Will Trump be unconstitutionally impeached?

[888theGreat]

This whole process is a joke. If you used same standard for everyone else. No one could run for President and everyone would be in Prison. Look at all the things Democrat Waters has said. Hurt Trump people, riot. VP Harris said riots were good and they shouldn't stop rioting.

Yes, they plan to use Dominion Voting Machines and expect 105 votes for Impeachment

Yes, because a lot of Republicans want to retire because they won't be elected dog catchers after they do.

No, because most Republicans are not that stupid to vote for such a farce that is even worse than Covid scare and Global Warming

Updates

+1 y

Answer: No he will not be impeached and he will not lose any lawsuits put against him. He will run again for President in 2024 probably as an Independent and will win unless Democrats and Republicans cheat again.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Well I don't think republicans will be that moronically stupid, but they have shown they are pretty stupid so its a possibility. It won't of course matter because their is no judge so to my understanding its not valid if their is no judge residing, and its not constitutional as is painfully obvious but most importantly Trump has already told them he will run regardless of what they say or do and we know that trump supporters will continue to vote for him regardless so this is going to do absolutely nothing except give democrats an excuse to be the shittiest human beings they can be (which is amazing because I thought they already where as shitty as they could be but here we are).

[zerofuks]

It's not a criminal trial so Even easily find him guilty it just need to can present again and remove from office but he's already not in office. You actually have a criminal trial to send someone to jail.

It's all just theater. It's gives democrats more reasons to yell orangemen bad. And the somehow when they get rid of an opponent in the future.

[Daniela1982]

But it would stop him from running again.

[zerofuks]

Yes thats why I said it's about getting rid of an opponent in the future

[Daniela1982]

What purpose does it serve as he is no longer in office? It's a waste of time and money. The whole thing is to get Harris in office and start the ball rolling for a one world government and a one world leader that will usher in the end times. Are we ready for that?

[888theGreat]

I am , I want to meet Jesus in person.

[888theGreat]

Democrats love to waste money. They just print trillions more. Just wait until China takes reserve currency status away from US. All the debt comes do and we can't print money like before.

[worldscolide]

Here is a suggestion. How bout we have those that brought this illegal impeachment arrested and imprisoned. Its a waste of tax payers money, and a waste of time. when we have things that are way more important to focus on.

[Jack9949]

Trump is safe. No worries. It takes two thirds to convict

[888theGreat]

yea but if they use dominion machines to vote they will be 105 to convict out of 100 Senators

[Jack9949]

They won’t. There’s no need for that

[Jack9949]

A sixth grader could tally 100 people

[888theGreat]

it is a joke

[grega239]

I don't think so.

The arrogant hypocrisy of the Dems is incredible and rage inducing

[mrkdvsn]

Officially, President Trump IS still president, but not residing in the WhiteHouse anymore. And in these insane crazy times, anything is possible, whether they are legal or not

[darkcloud1945]

If the democratic communist party of America has any part in it he is a goner.

[OddBeMe]

D. He should be constitutionally impeached. But GOP are too feckless.

[NorthwestRider]

You must be of the biggest boot lickers for Trump on this site lol

[Twalli]

So we should hold the same standard for everyone else? Let's count the presidents that incited a mob to attack the U. S. Capitol building. I only count one. Looks like we are.

[888theGreat]

He didn't incite any mob. Obama incited insurrection in Egypt and all the Middle East countries. Lets impeach him. Obama caused riots in America's streets and encouraged it. Nothing happened to him. Rep Waters said get in Trump supporters faces and don't let them eat in peace. They attacked press secretary and Sen Cruz. So, lets do it like you say.

[Twalli]

So what was his rally where he told people to fight, supposed to do? If he didn't know how fanatical some of his supporters were then he's not intelligent enough to live without being institutionalized.

[Twalli]

Buy the way Trump has been impeached twice. being impeached is different than the trial. Clinton was impeached, and he still served his 2 terms.

[888theGreat]

Don't give up , fight on, take your country back from these rioters, liberals , and democrat socialists. I agree with him. Did Maxine waters know how crazy her supporters were when they burned down cities in the summer? Should she not go to prison? Should VP Harris not go to prison when she stood up and clapped and said keep the riots going. Destroy everything.

[888theGreat]

He won't be removed by Senate , I mean unconstitutionally removed as US citizen.

[Twalli]

Regardless of the result he'll still be a citizen.

[888theGreat]

Maybe. I expect Democrats will try to take his citizenship away. He will buy a country.

[Twalli]

It's hard to lose US citizenship, even if you try to get rid of it.

[888theGreat]

If same standards are used , every president from now on will be impeached.

[Twalli]

For trying to overthrow our government?

[Nachowedgie]

For not following the agenda

[Twalli]

@Nachowedgie what agenda? Trump had no agenda whatsoever. He said "I want this" and left doing it to others.

[Nachowedgie]

I didn't say Trump had an agenda...

[Twalli]

@Nachowedgie then who didn't follow what agenda?

[UCrayCray]

Why do you consider it unconstitutional?

[888theGreat]

Same as all the law Professors do. He is out of office. You impeach a private citizen that holds no office.

[UCrayCray]

A quick google search shows that all law professors do not believe this impeachment is unconstitutional.(I’ll take a link showing otherwise if you got it) And here is a letter submitted by 150 constitutional scholars, whose name suggests they are more knowledgeable then law professors (and many of them are also professors themselves as well) who say it is constitutional.
www.politico.com/.../
The last paragraph on the second page discusses how precedent has already been set, and we know how much they lean on precedent for these kinds of things.
That being said, are you okay for a president, any president and not just the ones you support, being free to do whatever they want without being help to account by their fellow lawmakers simply because there isn’t enough time to complete the process before he’s out of office?
This is okay with you?

[888theGreat]

Liberals support liberals

[UCrayCray]

Lmao.
That’s all you got? No facts? No counterpoint? Nothing to support the BS you spew. Just the assumption that the list is full of Liberals?
I know it’s so hard to defend your position when facts don’t support them.
I’m sorry I tried to make you do that.

[888theGreat]

I know what is going on. Trump shed the light on the liberals policies and they are out to get him. Like roaches hate light and run to hide. They stole elections because they could not win with their socialist polices.

[UCrayCray]

Donald Trump said so is hardly evidence of anything. Lmao 😂

[888theGreat]

Again, why do liberals use liberal biased sites like Politico? That would be no different than you just saying it. They are biased one sided liberal causes news. Like asking Satan is killing someone is bad. You liberals just continue to be stupid.

[UCrayCray]

LMAO.
Are you fucking kidding me. I apologize yet again for overestimating your ability to understand.
I didn’t post an opinion piece or anything like that. It’s literally a copy of the letter that was submitted by the constitutional scholars, so you can see that they did in fact say that impeachment is constitutional. It directly shows that your claim that all the law professors called the impeachment unconstitutional was wrong.
Not only do I have to provide you with material showing how your wrong, I have to explain it to you too? 🤦🏻‍♀️
And for the record, Politico may be left leaning, but overall their information is fact based. Where do you get your information from?

[888theGreat]

Independents on Youtube. Oan, and Newsmax. RT is pretty good. They don't lean either way.

[UCrayCray]

Okay.
Now you’re just fucking with me.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Yeah you can't impeach a private citizen. As its defined its only applicable to sitting presidents and other political officials. The purpose of it is to remove them from office for a crime (as they could not normally be in a criminal suit). At that point they are then subject to criminal law which is meant to take it from their. Thats its puprose. Also he is correct, a bunch of people on the left defending the left is kind of meaningless. Its kind of like me saying that your wrong because breitbart said so, or because this conservative who donated to Trumps campaign said so. You wouldn't find that to be acceptable so why would any one else? What does the law say on the matter? Well here it is:
www.law.cornell.edu/.../impeachment
"the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."
The document states this, the law states this, history states this, ergo this is what it is and no amount of creative interpretation in order to benefit the left will alter that. They are only doing this because they are so scared shitless of trump that they don't want him to be able to run against them in 2024.

[UCrayCray]

@hellionthesagereborn
So the constitutional scholars (both left and right wing supporters) who signed the letter agreeing that the impeachment was constitutional don’t actually know that constitution? Is that what you’re saying?
Did you read the letter I linked? There are many scholars from many schools who signed in agreement.
Even one from Cornell Law School 🤔
It appears, it’s not as cut and dry as you would like it to be.
As for being fearful of Trump. Who wouldn’t be. Did you see what he did last time he lost?

[hellionthesagereborn]

What do you mean right and left? First off that is irrelevant, the constitution states what it states period, no one can alter that fact. Second, which "right" did this exactly? You have establishment people who hated trump who have always hated him that went along with it, you have the Mit Romneys which are 100% democrats if you actually bother to look at voting records and what they actually support, then you have those on the right who state that this is not constitutional like Senator Ted Cruz who was a lawyer, a very high up lawyer before getting into politics. So you would have to be able to distingish between the two before making the claim and you can't, then you would have to prove that their was no bias or personal vested interest in them making the claim, which you can't. Then after all of that . . . you would still be wrong because the constitution says what it says and no one can alter that. Just because politicians have disregarded the constitution (as they have on pretty much everything (every ABC agency that dictates what you can and cannot do is illegal as only congress can pass laws, every executive order (with a few exceptions) is illegal as the president cannot make law, every single law that has infringed upon the right to bare arms is also illegal as expressly stated within the constitution (and the letters and statements made by the founding fathers), etc. etc. etc. Every one of those is illegal, doesn't mean they don't still do it, it just means that according to the constitution its illegal.).

[UCrayCray]

@hellionthesagereborn
That’s a bit of a mess, but I’ll see what I can get though.
So you believe, and you want me to believe, that those who have built their lives on their reputations (being considered a scholar takes work) are just going to throw it all away with lies and misdirection because they dislike Donald Trump. So only people who love him can have opinion because all other are tainted by abject hatred? That’s a pretty simple argument. You have got that from Trump, huh? Just because Trump is they type to burn the whole fucking thing down to protect his lies, doesn’t mean everybody else will so easily do that same.
So we can dismiss that point out of the gate. (I am in no way saying that there are not some who would be willing to burn it down to get Trump. But to assume everybody would. Or even a big majority? C’mon man!)
What about the set precedent?
Last paragraph on the second page of the link I posted.
Tell why they are wrong in this assessment?

[hellionthesagereborn]

I don't want you to believe anything, I stated a fact, their is nothing to believe. Also your a very very trusting person. . . so long as the people are saying what you want to hear, thats not a good trait to have. As stated, the constitution states that it is for the removal of a person from office, period. That is not up for debate. What your arguing is called the argument from authority, that is because they have a particular title that they some how are able to superceed reality. I mean lets look at it this way, Ted Cruze is a senator and was a lawyer for decades and he says its unconstitutional. So are you suggesting he is risking his entire reputation, to lie? So now what? Your own argument defeats your argument. That leaves us with what the document says.

[hellionthesagereborn]

This is the exact quote from the constitution: "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." i. e. removed from office, once removed they cannot be impeached because its function is to remove one from office and then from their you are a private citizen and are now able to be tried and if found guilty, convicted of a crime. So again, their is no debate in this, this is its function, people trying to get favor or who are getting paid off (one of the "legal experts" used by the democrats in their attempt to impeach trump the first time around now has a position in Biden's administration. Do you think that is coincedental?) or who just hate Trump, saying that the constitution says something else is not evidence that it actually does. I mean are you seriously going to argue that no one is bias? Because if so how do you explain the republicans who are saying that its not constitutional and the moderates who are saying its not constitutional? Are only those you disagree with bias? Also again, that aside, the constitution states quite clearly that its for removing a person from office (and the democrats hope they can ban trump from running for office with this because they are that terrified of him (he wasn't suppose to win the first time and now they want to make sure it never happens again (hence all the sudden changes to the rules when it came to the election (which occured BEFORE covid).

[hellionthesagereborn]

So at no point am I saying you can't have an opinion. If you say that the sky is neon green with pink poka dots, you can say that, you can believe it, but you will be wrong. We are not talking about something subjective, we are talking about something OBJECTIVE. The constitution states clearly that it is for removing some from office at which point they would then be tried for what ever crime they had supposedly commited that got them impeached to begin with. Right their in the constitution. Just how the first amendement states the right to free speech shall not be prohibited, just like it says the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. You can disagree with that, but again, you would be wrong because this is an objective argument not a subjective one.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Also your source is a far left source so again, proving my point of bias. your arguing that this is legal because the people doing it and for it say it is. Not a good argument.

[UCrayCray]

@hellionthesagereborn
You know, if you took the time to read what I said, you probably could have kept your response to just one post, as I have already addressed some of it.
Explain to me why when you use Ted Cruz to support your POV, is it a logical point from a professional man. When I use those who are also believed to be professionals I’m “a very very trusting person. . . so long as the people are saying what you want to hear”? Are your professionals better because they say what you want? Which actually bring us to an interesting little nuggets of truth. Ted Cruz doesn’t argue that this impeachment is unconstitutional because Trump’s out of office. Here’s a link... I made sure it was right-wing just for you. 😘 www.nationalreview.com/.../
He stated that a person who was out of office can still be impeached. It appears that the reason you believe it is unconstitutional is not backed up by Ted Cruz. 🤷🏻‍♀️
I’m also curious why it would be so absurd to you that Ted Cruz would risk his reputation, while openly accepting that hundreds of other would do so with no concern about theirs. One guy would never do something like that, but I can see anybody with a differing opinions doing so with ease. SMH Ha! And you think I’m biased. Lol
Let me get this straight. So because one of the repercussions, being removed from office, cannot be realized, it nullifies the whole process? You know that’s a stretch right? Read Ted Cruz’s words about that.
Please note: I am aware that Cruz makes other arguments about this impeachment’s unconstitutionality. I have not looked into his others claims with any detail and I am not arguing against them now because they were not contained in your argument. I state this to avoid you ignoring that your biggest point, he’s out of office, isn’t even supported by the guy you claimed it was.

[UCrayCray]

@hellionthesagereborn
So you’re objective, and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong? Oh yeah! That’s the exact definition of objective.<— That is sarcasm by the way.
The link was to a letter. Not a commentary. Signed by professionals. I admit, they are not professionals that agree with you, and I think in your mind that makes a huge difference, but they are professionals nonetheless.
It’s okay, I know you will just dismiss them out of hand because that’s what objective people do, right?
And just so you know, Politico has a left-wing biases, but Is not far left. And it’s information, while tainted some by it’s left leaning position, are pretty factual.
Where do you get your news?
If you say OANN or Newsmax, you obliterate your right to criticize the sources that others use. It’s like sitting in a mud puddle criticizing others for being dirty.

[UCrayCray]

@hellionthesagereborn
Oh, and what do you say about the precedents that was set for the impeachment of someone already out of office. They have done it before ya know

[hellionthesagereborn]

You didn't read anything did you? I was specifically pointing out that if you are arguing that these people say x and they are an authority, then that would mean your argument could not be logical if a person who is an authority says Y. I wasn't arguing that Ted Cruz was right, I wasn't arguing that it could go both ways, I was stating that the argument itself is wrong. It doesn't matter what "experts" think, it doesn't matter what people on the left think, it doesn't matter what people on the right think. What matters is WHAT IS. So I pointed to you the quote from the constitution which is very clear and very concise on this matter. So all other opinions are completely irrelevant because the constitution explicitly states what impeachment is and that is the removal of a person from office. So no opinions matter because the argument itself isn't about something that is subjective but what is objective and what is objective can be proven objectively (hence me pointing out what the constitution says).

So what does the constitution state? That the purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from office. Was trump in office? No, ergo you cannot impeach him. Its like firing a worker who already quit, if they quite they cannot then be fired retroactively. This is what the constitution states and their is no debate on that. Just because politicians see fit to basterdize and ignore the constitution for political gain doesn't mean that the constitution isn't clear on what can and cannot be done. That was the argument. Opinions don't matter, facts do.

[Archerer]

It was declared constitutional so, no.

[888theGreat]

not by judges