- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How the frick can a non sitting president be impeached?
Posted on 2/3/21 at 11:37 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 2/3/21 at 11:37 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Reconstruction-era Senate precedent says “yes,”
No they didn't.
In fact, the Senate voted for acquittal, specifically stating that they had no authority over a civilian.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 10:39 am to League Champs
quote:quote:No they didn't.quote:He cannot.
How the frick can a non sitting president be impeached?
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,”
Belknap WAS impeached by the House. He was not convicted by the Senate.
quote:Not exactly.
In fact, the Senate voted for acquittal, specifically stating that they had no authority over a civilian.
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.
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 10:52 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News