Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Question for legal beagles out there
1/14/21 | President-elect Sidebar Moderator

Posted on 01/14/2021 11:54:31 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator

The senate plans to try Trump as a private citizen. Is this even legal/Constitutional? The expressed purpose of an impeachment trial is to remove a government functionary from office. If the senate trial is held after Trump leaves office, what would be the point???


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 next last
To: Sidebar Moderator

Impeachment and conviction can impose the additional penalty of disqualification from federal office in addition to removal from office. Whether that can legally be done after a person has left office is an open legal question. In the only case where it was tried, the person was not convicted.


61 posted on 01/14/2021 1:01:31 PM PST by Campion (What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

62 posted on 01/14/2021 1:02:24 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hank ernade

Doubt SCOTUS would allow it. Too significant.

Comey now calling for Biden to pardon Trump. I predicted that Biden will issue a statement advocating that the impeachment not go forward in the Senate. He will be lionized by the MSM for unifying the country and looking to the future.


63 posted on 01/14/2021 1:03:51 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: hank ernade

You must have misunderstood the wording of the question as it was asked.


64 posted on 01/14/2021 1:07:21 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (Get out of the matrix and get a real life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Whether that can legally be done after a person has left office is an open legal question

Bingo. Seems that's the threshold question. If the impeachers can't answer it, the whole process is rendered moot, as others astutely have noted.

65 posted on 01/14/2021 1:07:31 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

They can not take the second vote banning him from future office with out taking the first vote.


66 posted on 01/14/2021 1:10:16 PM PST by Ndorfin (Kitties,titties, and fiddies oh, and no sickies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

The bottom line is that there is no clear answer. This issue has been the subject of dispute since the very first impeachment in 1797. Then, the Senate voted 14-11 to dismiss the articles of impeachment of Senator William Blount for lack of jurisdiction, although it was not clear whether this was because Blount had already been expelled from the Senate or because Senators are not officers subject to impeachment in the first place.

The Senate has claimed jurisdiction to try former officers more than once, and actually did try one, William Belknap, in 1876. Belknap was acquitted, and no other former officer has ever been convicted or, I believe, even tried to a verdict. The Senate’s jurisdiction to do so has usually been challenged, but not in court: with no convictions, no one has had standing or a reason to challenge the Senate’s jurisdiction in court.

So the answer to your question is in dispute. And it probably will not be resolved this time, because I doubt there are enough votes in the Senate to convict.


67 posted on 01/14/2021 1:10:45 PM PST by The Pack Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ndorfin

Exactly - that’s my understanding as well.


68 posted on 01/14/2021 1:11:35 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

Thanks for your well-reasoned feedback. Agreed.


69 posted on 01/14/2021 1:14:51 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

The Dems stole the Election, which makes everything they do illegal...including impeachment.


70 posted on 01/14/2021 1:16:03 PM PST by crazycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hank ernade

It’s an excellent point.


71 posted on 01/14/2021 1:17:11 PM PST by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

“You must have misunderstood the wording of the question as it was asked.”

Impeachment “post facto” isn’t a Bill of Attainder.

It isn’t ex post facto if the impeachment charges an act that was illegal when committed.

Ex post facto is why we have “grandfather clauses” - if ownership of warthogs is outlawed on friday, you can’t be imprisoned for owning a warthog on thursday.
Your thursday hog is “grandfathered”.

The stretch here is that the democrats will probably claim that a post office impeachment is merely a continuation of an impeachment begun in office.


72 posted on 01/14/2021 1:28:40 PM PST by hank ernade (armchair macho bravado EverTrumper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Trump can only be convicted of committing an actual statute crime, and the only penalty congress can impose is removal from office.

Disqualification from office would require conviction by a federal court after an impeachment conviction.

The congress has no power to enforce federal law.

However see post 62.


73 posted on 01/14/2021 1:37:02 PM PST by hank ernade (armchair macho bravado EverTrumper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

This seems to be a dangerous tactic for the deep staters. Obviously, they could care less about whether or not it’s constitutional as they only mention it when it suits their purpose. The danger, I would think, would be found in Trumps defensive tactics. An impeachment trial would be widely covered live by all networks. If Trump was able to bring all this evidence of voter fraud they claim to have, and the left’s propaganda apparatus is not able to suppress and obfuscate, the American people might get to see what really went on in the run up to, the election itself, and the after hours operation. Of course, John Roberts could rule none of it inadmissible if that’s what his masters command.


74 posted on 01/14/2021 1:37:25 PM PST by Rlsau1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: kabar

I wouldn’t trust SCOTUS any more than I could piss cachalot.


75 posted on 01/14/2021 1:41:26 PM PST by hank ernade (armchair macho bravado EverTrumper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: hank ernade
the only penalty congress can impose is removal from office.

I thought so, too, but that is not true.

Article I, Section 3:
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.

76 posted on 01/14/2021 1:45:44 PM PST by Campion (What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: hank ernade

For those thinking Bill of Attainder;

Attainder would be charging Trump with insurrection because some of his supporters committed insurrection.

Attainder can be described as guilt by association.


77 posted on 01/14/2021 1:46:37 PM PST by hank ernade (armchair macho bravado EverTrumper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: hank ernade

The question, as asked was:
“Can you impeach a private citizen?”

I answered: “No.”

You can go on-and-on about this if you want to,
but I have better things to do.


78 posted on 01/14/2021 1:48:00 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (Get out of the matrix and get a real life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: hank ernade
Attainder would be charging Trump with insurrection because some of his supporters committed insurrection.

Not quite. Attainder would be enacting a law which punished Trump by name without an actual trial (or necessarily even a crime). Congress can't enact a law which says "hank ernade is a bad person, and should be locked up in the federal penitentiary for 20 years because he's a bad person and we don't like him." The British Parliament could and did pass such laws.

Punishing someone's family members by such a law is the same thing, but the real issue is that there is no trial or opportunity to mount a defense involved.

79 posted on 01/14/2021 1:50:05 PM PST by Campion (What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Campion

“I thought so, too, but that is not true.

Article I, Section 3:
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.”

Due process.

Alcee Hastings aka “Corruption wearing shoes” was removed from the bench by impeachment.

However since he was not convicted by a court of law he could not be disqualified from office.

Which is why he held office in the US House after being impeached and convicted.

A not guilty judgement by a federal court would obviate any disqualification imposed by congress.


80 posted on 01/14/2021 1:55:57 PM PST by hank ernade (armchair macho bravado EverTrumper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson