(02-10-2021, 11:49 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(02-10-2021, 11:35 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: Dude, learn something. Impeachment is to remove an official from office. He is no longer president. How do you remove someone who is not there? I have read opinions on this from lawyers on all sides and they all said it is not constitutional. 

My dislike of politicians in general has me seeing just fine. They're all corrupt.

To remove, yes, also to prevent them from ever again holding office.
Odd. The lawyers I read say it is constitutional, or that it is ambiguous.
Again, the founders knew their Roman history.
When they designed the transition of power, were they thinking that, in the last days of his term, the President would be able to do whatever it took to hold on to power, with no possibility of punishment if he failed, because, "oh he's already removed, problem solved"?

In order for the prevention of holding future office to happen impeachment has to happen first. Period. The act they cited is not considered an impeachable offense. Period. It doesn't matter what people think it should be, it matters what is legal. To be sure this act will be added as an impeachable offense, but until it is, what they are doing is unconstitutional. 

It's like someone going to trial for a crime that isn't actually a crime according to the law as it is written.

---