Is the senate trial of a former president constitutional?

[MeBelle]

Was this trial legal?

A Federal judge is not the President,

 

[MeBelle]

Is the senate trial of a former president constitutional?
Dershowitz says NO !
Starting at time 10:05...

Spicer & Co. (11/15/21)

Sean and Lyndsay discuss today's news and politics.

www.newsmaxtv.com

Do you have Dershowitz's arguments?

You were pointed to the 10:05 mark!

 

[MeBelle]

It is pretty simple...

Nobody is above the law... SC has said this a few times...

So trial by Senate or trial in criminal court?

Which one?

Neither....

 

[peach174]

It's unconstitutional, it violates the 5th amendment.

 

[MeBelle]

If I were pushing what the OP is pushing, I'd ask for my account to be deleted after this weeks shenanigan show was over.

 

[Turtlesoup]

You mean like George Washington ENglish--------do note that once he resigned the proceedings were dismissed. do you really want to discuss the judges being impeached and then their charges dropped once they were out of office. The senate proceedings is CLEARLY an abuse of power.

1926
George Washington English of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois.

Nominated: By President Woodrow Wilson in 1918.Charges: Abuse of powerResigned: From office November 4, 1926, at which time impeachment proceedings were dismissed.

 

[Doc7505]

I caught part of Chuck Schumers argument, and it proves the senate trial isn't barred by the impeached person no longer being in office.

From the Constitution:


The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

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.

Under Trumps lawyers interpretation, that when the impeached becomes a private citizen the trial becomes unconstitutional. So let's test if this is a legitimate position.

There are two judgments the senate can make. Removal from office, and disqualification from future office. If the first judgement is removal from office, Trumps lawyers position would bar them from imposing a second judgment. Since once the first judgement was rendered, the impeached, having been removed, would at that point be a private citizen, and by Trumps lawyers position, the senate could not continue the trial, or impose an additional judgment.

As the constitution declares the senate can make both judgments, if Trumps lawyers position would prevent that, that means their position must be invalid.

It's clear the constitution requires if the senate renders judgment to remove a sitting president, their second judgment would be on a private citizen. Hence passing judgment on a private citizen must be constitutional.

You forget one thing Trump is no longer president. If what you claim is true, then Congress and the Senate have the power to impeach/try any American citizen.
Factually

Dershowitz: Congress Violated Constitution Six Ways in Impeaching Trump

Instead of Trump having committed an impeachable offense, it is Congress that violated the Constitution multiple times, according to constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz.

thenewamerican.com

 

[jackflash]

Of course it is, and the biggest names in conservative law have confirmed it.

He was impeached while in office. The trial could have been held while he was in office but Moscow Mitch wouldn’t allow it. Now he’s out and they’re whining that he should have been tried while still in office.

Good call on "MOSCOW" Mitch, like if that ain't the truth what is????

 

[Quasar44]

Article 2 section 4
Only applies to “ removal in office “
T will be exonerated

 

[Quasar44]

You cannot ban a private citizen out of office

 

[Quasar44]

Toro is an ignoramus buffoon who can only parrot the fake “ brainless , half men vermin “ of the Soviet press
An earth worm has more brain power than Toro Don Lemon Tapper

 

[Quasar44]

Toro is an uneducated and illiterate parrot of the dummies who make up the Goebbels media

 

[MarathonMike]

He doesn't, CNN, Huffpo, MSNBC, Slate, etc has assured him

Good point.

Republicans are relying on an argument of the trial not being constitutional as a reason to acquit. Without that argument, they have to base it on the evidence. Which is damning.

Here's an idea. How about the Democrats stop acting like a bunch of power mad idiots and start focusing on REAL PROBLEMS.

 

[j-mac]

acquittal means the charges should never have been brought....he,ll be twice acquitted.

 

[Unkotare]

Toro is an uneducated and illiterate parrot of the dummies who make up the Goebbels media

Politics aside, he is clearly more intelligent than you, and more of an American than you could ever hope to be.

 

[Nostra]

Here I will you out.....

Where the law says "When the President of the United States is tried, " notice that they don't say Ex-president.

Simple---impeachment does not apply to ex-presidents. DUH

The constitution doesn't mention judges being impeached, but they're included.

It mentions ”other federal civil officers”, stupid.

 

[TNHarley]

I caught part of Chuck Schumers argument, and it proves the senate trial isn't barred by the impeached person no longer being in office.

From the Constitution:


The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

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.

Under Trumps lawyers interpretation, that when the impeached becomes a private citizen the trial becomes unconstitutional. So let's test if this is a legitimate position.

There are two judgments the senate can make. Removal from office, and disqualification from future office. If the first judgement is removal from office, Trumps lawyers position would bar them from imposing a second judgment. Since once the first judgement was rendered, the impeached, having been removed, would at that point be a private citizen, and by Trumps lawyers position, the senate could not continue the trial, or impose an additional judgment.

As the constitution declares the senate can make both judgments, if Trumps lawyers position would prevent that, that means their position must be invalid.

It's clear the constitution requires if the senate renders judgment to remove a sitting president, their second judgment would be on a private citizen. Hence passing judgment on a private citizen must be constitutional.

They tried to convict in the senate before, and the senate voted they didnt have the authority to try a private citizen.
The Constitution also says "and"

 

[schmidlap]

I caught part of Chuck Schumers argument, and it proves the senate trial isn't barred by the impeached person no longer being in office...

The argument that it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to license lame-donald-duck office holders to incite insurrections against the United States with impunity serves as a diversion for those who are loathe to confront the charges.

In any event, the verdict will be a political one, so the value of the Senate trial that is a consequence of his second impeachment on January 13 is the revelation of truth, and that is what some fear.

Were I presenting the case against Trump, I would review the deadly attack upon Congress following Trump's lie-fraught, incendiary pep jamboree after which he pointed them down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol.

I'd call as witnesses a few of the Trump Goons whom he provoked:

E.g.,

​

Bauer traveled to Washington to the Jan. 6 pro-Trump rally, according to court documents. In his speech, Trump told the crowd: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them." Bauer reiterated to the FBI that he marched to the Capitol "because President Trump said to do so." ​

​

“We were looking for Nancy to shoot her in the friggin’ brain but we didn’t find her.”​

​

​

The 'Proud Boy' right-wing extremist quoted Trump's statement that the Proud Boys should "stand back and stand by." ​

"Await orders from our Commander In Chief!" he posted on Nov. 6.​

​

​

After the insurrection failed to defeat democracy, he posted "The New World Order beat us...​

Why, God? Why? WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN US? Unless...Trump still has a plan?"​

​

​

Kelly has been a vocal Trump supporter and shared debunked conspiracy theories about widespread voter fraud during the 2020 election. After the rioting, he appeared in YouTube videos and appeared to be unapologetic about his actions on Jan. 6, saying they were "very patriotic."​

​

​

Miller posted about his plans to go to Washington, D.C. “I am about to drive across the country for this trump s***!"..."next time we bring the guns"... "Assassinate AOC," "We going to get a hold of [the USCP officer] and hug his neck with a nice rope."​

​

The Capitol siege: The cases behind the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history

More than 875 people have been charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. NPR is looking at the cases. Each provides clues to questions surrounding the attack: Who joined the mob? What did they do? And why?

www.npr.org

​

​

"So WE’re going to, WE’re going to
walk down Pennsylvania Avenue!...
So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue!"

"We're surrounded by hostile tribes, Tonto!
What'll we do?"
"What you mean 'WE', Kemosabe?"

Would the Cry Baby Loser throw his worshipful goons under the bus?​

​

I would then focus on Trump's conduct during the insurrection he had incited. He skulked off to the White House, watched the mayhem he had unleashed on tv, and refused the desperate entreaties of his associates that he call off his goons until long after the damage had been done.

President whipped MAGA rally into a frenzy,
told them to march on the Hill -
then retreated to White House to watch pandemonium on cable -
and refused to condemn it

How Trump fiddled with his TV remote while the Capitol was sacked

After whipping his loyalists into a frenzy at a rally on the White House Ellipse on Wednesday, Trump retreated as the chaos he unleashed unfolded, still raging over the election results.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Trump likes to watch tv.​

 

[schmidlap]

acquittal means the charges should never have been brought....he,ll be twice acquitted.

“None of this would have happened without the President.
The President could have immediately and forcefully
intervened to stop the violence. He did not.
There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States
of his office and his oath to the Constitution.”

A Senior Republican's Assessment​

The Loser will always have the unique stigma of having been twice impeached. (Losing his Party the House, the Executive, and the Senate in a single term is one he'll have to share with Hoover.)

No, a Senate acquittal in no way means that "the charges should never have been brought." Such a cynical calculus would mean that no criminal would ever be prosecuted unless the outcome was pre-determined. Perhaps , that is the judicial system of some "shithole" nations, not the U.S.

In any event, the American public demands a public examination of such an attack upon democracy.

Most Republican politicians find Trump's post-election conduct repulsive. The subjugation of the GOP by the RINOs of Trumpery will result in a partisan tour de force in what-about-ism and hiding behind legalistic pretexts rather than have the integrity to honestly address the putrid substance of the matter.

"Oh, yeah! Well, them there dimicrats
is always incitin' deadly insurrections, too,
but all them nazi socialists is just too lazy!"​

 

[BS Filter]

There is an ex President being tried and no Chief Justice. Bogus as a three dollar bill