Nothing.
And if it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not constitutional.
This is vindictiveness played in fear that he will return.
I’ve read the Articles of impeachment. It seems they can impeach people and put in the conviction that they can’t serve again. However I don’t think they have ever impeached anyone that wasn’t in office. Since it takes 67 in the Senate to convict, let me see the 17 republicans with the gonads to say 74000000 voters were wrong.
I’ve been saying Trump is president. He won. The cheater can pretend.
The Dems agree it seems.
A “sidebar moderator” post?
Bizarre.
Important topic, but still.
Excerpt:
"The first and only time a Cabinet-level official was impeached occurred during the presidential administration of Ulysses S. Grant. Grant's Secretary of War, William W. Belknap, was impeached in 1876 for allegedly receiving payments in return for appointing an individual to maintain a trading post in Indian territory. Belknap resigned two hours before the House unanimously impeached him, but the Senate nevertheless conducted a trial in which Belknap was acquitted. During the trial, upon objection by Secretary Belknap's counsel that the Senate lacked jurisdiction because Belknap was now a private citizen, the Senate voted 37-29 in favor of jurisdiction. A majority of Senators voted to convict Secretary Belknap, but no article mustered a two-thirds majority, resulting in acquittal. A number of Senators voting to acquit indicated that they did so because the Senate did not have jurisdiction over an individual no longer in office. Notably, although bribery is explicitly included as an impeachable offense in the Constitution, the impeachment articles brought against Secretary Belknap instead charged his behavior as constituting high crimes and misdemeanors. Bribery was mentioned at the Senate trial, but it was not specifically referenced in the impeachment articles themselves."
> The Constitution says the Chief Justice will preside over a trial of the “president” <
I’ve read good arguments both ways. But this is the first time I’ve seen that particular argument. You might be on to something here!
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7:
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside...”
It says “President”. Not “someone who is or was President”.
The problem is that the courts have traditionally given the Senate wide leeway on how it runs things. So we’re not out of the woods yet.
Nancy and Chuck are both fools with no basis for their claims and charges...............
If the Chief Justice is willing to participate in this sham trial, he will be up for impeachment because of his violation of the Constitution.
What is the real objective of the Democrats with this impeachment and conviction? Humiliating Trump publicly and in the history books is certainly one goal. Preventing him from running is another, although they have already proven they can beat him so fear of him winning in 2024 can’t be the primary driver. After all demographics will be even more in their favor in 2024 with over 10 million new Democrat voters registered and at least a couple of million elderly 2020 Trump voters deceased by 2024.
Look at the end game which is to destroy completely a man they have hated since he announced in 2015. Conviction in the Senate allows them to strip him of all former President perks. No Secret Service protection, no government paid staff, no inside access to documents and information.
After conviction by the Senate it will be open season on Trump by the DOJ, IRS, and every state attorney general who can fabricate a court case. A conviction in the Senate for inciting insurrection even opens up the prospect of the Biden DOJ charging and trying him for sedition and treason with conviction resulting in the death penalty. Would they go that far in order to demonstrate their power?
The president is immune from prosecution during the tenure of his presidency. Impeachment of a sitting president is the means whereby he may be removed from office. Once the president is no longer in office impeachment is moot. Using impeachment of an ex president to preclude him from holding office again is extra constitutional.
He was President at impeachment. He is not at trial. Sounds like the Rain of Kamala will preside. The first action should be consideration of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
I believe they cheated. Why they would think a less powerful man, just a citizen now, is anything to worry about seems silly. I hope they will be done with the Covid-19 hysteria by then. Maybe that is it?
IT is a bill of attainder.
Unconstitutional.
Besides that, the impeachment in the house was unconstitutional. He was denied due process.
good point!
Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t preside. The President of the Senate (Kamala Harris) presides.
Should be fun!
Don’t expect justice from that compromised SOB Roberts, or Mitch McConnell’s puppets Gorsuch, Barrett or Kavanaugh on this ir anything else.
You’re making the mistake of thinking that the Constitution still matters.
If the Constitution were operational, none of us would be having any discussion at all
The word impeachment gives schumer a ..........!