How can they make the argument that you cannot impeach a President no longer in office?

[kentuck]

What are they talking about?

He was impeached while he was still in office.

Do they mean he can be impeached but he cannot be convicted because the clock ran out? Is that their argument?

That seems like a rather weak argument. If he had won the election and had been impeached in a similar manner, would they have argued that it was "unconstitutional" also?

That is sort of like a bank robbery in action but it turns midnight and all the cops are off shift. Do they just get to leave the scene of the crime and go home and let the bank-robbers drive away without any interference from the authorities?

The cops cannot go home until the robbers are caught and held accountable.

[msongs]

1. he was in office both times he was impeached. the argument is not factual nt

[RockRaven]

2. Because they aren't arguing in good faith. They are starting with the conclusion and backfilling

with whatever bullshit they think their ignorant, motivated-reasoning voters will be willing to latch onto.

[Takket]

3. "flood the zone with shit" Bannon's creed

if you can't make a coherent one make an incoherent one and the public will fight over it anyway

[Ferrets are Cool]

4. Repug privilege.

[abqtommy]

5. The reTHUGS are ratfuckers. That's what they do but it's up to us to see that they no

longer get away with it.

[StarfishSaver]

6. It's all they've got