Can I ask a procedural question about impeachment?

Nixon probably cut his deal with Ford before his resignation. [Whether or not Ford honestly felt such a pardon was best for the country.] Ford's pardon prevented subsequent criminal indictments over crimes Nixon may have committed in office. Trump didn't resign and didn't try to pardon himself. And, after he threw Pence under the bus, on January 6th, Pence is unlikely to be sympathetic to Trump's problems. Don't think much of Starr, however he did contract for a Constitutional Scholar from the University of Illinois, during the Clinton impeachment times into the DoJ policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting President and his conclusion was it was unconstitutional. I believe there have been three evaluations of the policy...and the other two supported the policy. But, again, the policy now is irrelevant and the former President is now indictable for anything the DoJ finds evidence for that amounts to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

There is more circumstantial evidence that he may have taken part in an intentional effort to interfere with the joint session going on inside the Capitol building, with Pence presiding. About 10-15 minutes BEFORE the Capitol break-in, Trump tweeted that Pence didn't have the courage to do what was right for the country. Shortly thereafter the break-in began. Then 10-15 minutes later, with those who had broken in were streaming through the building, he tweeted, "Stay Peaceful." That was the CYA tweet. But, as he could see on tv, it was too little, too late. That's not conclusive proof...but it's sufficient for an investigation of those arrested and those who may have been with him in the White House.

 

I don't think Trump cares to run again anyway. He'd be just as dangerous to the establishment if he took on a role of power broker. Those that will do anything to take him down are just displaying their fear and frankly... they SHOULD be afraid. He's capable of a lot more aggressive action now that he doesn't need to worry about the next election. If they actually put the man in a prison cell they will awaken to a fury they can't even imagine.
Even if the Senate decided they can convict after a president is out of office - not at all a certainty - they still have to find 17 Republicans and half or more of them would know they were committing political suicide. So, I'll repeat, let them do it.

 

NOW you are just FLAILING in DESPERATION!

YOUR biggest *LOSER* has been impeached TWICE!

The Republicans in the Senate probably REGRET not REMOVING him when they had the opportunity the FIRST time because they paid a STEEP price in the ELECTION for turning that PARTISAN blind eye to his High Crimes.

 

Sorry...don't think you can avoid prosecuting someone through fear; we govern through the rule of law.

 

I'm sorry, but the traitors didn't uphold anything these last 4yrs so we don't have to either. see why it's not good to goof around?

 

The Trump administration far more than the previous.

 

Lack of rebuttal noted again.

 

two days ago everything changed, we get to cancel and correct from now on.

 

There is none such evidence and if there were it would be in the Articles of Impeachment and would have been presented in the House.

 

Public evidence mentioned in the article is more than enough to demonstrate a violation of the oath of office. Regardless, Trump has not been deprived by the government of life, liberty, or property without due process.

 

As history has shown there was no "deal" and there had already been the investigation ans grand jury and they did not issue an indictment. And Ford was not in the Congress.

The House was in the middle of submitting articles and as soon as Nixon was gone it ENDED.

Yes after all the hysteria about him pardoning himself and declaring martial law and refusing to leave blah blah blah. He's gone. Time for Biden to show some leadership and tell Schumer and Pelosi to end this fiasco. There are already reports that LOTS of Dems see the folly this is and the harm it will bring to them.

He has nothing to do with it.

Starr reported to the House here are the specific crimes and indictments he was prepared to serve asking Congress to impeach and remove so he could begin the PROSECUTION which constitutionally could not begin until Clinton was removed. Clinton was impeached but the Democrats said that perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering did not rise to the level of impeachment although they were all felonies. So why didn't Starr close the office after Clinton was not removed as Mueller did after Trump was not removed? Because he had those indictments which the day Clinton was leaving office then IP Ray took to the White House and informed Clinton he would be prosecuted if he did not agree to a plea bargain which of course he did as he had no defense against the charges. And you should respect Judge Starr as one of our leading constitutional experts and impeachment experts.

And the reason you believe the DOJ is investigating? And if an investigation is needed to determine this proof then why was he impeached? What if this DOJ investigation finds no "proof"? What happens to the impeachment?

 

If so it would be in the Articles which it is not. This is all partisan political folly.

 

The article mentions violations of oath of office. And again, there has been no trial yet and Trump has not been deprived by the government of life, liberty, or property without due process. It's a fake concern.

 

No.

If you are charged with a crime, it will always be true that you were charged with a crime.

The senate decides two things: Convict = guilty; acquit - not-guilty

Convict = removal from office.

After a conviction, the Senate then votes again, but this time to determine if they want the official to be prevented from running for office again.

Take a breath and learn the actual process. The House is more like a grand jury, in this situation.

 

If you are found innocent you are no longer charged and indicted it goes AWAY. You do not remain charged or indicted. The Senate is more like the sentencing hearing. It is based on the impeachment and the witnesses and evidence presented THERE. It doesn't call new witness or evidence or investigates.

The Senate decides one thing, remove or not and it is not necessarily based on a guilty or not guilty of the charges in the impeachment. Clinton was dead to rights guilty of that for which he was charged and impeached. That wasn't even in question, it was whether he should be removed, the sentence. And they can only vote to remove and disqualify, not or disqualify, THE President who at this time happens to be Biden.

 

It asserts but provides nothing to that effect. And he is now impeached, forever impeached found by the House to have committed whatever it is they impeached him. It does not go away at his "sentencing" in the Senate. And yes he deserved due process, there face the accusers to refute the evidence so that he would not be impeached.

 

Still struggling to understand what due process actually means? After all this time? After being asked repeatedly to read the Constitution and refusing each and every time to actually do so?

Really? Are you holding out for a cash payment to read the Constitution or something? I'll spot you a fiver if you really need it that bad.

 

I'm not sure why you are disagreeing with what is actually in the constitution. You want desperately to be right about this, but you are not. Show me one government document that is in agreement with you.

The senate decides two things - guilty or not guilty AND if the convicted official can run again. (Two votes.)

 

A Grand Jury indictment would have been an additional indictment for a pardon. The pardon, I believe, pardoned Nixon for all crimes he may have committed during his Presidency, which would hav negated any Grand Jury indictment. Ford was VP. He pardoned Nixon after he became President, replacing Nixon. And, he had come from Congress (the House), where he had a long history. Nixon resigned BEFORE the House impeached him; Trump did not and was still President when impeached a second time. Conservative or moderate Democrats who might be among those NOT wanting a Senate Trial of Trump would probably vote FOR conviction, both to maintain Party unity and based on the trial itself. It's more likely, in my opinion that more Senate Republicans will vote with Democrats than vice versa. Pence could well be called as a witness in the Senate trial.
Although, the impeachment resolution from the House need not charge a criminal offense, it most certainly does (beginning with page 2, lines 19-21..."Donald Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States," followed by evidence.

 

Nixon WAS NOT INDICTED. The pardon was to stop rouge prosecutors from trying to find something, anything. It was over Nixon was gone and the Congress ended the impeachment before the pardon without any discussion of it. The House Judiciary Committee had voted out the Articles of Impeachment after months of hearings and testimony and witnesses it was in FULL SWING and ready to vote on by the full House. Nixon resigned. Now according the Dems today the Congress could have continued that impeachment. They didn't for the good of the country and the Constitution.

Reports are more and more Democrats don't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. And what would Pence be called for he nothing to do with it. If there is some concern Trump violated the law then call a GRAND JURY as happened with Clinton. Then if the GRAND JURY finds he did then impeach him for those crimes and then remove him......................of that's right he's gone now.

But go for it Dems, tie the country up in this folly and get egg all over your faces again.

 

Where did I go wrong and be specific.

 

My mistake on "indictment." I meant inducement. And, I'm hearing that more and more Republicans want him convicted in the Senate.
How do you know there isn't a Grand Jury investigating Trump's involvement in the January 6th riot right now? What if Senate Republicans fail to convict him on impeachment and then a Grand Jury indicts him?

 

You keep insisting the impeachment was a trial.

The impeachment is the impeachment.

The Senate conducts the impeachment trial; to determine guilty or not guilty.

If guilty, they hold another hearing, to determine eligibility to run for office again.

This is the fact of it. If you have evidence otherwise; cite it. (you can't, though.)

 

Nope that is others I am just putting their claims in context. YES and an impeachment is an impeachment and the House is not a grand jury. The Senate if you are going to make the analogy is the sentencing hearing, remove or not remove. He remains impeached even if not removed. THAT is where there should have been and investigation and grand jury BEFORE the impeachment and then his defense allowed IN the impeachment.

And they only vote on the disqualification AFTER he has been voted to be removed by the impeachment. He can't be removed and you can't hold the disqualification phase unless he is.