@no1marauder saidBlount was expelled from office so he was not a civic officer. There is no evidence he was acquitted because he was determined to be a civic officer. You cannot be civic officer if you are not in office!
No they didn't.
Belknap wasn't a Congressman or Senator.
"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"
He was no longer a senator, so of course he was not a civil officer. You have to be in office to be a civil officer.
no1, you are claiming that applies to any senator. Once again, what is your source of information?
@metal-brain saidThe article YOU cited which declared the Blount case as precedent as well as over 220 years of practice where Senators and Congressman were expelled, but never impeached.
"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"
He was no longer a senator, so of course he was not a civil officer. You have to be in office to be a civil officer.
no1, you are claiming that applies to any senator. Once again, what is your source of information?
@metal-brain saidThe Belknap case shows you are wrong. Ever member of the House and the majority of the Senate rejected your idea that leaving office required the abandonment of an impeachment trial.
Blount was expelled from office so he was not a civic officer. There is no evidence he was acquitted because he was determined to be a civic officer. You cannot be civic officer if you are not in office!
From the BBC:
But the political drama surrounding him is far from over. The US Senate is expected to put him on trial soon, following his record second impeachment by the House of Representatives for allegedly inciting the Capitol riot.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55728852
There you go. That’s how it is.
End of.
Or CNN:
https://www.google.nl/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/01/14/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-joe-biden/index.html
Or AP news:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-impeachment-vote-capitol-siege-0a6f2a348a6e43f27d5e1dc486027860
Unlimited sources telling you trump has been impeached for a second time. And that the trial of his impeachment is a second matter altogether.
Scurry off and die.
@no1marauder saidThe article I post said it was not clear why the senate decided what it did. That makes that subsequent assertion false. Also, I asked for your source, not mine. Mine proves itself contradictory, kind of like you.
The article YOU cited which declared the Blount case as precedent as well as over 220 years of practice where Senators and Congressman were expelled, but never impeached.
@shavixmir saidSo was Blount and no1 says that is precedent for no impeachment. You say Blount was impeached and no1 says he was not. You work out your contradictions between you two.
From the BBC:
But the political drama surrounding him is far from over. The US Senate is expected to put him on trial soon, following his record second impeachment by the House of Representatives for allegedly inciting the Capitol riot.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55728852
There you go. That’s how it is.
End of.
Or CNN:
https://www.google.nl/amp/s/ ...[text shortened]... nd time. And that the trial of his impeachment is a second matter altogether.
Scurry off and die.
Let me know what you two decide on then get back to me. 🙂
@metal-brain saidNo it doesn't. It makes the author's opinion in non-conformance with subsequent understanding and practice stemming from the Blount case.
The article I post said it was not clear why the senate decided what it did. That makes that subsequent assertion false.
@metal-brain saidWill you stop lying? I've said several times Blount was impeached.
So was Blount and no1 says that is precedent for no impeachment. You say Blount was impeached and no1 says he was not. You work out your contradictions between you two.
Let me know what you two decide on then get back to me. 🙂
@no1marauder saidHe was acquitted.
Will you stop lying? I've said several times Blount was impeached.
If he was impeached how can he be what set the precedent that senators cannot be impeached? Correct your contradiction!
@no1marauder saidWhat is your source of information?!
No it doesn't. It makes the author's opinion in non-conformance with subsequent understanding and practice stemming from the Blount case.
Prove it or stop lying!
@metal-brain saidThere is no contradiction and this has explained several times already.
He was acquitted.
If he was impeached how can he be what set the precedent that senators cannot be impeached? Correct your contradiction!
@metal-brain saidScrew you. I've already given you multiple cites backing my argument while you have provided nothing supporting yours.
What is your source of information?!
Prove it or stop lying!
How many Senators have been impeached since Blount?