Is the senate trial of a former president constitutional?

[Lesh]

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

Only for a (sitting) President. Trump is a FORMER President

5th says can't be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

And Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.

 

[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!

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

I've seen the evidence, so I'd have to be an idiot to think that he's not guilty.

There's nothing un-American about it.

Perhaps those that have already judged him not guilty - despite all reason - are the ones that put their mindless loyalty to Trump above their loyalty to America are the ones that are un-American.

 

[Richard-H]

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.

The house managers have only asked him to voluntarily appear - so far.

They can subpoena him and he would have to appear, but he could then 'plead the 5th' in order to not incriminate himself.

OF course, since 'pleading the 5th' is protection against self-incrimination, it is as admission of guilt. IT just deprives the prosecutors of clear evidence of that guilt.

 

[peach174]

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

Only for a (sitting) President. Trump is a FORMER President

5th says can't be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

And Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.

You have to have an indictable crime in order to impeach .
In order to impeach you need to still be president.
Impeach from office, not impeach so he can't run again and not have secret service protection.

 

[postman]

You have to have an indictable crime in order to impeach .

Impeachable offenses do not have to be in the criminal statutes. An example. If the president started handing over top secret information to our enemies. For the president to do that, it's not a crime.

But it is a major breech in national security, and clearly would be impeachable.

 

[postman]

In order to impeach you need to still be president.

Trump was president on January 13th, when the house impeached him.

And Trump was president on January 15th, when the house delivered the articles of impeachment to the senate.

Next.....

 

[bodecea]

And so The Democrat Party proves itself, once again, the Kommunist Konspiracy Kult.

To members of the trump Qult, that means following the Constitution.

 

[peach174]

In order to impeach you need to still be president.

Trump was president on January 13th, when the house impeached him.

Next.....

Without due process.

 

[postman]

Impeach from office, not impeach so he can't run again and not have secret service protection.

Actually an ex-president gets secret service protection no matter how he left office. It's the perks under the former presidents act, that are dependent on how he was removed from office.

 

[schmidlap]

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

That lie was used to incite the deadly insurrection against our government of, by, and for the People.

The People deserve to know the truth.

Majority says they favor conviction as Trump impeachment trial begins​

​

A majority of Americans favor convicting former President Trump in his second impeachment trial this week, according to a CBS-YouGov poll released Tuesday.​

​

The survey found 56 percent favor the former president's conviction, the same percentage who said they supported it in an ABC News-Ipsos poll released Sunday.​

​

The same percentage of respondents in the CBS poll also believed the president encouraged the violence by pro-Trump rioters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.​

​

Majority says they favor conviction as Trump impeachment trial begins: poll

​

 

[Lesh]

You have to have an indictable crime in order to impeach .

Read the Constitution. It doesn't say that

In order to impeach you need to still be president.

Nope. A Sec of War resigned and was Impeached and tried. Falls under the same Constitutional rules

Impeach from office, not impeach so he can't run again

That's the exact opposite of what the Constitution says

 

[postman]

Trump was president on January 13th, when the house impeached him.

Next.....

Without due process.

Impeachment is not a trial. Due process does not apply. They may have offered previous presidents the ability to raise issues prior to an impeachment vote. But Trump committed a high crime so close to his term expiring, that there was no time for it.

Besides. Trump is now using the argument that he is no longer in office, as a reason not to convict him. Along with that the house didn't take enough time to prepare the articles of impeachment.

The house had to speed the results in order to impeach and try Trump while still in office. But that having failed due to McConnell holding it up. That in no way prejudices the legality of proceeding.

 

[schmidlap]

The Trump goons who have been charged have the right and duty to publicly name who incited them.

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

​

​

​

 

[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.

I've seen the evidence, so I'd have to be an idiot to think that he's not guilty.

There's nothing un-American about it.

Perhaps those that have already judged him not guilty - despite all reason - are the ones that put their mindless loyalty to Trump above their loyalty to America are the ones that are un-American.

Is Madonna guilty of incitement for saying she'd like to blow up the White House?

 

[j-mac]

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!"​

Is that what Rachel, and Don told you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

True.

Or it can be said that it's not unconstitutional, as such a determination can never be made being outside the purview of the courts.

 

[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!

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

I've seen the evidence, so I'd have to be an idiot to think that he's not guilty.

There's nothing un-American about it.

Perhaps those that have already judged him not guilty - despite all reason - are the ones that put their mindless loyalty to Trump above their loyalty to America are the ones that are un-American.

Is Madonna guilty of incitement for saying she'd like to blow up the White House?

Is Kathy Griffin guilty for advocating Trump's decapitation?

 

[HenryBHough]

The Democrat Party timeline now stands just inches away from the "Make America Brazil" marker. The point achieved by prosecuting former presidents for crimes against the party.

If they stumble there the marker for "Make America Venezuela" gets pushed a little further away.

But the end game remains "Give America to China". The path to that goal isn't measured in units of time. Only in transfer of units of Gold.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

But Trump has only been tried and found guilty in an impeachment of the president. And the impeachment itself is a highly politicized partisan process.
Now that Trump is NOT in office and a private citizen, trying him again as part of the impeachment process
would be denying him due process and equal protection under the law.

In a civil court the onus is on the democrats to prove and demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt
that Trump has been proved to have caused the assault on the Capitol. Let the democrats make
that case in civil court!

Trump isn't president anymore. It would be a travesty of justice to try him now in an impeachment farce
where the numbers already show Trump could be impeached for kidnapping the Lindbergh child in
this partisan show trial managed by Schiff and Pelosi.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

The house managers have only asked him to voluntarily appear - so far.

They can subpoena him and he would have to appear, but he could then 'plead the 5th' in order to not incriminate himself.

OF course, since 'pleading the 5th' is protection against self-incrimination, it is as admission of guilt. IT just deprives the prosecutors of clear evidence of that guilt.

You're so full of shit, you must have a roll of toilet paper hanging around your neck.