Justice Will Be Served.

Don't worry, you'll see a constitutional lawsuit against congresses ability to do this. If they manage to do it, that means when the republicans take power they can impeach every one of their opponents.

A Republican has already introduced a bill of impeachment against Joe Biden. The House of Representatives must soberly consider all legislation proposed by a member. But, just as a court can take action against lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits, a Member of Congress can be tried for Disorderly Behaviour.

The man is gone, you pathetic and vindictive troll.
It doesn't serve our country one bit to follow through with this charade. It only serves to satisfy your obsession.

Sounds like you're afraid of the American people re-electing President Trump in 2024 Larry. Why are you trying to interfere with our elections?

Mr. Trump will be lucky to not lose his pension and Secret Service protection if he is found guilty. His empire is hocked to the limits and Deutche Bank is calling in his notes. The Attorney General of New York is planning a long menu of Torts against him. I actually pity him. This is not how he saw this all working out for him.

Oh how your gaslighting is incessant. One of these days you'll get what you deserve. Reap the ugly seeds you sow.

And a conviction removes them from an office they do not hold! Can we impeach Hunter Biden then?

Impeachment, under the 14th Amendment, is also a method of disqualifying a miscreant from holding a Federal Office or receiving Federal benefits. Some people believe that if a person is guilty of inciting people to attack Congress with the intent of killing the Vice President or others, they are not fit to hold office again.

But it must be done while in office. There is no officeholder to impeach. Congress cannot pick private citizens that they wish to prohibit from holding FUTURE offices and impeach them now to avoid facing them in the polls later. Besides, you really think a 78 yr old guy is gonna run for office? 😉

The country's top Constitutional Scholars should have consulted with you before deciding that this is legal. You might have a stronger argument if you said it is not proper. The underlying question is, "Did Mr. Trump have, or should he have had, sufficient information to believe that his actions that led to the attack on a Joint Session of Congress would play out the way it did? He was either the smartest and most informed president in history, as he has claimed over and over. Or, he is so dense that he did not know that sending out a Tweet inviting people to a "wild," protest would appeal to violent people? The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that the word "wild," used in this context means "3a(1): not subject to restraint or regulation: UNCONTROLLED also: UNRULY" (the emphasis is theirs). Several of his high-profile rioters are now claiming he "duped," them. Things do not look good for him. And, most of the evidence is video recorded.

To add to your words.

The Constitution is very clear. The subject, the object, the purpose of impeachment is to remove a sitting precedent. And there are two precedents. One is very obvious. When President Nixon resigned in anticipation of being impeached and removed, there was no effort to impeach him after he left office. It was clear that the Senate had lost jurisdiction at that point.

The proponents cite another precedent. In 1876, there was a failed effort, a failed effort to remove the secretary of war. In an initial vote, the Senate voted close, in a close vote, that they did have jurisdiction to try somebody who had resigned.

But then, when it came to a vote on the merits, they lost, because 27 or so senators voted that they did not have jurisdiction. Those senators were right. There is no jurisdiction. You cannot put citizen Trump on trial. If you could do that, it would be a bill of attainder, number one, putting somebody on trial who was not a sitting president.

And, number two, the implications would be horrendous. It would mean that if, the Republicans came up with a terrific candidate, say, not Donald Trump, to run against President Biden in 2024, the Democrats could simply impeach him.

If you can impeach anyone who is not a sitting president, there are no limits to the power of the Congress to try ordinary citizens. It is plainly unconstitutional. And the Senate should not proceed with this unconstitutional act.

The president you cite in your first paragraph was given a full Pardon by his successor and had already been elected the maximum number of times to make congressional action moot.

Some right-wingnut talk show "expert" must have advanced the idea of mass Impeachments of private citizens. One of the things that many people today miss is that the people who wrote the Constitution considered themselves to be model citizens. They expected that the people who would be elected to run the country would be "White, Male, Land Owners," like them. Like all of us, they felt a sense that what they were was good. They felt that shame would prevent good people from acting out in ways that are now the domain of political extremists. They did not anticipate a problem like today's because they created the electoral college to prevent citizens from electing a Charleton, through a majority vote. Since they did not specifically write the Constitution to prevent such a prosecution, it is uniquely legal to use it in cases like this.

Nixon could have retuned to Congress or been appointed a Supreme Court justice. Sony your argument they still had reason to impeach and try him. But Ford realized we needed to move forward in our weakened economic state, which was stronger than today’s economy. But liberals are bound together only by Trump. They cannot move forward without Trump. So Trump must be forever the Boogeyman in order to keep unity in the party and get the votes on new bills. Everything must be framed as a defense against Trump. When Trump dies, the Democrat party is screwed because the sole point of their existence will be gone.

It is a legal position that accepting Pardon is equal to an acceptance of guilt. As of now, we have no resolution on whether Mr. Trump is responsible for the insurrection by the mob that he invited to Washington, D.C. for a "Wild," protest. During the wildness that followed his fiery speech in which he exhorted them to "fight like hell," against the "stolen election." During the riot that followed a police officer was beaten to death, a protester was shot and killed and two others died. Millions of dollars of damage were done. All of the members of both houses of Congress and the Vice President had to hide for fear of assassination. If a private citizen is indicted for a crime days before the Statute of Limitations runs out, they are still tried in the appropriate court. That is what is happening here.

The SOL ran Jan. 20. It’s done. Millions of dollars of damage for 2 windows? Where they made of solid platinum? I did not hear him call for insurrection. Only protest. You interpret it that way because that’s what you want to hear. I heard the current VP clearly call for violence against federal buildings out West. Are you calling for her impeachment too?

I guess we will just have to wait and see how justice plays her hand.