several Volokh Conspiracy bloggers, signed a statement arguing that trying a former president is consistent with the text of the Constitution and the purposes of impeachment. Although Trump can no longer be "removed from Office," they noted, he can still be disqualified from "hold[ing] and enjoy[ing] any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" if he is convicted by the Senate.

"The Constitution's impeachment power has two aspects," the statement says. "The first is removal from office, which occurs automatically upon the conviction of a current officer. The second is disqualification from holding future office, which occurs in those cases where the Senate deems disqualification appropriate in light of the conduct for which the impeached person was convicted. The impeachment power must be read so as to give full effect to both aspects of this power."

Limiting the option of disqualification in the way that critics of Trump's trial suggest, the legal scholars warn, would create perverse incentives. "If an official could only be disqualified while he or she still held office," they say, "then an official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate's final conviction vote. The Framers did not design the Constitution's checks and balances to be so easily undermined."

The statement also notes that the Framers worried about "the danger of a power-seeking populist of the type they referred to as a 'demagogue' rising to the highest office and overthrowing republican government." They "understood that the source of such a person's power does not expire if he or she is expelled from office; so long as such a person retains the loyalty of his or her supporters, he or she might return to power." They "devised the disqualification power to guard against that possibility, and would surely disagree that a person who sought to overthrow our democracy could not be disqualified from holding a future office of the United States because the plot reached its crescendo too close to the end of his or her term."

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, by contrast, thinks the constitutionality of trying a former president is "a close question upon which people of good faith can disagree." He concedes that the Belknap case shows "a majority [of senators] viewed impeachment as extending beyond removal for the purposes of a trial," although he notes that Belknap was acquitted. As for Blount, Turley says, he "did not even show up because he contested the very basis for an impeachment trial of a private citizen," and "the Senate refused to hold a trial."

Turley suggests that trying a former president creates some puzzles. "The primary stated purpose of the trial is to determine whether 'the President…shall be removed,'" he writes. "At the second Trump impeachment trial, the president will be Joe Biden, not Donald Trump. So the Senate will hold a rather curious vote to decide whether to remove a president who has already gone. Moreover, Chief Justice John Roberts is not expected to be present to answer these questions because there is no president to try. Article I states 'When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.' So the Senate will get someone else. The question is who is being tried. Is he a president? Obviously not. Is he a civil officer? No, he is a private citizen. A private citizen is being called to the Senate to be tried for removal from an office that he does not hold."

Former 4th Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig thinks such textual difficulties show that "the Senate's only power under the Constitution is to convict—or not—an incumbent president." Turley, who describes the question as "an unresolved issue of constitutional interpretation," is not so sure. But he is skeptical of the idea that disqualification should be viewed as a remedy independent from removal.

"Removal is stated as the question for the Senate to answer in the trial of 'the President,'" Turley says. "The Senate may, in its discretion, add disqualification after a president has been removed. The second optional penalty language was expressed as a limitation on the authority of the Senate and again references removal: [The judgment] 'shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification.' Since the Senate does not have to disqualify, it would not seem to be an interchangeable or equal consideration in that respect."

Leaving the constitutional question aside, Turley worries that allowing impeachment and trial after a president has left office will invite partisan vendettas. "These scholars are arguing that Nixon could still have been impeached and removed after he left office," he writes. "Indeed, there is no time limit to such retroactive trials, which could come years later as easily as [they] could come weeks later….Under this approach, any new Congress could come into power and set about disqualifying opponents from public office despite their being private citizens. A Republican Congress could have retroactively impeached Barack Obama or retried Bill Clinton. They could insist that there is no escaping impeachment by merely leaving office.  That is why, even if the Senate does not view this as extraconstitutional, it should view this trial as constitutionally unsound."

Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former 10th Circuit judge, is not impressed by these objections. "Whether a former officer can be impeached is beside the point," he says. "Donald Trump was President of the United States at the time he was impeached by the House of Representatives. The impeachment was therefore unquestionably permissible." He notes that the Constitution says "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Since that clause "contains no reservation or limitation," McConnell argues, it is clear that the Senate has the authority to try Trump.

Whatever you make of these arguments, it is not exactly clear what a Senate trial is meant to accomplish in this case. Trump's impeachment, which was backed by 10 Republicans in the House and gave him the dubious distinction of being the only president ever to be impeached twice, already has served as a strong rebuke that will always be a stain on his record. If a handful of Republicans in the Senate vote to convict him, that stain will be a bit darker. But given that 45 senators did not even want to hold a trial, it seems clear that Trump will not be convicted and therefore will not be disqualified from seeking the presidency again.

There was initially some hope that Trump's trial would catalyze a Republican repudiation of him, helping to free the GOP from his malign influence. But it now looks like all but a few Republican senators have decided that their careers still depend on kowtowing to Trump and his many ardent followers. Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), who just last week said Trump "provoked" the deadly attack on the Capitol with "lies," voted against taking up the article of impeachment. McConnell, who reportedly thinks his party's continued viability depends on distancing itself from Trump, apparently has concluded that will not happen anytime soon.

[The first reference to Blount's impeachment has been revised to reflect the fact that the Senate did not reach the merits of his case.]

NEXT: Elizabeth Warren and the SEC Should Let the GameStop Lulz Go On

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.

  1. Today in libertarian news and commentary.

    A literary agent has lost her job after her employer discovered she had accounts with Parler and Gab.

    On Monday, in tweets seen by Newsweek, the president of the agency said: ‘The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency was distressed to discover this morning, 25 January, that one of our agents has been using the social-media platforms Gab and Parler. We do not condone this activity, and we apologise to anyone who has been affected or offended by this.’

    ‘The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency has in the past and will continue to ensure a voice of unity, equality and one that is on the side of social justice’, she continued, before concluding that Colleen Oefelein, the agent in question, was no longer part of the company. There is currently not any suggestion that Oefelein actually posted anything objectionable on either of these platforms.

    1. a voice of unity, equality and one that is on the side of social justice’

      I think some of those things might be contradictory or mutually exclusive.

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

        1. Making money online more than 100$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18,376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular CWez office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info…

          Visit>>>>>>>>>>> Home Profit System<<<<<<<<<<<

          1. Every month I am earning online more than $28,650 by doing a very simply online job from my home. RFvd By doing this in my part time I was able to save enough to buy me a new car in just a few months. This is so freaking easy that everyone should try it… Start making some dollars online today by following instructions on this website……..

            >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Home Profit System <<<<<<<<<<<<<

            1. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however BER my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

              Give it a shot on following website……..VISIT HARE

              1. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6,000-12,000$ a month or even more if DWhy 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…….

                >>>>>>>>>>>>> Home Profit System <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

                1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. say Every Person join this GHio and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
                  COPY This Website OPEN HERE….

                  >>>>>>>> Home Profit System <<<<<<<<<

      2. “unity . . . on the side of” tells you all you need to know, really.

        1. 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 VBG regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page……..MORE READ

      3. In other words, “we’ll squash you like an ant if you don’t comply with the accepted narrative”.

        1. “We just found out that someone, who has to this point kept her political perspective out of the office for fear of being fucked over by us was right. What’s more, we’re just gonna virtue-signal like hell by announcing what nobody else cares about like the whiny little snowflake bitches that we are in hopes that we can get a few non-dead clients.”

          This 20 yr old company only got it’s first of 15 Google reviews yesterday. But the best part is their client list:
          – The ELF ON THE SHELF authors
          – The Estate of Danny Aiello
          – Ed Asner [Lou Grand from the Mary Tyler Moore show}
          – Linda Blair from The Exorcist and numerous failed horror and women in prison dregs
          – The Estate of Sylvia Browne
          – The Estate of Jeanne Cooper
          – The Estate of Charlotte Rae
          – Marion Ross – mom from Happy Days
          – Toni Tennille [minus the Captain] for her memoirs

          The rest, I never heard of.

          1. I’m thinking of contacting them tomorrow to gauge their interest in a book idea:

            Desperately Virtue Signaling for Profit, a compendium of failed attempts by people and companies who nobody pays attention to, in an attempt to jumpstart a failed or never-was career.

            I’m thinking there should be someone there who can relate.

          2. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person and join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
            COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

      4. 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 AXef office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page……Visit……….Home Profit System

      5. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works 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 jobVGT and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…. Visit Here

    2. Obviously if you’re not using state approved social-media you must be a white supremacist.

      1. A week ago is was approved.

    3. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take vxs a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…….. Visit……….. Visit Here

    4. White Knight must be fapping furiously to these kind of stories.

      1. Glad I’m “living rent free in your head”.

        For the record, though, I don’t approve of cancel culture.

        1. Lol, you’re paying full rent every time you do something like fuck up water or quotation marks. It’s like watching an evil retarded monkey suck at both evil and being a monkey.

          1. What happens if a vacuum cleaner sucks at sucking?

    5. Is this a witch hunt yet?

      1. It’s not a witch hunt if private corporations are doing the burning.

        1. Correct. Now bake the cake, bigot.

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

    7. Do you wanna earn money without investing money? That’s how I started this job VGNJ and Now I am making $200 to $300 per hour for doing online work from home.

      Apply Now here…….. Visit Here

  2. Regardless of if it’s constitutional, if trump isn’t impeached, legacy media would have their scarry boogy man to talk about non stop in order to distract from Biden enacting his totalitarian agenda

    1. They are now saying the Troops must stay until this sham impeachment is over. Democrats are openly showing their penchant desire for desire for a banana republic.

      1. You know what says banana republic — a violent mob showing up to disrupt the peaceful counting of votes.

        1. Why are you bringing up the Kavanaugh judicial hearing?

          1. No, that was a different one than I’m talking about, with different hats.

            1. “a violent mob showing up to disrupt the peace”

              But enough about the soldiers Dems installed in DC.

              1. Wait, you gotta explain what the heck you are even talking about on that one.

                1. Nothing says peaceful like machine gun nests.

                  1. First of all, there aren’t any machine gun nests. Second, their presence is defensive because a riot happened on January 6th. Third, the deterrence has worked and there hasn’t been any violence.

                    1. It also keeps away lions.

                    2. So you’re asserting that if not for the military presence there would be violence?

                    3. And yet calling in the national guard to protect the federal court house in Portland that was attacked 3 times, including attempting to trap dozens of people inside and burn them to death, was literal fascism a matter of months ago.

                    4. Johnnie – no, it was nabbing them off of the streets that was fascism. Did we nab any of the rioters off the streets? No, they got warrants for their arrest after reviewing evidence. Big difference.

                    5. Police do not need an arrest warrant when the suspect is captured in the act of crime.

                2. No, it’s clear to us non-idiots.

                3. Do I? I don’t think I do actually.

                  1. I wouldn’t recommend it in fact. Dee’s a disingenuous cunt, so it would be a huge waste of time. Plus she’s dumb as a brick.

                    1. How do we know WK is a broad?

                    2. How do we know WK is a broad?

                      Histrionic. Stupid. Emotional. Incapable of learning. Manipulative. Throws tantrums.

                4. Mr. “Wants us all to know he finally got some dick pills” doesn’t appear to understand.

            2. You must still really be angry about the scalise shooting and all of the national guards brought to D.C. then. Or when BLM was assaulting diners and burning buildings?

            3. Against my better judgement, I have to admire that response.

        2. but not disqualifying your main opponent from trying to seek reelection later?

        3. Yeah Antifa is the worst.

        4. Youre still acting like a crying child huh?

      2. and after impeachment the troops will have to stay to insure there is no revenge taken for the impeachment. they will never go home.

  3. “Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.”

    I don’t think this is a particularly hard question. Removal and disqualification are not separated by an “or” they are separated by “and.”

    Removal and disqualification is ONE punishment, not two separate punishments.

    I have no idea why people are separating the two.

    1. Because Biden isn’t qualified to be President but no one is removing him.

      1. Hell, if this stands, can Obama still be impeached? There’s a shitload more stuff to charge him with, starting with wiretapping a political opponent and violating the Constitutional requirement that it is the Senate that approves treaties, and going all the way back to defrauding the country with shovel-ready jobs, bullshit green deals with buddies, and you can keep your insurance.

    2. That’s the *maximum* punishment.

      Someone who isn’t in office can’t get the maximum punishment, but can get the disqualification punishment.

      (I believe he should be acquitted on the merits)

      1. That’s right. It is a maximum punishment. But, nevertheless, it is ONE punishment, not two separate options.

        If it is interpreted as being two separate options, that would mean a convicted President could be disqualified from holding any public office but not be removed from the office of the Presidency.

        That does not make any sense, which means that the “two distinct options” theory, one being removal and one being disqualification, is an incorrect interpretation.

        It is removal **and** disqualification, not removal **or** disqualification.

        1. It says that defendants still in office will be removed on conviction. So that doesn’t leave the option of leaving the convicted person in office.

          1. No.

            It says they will be removed **and** disqualified.

            1. “shall not extend further than” indicates that flexibility exists.

              1. No, it means he won’t get executed. To the dismay of many.

                1. Thank you.

                  1. He wasn’t helping you.

                    1. Sup 16×9

                    2. “Geiger  Goldstaedt
                      January.28.2021 at 6:15 pm
                      I bet you’re a fucking nigger faggot aren’t you Tulpa? I bet you fuck your nigger bitch mom too you faggot”

                      fuck off White Knight you racist piece of shit

                  2. I’ll take your silence in response to my argument to mean you have no refutation, particularly in light of your overheated efforts to mockingbird other posts that repled to you.

                    1. “Geiger  Goldstaedt
                      January.28.2021 at 6:15 pm
                      I bet you’re a fucking nigger faggot aren’t you Tulpa? I bet you fuck your nigger bitch mom too you faggot”

                      fuck off White Knight you racist piece of shit

                2. “No, it means he won’t get executed”

                  i.e. flexibility

                  Thank you for agreeing with me.

                  1. Categorically prohibiting everything that falls outside of a particular class of punishment is the exact opposite of “flexibility” you fucking simp.

                    1. “Geiger  Goldstaedt
                      January.28.2021 at 6:15 pm
                      I bet you’re a fucking nigger faggot aren’t you Tulpa? I bet you fuck your nigger bitch mom too you faggot”

                      fuck off White Knight you racist piece of shit

            2. “You can have chips and salsa”- do you believe someone saying that would only let you have chips *and* salsa but not just chips?

              This isn’t boolean logic. As a coder, I do appreciate that our language has tended to move more towards obligating both sides of an “and” to be true, but that has not always been the case. There is a subtle difference between saying “You will do this AND this” and saying, “You can choose from among this, this, AND this option.”

              1. “You must have chips and salsa.”

                I don’t know why you decided to slip “can” in there other than to make an argument you otherwise could not have made.

                1. Your snack will not extend further than chips and salsa.

                  1. Enough with the chips and salsa bullshit. It was a stupid attempt at a parallel and it doesn’t work.

                    The removal is mandatory upon conviction. It is not optional. Once impeached, a President must be removed. Disqualification may follow removal, but there is no remedy of a stand alone disqualification, without a removal.

                    It’s not difficult.

                    In order to even consider disqualification, a removal is required. Full stop.

                    You cannot remove someone who is not President and, therefore, cannot disqualify them.

                    Removal and disqualification go hand in hand.

                    1. Once *convicted*

                    2. It was a stupid attempt at a parallel and it doesn’t work.

                      It’s 100% analogous, actually.

                    3. Actually, upon conviction the President may be censured or any number of things. However if they choose to remove the President from office than barring further access to holding office seems required by the text of the Constitution as you have noted.

        2. Well, if it is one punishment, wouldn’t part of it be a lesser punishment, and therefore allowed? I’m not sure I’m convinced of that myself. I think I like your reading of it better. Seems fairly clear that it is intended to apply to people who are in office.

          1. At the end of the day, the Constitution is not by any means a model of clarity, but it is still fairly clear.

            Disqualifying someone that has not been first removed is not an option. Someone not in office, cannot be removed and, therefore, cannot be disqualified.

            1. Totally agree. It is actually pretty clear on this. This section of the constitution specifically deals with the removal of a sitting President for cause, not the punishment of your political enemy after they leave office.

            2. We don’t even have to go this far. Article II Sec 4 only addresses actions taken against “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States”. There is no provision here for filing impeachment articles against a private citizen, which Trump became when Biden took office. If this were not the case, then any future Congress can choose to impeach any former president at any future time. Impeach Carter or Obama.

              1. I tend to agree, but devil’s advocate would point out that “impeachment” is the House’s activity, and the Senate trial is to determine whether the person is guilty of the charges that the House impeached that person for. Since DJT was still in office when he was impeached, that part is legal, and the Constitution then states that the Senate “shall” hold the trial.
                Huh, maybe I just convinced myself to change my mind…

        3. “But, nevertheless, it is ONE punishment, not two separate options”

          I see nothing in the text that defines this as such

          1. The word “and.”

            1. Doesn’t mean “only”

              /something you should have learned in 1st grade

              1. It means “and” which means “both.”

              2. You’re an idiot

        4. “The immediate effect of conviction upon an article of impeachment is removal from office,1 although the Senate may subsequently vote on whether the official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States.2 If this latter option is pursued, a simple majority vote by the Senate is required.3 If not, an individual who has been impeached and removed may remain eligible to serve in an office in the future, including as a Member of Congress.4

          1. Now show me where being disqualified, without first being removed, is permitted.

        5. Bingo.

          The Constitution is clear. Former officers cannot be impeached or convicted.

      2. You’re misreading. It is stating the punishment shouldn’t be more than removal and disqualification. The ‘shall not extend’ refers to not being able to fine them, jail them, etc. It means the only legal judgement is to remove and disqualify.

        1. Even if people disagree on the textualism, removal is a pre-requisite to disqualification … and one cannot remove somebody that is not in office.

          If the Democrats’ position is the correct position, it would mean any private citizen could be tried, removed, and disqualified from ever holding public office, without ever having been President in the first place. It is nonsensical.

          1. The position I agree with is that the person needs to be in office when impeached. If they do a last-minute resignation before the Senate votes on guilt, that shouldn’t stop the Senate from convicting, otherwise nobody could be disqualified from office without his own consent.

            1. Show your work.

              Where in the Constitution is there an affirmative grant of authority to the Senate to try someone for impeachment that is not the President (or a federal officer)?

              If there is no such grant of authority, then the Senate is without power to do so. I understand that you believe the Senate should have such authority, but that is not a constitutional consideration, it is an aspirational one.

                1. The professor skipped right over the Supreme Court Justice presiding.

                  1. And the fact that person being tried must be the President. Volokh, like Tribe, is suffering from TDS quite hard.

                    1. Why not shift to that thread and discuss it there?

          2. Agrees. And is required in legal analysis.

    3. So, you latched onto the argument that gets the results you wanted. The counter-arguments were presented in the article above.

      1. So, you latched onto the argument that gets the results you wanted. The counter-arguments were presented in the article above.

        1. I forgot to add fuck off.

          Fuck off.

          1. you first White Knight

        2. I haven’t taken a firm position on this one. There are valid arguments on each side, and truth be told it’s just plainly ambiguous.

          1. There is no language or grant of authority in the text of the Constitution that permits the Senate to put a private citizen on trial for impeachment.

            If it will help you (I doubt it will), look at it like an issue of standing or jurisdiction with the prerequisite being that the person tried must be the President.

            “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

            The ambiguity here arises from people not being able to comprehend some fairly clear language (or, pretending they cannot comprehend it), and opportunistic politicians taking advantage of that inability to comprehend to push a partisan political agenda.

            1. “There is no language or grant of authority in the text of the Constitution that permits the Senate to put a private citizen on trial for impeachment.”
              No, there isn’t, but that’s not what’s happening. “Trial for impeachment” isn’t a think. The “impeachment” is the accusation and formal elucidation of charges against a public official. (Look up the definition.) Trump has *been* impeached. That is done, and it was done when Trump was still a public official. The charges have been leveled. Now, a trial happens. No one is “on trial for impeachment” — someone is on trial for incitement of insurrection (I believe that’s the charge).

              That person is now a private citizen, but he was not when he WAS impeached, which is the relevant point. As pointed out by other comments (and in the article), allowing someone to resign and exit an office to claim “I’m just a private citizen” would effectively negate the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the disqualification clause you’ve cited.

              That simply doesn’t hold up to reasonable scrutiny as what was likely intended by those who created this policy.

              So, maybe someone can’t avoid disqualification through resignation, but can they avoid it through simply letting their term expire (as happened here)?

              That’s a murkier issue, but again, those who wrote this clause clearly considered it an important enough additional punishment that they listed it specifically. (This was likely, I assume, based on historical issues involving leaders who ran for office more than was generally allowed or expected, something that effectively destroyed the Roman Republic, for example. The Framers were very concerned with such historical precedents.)

              So, your interpretation thus hinges only on the word “and” rather than “or.” There’s also a comma, which is interesting (though not unusual for 18th century usage). One could reasonably interpret the sentence to mean “removal from office” (if required) AND disqualification (perhaps only if considered necessary). The text is simply unclear, and your assertion that any other interpretation other than your own is invalid is illogical.

              To me, the clear intent of this clause, and the reason why the Founders would even bother including the disqualification element, was to allow an option in extreme cases (again, to prevent things like the decline of the Roman Republic from happening again). And disallowing that disqualification to happen simply because the precipitating event just happened to occur in the final few weeks of an incumbent’s term, so a trial could not be staged quickly enough… well, that seems again to go against the rationale for including such a clause in the first place.

              “The ambiguity here arises from people not being able to comprehend some fairly clear language (or, pretending they cannot comprehend it)”

              Now the ambiguity arises because it’s real. You simply seem unable to comprehend that your interpretation (while a *possible* one) creates perhaps the most illogical set of potential legal outcomes, such as disallowing the greatest punishment due to happenstance or whim of the official being tried.

              1. (Obviously meant “isn’t a thing” in the first paragraph.)

              2. What the fuck gives congress the right to disqualify non office holders from being elected by the people.

                You fucking Soviets need a reckoning.

                1. It’s right in the Constitution. It’s just ambiguous what happens in the edge condition that the person isn’t in office anymore.

                  1. It’s “ambiguous” because the “edge condition” of not holding office utterly and completely negates the question.

                2. The Constitution does. As for why, as I alluded to, I assume the Framers did it to avoid crap that has happened again and again throughout history as dictators got control through public voice. The ancient Roman senators had the good sense to club the first such person to death when he tried to run for office again.

                3. Also, by the way, you may want to brush up on your Constitutional procedure for electing the President. There is no “elected by the people” in the Constitution when it comes to selecting a President. The President is elected by electors, and technically your vote is merely for the selection of said elector (member of the Electoral College) who then casts a vote for you.

                  The intent of the Framers was to isolate the vote for the position of President from the people as much as possible, as they greatly feared the mistakes previous democracies had made (which generally eventually ended up electing dictators and turning back into effective monarchies… which is what the Framers were trying to escape). The Constitution was designed to try to put the choice of President into a small group of the informed elite… though the Electoral College basically got screwed up early on with the formation of parties, and so never functioned the way it was intended.

                  You can complain about this or debate whether it was a good idea, but it’s literally what the Founders intended.

                  1. The Electoral College didn’t get “screwed up early on with the formation of parties, and so never functioned the way it was intended”, the Electoral College is the cause of the two large parties.
                    Other than that quibble, spot on analysis.

                  2. “Elected by the people” and “elected by representatives appointed by the people” is a distinction without a difference you mendacious piece of shit. Good to see you on yet another new sock btw.

              3. If you believe your flawed logic then the presiding judge should still be the Supreme Court Justice, he is not.

                1. I would assume it would be the Chief Justice, too, but the language is ambiguous. So, your snit isn’t warranted.

                  1. “Other than the minor issue of the relevant constitutional provision not being applicable and the named arbiter of the proceeding not being present, this is fine”

              4. An impeachment trial isn’t a thing? What the fuck are we talking about then?

                1. “Geiger  Goldstaedt
                  January.28.2021 at 6:15 pm
                  I bet you’re a fucking nigger faggot aren’t you Tulpa? I bet you fuck your nigger bitch mom too you faggot”

                  fuck off White Knight you racist piece of shit

                2. An “impeachment trial” is perhaps a thing, I suppose, if by that, you mean a “trial that follows impeachment.” The actual impeachment is the laying of charges. Again, you may want to consult a dictionary before trying to interpret Constitutional law without basic facts like that.

                  My objection was to your use of the phrase being “on trial for impeachment,” which implies that the former President is being tried on some charge of “impeachment” which doesn’t exist. He is charged with inciting insurrection. The point being: no private citizen has been impeached here. A sitting President was impeached (i.e., accused of charges as a public official). The *trial* may happen when he is no longer in office, unless one takes a fringe interpretation of the Constitution as you appear to be doing here.

                  1. “The *trial* may happen when he is no longer in office”

                    Where in the Constitution does it say that? Nowhere.

                    1. cytotoxic loves him some trial in absentia.

                  2. Ah……unless one takes a fringe interpretation… the ole nobody with common sense disagrees with me argument.

                    Idiot.

          2. So you’re just squawking like a bird then.

    4. Unfortunately, there is actually a precedent here. Judge Hastings, now Representative Hastings, was impeached and removed from the bench, but explicitly was not disqualified from further office, one of which he now holds. A better argument is that (1) Article II, sec. 4 specifies “the president,” not “the ex-president.” Article II mentions “the president” morel than10 more times, none of which could possibly refer to an ex president. An ex-president is not the commander in chief of the armed forces. An ex-president may not deliver a state of the union address. So why can just this one use of “president” refer to an ex-president? And Article I, sec. 3 also does not use the term “ex-president,” and every other reference to the president occurs in a context which cannot possibly refer to an ex-president. An ex-resident cannot veto a bill. If the chief justice had thought “president” referred to an ex-president, he would have had no choice but to preside over the impeachment trial. The fact that he did not indicates that the nation’s top jurist does not think “president” refers to an ex-president either.

  4. I just wonder the upside is for the Democrats or for the country. (Not going to waste time arguing the Constitution with the “living document” crowd.) This being a trial–of sorts–Trump’s legal team will have to be allowed to mount a defense. In other words, the Democrats are giving Trump a great big megaphone to broadcast his message across the country. And all for a case the Democrats will most likely lose.

    How does yielding center stage to Trump benefit anybody other than Trump?

    1. “I just wonder the upside is for the Democrats or for the country.”

      The upside is that Democrats can effectively distract half the electorate with pointless theater while Biden imposes his will on the country with the stroke of his pen.

      “Sure, you lost your job … but, but …. wait, look at this — we’re really sticking it to that fat orange piece of shit. Copacetic? Yes? Good! See, I knew you were a team player.”

      1. There is also a serious potential for downside for Dems which I’ve not yet seen discussed.

        Probably the only worst thing you can do than martyr someone is to attempt and fail at it. It gives them all the rights of martyrdom but they are still alive and looks unbeatable.

        In Trump’s case, failing to convict means he gets to chase them for the next 4 years, exploit every mistake or unfortunate circumstance, and come back as the conquering hero his followers think he is. And Biden and/or Harris can’t sustain much of anything. The economy still *looks* strong in numbers, interest rates and fuel costs are as low as they’ve ever been, peace agreements are happening everywhere, and this would be unsustainable for anyone. And Biden seems intent on shoving it off a cliff before its time.

    2. This being a trial–of sorts–Trump’s legal team will have to be allowed to mount a defense. In other words, the Democrats are giving Trump a great big megaphone to broadcast his message across the country.

      You just answered your own question. The media and their subsidiary, the DNC are already feeling the emptiness of a world without Trump. This brings back something of relevance to talk about. Have you seen CNN’s webpage? It’s a sad hodge-podge of “The Republicans are doing and saying this” with zero pictures of Trump. It’s over for them and they know it. They need Trump. This revitalizes the subject of Trump back into the national conversation.

    3. When the Senate fails to convict, the Democrats can point to the Republicans who voted to acquit and say they don’t care about alt-right mob violence.

      (Personally, I think it is a tactical error on the Democrat’s part, too.)

      1. And the Republicans will point to 6 months and going violent left wing mob violence in Portland and Seattle and say “see the Democrats only worry about political violence if it isn’t left wingers doing the violence” which will resonate especially after Pelosi just stated that “the enemy is within” Congress, referring to Republicans who asked to carry guns for personal protection from mob violence like what Paul had done against him and Scalise had done against him.

        1. Her answer of course is to spend more of our money to hire private protection for Congress Critters.

        2. Yeah, but chipper agrees with that violence and still claims completely unrelated to blm or the dnc.

    4. the left has already said they will riot if there is no impeachment trial. so impeachment must happen since they take their walking orders from Antifa now

    5. “This being a trial–of sorts–Trump’s legal team will have to be allowed to mount a defense.”

      Wow, That’s really a nice fantasy world you’re living in.

  5. While many prominent legal scholars think Trump’s trial is perfectly constitutional

    The Chief Justice of the USSC disagrees.

    1. Strictly, he isn’t presiding because he doesn’t believe “The President” is being tried, the precondition for the CJ presiding. Leaving open the question of whether a person who isn’t the Pres anymore can be tried.

      1. No, there is no open question on other trials. The constitution outlines what actions can be taken, not what can not be taken. They don’t get to just make things up for instances that fall outside of the constitution, especially an action that would deprive a citizen of their constitutional right to run for office.

        1. I would reject an interpretation by which a person could be in office when impeached, but resigns just before the vote on guilt and stops the trial. Where is it evident that such a case requires dismissal?

          1. “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

            It is evident here.

          2. I think a “trial” where a juror ALSO presides over the event is a rather blatant violation of any semblance of due process.

            And while the House passed the charges, they didn’t hand them to the Senate until AFTER Trump left office. Ergo, he was not actually impeached as they didn’t turn over the documents.

            1. That would make sense considering the 18th and 19th century precedents.

              As long as there’s a defined time when an official is considered impeached and can’t then resign to avoid the disqualification penalty.

              1. I’d say until the Senate gets the impeachment, then you are not impeached. Period.

              2. Trump didn’t resign. Your argument is moot.

                1. My argument is a reductio ad absurdam. If x, then stupid consequence y follows, therefore x is false.

                  1. But it’s not.

                    Impeachment is removal from office.
                    That’s it.
                    Disqualification from future office holding may be added, but the question of impeachment is moot if office has already been vacated by the impeached.
                    Otherwise, it’s just straight up sovietism.

                    1. Impeachment is the bringing of charges.

            2. Thats the hilarious part. Hus argument rests on someone resigning but trump didn’t even do that.

          3. Fine. Reject it. Ask for a constitutional amendment to fix it. Until then, fuck off.

            1. Let the hate flow through you…

      2. The Democrat position is that he was impeached whilst president and so they are good to go, but surely by that logic he should be tried as if he was still President. The Dems can’t have it both ways.

        1. Impeachment requires delivery to the senate which didnt happen until trump left office.

          1. There’s that too.

          2. Huh. Yet another angle to consider. Of course, it’s all moot. The Democrats will do what they want, and the Republicans will too, and with very few exceptions (like Rand Paul), nobody will give a rat’s ass what the constitution says.

          3. No Congress can act on behalf of the next Congress. Bills that are not passed in session die and must be reintroduced. The House of one Congress can’t pass a bill and hold onto it till the Senate of the next Congress is seated. It doesn’t matter if your Party stays in power in that house. Properly done, articles of impeachment should have been reintroduced and voted on by the 117th House, but Dems knew that this would then fall to the logic others have presented here that you can’t vote to impeach private citizens.

            However, that’s not what happened here. The House of the 116th Congress voted on impeachment and House of the 117th Congress delivered it to the next Senate. There is no precedent for that. Impeachment is nothing more than a bill than the House votes on, majority rule. The process is different in the Senate than passing a bill, but in the House, there is no functional difference.

    2. Can you cite where he gave an opinion on the matter?

      1. His refusal to preside speaks pretty loudly.

        See also HO2 v. Reason Commentariat, 2021.

        1. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-chief-justice-roberts-refuse-preside-over-trumps-impeachment-trial-1564300

          “Newsweek found no evidence that Roberts refused or was even asked to preside over the trial…”

          1. “Newsweek found no evidence ”

            Convincing.

          2. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/25/chief-justice-john-roberts-wont-preside-over-trump/

            there now your “no word from Roberts” piece of trash link is refuted

            when you ask Can you cite where he gave an opinion on the matter? you look like a real piece of shit when you post a lonk that doesnt even answer your own question

            1. WK’s going to ghost the thread now and ask the same thing again tomorrow, like she never saw the link.

              1. //Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, told Fox News’ Sean Hannity earlier this week that he had heard Justice Roberts would not be asked to preside over the second trial, as he did last year during Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial over his call with the Ukrainian president.

                “The story is the chief justice is not going to be asked,” Mr. Paul said. “He has privately said he is not supposed to come unless it is the impeachment of the president so this is an illegitimate procedure.”//

                Are we taking Paul’s word for it?

                1. Paul’s quote from the article is a far shot from being a direct quote from Roberts.

                  1. Agreed.

                    I guess hearsay is suddenly popular again.

                    1. fuck off White Knight

                    2. Sup Hizzle

                    3. >>hearsay

                      this ain’t court jeff

                    4. “Geiger  Goldstaedt
                      January.28.2021 at 6:15 pm
                      I bet you’re a fucking nigger faggot aren’t you Tulpa? I bet you fuck your nigger bitch mom too you faggot”

                      fuck off White Knight you racist piece of shit

              2. Gosh, I didn’t do that.

            2. So, you have a source where Rand Paul spoke for him, and the quote isn’t totally clear where his recounting of what Roberts said ends and where Paul’s interpretation ends.

              No direct statement from Roberts, and the story confirms he wasn’t officially asked.

              1. So, you have a source where Rand Paul spoke for him,

                No actually, there is a quote from Rand Paul recounting what was said.

                Mr. Paul said. “He has privately said he is not supposed to come unless it is the impeachment of the president so this is an illegitimate procedure.”

                You of course misrepresent that as “speaking for him”. I wonder why you’d do that.

                1. “Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, told Fox News’ Sean Hannity earlier this week that he had heard Justice Roberts would not be asked to preside over the second trial, as he did last year during Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial over his call with the Ukrainian president.

                  “The story is the chief justice is not going to be asked,” Mr. Paul said. “He has privately said he is not supposed to come unless it is the impeachment of the president so this is an illegitimate procedure.”

                  WK is retarded, but in this case right.

                  1. Due respect, you think and means only, and WK said Rand Paul “spoke for him” which is patently false based on thw quote you provided.

                    “The story is the chief justice is not going to be asked,”

                    No intelligent reading of that can claim it is “speaking for him” as WK claimed.

                    Whereas what I said about it “Rand Paul recounting what was said.” is wholly and irrefutably accurate.

                    1. Paul did not recount what was said because it does not appear that he spoke with Roberts, or even anyone that spoke with Roberts.

                      Paul did not say, “I heard Roberts say …..” or “I heard from someone else that Roberts said.”

                      Stop making shit up.

                2. Why be dishonest about it?

                  The quote is this:

                  ““The story is the chief justice is not going to be asked,” Mr. Paul said. “He has privately said he is not supposed to come unless it is the impeachment of the president so this is an illegitimate procedure.”

                  You are attempting to make it seem like Paul was recounting what he heard directly from Roberts, and you deliberately truncated a quote from the article to make it appear that way.

                  What the fuck?

                  1. You are attempting to make it seem like Paul was recounting what he heard directly from Roberts, and you deliberately truncated a quote from the article to make it appear that way.

                    I realize that your grasp of English is such that you think “and” means “only” but I provided the link for everyone who wants to read it and that “deliberate truncation” is called a “period”.

                    1. You edited a quote, and it there was no need to do so. It is such a stupid point to even argue over, but because you couldn’t admit to even a small amount of speculation and lack of clear evidence that Roberts made any decision on the matter, you instead lied about it in order to own some clown on the internet.

                      I know what a period is. I also know you’re a fucking liar.

                    2. “You edited a quote”

                      This is a lie.

                    3. “I know what a period is. “

                      Well you do NOW.

                    4. >>that “deliberate truncation” is called a “period”.

                      I loled

                    5. The Great Muta
                      January.28.2021 at 6:27 pm
                      So, you have a source where Rand Paul spoke for him,

                      No actually, there is a quote from Rand Paul recounting what was said.

                      Mr. Paul said. “He has privately said he is not supposed to come unless it is the impeachment of the president so this is an illegitimate procedure.”

                      You of course misrepresent that as “speaking for him”. I wonder why you’d do that.

                      Yea …. you edited it to make it seem like it read “Mr. Paul said” and then lied about Paul recounting what was said by Roberts.

                      If not, that’s an awfully interesting and convenient way of copying text from the article.

                    6. Yes Dillinger I’m a liar because I provided a link to the quote and quoted the entire sentence start to finish this apparently makes one a liar.

                    7. “If not, that’s an”

                      Hey yeah just be a giant cunt and assume he’s lying, then only walk it back once you see you fucked up.

                      Stay classy.

                    8. It’s that Vince guy who gets banned every couple of months. Just mock him and move on.

                    9. >>It’s that Vince guy who gets banned every couple of months

                      I knew I recognized the mouthbreathing vapidity

                      that’s Vince Smith

                    10. Yup. Makes his crying upthread about sockpuppets even funnier and accusations that he spoofed people seem plausible.

                  2. Yea …. you edited it to make it seem like it read “Mr. Paul said”

                    Hi since you pnly learned what it is today, understand your confusion.


                    Mr. Paul said.

                    AGAIN, that dot you don’t know the function of is a period. It separates clauses. Look closely. It’s there. You can admit you missed it.

                    I’m sorry you confused your lack of due diligence and poor reading ability with me being dishonest, but really you need to do better.

                    1. I loled again

                    2. **You can admit you missed it.**

                      He totally missed it.

                    3. Why would you include “Mr. Paul said” in the quote from the article? Just a random tail from the preceding sentence?

                      Bullshit.

          3. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence

            1. Yes it is.

                1. What is evidence of absence?

                  1. Definitely not an absence of evidence.

                    Take the L. You earned it.

                    1. No.

                      Give me an example of evidence of absence.

                    2. Definitely not an absence of evidence.

                      Take the L. You earned it

                    3. .The phrase “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is a logical absurdity used by people to warrant their belief in things that are entirely unsupported.

                      “You cannot disprove it, therefore it exists.”

                      That’s a win for me.

                    4. Look GG we can all see you fucked up and made a fool of yourself.

                      Stop trying to pettifog because it just makes you look worse.

                    5. I did not fuck up in the slightest. As retarded as White Knight is, he’s got you morons beat on this one.

                      Believing something exists without evidence in support of its existence isn’t even remotely logical.

                    6. Oh well you made up a quote out of thin air, because you said something demonstrably false and it shamed you.

                      That’s actually a win for me.

                    7. 16×9
                      January.28.2021 at 3:50 pm
                      Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence

                      Your quote, moron.

                    8. “Believing something exists without evidence in support of its existence isn’t even remotely logical.”

                      Which of course has exactly nothing to do with the phrase “Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence” which IS actually an admonition to avoid assuming that a failure to find evidence means that no evidence exists.

                      You don’t understand it, as you just proved, and that explains why you fucked up and lost.

                    9. //“Believing something exists without evidence in support of its existence isn’t even remotely logical.”

                      Which of course has exactly nothing to do with the phrase “Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence” which IS actually an admonition to avoid assuming that a failure to find evidence means that no evidence exists.

                      You don’t understand it, as you just proved, and that explains why you fucked up and lost.//

                      https://www.readthesequences.com/Absence-Of-Evidence-Is-Evidence-Of-Absence

                      “Under the vast majority of real-life circumstances, a cause may not reliably produce signs of itself, but the absence of the cause is even less likely to produce the signs. The absence of an observation may be strong evidence of absence or very weak evidence of absence, depending on how likely the cause is to produce the observation. ”

                      You’re welcome.

                    10. LOL No YOUR quote

                      The phrase “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is a logical absurdity used by people to warrant their belief in things that are entirely unsupported.

                      “You cannot disprove it, therefore it exists.”

                      Do try to keep up, despite how limited you clearly are.

                    11. Ahahaha

                      The absence of an observation may be strong evidence of absence or very weak evidence of absence, depending on how likely the cause is to produce the observation. ”

                      This is so delicious your own quote says I’m right and you dont even understand it

                    12. That is exactly correct.

                      You are using the absence of evidence of Robert’s refusal to preside as evidence that Robert’s refused to preside.

                      Maybe while you’re at it you can find evidence that Zeus cheated on all his wives. I haven’t found any, but that means it must be out there.

                    13. This is so delicious your own quote says I’m right and you dont even understand it

                      Geiger Goldstaedt
                      January.28.2021 at 4:58 pm
                      That is exactly correct

                      Thank you for finally admitting you fucked up.

                      JFC what a stupid hill for you to get massacred on.

                    14. You are using the absence of evidence of Robert’s refusal to preside as evidence that Robert’s refused to preside.

                      Maybe while you’re at it you can find evidence that Zeus cheated on all his wives. I haven’t found any, but that means it must be out there.

                      You are wrong.

                    15. You are using

                      I see that you’re very stupid but if you got someone smarter to read the posts you clearly don’t understand Jeff, you’d see I didnt comment on the Roberts question specifically or at all.

                      Eat another L.

                    16. You are using the absence of evidence of Robert’s refusal to preside as evidence that Robert’s refused to preside.

                      Maybe while you’re at it you can find evidence that Zeus cheated on all his wives. I haven’t found any, but that means it must be out there.

                    17. You are using

                      I see that you’re very stupid but if you got someone smarter to read the posts you clearly don’t understand Jeff, you’d see I didnt comment on the Roberts question specifically or at all.

                      Eat another L.

                    18. You are using the absence of evidence of Robert’s refusal to preside as evidence that Robert’s refused to preside.

                      That is exactly what you did, and now you are trying to walk it back.

                    19. “You are using”

                      Lol look how mad you are abput being wrong!

                      I see that you’re very stupid but if you got someone smarter to read the posts you clearly don’t understand Jeff, you’d see I didnt comment on the Roberts question specifically or at all.

                      Eat another L.

                    20. I don’t have evidence that you fucked your mom last night, but that’s okay. That just means the evidence is still out there.

                    21. Lol now you’re desperately straw manning because you made a fool of yourself

                      “You are using”

                      Lol look how mad you are abput being wrong!

                      I see that you’re very stupid but if you got someone smarter to read the posts you clearly don’t understand Jeff, you’d see I didnt comment on the Roberts question specifically or at all.

                      Eat another L.

                    22. Chances are you didn’t fuck your mom, but since we can’t rule it out completely, we have to assume there is a chance you did fuck your mom.

                      So, let’s hear from the horse’s mouth.

                      Did you fuck your mom?

                    23. No no, we can all see you’ve reached The point where you have to claim I said things I didn’t because you can’t refute the things that I did say

                      How does your L taste?

                    24. Thanks for outing your own sock, dumb ass.

                    25. “Did you fuck your mom?”

                      Ah you’re mad cause you were wrong lolol

                      “Thanks for outing your own sock”

                      Huh? You’re really so mad about Making a fool of yourself that you impersonate me and pretend that you’re me that’s pathetic bro

                    26. Hi, Geiger. You appear to be arguing with the infamous Tulpa. He’s best ignored.

                    27. Hizzle
                      January.28.2021 at 5:41 pm

                      Ha! That wasn’t me!

                      Damn guy you get rolled up for saying something outrageously retarded and then think playing WK’s silly spacing games is ypur way out.

                      God you must be REAL mad.

                    28. “The White Knight II: The White Knight Rises!”

                      Hi Geiger You appear to have made a fool of yourself and think impersonating other posters again is your way to save face

                    29. Socks to be you LOL

                    30. Hi, Geiger. You appear to be arguing with

                      Ah Geiger, resorting to ad homs because you lost

                    31. Geiger Goldstaedt
                      January.28.2021 at 6:03 pm
                      Socks to be you LOL

                      Ironic coming from you WK, especially after you resorted to the desperate tactic of impersonating Hizzle.

                  2. OK.

                    “Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence” is a well-worn, tried and true, well-regarded mantra in science. It’s used to teach young researchers (or remind older ones) to be skeptical about their own testing processes, what they were designed to discover, what their flaws and blind spots may be, etc. It encourages them to keep an open mind.

                    In some cases, you can design a test to determine whether something is present or not. For instance, I can hypothesize that there is chlorine in my pool water. I can take a water sample, and test to see if there is any chlorine in it. We have a specific procedure for doing this that produces reliable, verifiable results that can be independently duplicated. If the test comes back negative, there is no chlorine in the water sample. That is evidence of absence. The hypothesis is disproven.

                    In other cases, it’s not as easy to design a definitive test. I can postulate that there is other intelligent life in our galaxy, for example, but that’s very difficult to prove. Twenty five years ago we only knew of nine planets, and they were all orbiting our own star. These days, we know of (or at least have evidence of) thousands of other planets orbiting other stars, but we lack the tools to determine whether life might exist on any of the ones we know about. Evidence suggests that there are many, many more planets that we don’t know about yet. One might reasonably conclude that intelligent life exists out there somewhere, and yet, there is no direct evidence to prove it one way or the other.

                    In other words, there’s an absence of evidence, but no evidence of absence.

                  3. Perhaps a better example of ‘Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence” is: Neutrinos.

                    These particles were first theorized to exist about 90 years ago by physicists, but because they have almost no mass, no electrical charge, and almost never interact with normal matter, they are extremely difficult to detect.

                    It took a decade to find even artificially created neutrinos, and decades more to devise a method to definitively identify naturally occurring ones. In all that time there was a lack of evidence that these particles existed – other than the math that said that they should, as far as we knew. And that lack of evidence, disheartening as it may have been, still was never considered to be evidence that they did not exist.

              1. can’t tell if serious…

              2. Is that what you read? think? Because if that is what you read think, you’re retarded.

                1. What is evidence of absence?

                  1. Is that what you read? really your best attempt to avoid looking retarded? Because if that is what you read think, you’re retarded.

                    1. The phrase “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is a logical absurdity used by people to warrant their belief in things that are entirely unsupported.

                      “You cannot disprove it, therefore it exists.”

                      Retard.

                    2. “You cannot disprove it, therefore it exists.”

                      Is that what you think “Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence” means? Because if that is what you think, you’re retarded.

                    3. From your link

                      The absence of an observation may be strong evidence of absence or very weak evidence of absence, depending on how likely the cause is to produce the observation. ”

                      Your own link proves you’re wrong.

                    4. “may be strong evidence”

                      Reading is hard, I know.

                    5. I absolutely ove that you intentionally leave out the part that you are just now realizing makes you wrong.

                    6. You don’t understand the difference between proof and evidence, do you?

                    7. You dont unserstand the difference between “is” and “may be”?

                      Because we are all laughing at you over it right now.

                    8. //Hizzle
                      January.28.2021 at 4:59 pm
                      From your link

                      The absence of an observation may be strong evidence of absence or very weak evidence of absence, depending on how likely the cause is to produce the observation. ”

                      Your own link proves you’re wrong.//

                      What do you call evidence that is either strong, or weak?

                      You call it evidence.

                      You don’t understand the difference between evidence and proof, that much is clear.

                    9. So you STILL don’t unserstand the difference between “is” and “may be”?

                      Because we are all laughing even more at you over it right now

                    10. A difference in the degree of persuasiveness or weight of evidence does not mean it is not evidence.

                      Weak evidence is weak. Still evidence.

                      Strong evidence is strong. Still evidence.

                      We can do this another couple of hundred times, if you’d like. Would it help?

                    11. we really are

                    12. So you STILL don’t unserstand the difference between “is” and “may be”?

                      Because we are all laughing even more at you over it right now

                    13. A difference in the degree of persuasiveness or weight of evidence does not mean it is not evidence.

                      Weak evidence is weak. Still evidence.

                      Strong evidence is strong. Still evidence.

                      We can do this another couple of hundred times, if you’d like. Would it help?

                    14. So you STILL don’t unserstand the difference between “is” and “may be”?

                      Because we are all laughing even more at you over it right now

                  2. Keep on sockin’ retard.

                    1. You thonk we can’t see you impersonating me?

                    2. Jesus.

                      And I though SQRSLY was batshit. You huff his shit, or your own?

                    3. You had to impersonate me.

                      Because you were wrong.

                      What else is there to say? You got so upset you pulled a silly trick.

                    4. Rock em’ sock em’ robots!

                    5. You had to impersonate me.

                      Because you were wrong.

                      What else is there to say? You got so upset you pulled a silly trick.

                    6. OMFG you dud it again!!

                      How did being wrong make you THIS mad!

                    7. I bet you’re a fucking nigger faggot aren’t you Tulpa? I bet you fuck your nigger bitch mom too you faggot.

                    8. holy shit you got so mad you jist lost your mind WK!

                    9. Really? Racism and Homophobia just because I busted you impersonating me? Gross.

              3. Geiger Goldstaedt
                January.28.2021 at 4:11 pm
                Yes it is.

                Geiger Goldstaedt
                January.28.2021 at 4:07 pm
                Show your work

            2. Absolutely. Newsweek’s fact check is what it is and can be contradicted by further evidence coming forward.

              1. Fuck off Geiger

  6. Libertarians for Interpreting the Law to Punish our Enemies!

    1. There are no Libertarians, or libertarians, involved in this matter.

      1. Fuck off Geiger

  7. Wonder why nobody is impeaching W over the Iraq WMD lies that killed hundreds of thousands. Part of the swamp?

    1. I’d be fine if they want to go back and impeach W., Clinton (either one), Obama, so none of them can run for Federal office again.

      1. That’s because you’re retarded.

  8. 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.

  9. There was initially some hope that Trump’s trial would catalyze a Republican repudiation of him, helping to free the GOP from his malign influence. But it now looks like all but a few Republican senators have decided that their careers still depend on kowtowing to Trump and his many ardent followers.

    AKA GOP office holders need to care about GOP voters. If only the govt could be free of the voters.

    1. “AKA GOP office holders need to care about GOP voters.”

      I thought that the point of having elections was for office holders to care about all voters, seeing as they need to obtain a majority of the votes in the general election to win.

      Of course, that isn’t true in most states. They just need a plurality. A few states, like Georgia, might require runoffs no one gets a majority. Add to how primaries limit the choices in the general election to candidates that appeal to the base of each party, and we end up with a system practically designed to have some voters matter to our elected representatives more than other voters do.

      1. When you have a case where there is a percentage of the population who will never vote for you because they are convinced you are evil simply by the party you belong to, then it does sort of matter whether 75% of the remaining population will stop supporting you because you don’t care what they think.

      2. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA politicians in Republican districts are able to ignore Marxist retards like me WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        Life is so unfair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  10. “As Reason’s Damon Root has noted, there is historical precedent for impeaching or trying federal officials after they leave office.”

    Historical precedent should be paid attention to but not automatically accepted/supported as @reason seems to have done.
    Very similar to an Appeal to Authority.

    Many people have stated impeachment is a political process/idea
    Applying that to citizens seems an over-reach if not a civil rights violation.

    1. So what exactly are you saying? By writing on the topic, Damon Root endorsed and supported a particular stance?

      1. Is that what you read? Because if that is what you read, you’re retarded.

        1. Dee’s retarded, yes.

    2. Just because they impeached in the past does not mean they had the legal right to do so. I my self don’t know if its legal or not but do believe this is purely banana republic actions here to punish someone.

  11. Seems to me, it’s not unconstitutional for the Senate to hold a trial, it’s within the Senate’s sole discretion to decide what to do. They can choose to hold a trial, or not. They have the “sole power” to do that. Whether or not it’s a wise idea, is not a constitutional question.

    1. And once again you fail to understand what the constitution does. it does not lay out what Congress can not do, it lays out what they can do. You have to find an affirmative clause that would allow congress to bar a citizen from running for future elections in a strict measure, because that is what they are openly doing.

      Again, you are too sophomoric to understand what the issue actually is.

      1. And after all that, you didn’t even respond to what I wrote.

          1. Buzz off Troll Mac.

            1. Hey look, cytotoxic the sub-80 IQ Canadian who doesn’t understand how America’s legal charter works has no argument and instead just fumes like an impotent manchild.

    2. It seems that way to you … because you’re dumb.

      “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

      Trump is not the President. The Senate doesn’t just get to hold random trials to pass judgment on private citizens.

      If the Senate had the power to just “hold trials” they could just as easily try, and convict, you tomorrow for being an idiot.

      1. “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

        Trump was impeached, therefore, the Senate has the sole power to try that impeachment. They may choose to do so, or not. It is their sole prerogative. Random citizens off the street weren’t impeached, therefore, the Senate does not have the power to put random citizens on trial as if they were impeached.

        Seems fairly clear to me.

        1. “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”

          Trump isn’t president and Roberts isn’t presiding.

          1. Because the President of the United States isn’t being tried. Trump is being tried.

            1. Oh, I see.

              Because Trump is NOT the President, the Senate’s limited grant of authority to try the President extends to Trump as a private citizen.

              This is ridiculous.

              Tell me, what prohibits the Senate from trying you? After all, you’re not the President either.

              1. the Senate’s limited grant of authority to try the President

                No, it is the Senate’s limited grant of authority to try ANYONE WHO IS IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE, President or not.

                Tell me, what prohibits the Senate from trying you?

                I wasn’t impeached by the House, that’s what.

                1. No.

                  Completely wrong.

                  The quote from the Consitution is right above your eye-line, dumb ass.

                  “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

                  Is the President being tried Jeff? No, because the President is Biden you fucking idiot, not Trump.

                  Do you really thing the language “[w]hen the President of the United States is tried” is just in the Constitution for shits and giggles?

                  1. Now you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Fuck off, you racist shithead.

                    1. Read it again, retard.

                      I can’t read it for you, racist.

                    2. Lol. Are you seriously that retarded, Jeff?

                      Geiger gave you a comprehensive and relevant answer out of the same document that you were basing your argument on, and your reponse is to squeal “rAciSt”?

                      It’s like you’re a living parody. Are you trying to give OBL a run for his money?

                    3. GG isn’t a racist because he doesn’t understand the Constitution. GG is a racist because he throws around n-bombs and writes shit like this.

                      https://reason.com/2021/01/28/the-constitutional-argument-against-trumps-senate-trial-is-convenient-is-it-also-wrong/#comment-8730885

                    4. That’s the same idiot that runs around here pretending to be everyone else.

                      And, for the record, I myself say nigger regularly, but always to prove a point.

                      Concern troll twat.

                    5. “That’s the same idiot that runs around here pretending to be everyone else.”

                      Nah it was you.

                      “Geiger Goldstaedt
                      January.28.2021 at 6:07 pm
                      Dog whistle.

                      Everything Trump said for 4 years was code for “kill niggers.””

                2. What authority would the House of Reps have to impeach you, or me, or anyone else who doesn’t hold a federal office?

        2. Youre probably fine with hugo Chavez or putin trying to ban their political opponents from running for office i take it.

          1. Is this one of those “you didn’t say you were against murdering cute baby kittens therefore you are in favor of it” kind of things? Because I think it is.

          2. You’re probably fine with murdering cute baby kittens I take it.

            1. It’s kinda the same thing, only Jesse is using things you’ve actually said to demonstrate your authoritarian moral depravity, and you’re making up fabrications in a desperate yet futile attempt to construct a strawman analogy.

  12. As Reason’s Damon Root has noted, there is historical precedent for impeaching or trying federal officials after they leave office. William Blount was tried in 1799 after he had been impeached and expelled from the Senate, and former Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached in 1876, after he resigned.

    Because something was done prior does not mean that something is constitutional. This is an idiotic argument. I can show you dozens of actions that a prior government has done that has been deemed unconstitutional an actual challenge.

    So we are left with the legal arguments present. The impeachment clause is firm in its use to throw out someone currently presiding in the position, ie the president. The second clause talks about banning of future elections, but it has a strict AND prior to it, requiring the precedent to be met in order for it to qualify itself.

    What Congress is seeking to do, and this is supported by many Democrats open remarks, is to bar Trump from running in future elections. This would be unconstitutional on its face as his impeachment is not upheld due to him being not in office.

    John Roberts agrees with this fact as he has declined to proceed.

    To even play footsies with this you now have to believe that Congress can act as both the witnesses, the victims, and now the judge as they appointed a Senator to preside over the trial.

    Sorry Sullum, you remain an idiot.

    1. ” . . . This would be unconstitutional on its face . . . ”

      Yeah, so?
      It will also be consistent with many democrat party policies.
      Gun control
      Child sacrifice
      Prohibiting Religious services
      Race based discrimination
      etc

    2. How dare Damon Root go look up the history of relevant impeachment’s, and write an article about what he discovered!

      1. “How dare Damon Root go look up the history of relevant impeachment’s, ”

        He didn’t though.

        1. Sup Hizzle.

      2. Impeachment attempts that failed and thus were never challenged through Scotus or even a lower courts isn’t much of a relevant article of historical context. It frankly justifies the wide open nature of the question, more than it suggests there’s an easily referencible answer.

        1. This. But it supports WK’s initial position prior to any thought, so therefor valid.

        2. OT: Speaking of “Fkthepostoffice”

          I ordered some weird-sized fuses for some electrical testing equipment about 2 weeks ago. The only place I could find that was selling the ones I needed was in Tucson, so, mail-order. No biggie since that’s what we’re all doing these days, right?

          They were shipped the same day. USPS, though. Supposed to arrive on Monday of this week. They went from Tucson, AZ, to Nashville, TN, to Oxford, MS, to Chicago, IL, to (hopefully finally) St. Louis, MO (where I live). Are they using Apple maps? It took over a week. They’ve been sitting at the StL facility since Monday. Every day it says they are out for delivery and they never come.

          #Fkthepostoffice

      3. So which impeachment of a former president who is out of office did he use as the relevant example? Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton?

  13. Whether or not it is constitutional, the whole thing is absurd. If he is comvicted it will be entirely political and have nothing to do with facts. Trump’s post election activities seem to have been idiotic and confused. But there is nothing prohibiting a president from challenging election results or having rallies, even if it is stupid and ill-advised.

    1. He did more than “challenge election results”. He tried to coerce state election officials and the Vice President.

      1. Asking is not coercion, retard.

        1. Right, he just “asked” the Georgia Sec. of State to “find” enough votes to change the result. He also just mentioned, as an aside, how he could be exposed to criminal prosecution.

          “And you [Georgia Sec. of State Raffensperger] are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal — it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan [Germany, the general counsel for Raffensperger’s office, who was also on the call], your lawyer. And that’s a big risk.”

          Yep. No coercion.

          1. If you don’t understand the meaning of the word “coercion,” just say so.

          2. “Right, he just “asked” the Georgia Sec. of State to “find””

            Ah yes innuendo! The last refuge of losing arguments.

            1. It is unlikely any politician with a functioning brain is going to not use innuendo when committing extortion, soliciting a bribe, or other similar abuse of office.

              1. Fortunately, Trump doesn’t have a functioning brain.

                Right?

                Innocent.

                1. He’s dumb, but he has a functioning brain.

              2. How did he exhort or bribe him?

                  1. I see nothing there that supports your claim.

                    1. He was hoping your reading comprehension was as poor as his.

          3. He asked for the GA SoS to find votes in the context of him saying there were dozens of election irregularities through which he believed he could find the necessary number of illegitimate votes to overturn the election result and, rather than force an exhaustive audit of all GA’s election problems he would take the votes he felt he needed and buzz off. Is it transactional? Sure. Is it criminal? No. This was after all an arbitration discussions between two parties of a legal dispute, not some random call from a payphone where Trump told Raffensperger he’d get his kneecaps busted if he didn’t pay up. Bringing up the other side’s criminal liability in knowingly certifying fraudulent election results isn’t necessarily an unduly coercive threat, especially in the legal context of this call.

            1. Don’t bother. These dishonest lefties have been told this multiple times. They don’t care. The narrative is set, and they will stick to it.

      2. But he is charged with inciting an insurrection, not trying to strong arm officials into decertifying votes, or whatever it is supposed to be. Maybe they should have gone with that. It’s a lot less absurd than the “insurrection” stuff.
        And they are going to make him a martyr if he does get convicted. It’s really stupid if they actually cared about political sanity. Which they don’t. He’s out of office, get over it (this isn’t necessarily addressed at you.).

        1. “But he is charged with inciting an insurrection, not trying to strong arm officials into decertifying votes, or whatever it is supposed to be.”

          Not so:

          https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/house-articles-of-impeachment/index.html

          Read page 4, line 18 – page 5, line 2.

          1. For anyone who was interested, but doesn’t get their news exclusively from CNN and Democratic Underground, the relevant portion this moron cited says

            President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 20201, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgie, Brad Faffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

            As you can see, this is not a “charge” or “indictment”, merely explanatory language that also asserts facts not in evidence.

            If you were so incomprehensibly stupid that you simply regurgitated what you were told by CNN and Democratic Underground this would probably be a persuasive argument.

      3. Also, I do not believe the article of impeachment has anything to do with how he leaned on state election officials or VP Pence. It only has the “incitement” charge.

          1. Yes, by all means, link to your own post where you lied and hoped nobody would spend the time wading through your favored propaganda outlet to rub your nose in it.

          2. You do understand I was talking about the limits of the actual charge in the article of impeachment, not the constitutionality of it?

      4. So have Democrats in the past. So are they doing so now such as with Cori Bush’s bill. So did Pelosi by calling the military to try to get them to ignore any orders from Trump. So did the left/media for trying to push Trump out through the 25th amendment. So did hillary with her false Steele Dossier.

        Should I go on?

        1. What is your point?

          Whether the Democrats did similar things isn’t relevant to whether Trump coerce state officials.

          Whether the Democrats did similar things isn’t any skin off my nose, since I’m a libertarian.

          1. He doesn’t have a point, just whataboutism.

            1. Hey look, cytotoxic is replying to himself. Surely that will bolster his argument!

    2. “Trump’s post election activities seem to have been idiotic and confused.”

      This is why you lose, fail to accomplish anything, and will meekly submit to totalitarianism.

      1. Huh? Because I think they did a bad job with their election challenges? Well, how did they not do a bad job? They fucked it up and you are trying to say shit about me because I point out that they didn’t do a very good job of it? Fuck off with that shit.
        And what are you doing that isn’t meekly submitting to totalitarianism? Being a dick on the internet?

        1. Most of their challenges were dismissed on procedural grounds. The ones that weren’t are going through the court system such as the one in Virginia which upheld the disallowing changes to the election by the state voting board.

        2. “Being a dick on the internet?”

          To be fair, people are being cancelled and, now, criminally prosecuted for just that. So, yes. Being a dick on the internet is actually quite a good way subvert the emergence and legitimacy of a totalitarian state.

          1. and, now, criminally prosecuted for just that.

            Sure, if you ignore all of the details of the Douglass Mackey case, he is being prosecuted for “being a dick”.

            1. Sure, if you fabricate an idiotic narrative that doesn’t comport with reality, Douglass Mackey is an insurrectionist.

          2. You want to know what is also quite dangerous?

            People like you who knowingly and willfully spread lies and misinformation on the Internet in order to spread a narrative. In this case, it’s the narrative of “oppressed conservative being punished for his views by the evil left-wing mob”.

            That is about 90% of the right-wing victimhood stories right there – some right-winger acts like an asshole online, gets a predictably negative response, and then cries “help I’m being oppressed for my views!” No, you’re suffering the consequences of BEING AN ASSHOLE.

            Douglass Mackey is not being prosecuted for merely posting a meme on Twitter. He is being prosecuted because he was trying to fraudulently steal votes from people.

            1. //People like you who knowingly and willfully spread lies and misinformation on the Internet in order to spread a narrative. In this case, it’s the narrative of “oppressed conservative being punished for his views by the evil left-wing mob”.//

              We get it.

              Opinions you determine to be dangerous are not allowed.

              Fuck off.

              1. There you go again. You deliberately misconstrue my criticism in order to push a victimhood narrative. “You don’t like my words” is not the same as “YOU WANT TO FORCIBLY SILENCE ME”. So fuck off indeed. Just like the librul snowflakes you mock, you are weaponizing victimhood for the sake of accruing power, and it is disgusting.

                1. What power you fucking cunt? A man is persecuting for political speech, and in your twisted authoritarian brain he’s just playing victim to accrue power.

                  “You want to know what is also quite dangerous? People like you who knowingly and willfully spread lies and misinformation on the Internet …”

                  Tell me again how crying about dangerous speech isn’t just you being an authoritarian little twat.

                  1. A man is persecuting for political speech

                    That’s a lie and you know it’s a lie. YOU are the one trying to manipulate his case to make him out to be some oppressed martyr rather than a guy caught in a fraudulent scheme. YOU are the one trying to accrue power for your tribe by trying to weaponize victimhood.

                    1. It is not a lie you authoritarian twat.

                      You’re going to get our fucking teeth stomped in good and fucking deep, gimp. And the people that will put you out of your misery will be the same people whose sacks you’re sucking straight off their balls, you servile fucking cunt.

                    2. “Our” teeth? Did you think you were a libertarian? You’re just a racist right-wing troll defending his homies caught in a fraudulent scheme.

                      Yes I absolutely want people who commit fraud to go to jail. Don’t you? Oh wait don’t answer that, I know the answer.

                    3. “You’re just a racist right-wing troll defending his homies caught in a fraudulent scheme.”

                      Someone got triggered.

                      Even if what you say is true, people should not be prosecuted for their racist right-wing speech.

                      I know you think they should be, which is why your public daily raping in the gulag is going to be particularly well received by your fellow prisoners.

                    4. people should not be prosecuted for their racist right-wing speech.

                      You’re right!

                      People should be prosecuted, however, if their speech is a part of a fraudulent scheme to steal votes.

                    5. The fraudulent scheme, in your mind, being the speech itself, which, in your mind, triggered a reactive synapse in someone else’s brain and resulted in an independent thought that you, in your mind, determined was improper for that brain to have formed without your permission.

                      Go fuck your little sister’s beanie baby collection, you Maoist gimp.

                2. Your position is crystal fucking clear. Dangerous speech, with you determining what is and is not dangerous, should be criminal.

                  Cocksucker.

                  1. And there it is again. You’re the victim and everyone criticizing your words actually are evil oppressors wanting to throw you in prison. No, I just don’t like it when bullshitters deliberately spread lies and push false narratives for the sake of power. When you are caught in your lies, you immediately play the victim card – ‘help help I’m being oppressed!’ It’s sad and pathetic at this point.

                    1. I am talking about an actual person that is being prosecuted at present, you dumb fucking gimp. You’re not criticizing my words, gimp, you’re cheerleading for the imprisonment of a person that did nothing but post some stupid memes.

                      If people weren’t allowed to lie, your faggot ass would have been executed ten times over by now.

                    2. Oh I get it. This is a Rob Misek sock. It all makes sense now.

                    3. that did nothing but post some stupid memes.

                      That’s a lie and you know it’s a lie. Stop it with the intentional disinformation crap. He was trying to steal votes using fraud and deception.

                    4. There is no such thing as stealing a vote, you insufferable fucking retard.

                    5. No such thing as stealing a vote, huh? A vote is an item of value that can be bought and sold, just like every other item of value. Just because it is illegal to buy and sell votes doesn’t mean that it is not possible to do. If an item can be bought and sold, it can also be stolen. If you deceive me into thinking that I have cast a legitimate ballot when I actually haven’t, you have stolen my vote via fraud. That is what Douglass Mackey appeared to do and that is why he is being prosecuted now. Not because of his viewpoint or ideology. But because of his fraud. And when people like you continue to IGNORE REALITY and just insist instead he’s an oppressed martyr being persecuted by a left-wing lynch mob, you are actively part of the problem with what’s wrong today. Spread lies to push narratives to favor a tribe, instead of searching for truth and discussing reality. That is what’s wrong. So stop it.

                    6. “No such thing as stealing a vote, huh? A vote is an item of value that can be bought and sold, just like every other item of value.”

                      I’m done.

                      Your dumb ass is insufferable.

                      You no longer warrant any response, on any topic.

                    7. I just don’t like it when bullshitters deliberately spread lies and push false narratives for the sake of power.

                      You mean like when you lied about Trump coercing state officials and inciting an insurrection to rationalize impeaching him after he had already left office in contravention to the words of the constitution? Like that, you mendacious subhuman piece of shit?

            2. People like you who knowingly and willfully spread lies and misinformation on the Internet in order to spread a narrative.

              Tell us more about Trump is a Russian intelligence asset and $100,000 in Facebook ads “hacked” the 2016 election and stole it from Clinton.

        3. “Because I think they did a bad job with their election challenges?”

          Because you believe bullshit groupthink and coordinated spin, then feel the need to concede ground to your enemies right off the bat.
          You’ve already lost. You’re not dealing with reasonable, civil opponents – you’re dealing with psychotic totalitarians who hold themselves to absolutely no ethical or logical standards.

          1. He’ll have the same day late/dollar short revelation that Solzhenitsyn did in the camps.

  14. There’s a much more interesting article on Volokh, with much better comments.

    1. Better how? No Dee?

      1. Better in that they isolate Volokh from the rest of Reason so that all of the radical Marxist psychopaths who followed them from Volokh can have a nice, uninterrupted circle jerk. That’s how we got Rev. Kirkland and alphabet.

  15. On the other hand, to be sure, every day of the trial is a day without passing parts of the fascist agenda.
    Biden’s scribblings can be undone more easily than actual laws.

    1. This is not as good as Reason makes it out to be. Relying on a 4-8 year single person to direct this country creates instability. No one is able to plan for the future or take a risk based on current knowns because of government volatility and the drastic changes in regulation and policy occurring in very short time periods.

      Just because damage is easily undone doesn’t mean it doesn’t come with long term repercussions for every day people.

    2. Biden’s scribblings can be undone more easily than actual laws.

      Like DACA?

  16. Whatever you make of these arguments, it is not exactly clear what a Senate trial is meant to accomplish in this case.

    Well, it enables more grandstanding. There’s an election coming up, after all.

  17. Remember when it was evil and fascist and a Danger to Our Democracy to even talk about going after an outgoing administration?

    1. Yes. And there was a lot of wisdom in that tradition.

      1. And that’s why you spent 4 years creaming your shorts over the Russia collusion hoax and supported the Mueller investigation based on an illegal, fabricated FISA warrant based on partisan oppo, right cytotoxic?

  18. There are millions of things that are both perfectly legal and utterly stupid, and impeaching a populist president after he’s left office is obviously stupid–regardless of whether it’s also constitutional.

    “Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of “the people” and often juxtapose this group against “the elite”.

    —-Populism

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

    In all of its forms, from left to right, populism is a reaction to elitism. If you think the elite banding together to impeach Trump–so that the people can’t elect him again in the future–will destroy populism, then you’re an idiot. Maybe you should try putting a fire out with gasoline, too?

    Meanwhile, social media and the news media continue to purge the public square of conservative voices. Again, when you convince conservatives that there is no place for them in civil society and no place for them in democratic institutions, they will not abandon their conservatism.

    Instead, they will abandon civil society and democratic institutions.

    If you want to turn mainstream Republicans into real right wing extremists who really are pushing for an authoritarian dictatorship, purge their voices from the public square, pack the Supreme Court, pass the Green New Deal, come after their gun rights, and then deny their candidate the ability to run for office.

    There is probably no better recipe for creating support for a right wing dictatorship in this country.

    1. Where are these right wing extremists?

      You know what’s extreme?
      Sponsoring months of rioting and spreading racist propaganda.
      Spreading fear of a common virus and quarantining the entire population.
      Destroying citizens’ businesses simply because they exist.
      Censorship and political persecution of dissent.

      They are waging war on us.

      1. What world do yall – people like Ken, soldiermedic, zeb, and others who value nonpartisanship seemingly more than their lives – think we’re living in?

        You really think you can cede the premise of their argument and still live to fight?
        Don’t cede an inch, because it’s just going to be seen as surrender.
        “To be sure” you’ll say as everything is taken from you.

        1. What world do yall – people like Ken, soldiermedic, zeb, and others who value nonpartisanship seemingly more than their lives – think we’re living in?

          The real world, not the world of Breitbart, Zero Hedge, and right-wing twitter bubbles.

          1. You are unintelligent and fundamentally dishonest.
            Do not interrupt.

          2. Tell us more about the insurrection that took place the capitol, cytotoxic. The one where 200 unarmed people who were let through barricades, led by a known antifa organizer and CNN videographer, were going to literally overthrow the federal government. Tell us all about it.

        2. I think that if we are really at the point you say we are at, we are fucked. My only hope is that things aren’t as bad as I think they are and that people will come around and reject the insanity of the left. I’m not terribly optimistic, and like you I hope I’m wrong.

      2. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that mainstream Republicans are extremists.

        I’m saying that this is the way to make mainstream people embrace a popular dictator if and when one shows up.

        Why should they support civil society when there is no place for them on social media–and they shut down platforms when there is one? If social media is only for non-conservatives, then it’s unreasonable to expect conservatives to support social media–if and when a dictator arrives to shut social media down.

        Why should they support democratic institutions when the Democrats are actively seeking to disqualify their preferred candidate four years before the election? Anyone who thought Trump, or someone like him, was a dictator–wait until he, or someone like him, wins an election for which the Democrats say he’s ineligible.

        They think they’re marginalizing populism, but what they’re really doing is giving a fat chunk of Republicans nowhere to go but extremism.

        1. How bout they go do something fun or productive instead of throwing their lives away because Fox News rotted their brains?

          1. Doing productive things doesn’t work when the left wing mob robs you of what you have produced.

          2. Yeah, they could go work at all the businesses your fascist government shut down.

        2. There is more worry about an institutional dictator at this point than there is a populist one.

          1. What the left is doing right now is awful for a lot of reasons, but one of the worst things about it is the reaction on the right this will surely provoke.

            The reaction will be ugly.

            1. Yep, wait ‘till Trump2.0

            2. Because the reaction to the Nazis, Soviets, and Mao were so awful.

              How the fuck do you people not see where we’re at?

              I mean, hope I’m wrong, but things are looking about as bleak as possible in America and worldwide.

              Tell me where I’m wrong.

              1. Maybe you’re the psychotic one.

              2. You are hyperventilating over the exaggerated and hyperbolic stereotypes and narratives that your steady diet of social media ‘news’ sources feed to you.

                If you stepped away from social media for a while, perhaps you would realize that your Biden-voting neighbor down the street isn’t a goose-stepping Nazi, and that if a politician says “Maybe it’s time to raise taxes a little bit”, it’s probably not hidden code words for “Maybe it’s time to SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION”

                1. Tell us more about the right-wing terrorists who are on the verge of overthrowing the US federal government, cytotoxic.

              3. How the fuck do you people not see where we’re at?

                By having more than a superficial knowledge of 20th century history and being able to assess current events accordingly.

                I mean, hope I’m wrong

                I doubt that, but I really do hope you’re being honest instead of being the McVeigh Jr that you usually present yourself as.

                1. By having more than a superficial knowledge of 20th century history and being able to assess current events accordingly.

                  “It can’t happen here” sure is a sophisticated understanding of 20th century history.

                  And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

                  Go ahead and tell us all that Solzhenitsyn was a liar and how the gulag was a vacation spa with generous educational opportunities you Marxist fucking piece of shit.

        3. when people are being fired just for visiting certain web sites you are forcing people to take extremest actions even if they themselves are not extremest. If this doesn’t stop soon there will be hell to pay and some people are old enough to not care what the consequences are. with age people lose the fear of death.

  19. What happens if I move to a different state and forgot I had a speeding ticket I did not pay? Yeah, that!

  20. Regardless of the Constitutional question, trying to bar a popular politician from seeking democratic office hardly seems like a logical way to defend democracy.

    1. -1 and your beef is with the founding fathers. Trump should be convicted but there’s no fucking chance it happens because Republicans apparently enjoy losing elections.

      1. no, the Founding Fathers weren’t pushing democracy, the Dems trying to divide the country further are using democracy as a defense of their actions.

    2. true and in reality how many would vote for Trump in four years. of course if the dems keep forcing shit down our throats then we will have no choice.

  21. “already has served as a strong rebuke that will always be a stain on his record.”
    p’s
    No, Jake. Nothing can stain Trump’s record. You can’t stain a stain.

    1. You can’t stain a stain

      your posts prove otherwise

    2. Even the Blount case doesn’t really offer any precedent since impeachment never passed and never became an issue for scotus to consider. If what Trump did was so wrong, then impeachment should he the least of his worries because there’d be a criminal case to be made against him the moment he leaves office? No? Then it stands to reason the grounds for impeachment are similarly weak. Sure you could argue that impeachment doesn’t require proof of an actual crime, but if your case is so flimsy that no one could possibly imagine a criminal charge for the impeachable action, impeachment is most certainly a political attack, not a principaled one. In this case the offense also involves constitutionally protected speech, with similar remarks heard through just about every political contest in history, of politicians telling supporters to “fight” to “take back their country” or some such variation. Essentially Congress is trying to impeach an act of 1st amendment speech on a standard they’d never hold themselves to. Seems that’s both a violation of their oaths to defend the constitution and an effort to punish a specific person for a specific act that no other person or class of people can similarly be punished for. Sounds a lot like a bill of attainder.

    3. You misspelled your name again.

  22. What conduct is there to defend, telling his supporters to peacefully protest? Is Sullum invoking the conspiracy theory that that was code to storm the Capitol? As for two impeachments by the Democrats being a stain it’s more of an honor. It shows how much they fear him. I see it as two impeachment victories since he won’t be convicted on either one. This whole thing makes the Democrats look weak and pathetic not powerful.

    1. Dog whistle.

      Everything Trump said for 4 years was code for “kill niggers.”

  23. It’s not wrong because Trump will continue to be a Trump long after he leaves office. We must ensure that the damage of his Trumpness is minimized, by making him a citizen forever. That way it will be much easier to continue the important work that must be done for the good of the country, like spying on him and his supporters.

  24. Can we impeach Obama too? Nixon was impeached for spying so there is precedent.

    Wonder how Sullum would think about that? Probably disapprove because?

    We live in retarded times

    1. Chuck Colson of Watergate fame was sentenced to prison for possessing a single FBI file on a political rival.

      What’s the penalty for a President employing the Director of the FBI, the Deputy Director of the FBI, the Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and members of the Justice Department and the State Department to gather dirt on members of the opposition political party in an effort to ensure his former Secretary of State wins the Presidency?

      1. Continued appearance on the “most admired man in America” list?

      2. Apparently it’s to install his puppets as absolute rulers and destroy the lives of dissenters just 4 years later.

    2. “Wonder how Sullum would think about that?”

      If you read the article you might find some hints.

  25. The right to petition probably wasn’t conceived as being limited to words by the people who fought a war for their independence, included the 2nd amendment, and wrote things like “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants”

    1. “B-b-b-b-but that’s inSurRECtion!”

      1. I advocate nothing, just make observations…

      2. “The right to petition probably wasn’t conceived as being limited to words…”

        Have they found the video of you inside the Capitol building on Jan. 6th yet? You certainly sound like you wish you had been there.

        1. Have they found the video of you dragging an immigrant limo driver out of his vehicle, beating him nearly to death, and torching his livelihood?

          1. Nope. I drag immigrant limo drivers out of their vehicles and beat them nearly to death and torch their livelihoods well away from anyone with a camera. Like the cowardly antifa radical that I am, I make sure of that.

            Radical Trump supporters, on the other hand, refuse to wear masks in order to be manly and are happy to appear on video doing their patriotic duty of storming the Capitol in service of their Champion. Some of them have seemed surprised that they are getting prosecuted for their behavior, though. Surely their service to Trump would have earned them a pardon after they heard and answered his call to action. They must have been equally surprised that Trump didn’t go with them to the Capitol like he said he would at the rally. He was supposed to bring the real FBI with him (not those treasonous Never-Trumpers that investigated him) to round up all of the Deep State, baby-eating Satanists.

  26. Even the Blount case doesn’t really offer any precedent since impeachment never passed and never became an issue for scotus to consider. If what Trump did was so wrong, then impeachment should he the least of his worries because there’d be a criminal case to be made against him the moment he leaves office? No? Then it stands to reason the grounds for impeachment are similarly weak. Sure you could argue that impeachment doesn’t require proof of an actual crime, but if your case is so flimsy that no one could possibly imagine a criminal charge for the impeachable action, impeachment is most certainly a political attack, not a principaled one. In this case the offense also involves constitutionally protected speech, with similar remarks heard through just about every political contest in history, of politicians telling supporters to “fight” to “take back their country” or some such variation. Essentially Congress is trying to impeach an act of 1st amendment speech on a standard they’d never hold themselves to. Seems that’s both a violation of their oaths to defend the constitution and an effort to punish a specific person for a specific act that no other person or class of people can similarly be punished for. Sounds a lot like a bill of attainder.

    1. Well said. Let me also add that Impeachment does not apply to Senators.
      “Article II, 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.”
      This is why the Senate voted 14 to 11 to dismiss the impeachment, arguing that impeachment did not extend to senators. (Wikipedia)

      This make the Blount case completely inapplicable to the question of whether Non President Trump can be tried on Impeachment charges.

  27. None of the people referenced as precedent were convicted. That’s pretty important when determining constitutionality or not. Mostly, we have an argument on whether SCOTUS *would* rule it as unconstitutional if a conviction occurred (which we all know won’t, which makes this whole thing triply pointless).

    In addition to the constitutionality of impeaching a private citizen, there is also the open question of whether they could actually bar him from running for office. Office of Honor, etc. is English Common Law for appointed positions, not elected ones. You run into serious separation of power (and representative democracy) issues if the legislature can bar someone from being elected as the Chief Executive by will of the people.

    But, again, it doesn’t really matter BECAUSE HE WON’T BE CONVICTED.

  28. Given that Trump was impeached by the House while he was still President, it should follow that the Senate trial must be run as if he was still President. Meaning that some Dem senator (Leahy) shouldn’t be presiding over it. Roberts should be the presiding official to at least afford some kind of official neutrality.

    That said, this impeachment is still stupid and a waste of time and energy.

    1. Roberts declined to participate. That is your clue as to his opinion on the motivated reasoning of this “legal analysis” supporting impeachment.

  29. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the Senate from trying the President after he leaves office. And more to the point, the Supreme Court will never step in to intervene, either before or, in the unlikely event Trump is convicted, after. There is no point trying to argue the Constitutionality of the trial, the Constitution is simply too vague on the issue.

    1. enumerated powers, what are those?

  30. “The statement also notes that the Framers worried about “the danger of a power-seeking populist of the type they referred to as a ‘demagogue’ rising to the highest office and overthrowing republican government.” They “understood that the source of such a person’s power does not expire if he or she is expelled from office; so long as such a person retains the loyalty of his or her supporters, he or she might return to power.” They “devised the disqualification power to guard against that possibility.”

    Horse feathers!

    The Framers did not anticipate a “populist” president because they did not anticipate the selection of a president by popular vote. They expected an electoral college comprised of leading citizens from each state selecting a chief executive in the same way the College of Cardinals select a pope. This argument is strikes me as a rationalization, not an accurate assessment of originalism. I would like to see a more thorough analysis of the Founders’ actual statements about the purpose of the impeachment power.

    1. Yeah, that is 11 kinds of stupid right there.

  31. Democrats are on a fast track to losing the house and possibly the senate again in 2022. Hence the executive orders as Biden knows better than most how useless congress is when democrats are running the show.

    Watching them lose their shit again when they are out of power will be fun.

    1. Democrats are on a fast track to losing the house and possibly the senate again in 2022

      Lmfao. They just codified all of the election fraud they pulled in 2020 into federal law, overriding any states that might try to prevent it from happening again. Which is merely a stopgap measure until they pull off a false flag large enough to suspend elections entirely. You can look forward to that in about 2 years after Biden resigns or gets 25A’d.

      1. “They just codified all of the election fraud they pulled in 2020 into federal law, overriding any states that might try to prevent it from happening again.”

        I want some of what you’re smoking. Who was it that wanted Congress to overturn the votes in the states again?

  32. The Jacob Sullum article’s premises, and the earlier (1.13.2021 11:34 AM) Damon Root article’s premises, are those authors’ ignorance, illogic, stupidity, and political bias — NOT law, tenable legal reasoning, correct Constitution-construction, logic, proper & logical grammar, or pertinent history/historiography.

    The Jacob Sullum article, and the earlier Damon Root article, render flagrant misinformation.

    The legal/historical truth appears in Parts I, II, and III of this source: Leonard R. Jaffee, STRUCTURAL CRISIS: SENATE THREATENS TO USURP PRESIDENCY, CONSTITUTION, AND WILL OF THE PEOPLE, https://leonardrjaffee.substack.com/p/structural-crisis-senate-threatens

    Professor Jaffee’s article proves, irrefutably, that “the Senate lacks jurisdiction” to try Trump or any other ex-civil-Officer “after [the Officer’s office] has ended and he has vacated it.”

  33. If you think this impeachment is worthy of any consideration at all, your opinion is not worth considering.

    This is beyond stupid. Everyone involved knows it. Contesting an election using the legal process is not an impeachable offense. Making a speech about it is not an impeachable offense. A handful of people who were not even at your speech at all (it was physically impossible to attend Trump’s speech and be at the Capital building when it was invaded) getting out of hand for a brief period is not evidence of “inciting insurrection”.

    Anyone claiming otherwise is either deluded or a liar. There is no plausible argument to the contrary.

    Trump could be the worst president ever, a blight on humanity and a boil on the butt of America, but that doesn’t make any of this impeachment nonsense worthy of consideration. It is utter horse shit, and there isn’t a single writer at Reason who doesn’t know it.

    You don’t need to get to an idiotic legal analysis that says you can impeach people who don’t hold office. It is stupid to even head down that road.

    Trump has some sort of magical superpowers. I cannot believe how hard he has made so many people twist reality and their own sense of morality and rationality.

    There is a huge threat to liberty on the move in America, and Donald Trump ain’t it.

    1. Yes, the *charge* is not good enough to convict, so he should be acquitted.

      The Senate still has *jurisdiction* to hear the charges.

      The charge is BS, but the Senate still has jurisdiction to hear the charge brought by the House.

      The remedy is to acquit Trump and get on to whatever important business they’ve been distracted from (probably involving uplifting the country, lol).

      1. What is “hearing” the charges? More importantly, why does it matter if the charges are “heard” if the mandatory remedy under the Constitution upon conviction — that is, removal of the President from office — is no longer available?

      2. Actually, there are plenty of arguments to the contrary.

        First, going with the actual text of the constitution. Impeachment is reserved for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. They don’t even bother to make such an allegation. I know it has become popular to say “impeachment is an inherently a political process” and “you can impeach a president for anything at all”, but this is a practical definition, not a legal one. The courts are a co-equal branch of government, and would potentially have a role if impeachment were to be carried out contrary to the constitution.

        There is also the constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder to consider. Once out of office, a finding of guilt by the legislature is by definition a bill of attainder.

        Finally, the actual text on impeachment does not offer up “barring from future office” as a severable action from removal, so it is not clear that such an impeachment is constitutional on that front either.

        So there are plenty of arguments to the contrary…. but as I argue, none of that is necessary. This whole thing is venal from the jump, and every single member of congress knows it. It has no validity at all. They have debased the legislature and devalued the impeachment process.

        All of which goes with the caveat “he may be the worst politician of all time, that doesn’t make you idiots right in any way”.

        1. Finally, the actual text on impeachment does not offer up “barring from future office” as a severable action from removal, so it is not clear that such an impeachment is constitutional on that front either.

          No, this is what it says:

          Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

          That is, the maximum possible judgment in the impeachment trial is both removal and disqualification. It does NOT say that the ONLY possible judgment is BOTH removal AND disqualification.

          If the Senate were to say, “We convict you, but we choose not to remove you, only to disqualify you”, that would be permissible because this judgment is below the maximum possible judgment that the Senate could render. It does not “extend further than” removal and disqualification.

          1. “It does NOT say that the ONLY possible judgment is BOTH removal AND disqualification.”

            It says the only options are (1) removal or (2) removal AND disqualification. There is no secret third option for just disqualification.

            Learn to fucking read, gimp.

            1. Here it is again, maybe you will read it this time:

              Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:

              1. Read below, gimp.

          2. “If the Senate were to say, “We convict you, but we choose not to remove you, only to disqualify you”, that would be permissible because this judgment is below the maximum possible judgment that the Senate could render.”

            Here’s another lesson, you stupid fucking gimp.

            Ready?

            Removal upon conviction is mandatory.

            “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.”

            Now fuck off and never interrupt again, you worthless puddle of dry cum.

            1. Okay, you are correct there. I spoke too soon. Congratulations.

              1. Thank you.

                You’re a still a worthless fucking gimp, though. You don’t even know what you don’t know. That’s why everyone here always gives you a foster home beatdown, literally every fucking day.

                Come here to learn, and speak when spoken to. You’ll find it a much more welcoming, and productive, experience.

            2. “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.”

              Oooh, loophole! So if we impeach Trump, do we get to pick which one we remove or can we just remove all of them?

    2. Right or wrong, the impeachment already happened while Trump was in office, the only question now is should the senate hold a trial after Trump has left office. Seems like that is up to the senate to decide.

  34. Poor commie sullum.

    The more impeachments for Trump the more we all know how great he was as a president.

    Law and the constitution are ignored by democrats, so thats what will happen to them…ignore their ridiculous claims on anything.

    Trump was the last president the USA will have for awhile, until civil war 2.0 is sorted out. Democrats started this civil war just like they started civil war 1.0

    Look how scared the Lefty pussies are. Some traitor federal judge is denying bail for the guy who was in pelosis office. Straight 8th amendment violation.

    Woodchippers have been started.

    1. “The more impeachments for Trump the more we all know how great he was as a president.”

      Great at conning his followers.

      It is clear that Trump doesn’t give a shit about his followers except for how much they love him. He pardons Steve Bannon on his way out the door of the White House as Steve was being prosecuted for allegedly defrauding Trump supporters of the We Build the Wall non-profit for over $1 million in personal expenses. As is often the case, he claimed not to know about the multi-million dollar project, while also not liking it.

      “I don’t like that project,” Mr. Trump said. “I thought it was being done for showboating reasons.” He called paying for the border wall privately “inappropriate.”

      This statement of Trump’s after Bannon’s arrest (on a 150 yacht owned by fugitive Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui) is contradicted by his there-is-all-kinds-of-voter-fraud-out-there-that-I-can’t-prove-in-court buddy, Kris Kobach:

      “I talked with the president, and the We Build the Wall effort came up,” Kobach said. “The president said, ‘The project has my blessing, and you can tell the media that.’ ”

      Don Jr. had praised the initiative as a speaker at an event that We Build the Wall had organized, then walked that back to only having praised it at that one event and that he didn’t give them approval to use that statement in marketing.

      Despite all of this evidence that Bannon had defrauded money from Trump supporters that wanted the Wall built, Trump sided with Bannon and made sure that he would not have to face the accusations and evidence against him in court. Without a prosecution, I wonder how many people that would want their money back will be unable to get it now.

      Of course, the people that believed that they were assaulting the Capitol building on his say-so, to “Stop the Steal”, didn’t get any pardons. “Q Shaman”, Jake Angeli, through his lawyer, is claiming to feel duped by Trump, saying that he is willing to testify, against Trump, at the Senate trial.

      Keep up the faith in Trump, “loveconstitution1789”. Since you clearly don’t.

  35. Trump is a marketing genius, and also a business mogul.
    follow this for my article:- https://www.passivelion.com/kickboxing-vs-muay-thai-the-real-differences/

  36. Impeaching a private citizen does seem like it might not be constitutional, but Trump was still president when he was impeached the second time, so the real question is should he be tried… I always thought impeachment was similar to indictment, when a person is indicted the trial still goes on, even if they no longer hold the position that they had when indicted.

  37. It is political theater. It deserves to be ridiculed not debated.

  38. “But it now looks like all but a few Republican senators have decided that their careers still depend on kowtowing to Trump and his many ardent followers.”

    Seriously? Consider – just for a moment – that not EVERY decision is driven by its connection to Trump as a political figure. It is entirely possible (and possibly prudent) to vote against this trial without “kowtowing” to Trump.

    People love an underdog. A trial will almost certainly backfire. Trump tells his followers that he is being persecuted, and frankly the only reason to hold a trial is to add that bit about not being eligible for office in the future. If you want to galvanize his supporters, this is a good way to do it.

    The man may be dead in four years. Perhaps the Republicans in the Senate simply wish to move forward and stop obsessing about Trump. There are valid reasons to oppose a trial, and it is extremely disappointing to see yet another “Republicans base all their political decisions on whether or not it will please Trump fans” piece of shit on this site.

    1. I’d add to that that it’s probably doubtful he’s even guilty of what he’s actually being impeached for.

      How can a persons speech be used to incite an attack that was clearly planned days before the speech was even given?

      If anything, what Trump was trying to pressure Pence to do might have been grounds for impeachment….

      But telling people to march down to the capital and “peacefully and patriotically” exercise their 1st Amendment Rights to petition Congress for a redress of their greivences (whether those greivences were justified or not)… how would that even remotely fall under the category of sedition?

      1. “How can a persons speech be used to incite an attack that was clearly planned days before the speech was even given?”

        The speech wasn’t a surprise event. Trump had been calling on his people to be there that day and the speech was planned as well, so how could it not be that the speech was used to incite an attack that was clearly planned to coincide with that speech?

  39. Constitutional or not, there is only a corrupt motive at play. Democrats have tried to impeach Trump 3 times now. These impeachments are politically motivated and designed to do three things; please their base, remove him from office, and prevent him from seeking re-election. For those reasons, it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says. They have shamelessly corrupted the process and any attempt to impeach should be ridiculed and intensely criticized.

  40. I still want to know how anyone figures a speech can incite an attack that was clearly planned before the speech occurred?

    I’m also trying to figure out how it is any way a “libertarian” stance to have 67 Senators remove the right of an individual to run for some future office or the rights of 70 million people to vote for the candidate of their choice.

    The solution for a future Trump candidacy is pretty easy… don’t vote for him.

  41. >>many prominent constitutional scholars

    you know like four and they all tell you how stupid you are.

  42. The most important issue here is how this is being received by average Americans.
    Most of the people I know believe that this case is about trying Trump for inciting a riot by asking for “peaceful and patriotic protest”, and the people pushing it have themselves either supported violent riots of explicitly condoned them.
    One was quoted as asking protesters to go up to capitol hill and get up in the faces of members of congress. Pelosi enthusiastically supported the protesters that stormed the Wisconsin capitol, while making explicit death threats to republicans there. To Pelosi, besides offering her continued support, she called it “an impressive show of democracy”.
    There are quite a few such examples.
    So to the rubes in flyover country, the blatant hypocrisy seems like an effort to send a message. Not to Trump, but to the rubes themselves.
    I guess the question is what message everyone is receiving. It sort of seems like the message is “not only are we counting the votes from now on, but watch what we do to anyone who stands in our way. ”
    So arguing about whether they have the power to do this is much less important than discussing whether they should do this.

    1. Or possibly, the side with the college professors, journalists, and scientists is right, and you chose the side with the religious fundies and neo-Nazis. Occam’s Razor man.

  43. Working Online from home and earns more than $15k every month..READ MORE

Please to post comments