If you wait 90 minutes to stop something you were watching happen for 90 minutes you made no true effort to stop.  Especially if it would take you 60 seconds to ask them to stop.  That's like watching a small fire grow larger for 90minutes then calling 911.

and this is an impeachable offense how?

https://www.cancerresearch.org/

I agree, he is.

and this is an impeachable offense how?

Inciting insurrection and waiting 90minutes for the result to make a call.  Still is insurrection.

I think they should impeach him, and hope they are successful. If they do then we will get to finally clean house of some RINOs next mid term.

The Senate has 2 tasks:  hold a trial, and vote to convict.

IF they vote to convict, they will then have the chance to vote whether or not to bar Trump from holding future government office.

There's zero chance he will be convicted, since (1) there's no way anyone can show he incited squat, and (2) if it goes down party lines, the Dems need 60 votes.  Not going to get close to that.

So, if he's NOT convicted, there should be no vote to bar him from office.  That would be like sentencing someone to a year in prison after being found "Not Guilty."

Of course, the Dems have a history of changing Senate rules when they have a simple majority.  I can see them planning the impeachment for NO OTHER REASON than to bar him from office -- thus, that vote might be held regardless of the verdict.

We really need term limits for Congress.

The Senate has 2 tasks:  hold a trial, and vote to convict.

IF they vote to convict, they will then have the chance to vote whether or not to bar Trump from holding future government office.

There's zero chance he will be convicted, since (1) there's no way anyone can show he incited squat, and (2) if it goes down party lines, the Dems need 60 votes.  Not going to get close to that.

So, if he's NOT convicted, there should be no vote to bar him from office.  That would be like sentencing someone to a year in prison after being found "Not Guilty."

Of course, the Dems have a history of changing Senate rules when they have a simple majority.  I can see them planning the impeachment for NO OTHER REASON than to bar him from office -- thus, that vote might be held regardless of the verdict.

We really need term limits for Congress.

Never say never,   some Republicans might cross the line.  Even McConnell said what he did was wrong.  Or they can just avoid the vote. It's percentage of people voting not a hard number.  So if all the Republicans don't show up then Trump can be impeached without Republicans taking a side. 

.

Wrong

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/22/legal-scholars-letter-supporting-constitutionality-of-impeaching-and-convicting-presidents-after-they-leave-office/

Once again, you’re wrong.

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/22/the-case-against-retroactive-impeachment-trials-a-response-to-the-open-letter-of-scholars/

THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT

Article I states that the power of impeachment and trial are shared by the two houses but limits the power of Congress by expressly stating that “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.”

Article II contains the key impeachment provision and standard, stating “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.”

For my part, I am admittedly fixated on the fact that impeachment refers to the removal of “the President” and other officials in office. I understand that many do not adhere to a strong textualist approach to the Constitution. However, there is a glaring anomaly in the text. Indeed, the primary stated purpose of the trial is to determine whether “the President . . .  shall be removed.” At the second Trump impeachment trial, the president will be Joe Biden, not Donald Trump. So the Senate will hold a rather curious vote to decide whether to remove a president who has already gone. Moreover, Chief Justice John Roberts is not expected to be present to answer these questions because there is no president to try. Article I states “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”  So the Senate will get someone else.  The question is who is being tried. Is he a president? Obviously not. Is he a civil officer? No, he is a private citizen. A private citizen is being called to the Senate to be tried for removal from an office that he does not hold.

Once again, you’re wrong.

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/22/the-case-against-retroactive-impeachment-trials-a-response-to-the-open-letter-of-scholars/

THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT

Article I states that the power of impeachment and trial are shared by the two houses but limits the power of Congress by expressly stating that “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.”

Article II contains the key impeachment provision and standard, stating “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.”

For my part, I am admittedly fixated on the fact that impeachment refers to the removal of “the President” and other officials in office. I understand that many do not adhere to a strong textualist approach to the Constitution. However, there is a glaring anomaly in the text. Indeed, the primary stated purpose of the trial is to determine whether “the President . . .  shall be removed.” At the second Trump impeachment trial, the president will be Joe Biden, not Donald Trump. So the Senate will hold a rather curious vote to decide whether to remove a president who has already gone. Moreover, Chief Justice John Roberts is not expected to be present to answer these questions because there is no president to try. Article I states “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”  So the Senate will get someone else.  The question is who is being tried. Is he a president? Obviously not. Is he a civil officer? No, he is a private citizen. A private citizen is being called to the Senate to be tried for removal from an office that he does not hold.

We will see what happens when he is tried.  And/if the courts decide.  There's plenty of people believing both sides.

We will see what happens when he is tried.  And/if the courts decide.  There's plenty of people believing both sides.

I never said it was not going to happen. I never said there are not people on both sides who have opinions. All I said was the constitution is very clear that the trial is to remove the president. And the president is Joe Biden. You said I was wrong. I am not wrong, you are. Once again you are a liar. As a matter of fact you are the forum’s biggest liar and BS’er.

I stated facts, you stated opinions and lies. Once again you singled me out and attacked me/my words with lies and opinions. I don’t appreciate it. I don’t deserve it and you once again are starting a fight I did nothing to provoke. You obviously have a hard on for me. Maybe you like older men. I don’t know. But you are not my type. I don’t like liars. And you do that in abundance on this forum. Did you daddy not give you enough attention growing up? Or are you just a spoiled LITTLE Millennial who went to Kamehameha? I think we all know what the truth is. 

I never said it was not going to happen. I never said there are not people on both sides who have opinions. All I said was the constitution is very clear that the trial is to remove the president. And the president is Joe Biden. You said I was wrong. I am not wrong, you are. Once again you are a liar. As a matter of fact you are the forum’s biggest liar and BS’er.

I stated facts, you stated opinions and lies. Once again you singled me out and attacked me/my words with lies and opinions. I don’t appreciate it. I don’t deserve it and you once again are starting a fight I did nothing to provoke. You obviously have a hard on for me. Maybe you like older men. I don’t know. But you are not my type. I don’t like liars. And you do that in abundance on this forum. Did you daddy not give you enough attention growing up? Or are you just a spoiled LITTLE Millennial who went to Kamehameha? I think we all know what the truth is.

No,  The constitution depending how you interpret it has different meanings.  You are not correct.  The supreme court decides in the end how to interpret the constitution, not you, not me.  From my research there are more people who believe that its reasonable to impeach him even if he is not president.  Because of the clause to ban further running for office and others.  I am not attacking you, but fakenews.  And you post alot of that.   Recently in another thread you posted the election was "taken/stolen" from Trump, that is also fakenews.  Still no proof in court.  No idea where you got Kamehameha but I didn't go there.  More #fakenews

.

No,  The constitution depending how you interpret it has different meanings.  You are not correct.  The supreme court decides in the end how to interpret the constitution, not you, not me.  From my research there are more people who believe that its reasonable to impeach him even if he is not president.  Because of the clause to ban further running for office and others.  I am not attacking you, but fakenews.  And you post alot of that.   Recently in another thread you posted the election was "stolen" from Trump, that is also fakenews.  Still no proof in court.  No idea where you got Kamehameha but I didn't go there.  More #fakenews

You can say what you want. But the constitution is very clear. I am interpreting it literally. Which makes me correct as that is the way it is intended. You want to interpret it differently from what it says you go right ahead. You are allowed. But if you want to change the meaning of it, you need to have a good reason. Which so far you have not provided. That does not make you right. It just makes you different. To say more people believe Yadada yadda yadda, I can only say that your statement is ignorant as you have no proof of it. You can cite polls if you want. You can research all the leftist sites you want. Doesn’t make you right. It only makes you ignorant. If that is all you have to prove your opinion you have nothing. Once you lie a few times, no one here will believe your words even if you tell the truth. Remember the story about the boy who cried wolf too often.

You should have read the article I posted and you would see you are once again wrong. It is very clear.

“Removal is stated as the question for the Senate to answer in the trial of “the President.” The Senate may, in its discretion, add disqualification after a president has been removed.  The second optional penalty language was expressed as a limitation on the authority of the Senate and again references removal: “shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification.” Since the Senate does not have to disqualify, it would not seem to be an interchangeable or equal consideration in that respect. Moreover, it is obvious that the Senate could not simply hold disqualification trials under this language. Its authority to disqualify is not triggered until after “the President” has been removed from office.”

Read it literally and you see I am right. I am not making anything up like you are. Lies, lies and more lies. The Constitution is what it is.

Once again, I’m not saying the trial won’t occur. And I don’t know what the outcome will be. What I said is it will be wrong if it did. But according to the language of the constitution as I bolded above, the Senate does not have the authority to disqualify the president until it is triggered by the removal of the president. Which I am sure you know cannot be done since Trump is not in office. Once again you are wrong Wrong Wrong.

BTW, maybe you should use that thing called Google and find out why Chief Justice Roberts has not said yet if he is going to preside over the Impeachment trial. He may. He may not. But he has not said because he has deliberate about it for a very good reason. What is that reason? Why would he have to decide if he is going to preside over the trial. Especially when he is on record for not liking Trump. Shouldn’t it be a slam dunk that he would preside over it? Maybe if you Google it it might make more sense to you why he has to deliberate. The other problem becomes if he decides not to, then the president of the Senate will preside. And she has a definite conflict of interest making the trial a complete political sham.

You mention a previous post. Your statement just proves I am once again right. I am getting under your skin. Or you have a hard on for me. Either way every time you try and prove me wrong you end up looking like a fool. Like right now.

Why are you attacking me? I have done nothing to you nor have I done anything to provoke you. Yet here you are making yourself look foolish in front of a small tight knit community. These are people you stated once that would like to be friends with. Do you think it wise to lie and BS your way just to try and one up me? Do you think anyone here on this forum respects you for this? I guess you just don’t give a shit.

" You are not correct.  "

Well Dave, she certainly put you in your place.   

Who are you to argue with a millennial chick with an iFag and Google at her fingertips?   

" You are not correct.  "

Well Dave, she certainly put you in your place.   

Who are you to argue with a millennial chick with an iFag and Google at her fingertips?   

Yeah, you’re right. She’s right. She’s always right! Chicks always think they are. 

On whether Donald John Trump incited the erection. 
Hilarious.

No doubt Schumer’s got a hard on for him.

Simple mistake.

Cryin' Chuck meant to say, "... excited the erection."

 

I think Chuck meant to say that! Hilarious! 

 So funny!  I think his mind was preoccupied on something else.