Jump to content

House impeaches Trump after U.S. Capitol siege; his fate in Senate hands


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 362
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

10 courageous republicans willing to put country and dare I say their political careers on the line kudos true patriots well he’s been charged twice now let’s get this epic failure of a president conv

Unfortunately, Democrats won what they were trying to win. It was a horrible slugfest as predicted from the very beginning, and they narrowly squeaked out their goal. Right or wrong, they got it. 

It's nice to see you accepting the situation with equanimity.  It's just a shame that so many Republican voters and lawmakers were unable to accept this back in November when it was more than clear th

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, polpott said:

Not so, there is precedent.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/13/impeachment-blount-belknap-trump/

 

"There is some historical precedent: The impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 both occurred after the men were no longer in office."

 

Not good precedents.  Blount was a US senator and therefore his impeachment by the House was undoubtedly not constitutional in the first place.  Only members of the Executive and Judicial branches are subject to impeachment.  Senators and congressmen can be expelled by their respective chambers, but not impeached.  Blount had already been expelled by the Senate.  When it came to consider the trial of the former senator, the Senate passed a resolution it lacked jurisdiction to try Blount's impeachment and the case was dismissed.  Belknap was acquitted.

 

So, there is no precedent of a successful impeachment trial after the accused has left office.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, polpott said:

Bellknap's trial was held in the senate, it only failed because it failed to reach a 2/3rds majority. Lets hope it does reach a 2/3rds majority this time.

 

At Belknap's trial the 23 senators who voted to acquit did so, because the Senate lacked jurisdiction.  So, that hardly makes a strong precedent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...