CBO: "Most scholars" conclude that the Senate CAN try a former President

[Nostra]

Hey Cons, would you be vigorously defending Obama, if Obama and his followers had done what the Trumper thugs did, to the Capitol and Congress Critters, and the VP and the Capitol policemen?

They spent months rioting, looting, raping, and murdering in several cities across the country..............and you said nothing.

Spare me your fake outrage.

 

[Polishprince]

This has to be a mistake by the independent CBO, since several anonymous right-wing graduates of the prestigious law school USMB University told me that Trump cannot be convicted:

"The Constitution does not directly address whether Congress may impeach and try a former President for actions taken while in office," the six-page brief said. "Though the text is open to debate, it appears that most scholars who closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office."

PolitiFact | Walker overreaches claiming Senate can’t convict Trump after departure

Good. A trial will put Trump into the spotlight, give him a chance to give the liberal pieces of shit in the Senate a piece of his mind, and will almost undoubtably result in his Exoneration.

I can't see a downside to a trial.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Then we can start by lining obama up in a couple of years and working our way down.

 

[Concerned American]

'Most scholars do not believe solar-powered trains will EVER replace commercial air travel.'

Is there a link on this? I am assuming that the CBO is the Congressional Budget Office. If that is the case, their opinion is a bit out of their job description.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Hey Cons, would you be vigorously defending Obama, if Obama and his followers had done what the Trumper thugs did, to the Capitol and Congress Critters, and the VP and the Capitol policemen?

They spent months rioting, looting, raping, and murdering in several cities across the country..............and you said nothing.

Spare me your fake outrage.

Exactly. Fake outrage. Their hollow words aren't heard anymore.

 

[Concerned American]

This has to be a mistake by the independent CBO, since several anonymous right-wing graduates of the prestigious law school USMB University told me that Trump cannot be convicted:

"The Constitution does not directly address whether Congress may impeach and try a former President for actions taken while in office," the six-page brief said. "Though the text is open to debate, it appears that most scholars who closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office."

PolitiFact | Walker overreaches claiming Senate can’t convict Trump after departure

Good. A trial will put Trump into the spotlight, give him a chance to give the liberal pieces of shit in the Senate a piece of his mind, and will almost undoubtably result in his Exoneration.

I can't see a downside to a trial.

He would be convicted in the press in five minutes. Just like the rush to impeach in the house the second time. This exercise is done capriciously and should be abandoned.

 

[SavannahMann]

The Chief Justice of the USSC REFUSING to preside over the Impeachment (as required by the Constitution for a Constitutional Impeachment) speaks for itself. Roberts wants no part in this crap...yet he is too gutless to come out and make a decision / declaration about the Constitutionality. He is just letting the Democrats do whatever they want.

He did the same thing with the election / election fraud. He publicly acknowledged that the Democrats in Pa violated BOTH state and Federal Constitutions AND election laws / rules / processes by altering them in the Middle of an election, by-passing the Legislature, as required, to make the changes. He then stated the USSC would not hear this case and wanted no part of cleaning up the mess.

(I would love to know what someone has on him and who that someone is, as he has obviously been 'neutered'. Evidence provided has exposed the fact that Barry & his administration illegally spied on EVERYONE, from reporters to the media to US Senators and even to USSC Justices. The FISA court released a report w/evidence exposing the CIA & FBI have been committing FISA Court crimes and illegally spying on everyone for DECADES.)

You really don’t understand how the court works do you?

 

[kyzr]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the sitting president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial now to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

But it isn't just to remove from office, it is separately to Also decide whether the impeached person, can hold office in the future. You can be convicted and removed on 2/3s vote, then a 2nd vote, on whether to ban, from ever serving again in office, which only takes a majority vote.

An impeached person can be removed, but still be able to hold a future office....weird....but that's the case.... it is a separate vote.

Without holding the senate trial for an already impeached person, the 2nd vote, required by the constitution, on whether to bar from future office, won't have the opportunity, to be taken...is the argument.

Very true. But if Trump skates on the Article of impeachment there is no second vote to ban him from future office.
The Constitution doesn't say take 2 votes anyway, even if the person is acquitted of the main charge.

 

[Lastamender]

This has to be a mistake by the independent CBO, since several anonymous right-wing graduates of the prestigious law school USMB University told me that Trump cannot be convicted:

"The Constitution does not directly address whether Congress may impeach and try a former President for actions taken while in office," the six-page brief said. "Though the text is open to debate, it appears that most scholars who closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office."

PolitiFact | Walker overreaches claiming Senate can’t convict Trump after departure

Most scholars say there are only two genders. You people are very selective on what scholars to listen to.

 

[SC Patriot]

This has to be a mistake by the independent CBO, since several anonymous right-wing graduates of the prestigious law school USMB University told me that Trump cannot be convicted:

"The Constitution does not directly address whether Congress may impeach and try a former President for actions taken while in office," the six-page brief said. "Though the text is open to debate, it appears that most scholars who closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office."

PolitiFact | Walker overreaches claiming Senate can’t convict Trump after departure

Most scholars say there are only two genders. You people are very selective on what scholars to listen to.

And those same people say women do not have the same physical capacity as men in regards to strength and therefore any "strength" related test for a firefighter must allow for lower standards for women and then say men can compete in athletics as a woman if they so desire and there is no real advantage for that person.

Selective outrage.

Not cool.

 

[AZrailwhale]

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."

I missed the part where it says, "If the Chief Justice is busy doing something more important, they can just give it to some old, fat political hack from Vermont."

I wonder what "most scholars" would say about that.

The Chief Justice wants no part of this Kangaroo Court. For good reasons.

Don't need a scholar to translate "when the President of the US is tried".
Who is President of the US? (hint: Joe Biden)
Who is the impeachment trial for? (hint: Trump)
See how simple that is?

Trump was President. He is being tried for crimes committed while president. POTUS doesn’t get a free pass to break laws and do whatever they want. This is the constitutional method of holding them accountable. Simple

The problem with your point is that Trump didn't break any laws while in the White House, especially on January 6th. Calling for supporters to peacefully assemble and march on the Capitol to make their voices heard, isn't breaking the law, it's encouraging them to exercise their first amendment rights of peaceful assembly and petition to correct grievances.

 

[easyt65]

The Chief Justice of the USSC REFUSING to preside over the Impeachment (as required by the Constitution for a Constitutional Impeachment) speaks for itself. Roberts wants no part in this crap...yet he is too gutless to come out and make a decision / declaration about the Constitutionality. He is just letting the Democrats do whatever they want.

He did the same thing with the election / election fraud. He publicly acknowledged that the Democrats in Pa violated BOTH state and Federal Constitutions AND election laws / rules / processes by altering them in the Middle of an election, by-passing the Legislature, as required, to make the changes. He then stated the USSC would not hear this case and wanted no part of cleaning up the mess.

(I would love to know what someone has on him and who that someone is, as he has obviously been 'neutered'. Evidence provided has exposed the fact that Barry & his administration illegally spied on EVERYONE, from reporters to the media to US Senators and even to USSC Justices. The FISA court released a report w/evidence exposing the CIA & FBI have been committing FISA Court crimes and illegally spying on everyone for DECADES.)

You really don’t understand how the court works do you?

Of course I do...but let's cut the bullshit

Rod Rosenstein arrogantly testified under oath before Congress and lectured people on how a Warrant Request works. He declared that ANYONE who intentionally provided false information on the documents should be indicted and charged with a crime. He said anyone who signs a warrant request that contained false information, knowingly or UN-knowingly, should be indicted / charged.

LATER Rod Rosenstein sat before Congress AGAIN under oath and confessed to signing illegal FISA Court warrant requests...but pleaded for NOT being held accountable for his personally defined criminal actions by seeking to EXCUSE his action...by claiming he had been CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT.

Yeah, after smugly telling Congress under oath that no one committed a FISA Court crime (a lie the FISA Court DESTROYED) and that anyone did so they should be severely punished, he claimed he had no idea the Warrant requests were criminal because he claimed HE NEVER READ WHAT HE WAS SIGNING.

The DOJ, he controlled at the time, did not take Rosenstein's advice that anyone who signed a criminally false FISA Court Warrant Request should be indicted and face punishment. No, Rosenstein WALKED because of the HILLARY DEFENSE - claiming to be too stupid to know he was breaking the law.

 

[easyt65]

Very true. But if Trump skates on the Article of impeachment there is no second vote to ban him from future office.
The Constitution doesn't say take 2 votes anyway, even if the person is acquitted of the main charge.

Pelosi confessed already this Impeachment has nothing to do what is good for the country but what is best for the Democratic party - eliminating Trump as a future political threat. That's it. The Capitol Riot was pre-planned political theatrics to set it all up.
-- Evidence shows Antifa and BLM used Twitter and Facebook to coordinate to show up at the Capitol....as they do with all their violent riots.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Obama never said he didnt have legal right for DACA.

Stop twisting the argument into something not said.

Barry declared publicly he did not have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to alter Immigration law - DACA.

DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted

President Donald Trump has caught a lot of heat for rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a six-month wind-down. Few people seem aware that he's ending an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal...

www.heritage.org

....but as you know, any law / edict that is UN-Constitutional is NOT legal.

Obama didn’t say that he lacked the right to act. In contrast, he emphasized his authority to set priorities until Congress approved the DREAM Act, a measure that would formalize the legal status of this group of immigrants.

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama said June 15, 2012. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."

The man by-passed Congress to affect Immigration Law and create a new process for Immigration, something that can only be done Constitutionally by the Legislature.

Try to spin it any way you want 100 times over, the SOB admitted he did not have the Constitutional authority to do what he did and then did so.

By Joe Biden's own remarks about EOs, both HE and BARRY were / are 'dictators'.

Trump NEVER studied any issue before he issued an executive order.. He just went with his hunches since he knows more than generals, doctors, scientists, intelligence officers and Constitutional scholars.

You know Hillary was a private citizen when she she sat for hours and hours of Benghazi hearings.. i think they should go ahead and have Trump attend hearings about the attack on the Capitol.

The House and Senate have the Constitutional right to hold hearing on anything they care to and have subpoena power to compel attendance and testimony at such hearings of both private citizens and government officials. You are trying to compare apples and artillery.

 

[kyzr]

Very true. But if Trump skates on the Article of impeachment there is no second vote to ban him from future office.
The Constitution doesn't say take 2 votes anyway, even if the person is acquitted of the main charge.

Pelosi confessed already this Impeachment has nothing to do what is good for the country but what is best for the Democratic party - eliminating Trump as a future political threat. That's it. The Capitol Riot was pre-planned political theatrics to set it all up.
-- Evidence shows Antifa and BLM used Twitter and Facebook to coordinate to show up at the Capitol....as they do with all their violent riots.

The DC riot was a bad idea. The GOP had the high ground before the goobers attacked the capital.

 

[SavannahMann]

The Chief Justice of the USSC REFUSING to preside over the Impeachment (as required by the Constitution for a Constitutional Impeachment) speaks for itself. Roberts wants no part in this crap...yet he is too gutless to come out and make a decision / declaration about the Constitutionality. He is just letting the Democrats do whatever they want.

He did the same thing with the election / election fraud. He publicly acknowledged that the Democrats in Pa violated BOTH state and Federal Constitutions AND election laws / rules / processes by altering them in the Middle of an election, by-passing the Legislature, as required, to make the changes. He then stated the USSC would not hear this case and wanted no part of cleaning up the mess.

(I would love to know what someone has on him and who that someone is, as he has obviously been 'neutered'. Evidence provided has exposed the fact that Barry & his administration illegally spied on EVERYONE, from reporters to the media to US Senators and even to USSC Justices. The FISA court released a report w/evidence exposing the CIA & FBI have been committing FISA Court crimes and illegally spying on everyone for DECADES.)

You really don’t understand how the court works do you?

Of course I do...but let's cut the bullshit

Rod Rosenstein arrogantly testified under oath before Congress and lectured people on how a Warrant Request works. He declared that ANYONE who intentionally provided false information on the documents should be indicted and charged with a crime. He said anyone who signs a warrant request that contained false information, knowingly or UN-knowingly, should be indicted / charged.

LATER Rod Rosenstein sat before Congress AGAIN under oath and confessed to signing illegal FISA Court warrant requests...but pleaded for NOT being held accountable for his personally defined criminal actions by seeking to EXCUSE his action...by claiming he had been CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT.

Yeah, after smugly telling Congress under oath that no one committed a FISA Court crime (a lie the FISA Court DESTROYED) and that anyone did so they should be severely punished, he claimed he had no idea the Warrant requests were criminal because he claimed HE NEVER READ WHAT HE WAS SIGNING.

The DOJ, he controlled at the time, did not take Rosenstein's advice that anyone who signed a criminally false FISA Court Warrant Request should be indicted and face punishment. No, Rosenstein WALKED because of the HILLARY DEFENSE - claiming to be too stupid to know he was breaking the law.

Lets try being honest for a change. Cops avoid punishment the same way. The system is set up to protect those within. Cops get caught lying all the time and nobody prosecuted them. And don’t blame the Liberals. Or the Democrats. Orange County California, Republican Stronghold, found more than 100 cops had lied on reports regularly. Two were tried and convicted. Slap on the wrist punishment. The other 98 plus got nothing despite doing the exact same thing.

Time and again this happens. And most of the time you and your ilk are cheering it and denouncing anyone who says these selfless servants should be punished.

Want to know why nobody is facing any real punishment? Because they are all doing it every single day. The IG report on the FISA warrants found erroneous information and problems in every single one of the 21 they examined. Every single one. From several offices. It isn’t a DC problem. It is an American Problem. It isn’t a Democratic Problem. It is an American Problem.

But all you want to do is cheer your side and denounce the other. You don’t even acknowledge the depth of the problem. Nope. Denounce the Democrat. If we get him, problem solved. Nonsense.

Oh. And the Reason Robert’s won’t denounce the Impeachment as Unconstitutional is he can’t make any statement like that. If he was as dumb as you demand him to be he would have to Recuse himself. It is called Ethics.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This has to be a mistake by the independent CBO, since several anonymous right-wing graduates of the prestigious law school USMB University told me that Trump cannot be convicted:

"The Constitution does not directly address whether Congress may impeach and try a former President for actions taken while in office," the six-page brief said. "Though the text is open to debate, it appears that most scholars who closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office."

PolitiFact | Walker overreaches claiming Senate can’t convict Trump after departure

Of course they can. Else a President could break all the rules his or her last week in office.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If I understand the constitution correctly (I could be wrong), the primary purpose of the senate trial is to remove the president from office if convicted. After the conviction vote, a separate vote has to be taken to bar that person from holding federal office again. Conviction on the impeachment vote does not automatically result in baring from holding federal office again.

Since Trump is no longer president, could the senate skip the vote to convict and move directly to the vote to bar from holding federal office again? I sure lawyers can make the argument for either yes or no for this question, and which side a lawyer falls on usually depends on which side pays him.

Then you understand wrong. Additional functions are setting precendent and keeping the offender from holding office again.

 

[JoeMoma]

The answer to the title of the OP is about to happen. The Senate is scheduled to have the impeachment trial in February. I don't see anyone stopping them so it does appear that the senate can and will try a former president. So for those that say the senate can't try a former president, just watch 'em... they are about to do it.

 

[JoeMoma]

If I understand the constitution correctly (I could be wrong), the primary purpose of the senate trial is to remove the president from office if convicted. After the conviction vote, a separate vote has to be taken to bar that person from holding federal office again. Conviction on the impeachment vote does not automatically result in baring from holding federal office again.

Since Trump is no longer president, could the senate skip the vote to convict and move directly to the vote to bar from holding federal office again? I sure lawyers can make the argument for either yes or no for this question, and which side a lawyer falls on usually depends on which side pays him.

Then you understand wrong. Additional functions are setting precendent and keeping the offender from holding office again.

What exactly in my first paragraph is wrong?