How the frick can a non sitting president be impeached?

quote:

---

How the frick can a non sitting president be impeached?

---

He cannot.

Of course, Trump was still the sitting POTUS when the House impeached him.

The question is whether a duly-impeached official can be TRIED on his impeachment after leaving office. Reconstruction-era Senate precedent says “yes,” but SCOTUS has never addressed the question.

It's all a moot point for as much as the Senate Republicans hate Trump, they'd rather leap from the top of the Washington Monument than vote to convict him.

picture of clown world

dot that says: this is where you are

Just hang in there, we are so close! I think we are headed for bad times in this country!

quote:

---

The question is whether a duly-impeached official can be TRIED on his impeachment after leaving office. Reconstruction-era Senate precedent says “yes,” but SCOTUS has never addressed the question.

---

The problem with people trying to rely on the so called precedent is the individual in that case resigned to avoid the impeachment vote. Trump's term of office expired by law. That seems to be conveniently ignored.

The entire premise of the "precedent" is that federal officials shouldn't be able to resign prematurely to avoid impeachment. That's not applicable here.

quote:

---

The problem with people trying to rely on the so called precedent is the individual in that case resigned to avoid the impeachment vote. Trump's term of office expired by law. That seems to be conveniently ignored.

The entire premise of the "precedent" is that federal officials shouldn't be able to resign prematurely to avoid impeachment. That's not applicable here.

---

So federal officials should have free reign for the last few weeks of their terms? Why would the same principle not apply? The framework clearly did not intend for lame ducks to be untouchable or their actions unsanctionable.

He can't. The US Constitution says, " The Chief Justice of SCOTUS must preside over the impeachment of POTUS."
J Roberts has already said he will NOT be there.
If he isn't there, no n-peachment can be conducted. No one else is allowed to preside.
This will be another fake n-peachment just like the fake Muller probe.

frick off ambulance chaser

He can't. Or at least not when the USA based it system of government on the Constitution. But I guess that ship has sailed.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

How the frick can a non sitting president be impeached?

---

He cannot.

Of course, Trump was still the sitting POTUS when the House impeached him. The question is whether a duly-impeached official can be TRIED and CONVICTED on his impeachment after leaving office. Reconstruction-era Senate precedent says “yes,”

---

No they didn't.

---

Belknap WAS impeached by the House. He was not convicted by the Senate.

quote:

---

In fact, the Senate voted for acquittal, specifically stating that they had no authority over a civilian.

---

Not exactly.

The Senate voted twice. First, they voted as to whether then had jurisdiction, given that he had already resigned by the time that the House adopted Articles of Impeachment. The Senate BARELY voted that it nonetheless HAD jurisdiction to proceed. (A majority, but less than 2/3)

After finding that they DID have jurisdiction, the Senate then heard the SUBSTANTIVE claims and proceeded to vote on conviction. The vast majority of those voting against conviction did so because they felt they had no jurisdiction. Everyone knew they guy was a crook.



I completely understand continuing an argument based upon either (1) differing ideology or (2) differing interpretation of ambiguous facts.

I will never understand people who insist upon continuing to argue based upon "facts" which are demonstrably- and objectively-inaccurate.