Can I ask a procedural question about impeachment?

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by Reasonablerob, Jan 13, 2021.

  1. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    5,729
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Note: No one...either Republicans or Democrats serving in Congress seems to have raised this question regarding whether or not he can be tried in the Senate once out of office. I would tend to say "no," but the only thing I remember McConnell objecting to was the timing of the trial and how quickly it could be done. That tells me that no one is objecting to the trial itself...but I'm not sure what the grounds are for that position? Since no President has ever been convicted on impeachment (3 have been impeached, Trump twice), we're usually breaking new ground with Presidential impeachments and the subsequent trial. But there have been convictions on impeachment of federal judges. The problem there, in comparing the judges to presidential impeachments is that federal judges are appointed for life and Presidents are elected to specific 4 yr terms. I believe there has been one federal judge removed from office, but who subsequently was elected to the House and allowed to serve. Maybe House rules trumped (pardon the pun) the loss of the federal judgeship? Remember there is a clause in the Constitution allowing both the Senate and House to set their own rules, which could have practically the effect of an elected representative sit in the chamber, but without power (i.e. deprived from committee assignment, denied caucus membership, etc.). Maybe someone else knows more and can explain.
    Oh yeah...there was a Cabinet officer who knowing he was going to be impeached and convicted, so he resigned before it happened. Congress impeached him anyway, on the reasoning that his resignation was to avoid the dishonor of being impeached and possibly convicted him. Not sure if he was tried in the Senate or not?
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2021
  2. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    44,732
    Likes Received:
    36,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even Republicans want to be rid of YOUR biggest *LOSER* and I debunked your BS allegation about him not being to defend himself in the Senate.
     
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,091
    Likes Received:
    24,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You refuted nothing because you can't. As noted, during his first impeachment and the Clinton impeachment, witnesses and evidence are presented and vetted IN THE HOUSE. You keep dodging the questions. Did Trump's first impeachment go away after the Senate vote not to remove? Did that declare his innocence? How about Clinton did the Dems refusal to remove him make his impeachment go away and prove he did not commit that for which he was impeached. Were all the witness presented in the House or the Senate? If Trump defends himself in the Senate and wins does that mean he was not impeached and that impeachment goes away?
     
  4. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,091
    Likes Received:
    24,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes they have on both sides. Judges are not Presidents, presidential impeachments are spoken of separately in the Constitution.
     
  5. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,091
    Likes Received:
    24,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not the question to which I was responding. And even if he can be tried the disqualification is tied to a removal. And I know fully well the history of impeachment and it's meaning according to the founding fathers so you can spare yourself all that typing. What you seem to be missing here is that Trump WAS impeached for a CRIME. And it is quite possible the Chief Justice would inform the Senate he can only sit in judgement at a trial of THE President and now THE President is Joe Biden and he is not being impeached.
     
  6. maxLiberal

    maxLiberal Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2021
    Messages:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    our Founding Fathers never considered the traitor trump phenomenon for we were all Patriots, so fig that.
    just like they couldn't envision streetsweeper capacity weapons in the hands of millions of nutjobs.
    laws, precedent, and political norms were shattered by hateboi and his sycophants, they lost. the winners write the rules now.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  7. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    5,729
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I doubt Roberts would try and exercise that much power over Congress. If Nancy and Chuck want a trial, they'll get a trial, particularly if Mitch agrees. (Kevin doesn't matter since impeachment has already occured while Trump was still President. I tend to agree with you about a Senate Trial for Trump. However, Mitch seems to be agreeing with Schumer on the trial. I'm thinking there may be more information to come on the sedition attempt and that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress want a venue to speak out against the crime, knowing that at the moment there is not sufficient evidence to indict him on a criminal charge. A conviction on the impeachment charge can only result in a second vote on running again for President. Also, practically, there are a lot of potential Republican candidates for 2024 and don't want to see him tying up the Party, while they wait for him to go through other possible persecutions, before making up his mind.
     
  8. Esdraelon

    Esdraelon Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2020
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    By all means, Mitch and his fearless crew should have their show trial. It will effectively end Trump's future plans for holding office but there's the little irritant for the 17 Republicans who'd have to vote to convict and "remove" the FORMER President. You know, the fact that they'd never win office again as Republicans. Yeah, nah... I'm sure those brave souls will cheerfully take one for the OPPOSING team ;)
     
  9. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    29,642
    Likes Received:
    13,252
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Senate trial is to determine whether or not to convict. There is no magic spell preventing them from considering the facts of the case/whether the accused actually committed the crime in order to make that determination.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  10. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    29,642
    Likes Received:
    13,252
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those things happen in a trial. Which hasn't happened yet. As you well know. Please stop pretending not to get it.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,091
    Likes Received:
    24,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which is removal from office if the charges in the impeachment warrants it. You keep dodging the salient point, if the Senate does not convict does the impeachment go away?
     
  12. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,091
    Likes Received:
    24,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In a court, this is an impeachment. Again if the Senate votes not to remove from office does the impeachment go away?
     
  13. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,091
    Likes Received:
    24,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's the Constitution not the Senate that dictates which impeachment trials he participates in and there is only one in which he SHALL sit and that is when THE President is being removed from office. And it is not for the Democrats in the Congress to determine if Trump should ever hold office again, and I highly doubt he will even run for an office again, that should be left to the voters. Impeach is not meant so one party has a venue to speak they all have PLENTY of opportunities to speak both on the floor and in the MSM. They are NOT a judiciary body that investigates crimes in order to indict someone.

    But yes McConnell will GLADLY let Schumer engage and a pointless, unnecessary, vindictive Senate trail. It will be a fiasco that will run for weeks and nothing will be done on Biden's agenda and he doesn't get a reset on his first 100 days this will be a part of his first 100 in which he willingly cooperated when he could have stopped it. LET IT BEGIN and watch the Dem hysteria while the country suffers.
     
  14. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    35,702
    Likes Received:
    22,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol:

    WRONG Again.

    Why do you keep repeating that same DEBUNKED (Proven Wrong) BS?

    You mean (after all this time) STILL Haven't Gotten the Memo?

    How many times do I have to post this?

    For the Umpteenth Time (Listen Closely):

    You keep posting that Same Misinterpretation (and Misinformation) in regards to The Constitution.

    Everybody KNOWS (and who has actually researched the matter is aware)--That The Constitution does NOT expressly prevent such an Impeachment:

    But this may not be an obstacle to starting the process. The Constitution is silent on the question of whether a Senate trial can be held after a president has left office. The 1876 impeachment of War Secretary William Belknap for graft after he left office may serve as precedent.

    https://theconversation.com/impeach...ally-risky-act-heres-how-it-could-work-152965

    Also, the Clause that refers to the Chief Justice has (absolutely) nothing to do with the TIMELINE of the Impeachment.

    It only lays out the duties of the Chief Justjce (in circumstances where the President is on trial).

    Glad to clear that up for you.
     
  15. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,091
    Likes Received:
    24,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you're OK with the Dems and MSM calls for reeducation camps and reprogramming of "trump traitors"? And do you have any idea what a line of muskets and cannon can do to a crowd of people on the street. It also seems you were not taught that the "winners" first and foremost have to uphold the Constitution.

    Tell do you know what started the Revolutionary War? What were the first shots fired over? What were the British trying to do on their march to Lexington and Concord?
     
  16. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,091
    Likes Received:
    24,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Constitution tells the Congress what it CAN do, it it's not in the Constitution it CANNOT do it. And it is clear the trial is of THE President, the Chief Justice ONLY sits at a trial of THE President not a PRIVATE CITIZEN. Glad you know now.
     
  17. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    5,729
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't have an answer for you. The trial participants can walk and chew gum at the same time, so the part about taking up their time doesn't bother me. However, I agree with you on your Constitutional argument. I cannot explain how they can have a Senate trial, when he's already gone from the office? I suppose they want to present their case regarding ex-President Trump's involvement in the January 6th Capitol riot and evidence that it was a planned attempt to interfere with the joint session, probably because they feel there isn't sufficient evidence to rise to the level of an indictable offense. If they DO have such evidence, then he could simply be indicted and charged with a crime. I believe, however, one element in such a charge would involve "intent," which is hard to proof. Assuming, there wouldn't be a Trump confession, the path to intent would be an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence such as other witnesses, etc. along the lines RICO statutes. Tough task for the House impeachment team to pull off, without looking like "a show trial."
     
  18. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,091
    Likes Received:
    24,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Once the Articles of Impeachment are presented to the Senate ALL other business STOPS. They are then in continuous session and trial until the trial is over. I heard Biden's press spokesman Psaki make the statement that they can multitask and hold the trial and do other business. NO they can't. And they, the Dems, have no problem getting on NBC,ABC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC,NPR,NYT,WaPo and on and on and on if they want to rant about it. That is NOT the constitutional purpose of impeachment.

    It's for the DOJ to do anything criminal not Congress and no I highly doubt they are going to try and bring a case. And yes they would have to prove intent and knowledge and direction. And what on earth do you imagine Trump would be "confessing" to?

    But I look forward to the Dems trying to bring this on and even if they do manage to get a trial going watching how they once again be getting egg all over their faces and even more people will begin to reject this nonsense and vote them out at the midterms. They ALMOST lost the House and barely have now and the Senate was supposed to be a Dem blowout and it is 50/50. Graham was just saying that he knows more than a few Dem Senators who are praying Biden will step and put a stop to it.
     
  19. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    5,729
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd love for a way to be found to constitutionally try Trump...but I am not sure that the Belknap impeachment and subsequent trial are comparable to Trump's case. My understanding is that Belknap, anticipating both impeachment and trial resigned. The House refused to accept the resignation as valid and began an immediate impeachment on the grounds that the resignation was to avoid impeachment. He was then tried and found not guilty. But, Trump didn't resign. He simply finished his term and was impeached just before he left office. Is there some legal provision that states that once impeachment begins it must complete the process with a Senate trial? If so, what is that provision and where may it be found?
     
  20. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    5,729
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you may be right on the Senate trial, but not the House impeachment. However, where is that in the Constitution? It may simply be a Senate rule? I know it does NOT apply to the trial of federal judges, but I do remember reading about the difference in rules for a Presidential trial (one reason may be that the Chief Justice does NOT preside in a federal judge's trial). Pelosi may have weighed the evidence they have against Trump against lacking the same level of evidentary proof required for a criminal indictment and decided the "political plus" with Democrats was worth more than the number of Republicans who would change their minds. If she can get 6 or 7 Republican Senators to cross-over and vote for conviction, it sets a good precedence for cross-over voting in the Senate, at the beginning of the new Congress. And, it's entirely possible there are at least 17 Republican Senators that would like to see Trump out of Republican politics, given the events of January 6th...intended or not.
     
  21. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    5,729
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    IMO, odds are that former President Trump is going to be found guilty of some crime before 2024. Few Republicans are going to want to run with him as the Presidential candidate, even if he isn't convicted of a felony, which prevent him from running anyhow. Plus there may be more evidence against him regarding January 6th. And, remember, based on what we've heard to date, a lot of the Trump supporters involved in the riot think it was ok for them to have taken part because the President invited them.
     
  22. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,091
    Likes Received:
    24,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah RULES. Rules have meaning you know??? How about proof the person did that for which they were being impeached and allowing them to answer the charge and fight the impeachment? Why wasn't Trump allowed to fight the impeachment???? And I don't think 17 Republicans Senators should trump the will of the voters, let them decide if he should hold high office again.
    I just heard Judge Starr who prosecuted an impeachment just saying that the text of the Constitution is quite clear that only THE President, the sitting President, is subject to an impeachment trial in the Senate and that, as I have said, Chief Justice Roberts would have to ask the Senate is President Biden on trial and if not I cannot participate. And the point that impeachment is about removal.
     
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,091
    Likes Received:
    24,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We have the record of his speech and his Tweets more evidence of WHAT against him? Inviting the PUBLIC to a PUBLIC speech and a very small percentage of that group decides to engage in insurrection does not make the person who invited the PUBLIC to a PUBLIC speech responsible for their actions. If that is where we are going then we have LOTS of politicians especially on the left we need to start charging with inciting crimes.
     
  24. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    120,091
    Likes Received:
    24,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They aren't even close. The closest comparison is Richard Nixon again as Judge Starr noted tonight on Ingraham's show. You do see that don't you? What happened there? According to you and the Dems he still could have been impeached and a trial in the Senate held. But once he was gone the impeachment STOPPED. He was no longer THE President, Ford was.
     
  25. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    5,729
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Agreed...rules have meaning, as long as they don't conflict with the Constitution. On fighting his impeachment, nah. The House impeachment is comparable to a political indictment...for either crimes or no crime at all. The Senate is where the trial occurs and he'll have a chance to put together a defense team once the indictment is moved to the Senate. I admit, however, that Pelosi moved fast, probably to get it done before the end of his term. Now...not so much. She seems to be willing to slow down and is in no hurry to deliver the impeachment resolution to the Senate. Why? More time to build a case? Probably, but I suspect a broader strategy of some sort. Could be she and Schumer are counting Senate heads, hoping for or expecting more cross-party votes in the Senate as more evidence is released on the January 6th attempt to stop the joint session and pointing out how Trump through Pence under the bus. Trump throws a lot of people...Republican or not...under the bus if he feels they've crossed him. As long as he was in power, he was a primary threat to a lot of Congressional people. Now...not so much. In fact, there is a large probability that for a variety of reasons ranging from age and potential health problems to financial debt and other pending lawsuits that he won't run in 2024 and this might be the time for a lot of Republicans to get rid of his party influence. As for his hardcore base? Presumably, most of them are like those that attacked the Capitol, most of whom are turning themselves in or running for cover. Hardly a primary threat.
     

Share This Page