From the Wall Street Journal:
No, You Can’t Try an Impeached Former President
The Senate erroneously asserted jurisdiction once, but dissenting members forced an acquittal.
...No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached. Secretary of War William W. Belknap was indisputably guilty of numerous impeachable offences, to which he confessed as he resigned his office hours before the House unanimously impeached him in 1876. The Senate voted in favor of a procedural motion affirming its jurisdiction to try Belknap’s impeachment. But two dozen senators who believed he was guilty voted to acquit on jurisdictional grounds. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent.
A more compelling precedent is the House’s decision not to impeach Richard Nixon. After he left office in 1974 to avoid certain impeachment and conviction, there was no movement to continue the process.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-you-cant-try-an-impeached-former-president-11611167113
If they proceed they’ll open the door to Trump presenting all the evidence of election fraud that the courts have been avoiding. But they would try to prevent it and run it like a three ring circus. This would be like a vaudville play.
They fear us and Trump.
Sobieski at Kahlenberg Mtn. wrote:
“From the Wall Street Journal:
No, You Can’t Try an Impeached Former President
The Senate erroneously asserted jurisdiction once, but dissenting members forced an acquittal.
...No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached. Secretary of War William W. Belknap was indisputably guilty of numerous impeachable offences, to which he confessed as he resigned his office hours before the House unanimously impeached him in 1876. The Senate voted in favor of a procedural motion affirming its jurisdiction to try Belknap’s impeachment. But two dozen senators who believed he was guilty voted to acquit on jurisdictional grounds. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent.
A more compelling precedent is the House’s decision not to impeach Richard Nixon. After he left office in 1974 to avoid certain impeachment and conviction, there was no movement to continue the process.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-you-cant-try-an-impeached-former-president-11611167113
If they proceed they’ll open the door to Trump presenting all the evidence of election fraud that the courts have been avoiding. But they would try to prevent it and run it like a three ring circus. This would be like a vaudville play.
They fear us and Trump.”
What are they charging him with?