It's a pig circus. impeaching a president is about removal -right in the text.The Chief Justice only presides over impeachment trials of the President. All other impeachment trials, the Chief Justice does not preside. There is a question over whether trump should be considered "the President." He was definitely "the President" when he was impeached, but during the trial he would be the ex-President.
As with all questions of the trial, the final say is the Senate, and they have decided trump is not considered the President in this trial.
It's a pig circus. impeaching a president is about removal -right in the text.
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
So when you start dithering if Trump is impeached as POTUS or ex-POTUS - and the Senate railroading thru a Democratic controlled Senate proceeding has any legitimacy, check your illogic
Also Leahy is a presiding officer and a juror,,WTF is that crazy dual role??
great Buddha -read the text:The text lists two possible punishments in impeachment, removal from office, and banning from future offices:
there cannot be any banning without a removal fist.. the actions are conjoined by "and"extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification
why do I care?All I care about now is keeping Russia and china as far apart as possible
great Buddha -read the text:
there cannot be any banning without a removal fist.. the actions are conjoined by "and"
they are not separable findings (removal or banning)
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
you have said that before.That ship has sailed.
"No one shall be allowed to vote, except the men and women of the USA." Does that mean that voters must be both men and women at the same time? Of course not. If you meet one of the two qualifications, either a man or a woman, you qualify. Obvious, if you are both a man and a woman, you also qualify.
So there are only two possible punishments. It is already established that the Senate can pick one punishment and not the other. They have several times removed a person from office without going on to ban them. They could do the reverse this time.
you have said that before.
you would be surprised how quickly Putin would leave Xi's clutches if he had access to the western economy.
He desperately wants to grow Russia economy in his last years of rule #1 priority
If you want to say that ship has sailed -considering rabid Russiaphobia, i would not disagree
stop with the fixed polarism. its called triangulationLeaving the Empire is a lot like leaving a gang...the penalty is so high that it will rarely happen.
stop with the fixed polarism. its called triangulation
Nixon did it to the USSR using the ping pong diplomacy with China
not at the POTUS level has there ever been an impeachment to ban without removal.Im not even sure if an impeachment conviction solely to ban without removal is even possible.
Hey! Lets get Leahy to rule on that! ROFL @Presiding Officer
LMAO.. you are beyond elastic here. a ban without a removal isnt the purpose of impeachmentThere have been removals without bans, so the reverse is possible.
great Buddha -read the text:
there cannot be any banning without a removal fist.. the actions are conjoined by "and"extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification
they are not separable findings (removal or banning)
LMAO.. you are beyond elastic here. a ban without a removal isnt the purpose of impeachment
The sole reason to impeach is to remove an elected official from their official capacity.
Banning is an option afterwards
LMAO.. you are beyond elastic here. a ban without a removal isnt the purpose of impeachment. The sole reason to impeach is to remove an elected official from their official capacity.
When you have a SCOTUS of not particularly great judges who are willing to allow themselves to be bullied such technicalities probably dont matter.
This is one of the few issues that the Supreme Court does not really matter much at all. They have no say in this. If they did, they could overrule their own impeachments, and there would be no checks and balances. The Senate has sole say in this.
lol.That is your opinion, but the Constitution does not say that. It says that the House decides who to impeach, and the Senate decides how to hold a trial. It says there are only two things that can be done with an impeachment, and one of them is banning. That means that the Senate can ban without removal.