Impeachment of former President Trump
By John Beasley
@Beaser (385)
United States
January 27, 2021 10:32am CST
I'm mad and I'm laughing!
How could anyone possibly believe that having the Senate as jurors was going to work? They're all tainted by either the direct impact of the insurrection, their political party, or the information that they've seen/heard so how can they possibly listen to the evidence presented and make an unbiased decision?
My understanding is that an impeachment is basically a trial to determine whether a person (in this case former President Trump) broke a law. I may be over simplifying things but it's basically a court trial. So in a court trial don't we do our best to find impartial people to serve as the jury? Go ahead and try to convince me that the 100 Senators that got sworn in are impartial. There isn't a single one of them that's saying I don't know if he's guilty or innocent because I haven't heard the evidence the prosecutors are going to present. They all pretty much have their mind made up.
Their actions pretty much tell me where I stand. They aren't there to do the right thing, to represent the people that voted them into office. They're there to represent their party affiliation. How many of them have voiced their concerns about the repercussions their party may feel if former President Trump is convicted. How many have said that this is the first step in ensuring that former President Trump can't run for office again.
So I'm laughing that all those smart people actually thought that filing articles of impeachment was going to do something. And I'm mad that OUR elected officials aren't doing their jobs.
Just my two cents guys.
5 people like this
6 responses
@Namelesss (3368)
• United States
27 Jan 21
You are right, it is laughable. Impeachment has only one goal and that is removal of a sitting president from office. He's gone already. A conviction in the senate is simply a conviction of impeachment so he can't run again. That is ALL impeachment does.
What is not funny is that the liberal left majority is trying to change the constitution and constitutional law. THAT is what should be on everyone's mind. They are in control now and have no intention of EVER giving up that control.
THAT is a dictatorship and wholly un-American and THAT is what should disturb everyone. So don't laugh too much at those '''smart''' people they know EXACTLY what they are doing and they are going to do it whether "we the people" want them too or not.
2 people like this
@Namelesss (3368)
• United States
27 Jan 21
@Beaser That is what I said. Impeachment in the house only is for removal of a sitting president. It still has to be agreed upon in the senate and voted on. That's the whole reason for the argument over the last year between /he was impeached and /no he wasn't Had he actually been impeached he would have been escorted out of the white house.
The short if it is that what they are doing is unlawful and a waste of time. Impeachment is for a sitting president.
1 person likes this
@Beaser (385)
• United States
28 Jan 21
@Namelesss Whether or not it's unlawful or not is yet to be determined. I have read instances where others that held public offices have been impeached after they left office. So I'm sure we'll see lots of debate on whether this is actually lawful or not.
On that note, don't you think it's strange that only republicans believe the impeachment proceedings against former President Trump is illegal? I mean, not a single democrat stepped up to even say ya know, I'm not sure this is legal or not.
@Beaser (385)
• United States
27 Jan 21
@Namelesss - I hate to disagree but my understanding is that simply impeaching former President Trump doesn't make him ineligible to run for office again. If convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, they would have to take another vote on whether to disqualify former President Trump from holding public office. A majority vote would be necessary for the disqualification.
@lovebuglena (43087)
• Staten Island, New York
27 Jan 21
An impeachment is done to remove a person from public office. Trump is no longer president so continuing with this impeachment thing is unconstitutional. You cannot impeach a US citizen. You need 2/3 of the Senate vote to convict him and that will not happen anyway.
1 person likes this
@lovebuglena (43087)
• Staten Island, New York
28 Jan 21
@Beaser Will see what happens. But most republicans believe it is unconstitutional to impeach Trump, as he is no longer president, so most likely they will vote against it. I would love for him to run in 2024 but he may not want to.
@Beaser (385)
• United States
28 Jan 21
@lovebuglena - That's about all we can do, wait and see what happens.
As for him running again.... That's a whole different discussion.
Thanks for responding and sharing your opinion.
1 person likes this
@Beaser (385)
• United States
28 Jan 21
@loveguglena - You're right, it absolutely says that it's to remove someone from public office. But, there have been cases in the past where individuals have left office and still been impeached.
I think the bottom line is that they're trying to keep former President Trump from running for President in 2020 or ever holding a public office. My understanding is that the shortest path is to impeach him and IF found guilty, hold a second vote to disqualify him for holding future public offices.
I'm not anywhere close to being a constitutional lawyer so I don't have any idea whether impeaching a former President is legal or not.
But thank you for posting.
@FourWalls (62494)
• United States
27 Jan 21
As polarizing as that man is, there’s no way to get an “impartial” jury. Get twelve Republican voters and the verdict will be innocent. Get twelve Democrat voters and the verdict will be guilty. Get 50/50 and it’ll be a 50/50 hung jury.
And, like it or not, they are doing what the Constitution mandates: trial by Senate. As we’ve had four impeachments for three presidents and zero convictions, it shows that it’s quite difficult. But it should be difficult, because accusing someone of a crime is a serious matter.
I don’t know if anyone who was injured in the insurrection can sue him for damages. That would be an interesting approach!
PS: love your Marvin the Martian profile picture! 
1 person likes this
@Beaser (385)
• United States
27 Jan 21
@FourWalls - Thanks for the post.
Another post with some very valid posts. I do understand that the Constitution mandates trial by Senate but it's aggravating that the Senate do what we ask every other U. S. citizen to do - look at what the law says, listen to the evidence, and make a choice based on the law. NOT your party affiliation.
For me, without seeing all the evidence, I'm not willing to say guilty or innocent. A snippet of what former President Trump said can be taken out of context and made to sound any way you want them.
Having said that, there isn't any way I would want to see former President Trump hold any political office from here out.
I don't know where I found Marvin but I thought he was pretty cool. I remember seeing him in cartoons when I was a kid and it was a much simpler time.
1 person likes this
@xFiacre (12636)
• Ireland
27 Jan 21
@Beaser I think you are right. If the man is accused of having broken the law he needs to be tried in a court of law rather than by his political allies or opponents. Since there is unlikely to be any jurors found who aren’t heavily prejudiced in one way or the other no safe verdict can be reached. However we are not talking about a common criminal but someone who is deranged and likely to cause further mayhem - I don’t know what can be done about that. Restraint under a mental health intervention perhaps.
1 person likes this
@Beaser (385)
• United States
27 Jan 21
@xFiacre Your post made me chuckle. Very valid points.
I'm not a doctor so all I can say about the deranged/mental health intervention is that former President Trump doesn't act like almost any other person I've ever come in contact with. How's that for tap dancing?
1 person likes this
@Beaser (385)
• United States
27 Jan 21
Thanks you for your comment.
But I disagree that they are doing their jobs. No disrespect to your post but their job is represent the citizens of the United States, NOT the XXX party.
I do agree with you regarding the conviction though. Regardless of the evidence the democrats are going to vote the party line and the republicans are mostly going to vote their party line.
1 person likes this
