Rove: If Trump Continues to Claim Election Fraud, There Will Be Bipartisan Conviction in the Senate

If they do, they get what they get.

Hey hey! Need to listen to him. He’s the brains behind Purdues and Lofflers landslide victorys.....oh wait!

I used to think that the stupidest thing I ever did was vote for Jimmy Carter twice, but no, now I can add vote at all. The only vote that has truly changed my life was the one four years ago for Trump. My second Trump vote was stolen and I have no standing. I am depressed. Can you tell?
Everything I thought was true and good is not. My government is a joke. Shut up Karl and all of the others like you.

LOL Karl Marx...er Rover...”the architect”

They are trying to use the impeachment of William Belknap as their model. Belknap was President Grant’s Secretary of War.

Like a number of Grant’s administration Belknap was corrupt. Belknap was in charge of Indian trading posts and he was extracting kickbacks from a sutler that he appointed to run one of the posts.

Congress impeached him after he resigned. He was tried in the Senate and acquitted.

I know of one impeachment after leaving office; Grant’s Secretary of War Belknap. As far as I know it’s the only instance.

Like a lot of what was done during the Reconstruction era it may well have been unConstitutional.

+1

F Rove but a conception I find most vile. Thus Mr. Rove just shut up.

Good lord. They want him unable to run again

Yes wardaddy. They want to destroy him. And they have the raw power to do it if they can muster the required votes. I shoud add The GOPe to the Dems. Trump poses a greater threat to the GOPe than any Dem. Trump threatens to separate the base of voters from the establishment.

It has been done before. Impeachments are not subject to judicial review. If Congress has the votes, they can do pretty much as they please.

The controlling precedent is, "The question whether the House may impeach a civil officer who has resigned is a constitutional issue for the House and not the Chair to decide."

A theoretical academic debate about constitutionality is fine, but the Congress has pleanary power to decide; no court has jurisdiction to review their decision; and there is existing precedent for impeaching and trying an official who has left office. In this case the impeachment took place while Trump was in office, and only the trial will, perhaps, take place while Trump is out of office. Impeachments against a president proceed under the same law as other officers.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-28.htm

[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[Chapter 27. Impeachment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[...]
The "President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States'' are subject to removal under the impeachment clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 4. A private citizen who has held no public office may not be impeached. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2007, 2315.
[...]
Impeachment proceedings were initiated against a Member of the President's Cabinet in 1876, when impeachment charges were filed against William W. Belknap, who had been Secretary of War. The House and Senate debated the power of impeachment at length and determined that the Secretary remained amenable to impeachment and trial even after his resignation.
[...]
Effect of Resignation
The House and Senate have the power to impeach and try an accused official who has resigned. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 2. It was conceded (in the Belknap impeachment proceeding described above) that a Cabinet Secretary remains amenable to impeachment and trial even after his resignation. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2317, 2318. As a practical matter, however, the resignation of an official about to be impeached generally puts an end to impeachment proceedings because the primary objective--removal from office--has been accomplished. This was the case in the impeachment proceedings begun against President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 and Judge George English in 1926. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.2. President Nixon resigned following the decision of the Committee on the Judiciary to report to the House recommending his impeachment, and further proceedings were discontinued. 93-2, H. Rept. 93-1305, p 29361. Judge English resigned before commencement of trial by the Senate and the proceedings were discontinued at that point. 6 Cannon Sec. 547. Judge Delahay (1873) and Judge Kent (2009) likewise resigned prior to Senate proceedings.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3.pdf

Deschler's Precedents, Chapter 14, Section 2

§ 2. Who May Be Impeached; Effect of Resignation

Article II, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution subjects the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States to impeachment, conviction, and removal from office. It has been settled that a private citizen is not subject to the impeachment process except for offenses committed while a civil officer under the United States.(9)

In one case, it was determined by the Senate that a U.S. Senator (William Blount [Tenn.]) was not a civil officer under article II, section 4, and the Senate disclaimed jurisdiction to try him.(10) In view of the fact that the Constitution provides not only for automatic removal of an officer upon impeachment and conviction, but also for the disqualification from holding further office under the United States (art. I, § 3, clause 7), the House and Senate have affirmed their respective power to impeach and try an accused who has resigned.(11)

The latter question first arose in the Blount case, where the Senate expelled Senator Blount after his impeachment by the House but before articles had been drafted and before his trial in the Senate had begun. The House proceeded to adopt articles, and it was conceded in the Senate that a person impeached could not escape punishment by resignation; the Senate decided that it had no jurisdiction, however, to try the former Senator since he had not been a civil officer for purposes of impeachment.(12)

William W. Belknap, Secretary of War, resigned from office before his impeachment by the House and before his trial in the Senate. The House and Senate debated the power of impeachment at length and determined that the former Secretary was amenable to impeachment and trial; at the conclusion of trial the respondent was acquitted of all charges by the Senate.(13)

(9) 3 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 2315, 2007. A commissioner of the District of Columbia was held not to be a civil officer subject to impeachment under the Constitution. 6 Cannon’s Precedents § 548.

(10) 3 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 2310, 2316.

(11) The question whether the House may impeach a civil officer who has resigned is a constitutional issue for the House and not the Chair to decide (see § 2.4, infra).

(12) 3 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 2317, 2318.

(13) 3 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 2007, 2467.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3.pdf

3 Hind's Precedents Sec. 2007; pp. 320-21 (full section spans pp. 310-21)

On May 29 the Presiding Officer announced that the proposition pending was that offered by Mr. Morton on the 16th instant. Thereupon Mr. Morton modified his proposition to read as follows:
Resolved, That the power of impeachment created by the Constitution does not extend to a person who is charged with the commission of a high crime while he was a civil officer of the United States and acting in his official character, but who had ceased to be such officer before the finding of articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives.
Mr. Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, moved to amend the resolution by striking out all after the word ‘‘resolved,'' in the first line, and in lieu thereof inserting:
That the demurrer of the respondent to the replication of the House of Representatives to the plea of the respondent be, and the same is hereby, overruled; and that the plea of the respondent to the jurisdiction of the Senate be, and the same is hereby, overruled; and that the articles of impeachment are sufficient to show that the Senate has jurisdiction of the case, and that the respondent answer to the merits of the accusation contained in the articles of impeachment.
Mr. Isaac P. Christiancy, of Michigan, moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, by striking out all after the word "that'' in the first line thereof, and inserting:
W. W. Belknap, the respondent, is not amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, he having resigned said office before impeachment.
Mr. George G. Wright, of Iowa, moved to lay the resolution of Mr. Morton on the table, and this motion was agreed to, yeas 36, nays 30.
Thereupon Mr. Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, proposed a resolution, which was in this form, after the words "before he was impeached'' had been added on motion of Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of New York:
Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate William W. Belknap, the respondent, is amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.
Mr. Algernon S. Paddock, of Nebraska, moved to amend the said resolution by striking out all after the word "resolved'' and in lieu thereof inserting:
That William W. Belknap, late Secretary of Wax, (as in original, should be "War") having ceased to be a civil officer of the United States by reason of his resignation before proceedings in impeachment were commenced against him by the House of Representatives, the Senate can not take jurisdiction in this case.
This amendment was disagreed to, yeas 29, nays 37.
Then the resolution was agreed to, yeas 37, nays 29.
Mr. Thurman also presented a further resolution, which, after amendment at the suggestion of Mr. Thomas F. Bayard, of Delaware, was agreed to by a vote of 35 yeas, 22 nays:
Resolved, That at the time specified in the foregoing resolution [June 1 was fixed by a separate resolution] the President of the Senate shall pronounce the judgment of the Senate as follows: "It is ordered by the Senate sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment preferred by the House of Representatives against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, that the demurrer of said William W. Belknap to the replication of the House of Representatives to the plea to the jurisdiction filed by said Belknap be, and the same hereby is, overruled; and, it being the opinion of the Senate that said plea is insufficient in law and that said articles of impeachment are sufficient in law, it is therefore further ordered and adjudged that said plea be, and the same hereby is, overruled and held for naught;'' which judgment thus pronounced shall be entered upon the Journal of the Senate sitting as aforesaid.
In the final arguments Messrs. Montgomery Blair and Matthew H. Carpenter also argued this question.

You know pelosi and Mitch conferred on this strategy

It was unconstitutional then, and it is unconstitutional now.

Of course, when has the Constitution stopped politicians???

This pussy traitor will go to Gitmo along with the rest if he doesn’t shut his shit-filled pie 🕳
FO, Rove, you’ve been wrong in all of your predictions you horse’s ass!

When will this has-been windbag ever zip it?

I hear you! 🙂
I’m now 70 something and depressed is a perfect description. At first, I was hopeful......then scared.....then disgusted & unbelieving that this was actually happening. Now, just so sad. I get so sick of the message, “ Go vote! Everyone go vote!!!” WHY?? Never, ever felt that my country hated me until now. 😢

Rove has only one thing gouing for him.

HE IS AN ASS!

You know pelosi and Mitch conferred on this strategy

No doubt this is an effort of the Uniparty establishment. The leadership of both sides of the Uniparty want Trump gone and destroyed. Trump is not, and never has been, one of them.

Mitch is in no way threatened by loss of a majority. It takes 60 to break a Senate filibuster and he still has ten votes to sell.