NationStates

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Nope, don't need to.

Oh, you do, because I am dumb and don’t understand what you are claiming. Please expound.

I don't, your lack of understanding isn't my responsibility to rectify.

Telconi wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Two crimes are mentioned as ground for impeachment.

The impeachment clause says the President SHALL be removed on impeachment and conviction.

But it does not say the President SHALL be impeached for the commission of a crime (presumably proven some other way) or the other things.

If it did say that, I think I'd agree that impeachment replaces regular prosecution, and maybe even grants immunity for "lesser" crimes.

He shall be removed upon impeachment and conviction, but he hasn't been convicted.

My point is that the Congress isn't required to impeach under any circumstances.

Suppose he commits treason, no doubt about it, I'd rather he be tried in a court and imprisoned for 20 to 50 years. Whether or not he serves out his time as President (that's up to the Congress), he should do just as much time as I would if I committed the crime.

San Lumen wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:An opinion based on what the Courts would be most likely to decide.

Says who?

That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.

And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.

Telconi wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Oh, you do, because I am dumb and don’t understand what you are claiming. Please expound.

I don't, your lack of understanding isn't my responsibility to rectify.

Are you debating yourself, then?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Telconi wrote:
He shall be removed upon impeachment and conviction, but he hasn't been convicted.

My point is that the Congress isn't required to impeach under any circumstances.

Suppose he commits treason, no doubt about it, I'd rather he be tried in a court and imprisoned for 20 to 50 years. Whether or not he serves out his time as President (that's up to the Congress), he should do just as much time as I would if I committed the crime.

You can try in a regular court after impeachment.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Says who?

That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.

And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.

Telconi wrote:
I don't, your lack of understanding isn't my responsibility to rectify.

Are you debating yourself, then?

So if the Senate decided they wouldnt convict even if Trump assaulted Secret Service and threatened staff with a gun so be it? Your effectively declaring the President above the law.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Says who?

That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.

And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.

Well that's just great.

Trump has probably committed some crimes, in office, we just don't know about yet. And once he's out I hope that interpretation of the constitution is put to a serious test.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.

And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.

Well that's just great.

Trump has probably committed some crimes, in office, we just don't know about yet. And once he's out I hope that interpretation of the constitution is put to a serious test.

That's if he loses in November. The statue of limitations runs out on a lot of things come next January.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Says who?

That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.

And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.

Telconi wrote:
I don't, your lack of understanding isn't my responsibility to rectify.

Are you debating yourself, then?

Nobody is debating.

San Lumen wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.

And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.


Are you debating yourself, then?

So if the Senate decided they wouldnt convict even if Trump assaulted Secret Service and threatened staff with a gun so be it? Your effectively declaring the President above the law.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What if Trump loses in November? He'll still be President for a couple of months, but with nothing to lose. He might literally shoot someone, hell he might nuke someone. And all we could do about it is remove him a few weeks early (and ban him from running again, which he wouldn't anyway).

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.

And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.

Well that's just great.

Trump has probably committed some crimes, in office, we just don't know about yet. And once he's out I hope that interpretation of the constitution is put to a serious test.

His immunity only works while he is in office, though. It ceases to work retroactively once he loses his office.

Telconi wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.

And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.


Are you debating yourself, then?

Nobody is debating.

He said, on a political debating forum.

San Lumen wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Well that's just great.

Trump has probably committed some crimes, in office, we just don't know about yet. And once he's out I hope that interpretation of the constitution is put to a serious test.

That's if he loses in November. The statue of limitations runs out on a lot of things come next January.

I’d argue the statute of limitations does not apply to people who enjoy immunity, for the same reason it does not apply for those who are at large.

San Lumen wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.

And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.


Are you debating yourself, then?

So if the Senate decided they wouldnt convict even if Trump assaulted Secret Service and threatened staff with a gun so be it? Your effectively declaring the President above the law.

Yeah, that’s basically it. Well, not really above the law, since the constitution gives him that immunity, but that is the system in the constitution. Again, it is a dumb system, and it allows for huge abuses of power if the president has the Senate on his side, but that is the system out in place by the constitution nonetheless.

Mind, he can still be prosecuted once his term ends. Just not while in office.

This fault stems from the fact that the Senate was supposed to be above party politics, but when the Senate was changed to be elected by popular vote they did not alter anything else, thus giving the newly partisan Senate a lot of powers that were supposed to be wielded impartially, impeachment among them.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

San Lumen wrote:So if the Senate decided they wouldnt convict even if Trump assaulted Secret Service and threatened staff with a gun so be it? Your effectively declaring the President above the law.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What if Trump loses in November? He'll still be President for a couple of months, but with nothing to lose. He might literally shoot someone, hell he might nuke someone. And all we could do about it is remove him a few weeks early (and ban him from running again, which he wouldn't anyway).

I doubt he's that insane he would nuke Tehran or wherever else simply because he lost.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

San Lumen wrote:So if the Senate decided they wouldnt convict even if Trump assaulted Secret Service and threatened staff with a gun so be it? Your effectively declaring the President above the law.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What if Trump loses in November? He'll still be President for a couple of months, but with nothing to lose. He might literally shoot someone, hell he might nuke someone. And all we could do about it is remove him a few weeks early (and ban him from running again, which he wouldn't anyway).

And prosecute him. Since we can prosecute after he leaves office.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
My point is that the Congress isn't required to impeach under any circumstances.

Suppose he commits treason, no doubt about it, I'd rather he be tried in a court and imprisoned for 20 to 50 years. Whether or not he serves out his time as President (that's up to the Congress), he should do just as much time as I would if I committed the crime.

You can try in a regular court after impeachment.

Well that's some consolation. Precedent says the next President will pardon him and the trial will be abandoned. But maybe not for serious and common crimes.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What if Trump loses in November? He'll still be President for a couple of months, but with nothing to lose. He might literally shoot someone, hell he might nuke someone. And all we could do about it is remove him a few weeks early (and ban him from running again, which he wouldn't anyway).

And prosecute him. Since we can prosecute after he leaves office.

If he's blown up the world because he decided throw a temper tantrum will it matter?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
You can try in a regular court after impeachment.

Well that's some consolation. Precedent says the next President will pardon him and the trial will be abandoned. But maybe not for serious and common crimes.

Yeah, I doubt that having your predecessor arrested is a good idea going forward. That would be a hell of a transition.

San Lumen wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:And prosecute him. Since we can prosecute after he leaves office.

If he's blown up the world because he decided throw a temper tantrum will it matter?

Would it matter if he could be arrested during the apocalypse?

Telconi wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Well that's some consolation. Precedent says the next President will pardon him and the trial will be abandoned. But maybe not for serious and common crimes.

Yeah, I doubt that having your predecessor arrested is a good idea going forward. That would be a hell of a transition.

And "dignity of the office" etc crap. I don't think anyone should be above the law though.

The thread is called All Things NOT Impeachment btw ...

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

San Lumen wrote:If he's blown up the world because he decided throw a temper tantrum will it matter?

Would it matter if he could be arrested during the apocalypse?

i would hope someone would stop him from being so petty if he lost.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Yeah, I doubt that having your predecessor arrested is a good idea going forward. That would be a hell of a transition.

And "dignity of the office" etc crap. I don't think anyone should be above the law though.

The thread is called All Things NOT Impeachment btw ...

The agents of the government aren't above the law, but they're also not subject to the same laws as everyone else

Telconi wrote:Given how quickly Iraq is devolving into an Iranian puppet state, they sure as shit are.

A lot of Shiites in Iraq's government are pro-Iranian. The Kurds, Sunnis, and even much of the Shiite population, on the other hand, have a good number of reservations about Iranian hegemony for a lot of the same reasons they had reservations about American occupation.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Telconi wrote:
And what's the legal recourse for these things?

Impeachment. If the Senate thinks crimes were committed, they should impeach the president. They swore an oath to that effect.

And if they don't think crimes were committed or aren't certain?

Again, why didn't we kill this guy discreetly? I know how Trump loves his ego boosts, but lives are on the line.

Fahran wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Impeachment. If the Senate thinks crimes were committed, they should impeach the president. They swore an oath to that effect.

And if they don't think crimes were committed or aren't certain?

They think only Democratic Presidents commit crimes of course. #Blowjobpeachment

Gormwood wrote:

Fahran wrote:And if they don't think crimes were committed or aren't certain?

They think only Democratic Presidents commit crimes of course. #Blowjobpeachment

Perjury is a serious crime, Gauth.

Gormwood wrote:

Fahran wrote:And if they don't think crimes were committed or aren't certain?

They think only Democratic Presidents commit crimes of course. #Blowjobpeachment

Glad to know you view perjury so lightly.