Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "" video.

@marcusj1167 And Clinton was impeached, and Nixon was going to be impeached, and Andrew Johnson was impeached. They've had the same power to impeach from day 1, and it hasn't led to every president being impeached, so what's your point? You're making no sense.
4
@marcusj1167 Again, as was pointed out in opening statements, there's already precedence for impeachment after leaving office. Founders, themselves, even considered it constitutional. So congress has always had the ability to do that. Why would your supposed slippery slope suddenly kick in now?
4
@marcusj1167 It doesn't clearly state you can't impeach someone that's no longer in office. Its ambiguity on a number of issues is why the document needs to be "interpreted". Previous precedence interpreted it as allowing for it. The Federalist Society's interpretation is that it allows for it. The logic that it helps ensure a peaceful transition and doesn't let presidents go rogue in their last month, unless they want to risk ever holding office again, makes perfect sense. The logic that it shouldn't allow for someone like McConnell to simply delay the trial until the person leaves office, to invalidate an impeachment, makes perfect sense. If the founders didn't want the senate to make impeachment decisions, then they should have sent impeachment trials to the Supreme Court instead.
4
The majority of them didn't run on M4A. Why would you ever expect them to fight for something they didn't run on, even if there wasn't an impeachment?
2
The exact same power to impeach has always been there. You're making no sense.
2
@marcusj1167 Uh huh, and they've always had the exact same power, so you're making no sense.
2