Can I ask a procedural question about impeachment?

The trial is VERY specific, should the President be removed for that for which he is impeached. Nothing more.

 

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm#4


In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future. There is no appeal. Since 1789, about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office.

 

And trying is not about whether the President committed the acts for which he is impeached. It is about the consequences of doing so. I don't understand why you don't read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Show me where the Constitution says the judgement of the Senate shall include whether the person impeached committed the acts for which they were impeached.

 

Yes I know the mechanics, you do not need to list it, what was your point?
The Constitution

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Judgement, the trail, is not about whether the person committed the acts for which they were impeached. Were it about whether or not the person committed the acts for which they were impeached then Clinton would have been convicted and removed.

 

Whose confused about it?

 

You insist the house is the trial. Repeatedly.

I post the actual procedure which says otherwise.

You reply that you already knew that.

Wow. That's some serious cognitive dissonance.

 

And that is the fallacy of trying to compare it to a judicial procedure and the blaring proof of that is the fact that if the Senate acquits the person is still guilty of that for which they were impeached. The Senate trail is for on purpose and that is to determine if the acts for which the person was impeached warrants removal not whether they did it or not.

 

I insist that in the House is where a high government official is impeached and regardless of what the Senate does that person will forever be impeached for the acts for which they were accused. Where do you disagree with that?

 

I don't. Impeachment doesn't equate to guilty.

You didn't read what senate.gov says. The impeachment is a CHARGE. A charge does not mean guilty.

 

He's not entitled to due process under the constitution unless he is in danger of loosing life, liberty or property subsequent to this government action. Its not a court proceeding that is going to execute, imprison or fine him or put a lien on his property as punishment. Now this is not to say the House or Senate cannot impose a due process standard on their own accord on this impeachment and trial, and as I understand it, the Senate has in its own rules, but then again, the Senate gets to define the term and the standard differently than the American court system has.

The first interesting question is will Roberts be willing to preside over a trial of a private citizen for acts committed while in office. I think he's going to ask himself if this Senate trial can impose any penalty at all on this now private citizen. Can it deprive him of the perks and benefits due a former President? Can it ban Trump from elective office without a guilty verdict etc? Is there a point to this trial that he is presiding over?

I think he will conclude that he cannot deprive them of their jurist unilaterally, nor can he force them to take this preliminary matter to court to force his attendance. .I think he will feel obliged to show up. The trial itself is 'legal', but any practical impact post conviction may not be. That will be decided at SCOTUS.

 

Then rules for the trial are set by the Senate.

 

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

Well, he can't be removed from Office, his term is over. The Constitution says "shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification..". Not "removal from Office, or disqualification". In legal terms, the Senate has no standing. If disqualification were meant to be a separate punishment, something that could be handed down by the Senate even when the guilty party no longer held office, the conjunction would have been "or," which is ubiquitous in state and federal sentencing statutes ("a fine not to exceed $100,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 40 years, or both"). A person who is not being removed from office cannot incur a penalty that accompanies such a removal.

 

Try reading the actual text in the Constitution itself.

The Senate has the power to DISQUALIFY your biggest *LOSER* from ever holding office ever again and there is no actual stipulation that it requires a 2/3rds majority to render that judgement.

There IS a majority that would rule in FAVOR of that DISQUALIFICATION.

As far as any defense in the Senate Impeachment Trial is concerned your bovine excrement allegation that he is "not allowed to defend against those charges" is utterly BASELESS.

 

Disqualification as a result of the removal and a trial of THE President. Who is THE President now? And the fact is the Democrats impeached a President in less than 4 hours without even allowing for a full debate or witnesses to the accusations. And nothing you posted refuted a thing I said.

 

Yep. And it says the trial of THE President not FORMER President. He is a private citizen now. The proper body to decide if he should ever hole a high office again is States and their voters not 17 Republican Senators.

 

Only procedural rules which do not trump the Constitution. Could the Senate change the rules and say that Harris shall preside at the trial? Nope. That only a simple majority is all that is necessary? Nope. So what rule are you proposing they can change here to allow for a trial off a private citizen and denying that private citizen their right to run for future office.

 

Losing your right to hold public office is a danger to your liberty. We have due process throughout our government especially when legal sanctions are going to be applied. And you are correct he did not receive it, was not allowed to address the charges nor present exculpatory evidence or witnesses.

 

YES it does, the House listed the offenses and then finds him in violation of them. The Senate only decides if he should be removed for them, NOT whether he committed them the House already impeached him for it. If it were merely a charge then an acquittal by the Senate would remove the impeachment and the charge he would be considered innocent of them and NOT an impeached President. That is not what occurs.

 

Well, since the official sources, the Constitution & the Senate's web page, says you are incorrect. I'll go with them.

 

Does the charge go away if the Senate does not convict? Yes or no? I gave you the Constitution, the Senate makes ONE judgement only, remove or not. Go back to the Clinton impeachment. The witnesses were heard in the House. In the Senate trial they only allowed three of those and only brief video clips to clear up some testimony. And he was not acquitted because Senators said he was innocent. The House is where it is decided if the offenses were committed.

 

Wrong. He (or she) can be blocked by the Senate from holding federal office the Senate following conviction.

 

Trump can still be tried, convicted, and barred from running for federal office.

 

The Constitution specifies the Chief Justice presides over a trial of the President.

They can determine who testifies, how the trial is conducted save for a few rules set out in the Constitution.

 

An impeachment is not really a 'mini-trial' or some preliminary hearing to a criminal trial. It is the process of presenting sufficient evident to get the House to indict a federal official and refer to the Senate the charges that they are levying. It does the work of a prosecutor (the special committee on Impeachment) in front of a Grand Jury ( the full house). You are used to a lengthy process involving all these hearings with President's legal counsel present, and witnesses called etc. But none of that is required. How the House gets from here to there is up to the House. The House need not allow the accused to address the charges at their indictment stage any more than a Grand Jury does. The accused gets to address them at trial. The House need not allow the accused to present exculpatory evidence or witnesses in its proceedings any more than a grand jury hearing would. That happens at the trial as well. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the House impeachment. The Senate is where the President's lawyers present their case. The Senate rules do require a due process standard for impeachment trials and I fully expect them to comply with one. Whether or not SCOTUS will equate the liberty interest in a six month jail sentence with a liberty interest to seek employment as a politician is yet another interesting question for SCOTUS. We will find that out if the senate convicts Trump.

Face it there is nothing but discretion on how the House runs its impeachment, and nothing but discretion on how a Senate runs its trial. This is not a criminal or civil trial. Its a political one.

 

Nope. The question is can he be tried when he's no longer President? If he CAN be tried, then he may also be disqualified from holding any future office in the federal government. [Article I, last paragraph of section 3.] Impeachment and conviction doesn't really require a "crime." "High crimes and misdemeanors" has never been challenged or defined by the Supreme Court and it's unlikely they would even try to define it, leaving it up to the Congressional votes on the impeachment resolution in the House and the Senate vote to convict or not to convict. And, it may be more difficult than one would imagine to define it. The process of impeachment may be traced to English law and at the time it was first used "high crimes" referred to the crimes of people in "high offices." Misdemeanors was also loosely defined to include almost anything charged by the House of Commons, that had sufficient votes. Since there is no appeal from an impeachment conviction and very limited oversight powers by the Chief Justice serving as the Senate's presiding officer over impeachment trials, it's probable the Chief Justice would simply follow the Senate vote, thus allowing the House resolution and the Senate vote on the resolution to define whether or not the resolution constitutes "bribery, treason or high crimes and/or misdemeanors.