Once again- I'm not replying to this post as a comment on the moral or ethical "rightness" or "wrongness" of these impeachment proceedings. Only as points of fact about the process

Here's my take away from your response

logic based on actual facts = bad

logic based on emotioal responses = good

Sounds about right for this crazy mixed up world we live in. No wonder people can't have civil disagreements and talk things through anymore.

One would do well to remember that historic facts and logical implications do no always coincide. My illustration would be per physics theory a helicopter is not supposed to be able to fly. However, per actual events, helicopters do fly. However, your historical point of fact is revelant. I would suspect that the events surrounding your historical events quite possibly had to do with political hatred of said individuals. And You Yourself have stated You have no 'personal likeablity' (my way of phrasing what you articulated) of Donald J. Trump. I strongly suspect there are many things in play 'behind the scenes' in regards to this current impeachment saga. And from The DNC side of the aisle, none of them are positive for America's future!

Another item, that bears looking at..............Is in the event The Senate does have Impeachment Proceedings, will The Senate actually follow the Rules of Impeachment I linked to earlier?

Which would give the Accused a Trial to bring forth evidence and facts...........................Something I suspect many in Congress would not be appreciative of.

Seems, there is a Senator who reads The Constitution the same I do.....................

https://www.oann.com/sen-rounds-speaks-out-against-holding-impeachment-trial/

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said the impeachment trial for President Trump is unconstitutional. On Sunday, the Republican explained he believes the Constitution indicates only current presidents can be impeached.

He went on to refer to the situation as a “moot point,” emphasizing events during the Capitol riots are not impeachable offenses if he is not president anymore. Rounds noted the Senate should be more focused on other matters, such as confirming Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees.

“To begin with, I think it’s a moot point, because Donald Trump is no longer the president, he is a former president,” Rounds stated. “Article 1 Sections 6 and 7 specifically point out you can impeach the president, and it does not indicate that you can impeach someone who’s not in office.”

Other GOP senators have voiced similar sentiments, but Democrats in the chamber are insisting on holding an impeachment trial.

Well now!! I must be reading a different constitution than ya'll are. How silly of me!  Did i find the wrong Constitution? Can you direct me to the correct on with your version of Article 1 Section 6 and 7?  This is a perfect example of how misinformation gets spread around like gospel. No wonder this world is going to hell in a hand basket.

Sigh.... I would be remiss if I didn't point out that helicopters fly BECAUSE of physics properties such as lift, thrust, torque and drag.

There probably was some political amniosity toward the impeached individuals. It is politics after all. I'd hazard a guess it was also because they did some pretty rotten stuff. All had evidence of their crimes presented against them. Blount ( a senator from North Carolina) plotted with the British to help seize parts of the US back. Humphreys gave up his judgeship to join the Confederacy during the civil war. Belknap (the US Secretary of War) took bribes for years from an individual who ran the trade rights at Fort Sill. But the driving factor was still probably political hate.

I will agree with you. I think it's a bit of a witch hunt. The Democrats sure seem to be trying awfully hard to silence and discredit Trump.

  I'm not sure where you got my supposed dislike of Trump- I went well out of my way to keep political sides out of this and just keep it to facts. I did mention in another post that I didn't like some of the things he said or had done - but I also clearly said that I had voted for him twice. How truthful of you to only pull out the pieces that you feel fit your narrative.....But that is the world we live in. Facts don't matter- just our interpretation of them....

I never said he was not impeached before he let office. My complaint is why is NANCY PELOSI Pershing this when it is beating a dead horse and a total waste of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money. 

Vendetta plain and simple.

It would seem very much so. And fear of what he could possibly get this country to do.

Just saw on the news where Capitol Police today apologized to Congress as it seems they were warned ahead of time that trouble might erupt on January 6 and chose to do nothing about it (or were they told to mind their business by Nancy and Chuck).  

Finally admitted it.  Since it will come out during the sham impeachment they probably figured they might as well fess up.

This is a great example of what I was trying to ask on the other thread!  If it is unconstitionaly how is it that they can do it anyways.Who is the one that makes them accountable!!!???  He is 1 man/vote if it goes to a vote.  So if voted on and it passes and its unconstitional... Means they can do whatever they want! and no reprecussions.  But there has to be something in place to make them accountable.  Again I would say this no matter who is in office.  Where is the check and balance system?

 I'm not going to use this post to answer your specific question about checks and balances - thats a whole nother kettle of fish. This will address truth in sources of knowledge.

I think this is a good example of how an individual who is trying to decide what is the truth or not - or in your case constitutional or not - might go throught he process of deciding for themselves.

Somebody posts their thoughts on here "Seems there is a senator that reads the consitiution like I do...." and they post a news blerb about a senator who has said the impeachment is unconstititional

"To begin with, I think it’s a moot point, because Donald Trump is no longer the president, he is a former president,” Rounds (the Senator) stated. “Article 1 Sections 6 and 7 specifically point out you can impeach the president, and it does not indicate that you can impeach someone who’s not in office"

Ok - its from a senator - he should know what he's talking about - right? And somebody else on here is saying its the truth too. Do you accept those words as the gospel and use them as your truth? Or do you question them? I'm the curious type - so I decide to look at the constitution myself.

You can find it on the internet at constitution.congress.gov. There is even a handy constitution annotated section that takes individual pieces of the constitution and explains in layman terms what it means and the historical background for that meaning.

Article 1 Section 6      Says nothing about impeachment. It discusses where the money for Senator's and Representative's salaries comes from. That they can't be arrested (except for treason, felony and breach of peace) while they are in session. And that they can't hold other civil office while they are a Senator or Representative.

Well- anyone can make a mistake- right. It probably talkes about impeachments in Section 7.

Article 1 Section 7       Says nothing about impeachment. It talks about how a bill is started - it's process through congress- and how it becomes a law.

So - do I trust this Senator to be telling the truth anymore about weither something is constitutional or not? No Am I going to blindly trust what the other poster says on Barrel Horse World? No

I also look at the source of the news blerb www.oann.com   The One America News Network is KNOWN to be far-right, pro Donald Trump cable channel. Pretty much everything they report is skewed as much to the right as other sources against Trump are skewed to the left. It's DANGED hard to find a news source that keeps it close to the middle anymore.

For the record- if you do want to find out about weither what is hapening with the impeachment is constitutional or not,  you can find info about impeachent in Article 1 Sections 2,3,and 5  Article 2 section 4 and,  Article 3 section 3    You can read what trump is officially charged with by googling "house resolution 24"  While I think it's a witch hunt and primarly for show, I believe it is inside the lines of being constitutional. The constitution doesn't say that technically you can only impeach someone when they are in office and it doesn't technically say that you can't if they are out of office. It leaves it up to the Senators who try the impeachment to decide. A study of past impeachments have shown that 2 or 3 people have been tried by the senate for impeachment when they were out of office. Apparently legally speaking - it can  be done. I say 2 or 3 because in one case records differ weither said individual was in or out of his office when the senate tried him- so that one is a bit muddy.

Roberts presided over the first impeachment at that time Trump was President.

Chief Justice Roberts reportedly made a statement in which he said "I do not preside over impeachment on a former president. The Constitution says impeachment is for “THE” president. Trump is former president." For four years Trump showed exactly what the Dems are trying to do.  They are scared sh!tless of Trump.  They, along with a few establishment Republicrats are trying to knock him out of any potential 2024 run. 
You folks are wasting a lot of time haggling over this, in my opinion.
This 5 year old assault on Trump is starting to actually increase his popularity, in some ways.  

I stopped fact checking you after the first two articles.

In the first one, the professor is not defending trump- but instead is explaining he take on why the Repub;licans are doing what they are doing. It has nothing to do with weither it's constitutional or not. For the record - I think its a witch hunt too. My point is that its a legal witch hunt.

In the second article, the snippet shown was taken COMPLETLY out of context and if you actually read it, you know it does NOTHING to bolster your argument.

FOR THE RECORD - as I said, I too think its a witch hunt. It might be grandstanding, but it's legal.  I think enough Senators will vote nay based on their belief the impeachment in unconstitutional because trump is out of office to not have the majority needed to convict.  They ABSOLUTLY have the right to believe that. The wording of the constitution about this leaves enough wiggle room, you can argue either way. I think this trial will go the same way the first one did. Impeached but acquitted in the Senate.

Bear believes we are discussing a moot point. In some ways we are, but I think that is is important for people in gereral to do two things. 1) actually check the validity of the information they spread and 2) Learn how our governmental processes actually work before they scream that is not the way it is supposed to be done. There is often a big difference between what is LEGAL and what is MORAL.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/1/13/hls-profs-second-impeachment/    

As House Democrats prepare to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time as early as Wednesday, several Harvard Law School faculty said the second impeachment is more likely to be successful than the first.

Following the events of Jan. 6 — during which a violent pro-Trump mob breached the Capitol building, prompting an evacuation of government officials — House Democrats introduced an article of impeachment Monday against President Donald J. Trump on the grounds of “incitement of insurrection.”

Law School professor Jeannie Suk Gersen said a key motivation for impeaching Trump is to prevent him from holding elected office in the future.

“There certainly is one concrete purpose, which is that if he is convicted by the Senate, the Senate can also choose, upon conviction, to strip him of any ability to run for office again,” she said. “And that is a possibility that will be appealing to many people who really believe that the offenses he has committed should disqualify him from holding office, particularly in light of his talk of running again in 2024.”

In an email to The Crimson, Law School professor Michael J. Klarman said one reason Democrats may be pursuing impeachment is to require elected Republican officials to take a public position on the president’s actions.

“I suspect the real reason to pursue impeachment is to force Republicans in Congress to go on record defending or criticizing the president,” Klarman wrote. “The fact of the matter is that 94 percent of Republicans voted to re-elect Trump, over 70 percent of them think he actually won an election that is being stolen from him, and equal numbers of Republicans approve and disapprove of the mob’s effort to rush the Capitol last week.”

Barring Trump from being elected to office in the future “would not be a trivial accomplishment,” he added.

“Impeachment has always been a popular remedy — ‘popular’ as in it was intended to be the voice of the people against dictatorial or corrupt government officials,” Mack said. “This particular impeachment in the House, should it go through, appears to have much more popular support than the impeachment last year. And that’s quite noteworthy.”

Law School professor Tomiko Brown-Nagin, who also serves as dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, wrote in an email that the mob that stormed the Capitol did so at President Trump’s “bidding.”

“There should be no question that this attempt to impede the will of the people and the lawful transfer of power constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors,” she wrote. “Donald Trump must be held accountable for his actions using the tools of impeachment and removal laid out in the Constitution. The rule of law is at stake.”

https://today.law.harvard.edu/roundup/transfer-of-presidential-power/         Some Democrats worry that Trump simply won't take part in the proceedings and that he'll adopt a similar posture to his administration's broad rejection of congressional oversight and subpoenas during his time in office. "I hope he is competently defended," Lawrence Tribe, a Harvard University Law School professor who has advised Democrats on their efforts to impeach Trump, told ABC News. "Otherwise part of what he'll be able to say in claiming victimization is that he was made a pariah ... therefore the verdict was illegitimate -- just as the election wasn't legitimate."

"I don't think it helps our history for him to be able to elaborate on that martyr story," Tribe said.

Kindaclassy, this is the direct copy and paste.

This c&p I agree, the rest is debatable. Henceforth, why there is interpertation of the Constitution, and regardless; NOT ALL Interperatations are accurate.

The wording of the constitution about this leaves enough wiggle room, you can argue either way.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here enough to form a response. I don't want to assume and be way off base about what you were saying.  I think we are kinda agreeing - but I'm not sure!

I would say 'semi' agreeing.

I'll take it! It just felt weird...so I wasn't sure