Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.4K

This sham impeachment trial is going to go this way in my opinion.

Trial- No conviction by 2/3rds. Then a majority vote to disqualify Trump from holding public office again. Roberts not presiding over any of this leaves him to not recuse himself over hearing Trump appeal of the disqualifying vote. To my knowledge the power of the Senate to disqualify has never been in front of the court. That power appears in a separate clause from the 2/3rds conviction requirement to remove someone. The question is will scotus rule that an impeachment conviction is required to disqualify or is a majority vote after a trial good enough? On this the Constitution is not clear. We already know what scotus does too shred clear language in it.

This sham impeachment trial is going to go this way in my opinion. Trial- No conviction by 2/3rds. Then a majority vote to disqualify Trump from holding public office again. Roberts not presiding over any of this leaves him to not recuse himself over hearing Trump appeal of the disqualifying vote. To my knowledge the power of the Senate to disqualify has never been in front of the court. That power appears in a separate clause from the 2/3rds conviction requirement to remove someone. The question is will scotus rule that an impeachment conviction is required to disqualify or is a majority vote after a trial good enough? On this the Constitution is not clear. We already know what scotus does too shred clear language in it.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

It's also about removing his Secret Service protection so they have a better chance of having him assassinated.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Or more accurately, have better leverage over him through his family, who are also entitled to this protection if I am not mistaken.

[–] • 1 pt

The corporation can do anything it wants who gives a shit! It is bull.

[–] • 0 pt

The question is will scotus rule that an impeachment conviction is required to disqualify or is a majority vote after a trial good enough?

Yes.

[–] • 0 pt

And removing his secret service protection. Once a president is impeached twice, they no longer receive this perk.

[–] • 1 pt

Since he doesn't have the means to hire private security, right?

[–] • 0 pt

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm meaning that it's just another slap in the face to him. He's actually probably better off without secret service agents who may be on the take to spy on him or arrange an "accident."

[–] • 0 pt

Only if convicted does he lose benies. There is no Constitutional nor law saying 2 impeachments and your out of benies. It totally rides on conviction.

[–] • 0 pt

Um, yeah. I get that. Thanks.

[–] • 0 pt

or maaybe they suspect what most here already know - he is still President. Catch-22. He is both the president and not at the same time.

[–] • 0 pt

faggot kikesucker trump replaced barr with a childrapist talmudic jew jeffrey rosen as a final FUCK YOU

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

It shouldn’t matter. If we are truly going to reveal that the corporation has been overthrown and our republic restored, nothing these people do matters. Right?

Just a programming note, they might want to hurry up before Biden does too much damage, since it seems that no one else is in on the gag that Biden has no power.