Thursday, January 14, 2021



We have just experienced Nancy Peolosi’s second vendetta against President Trump by having him impeached twice, the second one less than a week away from President Biden being the president.

I think we can say the first impeachment followed the rules in the House, but the second did not or truncated the rules.

And it appears that President Trump’s removal from office trial in the Senate will be after he is no longer the President. Thus it is doubtful there will be a trial in the senate, but there could be to keep the ex President from pursing the presidency again or being elected to congress or governor of Florida or New York—name your elected office.

My questions have to do with the Supreme Court:

1. Can it be brought before the Supreme Court that due to Pelosi’s Trump Derangement Syndrome, she did not follow proper procedure for the House to impeach a president, thus invalidating the impeachment?

2. If her actions and that of the House are upheld, can a ex-president be “impeached” in the house after he leaves office?

3. When or if the House’s impeachment goes to trial in the Senate, can such a thing, for an ex President happen and could it be brought to the Supreme Court to decide the legality of placing either a legitimately or illegitimately Housed Impeached ex president on Senate trial and to what purpose.

Can an ex President impeached 6 days before he ceases to be president be placed on trial to be removed but in fact the trial is to prevent him from running again for elected office—is that the purpose of a senate trial after impeachment?


Anonymous said...

There is precedent for officials to be inpeached and convicted after they leave office.

William Worth Belknap, Secty of War under U.S. Grant, resigned two hours into his impeachment proceeding, but was, nonetheless, tried in the Senate. He was aquitted. "All Senators agreed that Belknap took the money from Marsh, but 23 who voted for acquittal believed that the Senate did not have jurisdiction."

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Do the same laws apply to the President?

But the other question can Trump’s trial in the senate no longer as president legally mean he cannot run for another elected office. A cabinet position isn’t elected. Could the person you use have been appointed to another cabinet post?

Walter Saborio said...

Father, it is refreshing to at least see yesterday's farce for what it was--political theater to satisfy a vendetta.

This isn't a Democrats v Republicans thing either. It's bigger than that. This is about corruption being threatened. Trump ran as an outsider, cleverly using the Republican party as his vehicle, to eliminate all the garbage that taxpayers have been paying the tab on for too many years. You can argue that Trump skirts the law or that he is a jerk or any number of things and some of them might be true, but it doesn't change the bigger story. This isn't liberal v conservatives anymore. It's outsiders v. establishment & economic nationalism v. globalism. The establishment and globalists have extended everything AND the kitchen sink to try to ruin Trump because he stepped on their sacred ground--and was largely successful in changing a number of things they held sacred. They are even angrier that he did so in the face of so many obstacles they threw at him such as the Russia probe and the first impeachment. These are the kinds of distractions that would shut any adminstration down and stop most presidents cold. It takes a man with an enormous ego, incredible bluster and an almost indifferent attitude to establishment approval to keep working his program in the midst of such a storm and, amazingly, Trump managed to do just that.

Trump isn't superman and he sure isn't a saint. There are some problems so systemic, corrupt and large scale that no one could possibly overcome them--as we found out with the "election" of Biden. But poor Pelosi is cutting off her nose to spite her own face. The more they shut down social media, vilify Trump and attempt to make him a pariah, the more his popularity continues to rise. Both sides have made serious mistakes, but right now, it appears that the Democrats are attempting to set a foundation for eventual defeat from the jaws of their apparent victory.

Anonymous said...

Part of the push in impeachment is pure vindictiveness in an attempt to strip Trump of normal benefits of former office holders.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

But can the Preside, any President appeal t the Supreme Court due to irregularities? Or overreach concerning procedure?

Anonymous said...

EXCELLENT, Walter Saborio. You really state the problem well. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

An exercise in enough mud, and some of it is bound to stick. Notice their utter silence on an unarmed female protester being shot dead, even to ignoring the suicide/death of her (likely unintentional, as photos in chamber show him unwisely leaning on trigger with no clear target) shooter, who was a casuality just as much as the dead officer being lionized. It is all for vindictive show.

Anonymous said...

In answer to the recourse to courts question, generally the answer is no, as this is not a judìcial process but a legislative process. There have been only, what? Jackson/Clinton/Trump for precident, and the Senate makes their own rules on the fly, the Chief Justice of SCOTUS can only insure rules are followed, and which the Senate can then change if passed on the floor.

Anonymous said...

To continue on legalities, the impeachment is a done deal, House alone does that, and it amounts to censure/vote of no confidence unless/until referred to the Senate for a trial.

As for the likelihood of 2/3rds of Senate viting convicting Trump on the articles, the Senate is split 50/50 and a conviction would require a substantial number of Republicans to vote him guilty.

Considering we DO have a right to free speech, and there is no outright call to riot or storm the capitol, and him saying quite the opposite as for them to peaceful protest at conclusion of his speech, the chances seem between slim and none for conviction, to me. Telling someone to fight for their rights has never been seen as incitement to riot before, not by any party or person, for any party or person.

Anonymous said...

"The more his popularity continues to rise..."

Uh, not everywhere. Not in metro Atlanta, where David Perdue, who tied himself closely to Trump, got a mere 42 percent of the runoff vote in the 29-county metro Atlanta area, a 6-point drop from his 2014 win over Michelle Nunn. Hmmm...who was president for 4 of the 6 years of Perdue's Senate term? Democrats in Georgia might wish Trump would hang around, as during his tenure they gained 13 seats in the Georgia House, 3 seats in the Georgia Senate, 2 congressional seats and 2 U.S. Senate seats. If those are signs of Trump's "popularity", I hate to see what his unpopularity would look like.

As for the "election" of Biden, uh, yes, he was elected. It is over, really. And thankfully some officials in Georgia were willing to stand up to Trump's bullying ("find me 11,780 votes). Maybe Georgia would not have been so close if Trump had shown a degree of modesty or anger control, Just some, But he wouldn't do it. And he paid the price in many affluent, traditionally Republican areas of metro Atlanta, like Buckhead, Sandy Springs and East Cobb, areas which even rejected Georgian Jimmy Carter in his 1976 presidential bid. And after last week's whatever we call it---riot, insurrection, sedition---more people I speak with who supported him before say they will not do so again if he tries in 2024. Certainly Republicans can find someone better, someone who does not run as the "doom and gloom" candidate?

Anonymous said...

"Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or rebellion against, established authority."


When Nancy Pelosi points a finger at President Trump for behavior unfitting for his office, three fingers point back at her.

Walter Saborio said...

This is starting to look like another one of those contests for the "last word". Regardless of where any of us stand, I think we can all agree that there is some serious disagreement in our nation and we don't appear to be doing anything to find common ground. Instead, we all seem to be on some path to vindicate our points of view and give any dissenting views the old "gotcha". Is it pride? Is it ego? Is it our fallen nature?

Ultimately, our problems aren't so much political as they are spiritual, and spiritually, our nation is impoverished and on life-support. Substituting politics as our religion has not proven to be a very good prescription for what ails us.

Harlan County Miners said...

"The election, by all measures, was a accurate reflection of the will of the people and Biden and Harris are the winners."


"The election was stolen by crooked Democrats, by tens of thousands of Republican officials from Vice President Pence down to Republican poll watchers, and by judges and Supreme Court Justices who would not examine the evidence, and there will be no concession for a rigged election."

There is no common ground possible. As Senator Mitt Romney said, “The objectors have claimed they are doing so on behalf of the voters. Have an audit, they say, to satisfy the many people who believe that the election was stolen. Please! No Congressional led audit will ever convince those voters, particularly when the President will continue to claim that the election was stolen. The best way we can show respect for the voters who are upset is by telling them the truth. That is the burden, and the duty, of leadership. The truth is that President-elect Biden won this election. President Trump lost. Scores of courts, the President’s own Attorney General, and state election officials both Republican and Democrat have reached this unequivocal decision."

Which side are you on....which side are you on....?

Walter Saborio said...

What side am I on? I would hope the side of truth and I would like to think you are too. And you are right, there is no common ground possible in this current mess. However, it cannot be denied that a lot of Americans on both sides of the aisle have lost trust in their institutions. Claims of electoral fraud have never been as widespread as this election and several state governments are still investigating it. Quoting Romney, or Pelosi, or McConnell, or Cruz or ANY politicians might lend credibility to any given side, but there is a larger segment of Americans who feel disenfranchised than ever before. The only way to calm that down is to investigate the allegations thoroughly. Most of those who insist that there is nothing to investigate made up their minds the day after the election. If they are right, then they should have nothing to hide and no objection to a closer examination. And not every anomoly, observer suppression report or accusation of stealing/replacing ballots and votes came from the president--even HE doesn't have enough energy to put that together. I say this not as a Trump cultist, but as someone who sees that almost half of our nation is very angry and telling them to shut up, calling them racists or trying to make them feel stupid isn't going to make this go away. We will never definitively know the truth of the election as long as we are in "shut up--you're an insurrectionist if you question us" mode.

Like I said, ultimately, our problems aren't so much political as they are spiritual, and spiritually, our nation is impoverished and on life-support. Substituting politics as our religion has not proven to be a very good prescription for what ails us.

John Nolan said...

Watching a triumphant Pelosi yesterday, I was mindful of one reason why impeachment was allowed to become obsolete in England (the last case was that of Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville, in 1806). Namely, that it was clearly a political act instigated by a faction from motives of malice or vengeance.

It was also time-consuming, cumbersome and expensive. It usually ended with acquital (as in the Melville case and the notorious earlier impeachment of Warren Hastings).

In retrospect, it was an example of the Americans introducing an element of English practice into their Constitution which may have been legitimate in the 1780s, but is essentially anachronistic in the 21st century (as indeed it was by the end of the 19th).

Anonymous said...

Trump needs to take responsibility for inciting that crowd to riot and overrun the Capitol. 5 people were killed. He is an accessory to murder and he should be thrown in jail not just impeached.

Anonymous said...

Well anonymous, given the "tolerant" leftists that have locked down our nation's capital into something resembling North Korea and have shut down free speech and are redefining reality, you might just get your wish.

Just be careful what you wish for, because you could be next.