XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa   
   From: NOT-SURE@ideocracy.gov   
      
   On 2/12/21 8:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:   
   > 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.”   
   >   
   > And Article I, Section 3 says:   
   >   
   > 	The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.   
   > 	When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or   
   > 	Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried,   
   > 	the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be   
   > 	convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members   
   > 	present.   
   >   
   > 	Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than   
   > 	to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy   
   > 	any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:   
   > 	but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and   
   > 	subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,   
   > 	according to Law.   
   >   
   > What’s been going on in the Senate for the last week is apparently no   
   > impeachment trial. Chief Justice John Roberts is not presiding. Donald   
   > Trump isn’t president. In fact, he’s already been removed from office —   
   > by the American voters.   
   >   
   > There are still questions about whether a former president can be   
   > impeached, and even constitutional scholars disagree about the issue,   
   > but one of the former president’s lawyers said the process now underway   
   > will set a dangerous precedent that could lead to other former   
   > officials being impeached even after leaving office.   
   >   
   > In a question and answer period in Trump’s trial on Friday, Sen. Marco   
   > Rubio (R-FL) asked lawyer Michael van der Veen if the current trial of   
   > Trump “would create a new precedent” for other former officials —   
   > including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.   
   >   
   > “Is it not true that under this new precedent, facing calls to ‘lock   
   > her up,’ a future House could impeach a former Secretary of State and   
   > potentially disqualify her from any future office?” Rubio asked.   
   >   
   > “If you see it their way, yes,” van der Veen said, referring to the   
   > House Democratic impeachment managers. “This could happen to … the   
   > former secretary of state. It could happen to a lot of people. That’s   
   > not the way this is supposed to work.”   
   >   
   > Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the lead impeachment manager, said the   
   > hypothetical question “has no bearing on this case.”   
   >   
   > “This official was not impeached in office for conduct while in   
   > office,” he said without mentioning Clinton‘s name.   
   >   
   > A final vote on Trump’s conviction or acquittal is expected about 3   
   > p.m. on Saturday, but could be pushed until Sunday if either side seeks   
   > to call witnesses. Conviction of Trump requires two-thirds of senators   
   > present to offer “guilty” votes. Normally, two-thirds is 67 senators,   
   > which would require 17 Republican votes.   
   >   
   > If Trump is convicted, there would be a subsequent vote on whether to   
   > ban him from holding further office. This would require only a simple   
   > majority. While the Senate is split 50-50 between the two parties, Vice   
   > President Kamala Harris votes in the case of a tie.   
   >   
   > --   
   > Trump won.   
   >   
   Start Preparing the case now so that in 2022 when democrats lose the   
   house the first thing they do is impeach Hillary and the second thing is   
   impeach Biden....   
      
   Start a Conga line and since they can now impeach after people are out   
   of office or in office start impeach all of Obama CORRUPT CABINET.  They   
   can also then go on to impeach Obama.   
      
   --   
   That's karma   
      
   Banning guns and de-funding police won't lower crime if you follow the   
   Democrats Rhetoric. *And their very own Democrat actions confirm* that   
   even *they believe they're lying* since they're doing the opposite *to*   
   *reduce any crimes "you" might commit against the Government* that they   
   control and apparently they *believe guns and fences and police* *will*   
   *protect* them from your crime and violence. So why won't those same   
   things protect you from crime and violence?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)