Dershowitz: democrats cannot impeach Trump

@metal-brain said
But he was put on trial in the Senate. That seems to undermine your assertion that a Senator cannot be impeached.

BTW, I don't remember a trial in the first impeachment of DJT and I watch the news every day, do you remember a trial?

Dershowitz bloviating from the Senate floor regarding what is or is not a constitutionally-appropriate definition of a "quo" to ones "quid" doesn't ring a bell? That didn't make the news in your locale?

That was a trial. Fox and Friends probably called it a tea party.

@metal-brain said
The Blount case went to trial in the senate.
You can impeach senators. You were wrong.

I said it was decided more than 200 years ago you can't.

That is an accurate statement.

@no1marauder said
I said it was decided more than 200 years ago you can't.

That is an accurate statement.

Here is an excerpt from the link I posted earlier:

"Was it because a senator is not a civil officer and cannot be impeached? Or was it that Blount could not be impeached and tried because he had already been expelled?"

If it is the latter it was not decided 200 years ago. There was a senate trial for Blount's impeachment. If that is not an indication of him being impeachable then a trial will not prove Trump is impeachable either, right?

Shav would say Blount was impeached because the house impeached him. You are saying the house can impeach and the senate can hold a trial and it still does not prove he or she can be impeached.

Nobody can seem to agree on what impeached means. What does it mean?

@metal-brain said
Here is an excerpt from the link I posted earlier:

"Was it because a senator is not a civil officer and cannot be impeached? Or was it that Blount could not be impeached and tried because he had already been expelled?"

If it is the latter it was not decided 200 years ago. There was a senate trial for Blount's impeachment. If that is not an indication of him being i ...[text shortened]... he or she can be impeached.

Nobody can seem to agree on what impeached means. What does it mean?

An impeachment is the legislative equivalent of a Grand Jury indictment in a criminal court. Effectively, the power to impeach translates into the power to indict.

@metal-brain said
Here is an excerpt from the link I posted earlier:

"Was it because a senator is not a civil officer and cannot be impeached? Or was it that Blount could not be impeached and tried because he had already been expelled?"

If it is the latter it was not decided 200 years ago. There was a senate trial for Blount's impeachment. If that is not an indication of him being i ...[text shortened]... he or she can be impeached.

Nobody can seem to agree on what impeached means. What does it mean?

No, I'm saying the precedent was established that a Senator is not a "civil officer of the United States" and thus cannot be impeached.

I don't agree that there is any ambiguity in the Senate's resolution of the Blount case. The majority rejected the premise that a Senator was a "civil officer of the United States" and the same majority, by an identical 14-11 vote, then decided the Senate did not have jurisdiction to impeach. Their reasoning is obvious and not at all unclear.

By contrast, the majority of Senators voted that Belknap could be impeached even though he had resigned.

@wildgrass said
An impeachment is the legislative equivalent of a Grand Jury indictment in a criminal court. Effectively, the power to impeach translates into the power to indict.

When someone is impeached by the house but is not impeached what does that mean?

Blount was impeached by the house, yet he was not impeached because he was not convicted. That does sound confusing. How do we resolve this contradiction?

@metal-brain said
When someone is impeached by the house but is not impeached what does that mean?

Blount was impeached by the house, yet he was not impeached because he was not convicted. That does sound confusing. How do we resolve this contradiction?

Blount was impeached. Subsequently, it was decided that a Senator couldn't be.

There is no contradiction.

@no1marauder said
No, I'm saying the precedent was established that a Senator is not a "civil officer of the United States" and thus cannot be impeached.

I don't agree that there is any ambiguity in the Senate's resolution of the Blount case. The majority rejected the premise that a Senator was a "civil officer of the United States" and the same majority, by an identical 14-11 vote, the ...[text shortened]... ontrast, the majority of Senators voted that Belknap could be impeached even though he had resigned.

"The majority rejected the premise that a Senator was a "civil officer of the United States" and the same majority, by an identical 14-11 vote, then decided the Senate did not have jurisdiction to impeach."

What is your source of information?

@no1marauder said
Blount was impeached. Subsequently, it was decided that a Senator couldn't be.

There is no contradiction.

It is not clear as you claim.
Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"On January 14, 1799, Vice President Thomas Jefferson formally announced the dismissal of the case and brought the trial to an end. It remains unclear on what grounds the Senate based its conclusion as to lack of jurisdiction. Was it because a senator is not a civil officer and cannot be impeached? Or was it that Blount could not be impeached and tried because he had already been expelled? The Senate’s dismissal remains too ambiguous to decisively answer either question; nonetheless, the Senate’s action in the Blount case has been interpreted as precedent for determining that a senator cannot be impeached."

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The-First-Impeachment.htm

Blount could not be impeached and tried because he had already been expelled. You can interpret it was the other reason Blount's lawyers gave, but that is all it is, an interpretation.

It is not clear.

I think the claim that a precedent has been set that a senator cannot be impeached is a silly claim. If sonhouse was senator and went to the senate floor naked and said he was just airing out his penis for gods work how long would the senate put up with it?

Precedent my ass!

Blount could not be impeached and tried because he had already been expelled.
Trump will be out of office before the senate can take it to trial. Trump's lawyers will make the same case. A civil officer is not elected, so I don't see why a senator is not a civil officer and a house representative is. That doesn't make sense.

In the end I am confident that the senate will not make senators immune from impeachment. That would be really foolish. What if you get a senator worse than Trump and does really crazy things or has dementia really bad?

Trump will not be convicted if the senate makes the right decision. If he is convicted it will set a horrible precedent that could bite democrats in the ass some day.

@metal-brain said
"The majority rejected the premise that a Senator was a "civil officer of the United States" and the same majority, by an identical 14-11 vote, then decided the Senate did not have jurisdiction to impeach."

What is your source of information?

The article.

Read it.

EDIT: Here I'll help:

"In January of 1799, after three days of exhaustive arguments, the Senate deliberated behind closed doors, then voted on two resolutions. On January 10, 1799, the Senate failed to pass the following resolution by a vote of 11–14:

That William Blount was a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore liable to be impeached by the House of Representatives; That as the articles of impeachment charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors, supposed to have been committed while he was a Senator of the United States, his plea [to dismiss the charges] ought to be overruled.

On January 11, 1799, the Senate approved the following resolution by a vote of 14–11:

The court is of opinion that the matter alleged in the plea of the defendant is sufficient in law to show that this court ought not to hold jurisdiction of the said impeachment, and that the said impeachment is dismissed."

So the Senate rejected the idea that a Senator was "a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States," and thus could not be impeached. It said nothing about the claim that he could not be impeached because he had already resigned and the majority in Belknap rejected that idea.

@metal-brain said
I think the claim that a precedent has been set that a senator cannot be impeached is a silly claim. If sonhouse was senator and went to the senate floor naked and said he was just airing out his penis for gods work how long would the senate put up with it?

Precedent my ass!

I think you've never read the Constitution.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

Article I, Section 5

Senators may be immune from impeachment by the House, but they are subject to removal for misconduct in office.

@metal-brain said
Blount could not be impeached and tried because he had already been expelled.
Trump will be out of office before the senate can take it to trial. Trump's lawyers will make the same case. A civil officer is not elected, so I don't see why a senator is not a civil officer and a house representative is. That doesn't make sense.

In the end I am confident that the senate ...[text shortened]... . If he is convicted it will set a horrible precedent that could bite democrats in the ass some day.

You're talking gibberish. A House member isn't a "civil officer of the United States" either for impeachment purposes and can be expelled by a 2/3 House majority for misconduct.

Belknap is precedent for someone out of office still being impeached for conduct in office. There is no precedent to the contrary.

@no1marauder said
I think you've never read the Constitution.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

Article I, Section 5

Senators may be immune from impeachment by the House, but they are subject to removal for misconduct in office.

"Senators may be immune from impeachment by the House, but they are subject to removal for misconduct in office."

How?