Mitt Romney: Trump Impeachment Trial Important For 'Unity,' 'Accountability'

That wasn’t “ stealing a seat” Obama failed to seek the advice of the senate, so the senate refused their consent.

 

I guided that meant something to you.

 

I actually sat down and read Trump's speech last night and there is no evidence backing the charge of inciting an insurrection.

To TOG's point I would say the Dems' latest impeachment temper tantrum is a petulant abuse of power - and for the second time, at that.

 

WRONG Again.

It ISN'T "EXPRESSLY Prohibited".

Thus, Until the SCOTUS weighs-in on the matter--It IS Constitutional. Period.

Also, speaking generally (and not singling anyone out)--But, speaking generally

Outside of increasing one's post count, why do some people feel the need to repeat the Same DEBUNKED Talking Points (when Everybody KNOWS that the Trump Trial IS Constitutional)?

Puzzling.
Unless people just want to artificially pump up their post count by posting the Same Debunked BS (Ad Nauseam).

 

I don't think he incited the attack on the Capitol because I finally got around to reading his speech last night and there is no evidence supporting the charge. At no point in the speech did he encourage people to engage in any unlawful behavior.

 

This is where you challenge them to cite/copy/paste the law they believe Trump broke, cite/copy/paste the text of Trumps written/spoken words, and demonstrate how those words constitute a violation of that law
.Their attempts to avoid your challenge tell you all you need to know.

 

I could, but I'm confident that the vast majority of them haven't even read Trump's speech so I would be wasting my time. Anyone who has actually read the speech knows there is no evidence of incitement in the speech. If anything, there is evidence to the contrary around the 18 minute mark.

This drive-by impeachment farce is going down in flames like the first one. It's laughable that they can't even get Roberts to preside over their BS...

 

And I responded that I hope they know they're working pro boner.....

 

Part of the established consequence for being found guilty of an impeachable offense is that one can not serve in any office of the Federal Government.

Preventing Trump from running in 2024 seems to be Pelosi's main objective here and I think it's a wise one. Trump's attempts to be elected to High Office are nothing more than covers for his ongoing insurrection.

 

But where does somebody point out to you that yours is a useless point since this isn't a legal exercise?

Oh......... here....

 

That was not the first time government buildings have been attacked and no THIS is what is leading us to becoming a banana republic when the seat of government believes it no longer has to abide by the constitution and the party in power's supporters as we see here support that. BTW claiming he violated a law and they provided no evidence of such and if that is the case then that is not their jurisdiction now that would be the judiciary and the head of the judiciary just refused to participate in this unconstitutional act by Congress.

As Gerald Ford once said, "impeachment is whatever the House defines it as." but has to be CONSTITUTIONAL. Stop with the canard that the Congress can do anything it wants to do.

 

NO, they can be fully prosecuted under the law, you haven't thought very deep about this have you. Why did the impeachment immediately stop when Nixon resigned?

 

He is the person the Constitution says shall preside it does not allow for anyone else. It is the only time the Chief Justice is even mentioned. The other 8 justices have nothing to do with it. Roberts refused to participate because it is not a constitutional impeachment of the President and the Congress is not allowed to sanction individual private citizens.

 

Probably because Nixon had already been elected to the maximum POTUS terms allowed by law...

 

With the Constitution. Sad.

 

Not AGAIN?

The President ISN'T Being Tried.

You STILL Can't Get it through your head that when a Private Citizen is being Tried (as in the Belkap Case) that the presence of the Chief Justice ISN'T required?

So instead, you continue to post self-own after self-own based on Your Egregious MISUNDERSTANDING of The Constitution?

Just wow.:smh:

That Said, continuing to "debate" (and "defend the concept" of) whether "1+1=3", is probably a great way to pump up the post count.

Carry on.

 

Did you read all of his tweets that day and the time they were made?

 

The disqualification applies to all high offices for which Nixon could have run. Try again why did the Nixon resignation halt the impeachment?

 

My personal recommendation is to not ask a question if you won't accept the answer..... Seems counterproductive to me...

 

Nope there is no removal which is required first as you noted. And since Roberts is not there and must be there for a presidential impeachment it is totally illegitimate and extraconstitutional by all measures. Why do you stand for it?

 

Your answer was refuted, he could run for a high office. Try again.

 

Then quote where the Constitution says that a private citizen can be tried in the Senate and have legal sanctions applied.

 

No one has defined "high crimes and misdemeanors." Since our impeachment clauses are drawn from English law, it's reasonable to assume that the founders were thinking of English law when they wrote it. "High crimes" originally meant the crimes of high office holders. "Misdemeanors" was so vague, it meant almost anything defined as such by the vote of Parliament. And, yeah...Congress CAN do almost anything it wants...provided it has sufficient votes.

 

He is supposed to preside over the impeachment trial of a president, not a former president.

 

I noted there will be a conviction vote on the Article of Impeachment, with Removal as the possible penalty depending on that vote.

Why don't you stand for it? Didja WATCH the events of 1/6?? Didja MAKE the connection as to who sent the people directly to the Capitol?