Is the senate trial of a former president constitutional?

[BS Filter]

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.

View attachment 455033
"Oh, yeah! Well, them there dimicrats
is always incitin' deadly insurrections, too,
but all them nazi socialists is just too lazy!"​

The President isn't in charge of security in the Capitol building.

 

[Richard-H]

The (U.S.) legal definition of impeachment is "to charge a public official with a public crime for which the punishment is removal from office."

Nice Try

Trump was a public official at the time he was impeached.

The Constitution clearly states that the punishments for being found guilty of the articles of impeachment can be both removal from office AND being barred from holding any office in the future.

Since the Constitution is the law of the land, it is authoritative - not whatever source you used for your erroneous definition of impeachment.

 

[BS Filter]

The (U.S.) legal definition of impeachment is "to charge a public official with a public crime for which the punishment is removal from office."

Nice Try

Trump was a public official at the time he was impeached.

The Constitution clearly states that the punishments for being found guilty of the articles of impeachment can be both removal from office AND being barred from holding any office in the future.

Since the Constitution is the law of the land, it is authoritative - not whatever source you used for your erroneous definition of impeachment.

The Constitution also clearly states that the Chief Justice is to preside. No Chief Justice, no trial.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Democrats won a battle (de facto), lost an impeachment case twice, and Animatronic Joe has already pissed off millions of Americans, many of whom supported him in the election.

Midterms will be here in no time.

 

[Richard-H]

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.

So what? President Trump will be exonerated during the trial, the only President ever to be Twice Exonerated.

Will make a tremendous kickoff for the 2024 Campaign.

Not being found guilty does NOT mean that he has been exonerated.

Any intelligent person knows that if he is not found guilty, all it means is that the Senate Republicans are a bunch of spineless A-holes who will have failed to uphold their oath of office and should be removed from the Senate.

THAT will be a great kick-off for the 2022 Senate elections!

 

[Richard-H]

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?

All of the above!!!!

 

[Polishprince]

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.

So what? President Trump will be exonerated during the trial, the only President ever to be Twice Exonerated.

Will make a tremendous kickoff for the 2024 Campaign.

Not being found guilty does NOT mean that he has been exonerated.

Any intelligent person knows that if he is not found guilty, all it means is that the Senate Republicans are a bunch of spineless A-holes who will have failed to uphold their oath of office and should be removed from the Senate.

THAT will be a great kick-off for the 2022 Senate elections!

If the Republicans vote for impeachment against 75 million little Trumpsters, what would they run on in 2022 or any other year? That they don't like Trump? If a voter hates Trump, why wouldn't they just vote for the D's?

 

[Richard-H]

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

How, exactly does this violate the 5th amendment?

 

[Richard-H]

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.

So what? President Trump will be exonerated during the trial, the only President ever to be Twice Exonerated.

Will make a tremendous kickoff for the 2024 Campaign.

Not being found guilty does NOT mean that he has been exonerated.

Any intelligent person knows that if he is not found guilty, all it means is that the Senate Republicans are a bunch of spineless A-holes who will have failed to uphold their oath of office and should be removed from the Senate.

THAT will be a great kick-off for the 2022 Senate elections!

If the Republicans vote for impeachment against 75 million little Trumpsters, what would they run on in 2022 or any other year? That they don't like Trump? If a voter hates Trump, why wouldn't they just vote for the D's?

Senators take an oath - and they are expected to live up to that oath - regardless of political consequences.

They could run on the Premise that they did their job as Senator in accordance with the Constitution and their oath of office - and if Trump scum don't like it...who cares!!!

The vast majority of Americans know that Trump is guilty - they'll make a whole lot of Republican Senators pay in 2022 & 2024.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Trump was no longer POTUS. You and Schumer are fucking retards

 

[Quasar44]

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.

You have little education in anything and you’re a “ weak , broken down horse “

 

[Quasar44]

Toro is an “ empty suit and propaganda puppet “

 

[Richard-H]

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.

Trump was no longer POTUS. You and Schumer are fucking retards

IF Trump is found guilty and barred from ever holding office again...feel free to challenge it in the Supreme court.

Like you did the 2020 elections!

 

[Nostra]

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

Beyond that, the Libnut “Judge” has already announced he thinks Trump is guilty.

Its a joke.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Trump was no longer POTUS. You and Schumer are fucking retards

IF Trump is found guilty and barred from ever holding office again...feel free to challenge it in the Supreme court.

Like you did the 2020 elections!

Guilty?

He is about to be TWICE 100% EXONERATED.

 

[schmidlap]

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

All that might emerge from the trial is public awareness of what caused the deadly insurrection against our government of the People. That's clearly not in the interests of some folks.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

So what? President Trump will be exonerated during the trial, the only President ever to be Twice Exonerated.

Will make a tremendous kickoff for the 2024 Campaign.

Not being found guilty does NOT mean that he has been exonerated.

Any intelligent person knows that if he is not found guilty, all it means is that the Senate Republicans are a bunch of spineless A-holes who will have failed to uphold their oath of office and should be removed from the Senate.

THAT will be a great kick-off for the 2022 Senate elections!

So you assume he's guilty before a trial. That's un-American. Shame on you.

 

[Agit8r]

He's still recieving benefits and privileges of the office, so it isn't like he is presently treated as an ordinary citizen anyway.

Donald Trump Temporarily Extended Secret Service Privileges for His Adult Children Before Leaving Office

The departing president extended his four adult children’s Secret Service protection for about six months, PEOPLE confirmed

people.com

Trump access to intelligence briefings will be determined by officials, White House says: report

The White House said Saturday that President Biden will leave the decision about whether or not former President Trump will have access to sensitive intelligence briefings up to Intelligence offici…

thehill.com

 

[Polishprince]

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

All that might emerge from the trial is public awareness of what caused the deadly insurrection against our government of the People. That's clearly not in the interests of some folks.

Its not in the interest of the Libs who instigated it by rigging the 2020 election.

 

[peach174]

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

How, exactly does this violate the 5th amendment?

The House managers who wanted him to testify at the Senate hearing.
5th says can't be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.