Pelosi Will Deliver Article of Impeachment Against Trump to the Senate on Monday
The Senate has to consider the article right away, but the trial will start on February 8.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will deliver the article of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Monday, January 25.
The House voted to impeach Trump for inciting the Capitol Hill riots on January 6th.
Senate rules state that the chamber has to begin “consideration of the articles” by 1 PM on the day it receives the article.
*UPDATE: The trial starts on February 8th.
1) User's Manual to Senate impeachment trial timeline
The 1st step in the trial starts with the exhibition of the article, walked over from the Hse to the Senate at 6:55 pm et Monday, January 25. The article and the managers are actually presented to the Senate at 7 pm et Monday
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 22, 2021
2) Senators are sworn-in as jurors on Tuesday, January 26.
February 2 is the due date for the President’s response to the article and the House manager’s pre-trial brief.
February 8 is the due date for the President’s pre-trial brief and the House managers answer.
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 22, 2021
3) Schumer said the trial would begin the week of February 8. But the trial begins in EARNEST, on Tuesday, February 9. That is due date for the pre-trial brief rebuttal from the House managers.
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 22, 2021
Chad Pergram at Fox News is the person to follow when it comes to all things government. If you use Tweetdeck give him a column.
He tweeted out a great thread. Here are some highlights.
2) That said, the Senate will likely work out a side agreement to begin the practical operation of the Senate trial in the coming days. But the TRIAL STARTS MONDAY.
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 22, 2021
12) "..from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of…"
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 22, 2021
14) "In other words, the Senate meets six days a week at 1 pm et for a trial. At the end of the trial, it takes a two-thirds vote to convict the President. But, we expect the Senate to approve a separate resolution delaying most trial operations until mid-February
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 22, 2021
However, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that he and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “were still negotiating over the terms of the trial and did not say when it would begin.”
McConnell wanted the trial to begin in February. He admitted the arrival would force the Senate to begin right away, which means “delaying confirmation for President Biden’s nominees and his administration’s other priorities.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made it clear that the Republicans will not split the days between the trial and regular business.
Graham on GOP demands for the structure of an impeachment trial: If you want to impeach the president, we’re going to do it like we’ve always done it. We’re not going to split the day..We’re going to do it the way we’ve always done it. We’ve never split the day.
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 22, 2021
Some Republican senators denounced an impeachment trial for a president no longer in office, but Schumer brushed it off:
Some Republican senators, who will serve in the jury, have said that it would be unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial of a president who has already left office, arguing the Senate lacks jurisdiction to try him because he would be a private citizen.
Mr. Schumer rejected that criticism. Part of the trial process allows for a vote on barring the president from holding federal office again, and Mr. Schumer said not conducting a trial would set a dangerous precedent.
“It makes no sense whatsoever that a president or any official could commit a heinous crime against our country and then be permitted to resign so as to avoid accountability and a vote to disbar them from future office,” Mr. Schumer said. “There will be a trial and when that trial ends, senators will have to decide if they believe Donald John Trump incited … insurrection against the United States.”
McConnell slammed the “fast and minimal process over in the House.” He also claimed that this second impeachment trial “cannot be an insufficient Senate process that denies former President Trump due process or damages the Senate or the presidency itself.”
The Democrats have a slight majority, but the chamber needs a two-thirds supermajority to convict Trump. That means 17 Republicans would have to cross the aisle if all Democrats voted to convict Trump.
Trump supposedly picked South Carolina attorney Butch Bowers to represent him.
Pelosi picked her impeachment managers:
Speaker Pelosi names impeachment managers:
* @RepRaskin, Lead Manager
* @RepDianaDeGette
* Rep. @DavidCicilline
* Rep. @JoaquinCastrotx
* @RepSwalwell
* Rep. @TedLieu
* Rep. @StaceyPlaskett
* Rep. @JoeNeguse
* Rep. @MadeleineDean— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) January 13, 2021
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If any of these woketopians could read they would know Impeachemtn it political not criminal and once he’s gone your done. San Fran Where are Qui Pro’s impeachment papers He violated Title 15 and 18.
That’s not Communist China’s marching orders. And make no mistake: Communist China de facto owns our nation, including our government.
https://challengesweface.org/
Pelosi is a treasonous maggot, with an ego so big, she thinks she can control her ultimate handler, Xi Jinping.
McConnell is another treasonous maggot.
I agree, so how do we do something about it? They need to be rooted out, there needs to be damning evidence found and documented.
Do we know is there are any gems in the declassified material?
Unity!
You can’t impeach a private citizen. Is John Roberts going to actual entertain this farce?
oh, yes! Roberts hate Trump
If Roberts violates law in this way, cane he be impeached or sued civilly?
Well, he certainly won’t be impeached for it by a Dem-controlled Congress.
Another gift from the ‘conservative’ Bush family.
My views on those two presidents has changed a lot over the years.
GHWB may have been worse than Carter, all considered. And as time passes more and more of what GWB did looks worse and worse.
And the Alleged Conservatives who confirmed him.
In all fairness, they didn’t know at the time he was a pedophile who bought his private stock from Epstein, eventually becoming a target for blackmail.
Zapata Petroleum drug smuggling
Bush became an elitist, scorning the unwashed. Trump was the opposite.
Texans from Kennebunkport tend to be that way. Elite that is. Or, at least elite in their own minds.
That’s what you say. It’s not the law.
Well I think it is a reasonable and proper interpretation of the constitution that a president who has left office cannot be impeached. Impeachment is a means to remove officers and requires a 2/3 vote. Donald Trump is no longer an officer because his term expired. The chief justice is required to preside over impeachments of the president. Donald Trump is not the president. So what happens? Harris presides? Schumer himself? Some due process when Trump is denied this constitutional safeguard and requirement Also, seems to lend support fro the obvious plain reading of the constitution: presidents whose terms have expired are no longer subject to impeachment. Oh, and then there’s that Bill of Attainder thing. Is that enough law?
You’re entitled to that interpretation, but neither the text nor the history supports you. The congress has always taken the opposite view, and Roberts is obviously entitled to do so as well. You have no right to accuse him of anything just because he doesn’t agree with you.
Removing an officer is not the purpose of impeachment; it’s merely a possible consequence. One of only two that the constitution allows; all other potential consequences that historically used to be available are now forbidden. Obviously if the officer is no longer in office then that consequence cannot be imposed, leaving disqualification from appointed office as the only consequence available. That in no way means he can’t be impeached anyway. There is simply nothing in the constitution to support such a view.
Whether Roberts or Harris should preside is an open question. I suppose Roberts will soon answer it, and a senate majority may confirm his answer. But it’s not really relevant.
And impeachment is not a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is a criminal proceeding, while impeachment is a political one. An officer (current or former) who is convicted on an impeachment does not have a criminal conviction.
I think you and I are reading different constitutions. Art. II sec 4 clearly provides “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It assumes an incumbent president. Other 19th century cases are hardly precedential. As Dershowitz has noted about the 1876 Belknap case “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.” And spare me your limited view and ill-informed view of Bills of Attainder. Congress has taken measures to inflict a punishment on an individual presumed to be guilty of high offenses. Maybe an argument that won’t win the day but certainly worth making.
John Roberts does what he’s told – unless he wants vidoes of him having sex with underage girls on Epstein’s Pedo Island leaked all over the Internet.
Forget the law: after the stolen election of November, that law in this country has been laid flat. The law now is the law the ruling Junta says is the law.
Our only hope for freedom and safety is secession.
If that were the case, I expect he’d be forced to resign so that the left can have their RBG replacement. If he stays, he’s probably not being blackmailed and is just a run-of-the-mill DC-establishmentarian.
He’ll do whatever they tell him to do. They’ll get their RBG clone when one of the others goes away. I hope that Alito and Thomas have reliable security.
Let the theater begin. This farce at best, from Pelosi/Schumer view, turns DJT into a martyr of sorts. At worst the d/progressive fail again to follow through with a conviction leaving the impression, correctly, that they are toothless and weak.
This is a disaster for them. They are voluntarily hitting the tar baby. Stupid d/progressive don’t seem to learn.
They need someone to rage against to stoke their base. They can’t not have Trump until they have found someone else they can make the icon of their anger.
“White supremacists”.
This is more than theater. With its complete lack of jurisdiction, no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, and absence of any due process, this “impeachment proceeding” is really a Bill of Attainder in drag.
If the Congress can try President Trump, they can try anyone.
No one is safe, in this Banana Republic.
Only officials, whether current or former, only for their official acts, and the only penalties they can impose are removal from current office if any, and forbidding future presidents from appointing them to office. There are no other potential consequences. So stop quaking in your boots, even if you once held a federal office of some kind.
What are you talking about??
Video shows FBI arrest Roger Stone at his house:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWTzCNY7_YY
Huh? What’s that got to do with impeachment?
It’s not settled that ‘former’ officials can be impeached. Article II, section 4, delineates all those who can be impeached and then tried in the Senate:
While Mr. Trump was impeached while in office, he’s no longer in office. It’s not clear that the Senate may fairly try him. Not that this will matter to the Democrats.
Steve, impeachment before 1788 definitely did include former officers, and there’s nothing in the constitution that says it no longer includes them. Therefore it does. That is also the view that both the congress and President J. Q. Adams took. The onus of proof is on those who claim they were all wrong, and I have not yet seen anyone even attempt to do so. Every claim I’ve seen, including that of Prof J, has been nothing but ipse dixit.
CC,
IMO it’s a stupid waste of time. The Senate isn’t going to vote to convict. Now is it potentially setting a bad political precedent? That’s true as well.
The d/progressive are being led off the cliff on this by Pelosi and Schumer to shore up their left flank. IMO, the majority of voters will see this for.what it is: a vindictive and vicious partisan exercise in political power.
“vicious partisan exercise in political power”
Which is likely to lead of loss of power. They are likely to try to use additional election fraud to avoid consequences.
Justice,
‘…they will use election fraud..’
They are certainly going to try. It’s up to all of us to get to work doing the heavy lifting at our State, County and Municipal level to stop it.
Waiting for lawsuits post elections to save the day is folly. We have to be willing to get involved and spend more time actually doing things locally that advance the cause of ballot integrity than crying on the internet about d/ progressive cutting corners, cheating and simply weakening ballot integrity laws and procedures.
Democrats too dumb to understand this cynical ploy will backfire because of their insistence to choose “truth over facts.”
Speaking of dumb, the Pipe Fitter’s Union endorsed Biden and he shut down their pipeline jobs
The Democrats could’ve run Scooby Doo and they were the doorstep.Unions by and large support Democrats.
At least Scooby Doo unmasked the criminals and it only took 30 minutes. Better record than DOJ and FBI combined I may vote for Scooby if the gang is still around.
I’m a McGruff guy myself…
The fat cats in the union are in league with the democrat party. The rank and file get thrown crumbs and they get their wallets lifted paying very high dues.
That is ironic, I hope that union members understand this and become members of the Patriot Party.
So no one can stop this completely unconstitutional farce?
Elections have consequences.
They have the gavel and will keeping hammering us with it until they get want they want or they lose it.
The Defecrats need to learn that lesson long, hard and repeatedly.
“Elections have consequences.” Yes, but it is not those who vote, but those who count the votes that determine the consequences.
1776 says you are not entirely correct.
Actually, a motion to dismiss may be in order, based on the fact that there is no one to remove, as required by the Constitution.
I like that… simple..
A motion probably will be made, but even if Roberts accepts it, it will be voted down.
What happens in case of a tie? Roberts doesn’t get a vote, does he?
I don’t know. Good question. I think the motion would probably fail for lack of a majority.
Does the VP get the break the tie in this case?
The judge, not the jury, may decide motions.
How can Robert preside? Is Donald Trump still the president? Unfortunately not. So the constitutional text requiring the chief justice to preside over impeachments of the president really includes ex-presidents too? Problem is the text doesn’t say that. But what the heck. Let’s just make up crap as we go. Anything goes now right?
No, because she will not be presiding.
Make them vote on it and tie up the Senate when they could be voting on Joe’s appointees.
Won’t make any difference. They’ll they just do the job anyway, as “acting” appointees. To tell the truth, I think they’d be just as happy without confirmations, given the checkered past of some of the nominees.
Yeah, us. We march on the Capital again. And again. And again. And again.
Get the picture?
On what grounds?
With what supporting evidence?
I too am curious, since they didn’t make any investigative efforts at all. They have not produced any evidence to which the Trump team can prepare or respond. They’ll be forced to counter-argue on first impression. Zero due process.
Listen, you guys: you are behind the curve on this. This is Junta rule.
After the election fraud of November 2020, it’s all over. We do not live in America anymore. We live in a soft dictatorship, that’s about to get very hard and dangerous.
A lot of us are going to have their lives ruined, be imprisoned, or killed – by our “government”.
There is no “law” anymore. The head of the FBI is a crook, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is an extorted perv, and our fake president (he ain’t mine – is he yours?) is an embezzler and traitor of titanic proportions, beholden to the Communist Chinese. McConnell and his scumbag wife are also beholden to the ChiComms. We have malignant children in the highest positions of our government (Cortez, Pete Butthead). Half our courts are kangaroo courts, overseen by leftist idealogues who see the “law” as an inconvenience, brushing it aside to serve their fascist idealogy. Biden’s advisors (including Anita Dunn) are avowed Maoists.
WHAT don’t you guys get, where you are still harrumphing about ‘indignities’ to the law?
I’m not behind. I’m just pretending.
“I assure you, sir, that it is quite illegal for you to put me in an internment camp!”
Some people will be citing laws and precedence while their family is being executed.
I’ve gone back and forth on whether you can convict a former president after impeachment in the House. I think there are good arguments on both sides, but I think the primary purpose of this process is to remove a sitting president, not punish a past one. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment. Trump lost reelection, so he’s not there anymore. Like Nixon, that should be the end of it.
I also don’t think Trump did the thing he is accused of doing in the article, which is incitement of an insurrection. That’s a joke.
I think the Senate can do what it wishes, but there will be an ensuing legal battle if there’s a conviction, and it will fracture the Republican Party in half.
I find the idea of impeaching a former office holder to be preposterous. If the person is not an office holder then it doesn’t matter if he ever held the office (or an office) or not, so that would mean that Congress would feel free to impeach (and convict to never hold office) anyone they desired. This would really make for an insane system and the possibility of Congresses writing off the rights of many to hold elective or appointed office without any criminal convictions or charges or anything of the sort. That would be nuts.
Impeachments only apply to people in office, so far as I can see. For people who are not in office there are the criminal courts.
Not anyone they desired. Only those who have held federal office. And they can only bar them from appointed office, not from elected office.
Why “have held”? Where do they say that? Does something change about a person once they hold a federal office that, all of a sudden, for the rest of their lives they are different from everyone else in the population? I don’t think so. If one allows for impeachment/Senate trial of those who are not in federal office then they are allowing it for everyone.
Impeachment is, by definition, something that is done to officers, for their behavior in office. Someone who has never been an officer can’t be impeached. The concept simply doesn’t apply to them.
Belknap also resigned to avoid impeachment and they impeached him anyway, and a majority of senators (but not two thirds) voted to convict him.
Hw wasn’t the president and didn’t your mother ever teach you two wrongs don’t make a right?
Who cares whether he was the president? There is no difference between impeaching the president, the vice president, or any officer of the united states, except in who presides.
And in impeaching and trying Belknap Congress took the official view that he could be impeached. The senate specifically considered that question and decided that he could. So that is the view of the congress, which is really the only view that counts. Congress decides whether it’s right or wrong, and decided that it’s right.
“here will be an ensuing legal battle if there’s a conviction…”
Where, in Emmett Sullivan’s court? In the court of these leftist idealogues?
List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama
And when it gets to the Supreme Court, John Roberts will be reminded there are hours of videos of him screwing underage girls on Epstein’s Pedo Island – and he’ll again do what he’s told.
What I wonder is if they will have another parade??… It was some spectacle the last time…
In an earlier post, Prof. Jacobson correctly concluded, “The trial would be unconstitutional and illegitimate.”
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution explains why.
RESIGN NOW, Pelosi. RESIGN NOW, Schumer.
The statute of limitations sets the maximum amount of time allowed to initiate legal proceedings from the date of an alleged offense. So in this case, what is the statute of limitations for the impeachment and conviction of a president for committing high crimes and misdemeanors? I would think the statute of limitations for this would expire with the end of his term in office. If it extends beyond his term of office, exactly how long does it extend? One day, one year, fifty years?
There is no statute of limitations on impeachment. J. Q. Adams said he could be impeached until the day he died.
Why should death end it. We have the precedent of the Cadaver Synod, after all. Dig ’em up, try them, and execute them again, and again. I hear it’s theraputic.
He could say night was day or two plus two is five. So what?
So what? He was an authority on the question. You are not. And his view represented the universal understanding of the matter, just decades after it was ratified. Nobody disputed it. By definition that makes it correct, and we must defer to it.
Start the impeachment of Obama.
Not until the Republicans control the house.
Just imagine if they put this much effort and dedication into distributing the coronavirus vaccine to save both lives, and livelihoods.
Tell that to Hank Aaron.
False positives are the bane of high PCR multiplication.
So if the liberals “win” then so easily challenged at the end of four years, depending on the mood of the oligarchy, and worst case is that the Trump family would spend some years grooming another member to actually run for the office.
Or Trump can hand pick someone, and be that person’s champion and adviser. There are many ways to continue and to cause Dem deplorables get anguish.
I don’t think Trump will run again anyway. But a conviction wouldn’t stop him. It can only stop future presidents from appointing him to something.
Where is the report on the PA SCOTUS case?
I thought briefs were due today?
Too bad we don’t have a GOP Senate leader who would take delivery and tear them up right in front of her eyes.
I don’t think a GOP senate leader would do that. But we don’t have one, so it’s moot. Schumer is the leader, and he will accept delivery with Glee™
Schumer is so excited that he misspoke and told the nation what he was hoping for. Election + Insurrection = you know what according to the Democrats.
Yes, I saw that. What a shmock.
Perhaps they’ll erect a monument to him some day.
He is white.
What does it mean and what did he say?
He said Trump incited an erection. As I said, he’s a shmock.
Trump should file the papers with the FEC on Monday to run for POTUS in 2024, transfer the money he has on hand to the new campaign, and start raising money. Alternately, he could run for a House seat in FL on the premise of removing Fancy Nancy from Congress and impeaching Joe Brains for his perfidy in Ukraine and with the Chinese.
Thus, if the Senate proceeds and purports to be able to exclude him from running for office, or Congress to act legislatively to bar him, he has a nice, solid “case or controversy” that SCOTUS cannot [honestly and with a straight face] deny [although it can deny reality when it chooses].
According to House Resolution 24:
“President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the presidential election results were fraudulent and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by state or federal officials.”
As supporters of President Trump, we should welcome the opportunity to have ALL the evidence presented that proves Trump never lied about the fraudulent election. What better way for the American public to hear the evidence that the Federal judiciary declined to review? I consider an impeachment trial a blessing. Bring it on!
Here’s hoping that Pelosi’s oncologist or pathololgist delivers some news, just for her. Her malignancy has destroyed the House of Misrepresentation and Congress is in competition, with media, to see who can be the most reviled debasement in western culture.
Fester up, wicked harlot, what goes around comes around.
No, it says the next day. So if she delivers it on Monday the trial starts on Tuesday.
“at 1 o’clock after noon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation”
Wow, so the plain reading of the text actually matters? how about we look at the constitution?
Yes, always. And the plain text goes against you.
The article says:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made it clear that the Republicans will split the days between the trial and regular business.
Graham on GOP demands for the structure of an impeachment trial: If you want to impeach the president, we’re going to do it like we’ve always done it. We’re not going to split the day..We’re going to do it the way we’ve always done it. We’ve never split the day.
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 22, 2021
Which is it? Are the days going to be split or not?
Another question, could the honest Republicans draw out this process over months (or years) and totally disrupt the Democrats’ planned legislative process?
NOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
We want Trump able to ACT. Improvident to act as long as this is pending!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do criminal proceedings go away when Congress is in session?
The tweet you cite as your source says the exact opposite:
The only way Trump will be convicted is they use mail in ballots and tabulate the results with Dominion voting machines.
Many thanks to legalinsurrection for keeping us informed on this issue. The key fact is that the House voted on impeachment before DJT’s term ended. There is nothing to require that the Senate complete the trial before DJT leaves office.
There have been cases in the past where the trial occurred after the accused left office.
In terms of “removal from office,” the case is now moot. However, what keeps the case from being dismissed overall as moot is that there is the issue of a ban on holding office in the future. This is a political question, and if the Senate votes such a ban, I don’t see any court reversing it.
So what? They were in error.
Art 3, Sec 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, …”
“AND”, not “OR”.
The person must be in office when tried. Otherwise, there are the normal criminal courts.
If you think that one can be impeached and tried only for disqualification of holding offices in the future then why would one need to be in any office when he is initially impeached if the Congress only wanted to punish him by disqualification? Clearly, that would make for an insane system.
It doesn’t matter when one is impeached, if one is not in office then there can’t be any trial. Impeachment is not for Congress to brand anyone it wants to not be able to serve in government.
AND is the maximum penalty. The senate can decide not to impose the maximum. It can decide to remove someone but not bar them from future offices. Or it could in principle decide to leave someone in office but bar them from any future offices, though that wouldn’t make any sense.
And no, the impeachment doesn’t have to happen during the person’s office. Anyone who has ever been president or vice president, or has held an appointed federal office, can be impeached and tried for any official act they took while they had their office. People who have never been officials have no official acts to try them for.
And the disqualification is only from appointed office.
No, AND is an additional penalty. If the “throwing out of office” is moot then you can’t add an additional penalty onto a moot point. It is all moot.
And impeachments (actual, real impeachments) are not restricted to official acts in office. One can be impeached for personal acts in office or for acts done before taking office (such as if one was discovered to have been spying against America before getting into office – as many dems are guilty of).
The whole point of that clause is to limit the penalties available from what they had been before. So it says what the maximum penalty is. Removal from office, and disqualification from future office, and nothing else. Without this clause there would be a wide range of penalties available, because that was how it was until then.
And who told you that one can be impeached for acts done before taking office? What is your source for that? Is there any historical record of anyone (before or after 1788) being impeached for something done out of office? Or for personal acts while in office? I’m willing to believe the latter, but I very much doubt you will find any examples of the former.
You are reading this incorrectly. Removal from office is the only penalty for conviction following impeachment, except that disqualification can be added to the removal. There is NO other penalty noted for conviction. Nor is the Congress given the power to name any other penalty. Conviction results in removal from office. And, once the official is removed, he can be disqualified from occupying future high offices. So, if order for the the official can not be removed from office, due to resignation or the end of hos official term of office, then the additional penalty of disqualification can not be imposed. Once out of office the Senate may still be able to convict the former official, but they can not apply any penalty. So, the whole exercise is moot, except as political theater.
That is not what the constitution says. So where are you getting it from?
Now I am quite curious. Where did you come up with all this?
You claim that an Impeachment trial can be held although the person impeached cannot be removed from office.
Because they can be prohibited from holding office in the future.
Where do you come up with the claim that those “who have never been officials” cannot be impeached? Could they not be prohibited from holding office in the future?
In truth, the constitution restricts the Impeachment power by limiting the possible consequences to removal from office and the option to additionally bar an impeached person from future office. Therefore no trial can be held unless the impeached person can actually be removed from office. If you don’t agree with this logic, there is nothing that logically compels impeachment to be restricted to people that hold presently or have held previously any office from which they could be removed.
Belknap was not convicted. Not every utterance of Adams is law of the land. Nor is the interpretation of the constitution a game of Calvinball.
What’s “Calvinball”? I’m trying to use Google less these days.
Calvinball
Is Donald Trump an official?
But there are a lot of things that say one congress cannot act on what another Congress passed. All pending bills are null and void once a new congress seats. I think that would also apply to impeachment. The LAST congress passed impeachment, THIS Congress should not be able to deal with it. It should be a dead letter.
This is moot because it was this House of Representatives that passed the second Impeachment.
It likely would depend on whether the trial was begun before the House of Representatives was discontinued otherwise. At least the Senate as Impeachment Court would decide on whether to dismiss or not.
Primordial has it right. The purpose of impeachment is to remove an official from office. And, as an additional penalty, once removed, the official can be disqualified from holding high office in the future. The comma makes the second part of the sentence, concerning disqualification, a separate penalty which is not automatically imposed by a conviction. However, the word AND makes the imposition of the disqualification incumbent upon the removal from office. If disqualification could be imposed separately, AND would either be supplanted by or or the wording, AND/OR.
At least the Senate cannot confirm Biden appointees or legislate during the trial. Let’s see if McConnell is capable of using this for the good of America.
Exactly how long do you expect them to take with this? They’ve already decided he’s guilty of their crimes.
I expect it to last about a day or two, because GOPe senators will want to demonstrate their fealty to Chuck and less than that would make whoever presides look too much like Roland Freisler or Василий Васильевич Ульрих.
Oh my!
https:/twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1352637772851535873
Make love not war.
A ban on Trump serving again is a sanction on voters, not on Trump.
Hence that provision is meant for appointed office, not elected.
Yes, exactly. Elected officials are not “officers of the united states” for any purpose. That’s why the impeachment clause specifically says it applies to the president, the vice president, or any officer. Because the first two are not officers.
The President is not an “Officer” but is “removed from Office” … ?? Really? The English language is screaming in agony!
Yes, the president is not an “officer of the united states”. He holds an office, but it is not an “office under the united states”. That term has a specific legal meaning.
That’s interesting. Textual stuff. Is Donald Trump the President? Nope. So, not to put to fine a point on it, and in a nutshell, he is not subject to impeachment.
Well, he’s already been impeached (twice); impeachment is in the House. The next step is the trial in the Senate, then if he’s convicted by 2/3 (and he won’t be), the sentencing is accomplished by a simple majority.
So far, it looks like there might be five or six GOP sens who are willing to vote to convict, but that’s a far cry from the 17 needed to convict. With even Lindsey Graham (I really really like this new McCain-free, post-Kavanaugh Graham 2.0), strongly arguing against conviction, it’s not going to be easy for any remaining squishies to vote for conviction.
McConnell absolutely won’t unless he knows he has the numbers to get the conviction; he’s not stupid, but he would be gambling big time that Trump supporters are too stupid to get the gambit: the Senate votes to convict with 17 Republicans, but then those same Republicans vote against “removal” (moot) and against barring from future office. They then face their angry constituents with, “hey, I might have voted to convict because conscience/[fill in the blank], but I didn’t vote to bar him from future office, that was the ebil Democrats!”.
The gamble here is great, and I don’t think McConnell is stupid, though he may be counting on the crackdown on wrong thought to help hide such perfidy (again, not smart, but who knows how desperate he is to “cleanse” the party of Trump, while still retaining as many Trump voters as possible?).
I certainly hope there aren’t enough republicans to give the dems 2/3. That would probably destroy both the Republican party and Trump. But I still believe that, now that his term has expired, Donald Trump is not constitutionally subject to impeachment (using the term generally to apply to the impeachment process, impeachment, trial, removal, etc.) The case has in effect been mooted. Other constitutional provisions reinforce this, ie the chief justice presides over trials of the president, not the ex president, at least if we limit ourselves to the actual text.
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Doesn’t take a genius to work out that this is about as kosher as a Democrat in a convent for virgins.
Given Trump is no longer President I’m failing to see exactly where the Senate gets its powers from except out if their fucking arses ?
You know what, if you gotta turn tge text on its side and squint your eyes while using your [sponge Bob fingers] imagination then the words you think you’re reading probably don’t mean what you think they mean.
People like to bring up William Belknap being put on trial after he resigned as the reason you can do it to Trump.
But what they leave out is that Belknap was acquitted because 23 Senators believed they did not have jurisdiction over Belknap sine he was no longer holding office.
OK, I am now accusing txvet2 and Fine Report of being pedophiles. I have exactly as much foundation for that claim as they have for making the same claim about Roberts. By accusing Roberts without any reason for supposing it to be true, they are estopped from objecting to anyone making the same accusation against them.