I don’t know if it’s legal or not, but since when did that matter to the Dem/media complex?
They have never cared a lick about what is legal or not! They are all lower than lizard spit
Not legal.
See: “Bill Of Attainder”.
Dersh says they can’t.
It would be an unlawful Bill of Attainder. (A legislative trial.) Prohibited by the Constitution.
I'm no legal scholar but if the trial is for the President of the United States I don't see how it could extend to private citizen Donald Trump. Unless they say 'of course we can, we just dont need to have John Roberts preside because it's not the President under trial'
Impeachment is strictly a political prosecution as intended. As I understand, the sole penalty is removal from office. If he’s already out, what’s the purpose?
Of course, Trump can also mount a vigorous defense.
TV face time.
And yes, it would be unconstitutional....................
Dershowitz believes it would be unconstitutional and I agree with him. As you say, the purpose of impeachment is removal from office. Once a person leaves office, they are no longer subject to the impeachment power.
Because they MAD dammit!
They gots to stamp they little feets and express they angst and probably some random spittle.
the trial would be a performance piece by the Senate. A trial with no one to remove from office is like a trial with a defendant who has died, it’s a moot issue.
The problem Schumer may run into however is a lack of cooperation from Chief Justice Roberts. The constitution requires that he preside over Presidential impeachment trials and it is questionable if he would want to diminish the reputation of the SCOTUS by attended a farce trial.
As has been answered many times, it would be unconstitutional. The reason they will do it anyway is to keep the narrative alive and try to prevent him from running for office again.
Whatever the Democrats decide they want to do was formally made legal when SCOTUS gave neither President Trump, nor Texas and several states standing in the suit against PA.
Numerous experts on Constitutional law agree its illegal and Unconstitutional.
Luttig, Wallner, Dershowitz among a few.
"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court"
In, other words, to create federal courts. Libs could interpret it broadly to create witchhunt tribunals for a specific controversies.
The working assumption of most scholars is that resignation or the end of a term stops the impeachment proceeding. Otherwise, with the holding of office no longer at stake, a ban from future office or the forfeiture of pension become the only punishments available. A trial before a legislative body for such a purpose would likely be an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
Dems will try anything to get back at Trump. Currently in Breaking News is a thread on how they want to ban Trump from ever going to the Capitol in the future.
Forever.
I swear. These liberal idiots give the Babylon Bee a run for the money.
I believe their goal is to make him ineligible to hold another public office. They are that scared of him.
I don't know if a conviction in the Senate make him ineligible? Anyone?
Some will claim it only applies to capital crimes (murder, etc.) but the Constitution forbids Bills of Attainder, i.e., laws aimed to criminally punish a single citizen.
Oh - I forgot.
There is no Constitution anymore.
No. See Dershowitz.