Can you impeach a former president ?

[Walt]

Yes, Marbury established the principle of judicial review over statutory law. That’s the question here, except in this case it’s interpretation of The Constitution, exclusive prerogative at end of the day of the SC. Open and shut.

The problem is that this is not a legal question. There are a few things that are internal to Congress, which the Supreme Court admits it has no oversight over. Impeachment, rules of the Congress, and expelling members of Congress.

If the Supreme Court could reverse impeachments, and there were four Supreme Court justices impeached, they could just reverse those impeachments. Impeachment is the only legal way to remove a Supreme Court justice, so that would be a real problem.

 

[Walt]

Really? You are full of shit. Article 2, section 4. Get some school kid to read it to you dumb fuck. Show me where it says Congress can impeach a private citizen.

The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

This is where it says that the House of Representatives has sole power to decide who to impeach.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

This is where it says that the Senate has sole power to decide who to try.

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

This is the only limit placed on the Congress when it comes to impeachment, and that is there are only two punishments possible: removal from office, and banning from future offices.

Now that I have shown you that the sole power of who is and is not impeached is with the House, you prove your claim that they do not have that power when it comes to newly private citizens.

 

[Walt]

I seem to remember a lot of talk about how Roberts could have ordered witnesses in the first Senate trial, but opted to steer clear of doing so. Following precedent, as it were.

I have to wonder if that gives the court the right to step in during the trial phase?

In a Presidential impeachment, but no other, the Chief Justice (Roberts in this case), presides, but does not have power to decide how it works. How the trial works is decided by a majority of the Senators. The House asked for witnesses, Roberts had the Senate vote on it, and the Senate voted no witnesses.

At least that is my understanding of how it works.

 

[Walt]

I agree with the political logic here, but in 4 years trump is going to be broken...if he's even alive. His life has suddenly gotten very complex beyond the impeachment issue.

He's going to be a very old, severely delusional individual.

trump is not in good health, and I do not believe he will get more popular with time. So there is a real chance trump will be dead, or at least unwilling to run. It is hard to guess what will happen with that.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

trump is not in good health, and I do not believe he will get more popular with time. So there is a real chance trump will be dead, or at least unwilling to run. It is hard to guess what will happen with that.

Agreed. My money is that Trump will be as obscured from view in 3+ years as Reagan was after the 1988 election.

 

[Flash]

According to most of the 'patriots' that have been arrested, he's the reason they acted the way they did.

They are just looking for a defense (or pardon).

It is very difficult to prove a person incited a riot. Being the reason for the action is not enough. He basically must give an emotional speech that caused an excited crowd to attack (somewhat simplified but basically true).

Something he said yesterday, this morning, or last week is not sufficient. The speech must result in imminent action. Advocating violence is not sufficient.

Evidence that the attack was planned in advance shows it was not a result (solely) of his words.

 

[Walt]

no. Obama ( and others ) have made it clear they are gonna repeal the filibuster

The End of the Filibuster—No, Really
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-senate-filibuster-could-be-gone-2021/614278/

Even beyond the filibuster, the Constitution requires two thirds of Senators present to vote for conviction. That is to prevent a conviction on the whim of a bare majority. It is assumed that if a super majority thinks someone is guilty, they probably are.

It is not two thirds of Senators, but two thirds of those present. So if 25 Republican Senators decided to stay home the day of the vote, and 50 Democrats vote for conviction, then trump is convicted. Or if 18 Republican Senators vote for conviction, and 50 Democrats vote for conviction, then trump is convicted. Or some combination of those two.

There needs to be some Republicans on board, at least tacitly.

 

[Walt]

Also at issue is the continuation of Trump's benefit package. An ex president gets a salary for life. That could be cut off.

Congress refused to let the Nixon Library into the Presidential Library system, with all the taxpayer money that entails, because they did not trust Nixon with public documents. When he died, they finally let his library in.

Why trust trump with a library, office, etc? Obviously, he can get his own, but not with taxpayer money.

 

[Walt]

Agreed. My money is that Trump will be as obscured from view in 3+ years as Reagan was after the 1988 election.

There is no way Reagan only developed full blown Alzheimer's the day after he left office. It is a gradual process, and he had to be a mess for years before.

 

[Althea]

In a Presidential impeachment, but no other, the Chief Justice (Roberts in this case), presides, but does not have power to decide how it works. How the trial works is decided by a majority of the Senators. The House asked for witnesses, Roberts had the Senate vote on it, and the Senate voted no witnesses.

At least that is my understanding of how it works.

Just did some reading, and you are correct. It wouldn't be right to have the VP preside over the Senate during a presidential impeachment.

I thought I remembered some talk about Roberts having some sway w/respect to calling witnesses, but it doesn't seem so.

 

[Althea]

There is no way Reagan only developed full blown Alzheimer's the day after he left office. It is a gradual process, and he had to be a mess for years before.

LOL...so the Iran Contra memory lapse wasn't an act?

 

[Althea]

Congress refused to let the Nixon Library into the Presidential Library system, with all the taxpayer money that entails, because they did not trust Nixon with public documents. When he died, they finally let his library in.

Why trust trump with a library, office, etc? Obviously, he can get his own, but not with taxpayer money.

Given that he's managed to transfer countless millions in taxpayer money into his pockets already. The transportation allowance is quite steep. He should lose that.

 

[Althea]

They are just looking for a defense (or pardon).

It is very difficult to prove a person incited a riot. Being the reason for the action is not enough. He basically must give an emotional speech that caused an excited crowd to attack (somewhat simplified but basically true).

Something he said yesterday, this morning, or last week is not sufficient. The speech must result in imminent action. Advocating violence is not sufficient.

Evidence that the attack was planned in advance shows it was not a result (solely) of his words.

I understand. Thus far, we know that he specifically scheduled the event for the 6th. We know that his re election committee obtained the permits for the gathering, and the rest will have to be determined by what was said by the orators on the stage that day.

That's only what we know now. The FBI is still digging for any other chatter.

 

[Althea]

trump is not in good health, and I do not believe he will get more popular with time. So there is a real chance trump will be dead, or at least unwilling to run. It is hard to guess what will happen with that.

trump barely won in '16 because just enough Independents didn't know what a liar/fraud he is. Sure, there were quite a few Bernie voters who opted for trump out of spite to Hillary, but in 4 years the former will know more about him than we do now.

The only thing that gets trump elected if he did run, would be a gross violation of voting rights. That will get better under Biden, not worse.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There is no way Reagan only developed full blown Alzheimer's the day after he left office. It is a gradual process, and he had to be a mess for years before.

Correct, which explains why he quickly disappeared off the scene instead of fade, fade awaying like a good soldier.

My dad went from diagnosis to dead in about 3 years. Many Alzheimer's victims last only about two years, some can last longer. The facility that cared for my dad his last 18 months was full of old zombies. He hated it at first but it wasn't long until he didn't care and didn't seem to notice.

Not an endgame I'd prefer. My plan is a quicker, but more fun end.

 

[Walt]

Given that he's managed to transfer countless millions in taxpayer money into his pockets already. The transportation allowance is quite steep. He should lose that.

trump is talking about renting the office space from himself. So he will be forcing the taxpayers to pay him more money. It is just constant scams from him.

he is one of those people who is scamming everyone, including himself.

 

[Althea]

trump is talking about renting the office space from himself. So he will be forcing the taxpayers to pay him more money. It is just constant scams from him.

he is one of those people who is scamming everyone, including himself.

I believe the annual office stipend is $1 million

 

[Walt]

trump barely won in '16 because just enough Independents didn't know what a liar/fraud he is. Sure, there were quite a few Bernie voters who opted for trump out of spite to Hillary, but in 4 years the former will know more about him than we do now.

The only thing that gets trump elected if he did run, would be a gross violation of voting rights. That will get better under Biden, not worse.

Maybe in 2016 there were a few who voted for trump to spite the moderates, but I doubt there were many in 2020. In 2016, it could seem like a joke. In 2020, it was all too serious, and would take treasonous amounts of spite.

 

[Walt]

Correct, which explains why he quickly disappeared off the scene instead of fade, fade awaying like a good soldier.

My dad went from diagnosis to dead in about 3 years. Many Alzheimer's victims last only about two years, some can last longer. The facility that cared for my dad his last 18 months was full of old zombies. He hated it at first but it wasn't long until he didn't care and didn't seem to notice.

Not an endgame I'd prefer. My plan is a quicker, but more fun end.

I used to fear I would go from Alzheimer's, but then I realized I love to watch TV, and never have the time to do it... Maybe that would work, and maybe not.

 

[martin]

The problem is that this is not a legal question. There are a few things that are internal to Congress, which the Supreme Court admits it has no oversight over. Impeachment, rules of the Congress, and expelling members of Congress.

If the Supreme Court could reverse impeachments, and there were four Supreme Court justices impeached, they could just reverse those impeachments. Impeachment is the only legal way to remove a Supreme Court justice, so that would be a real problem.

It's a question of Constitutional law as to the limit of the impeachment power. If the Senate convicted Trump with the effect of banning him from future office Trump would have the right to appeal on the ground that Congress exceeded its Constitutional power in convicting him after he had left office, and the SC would rule on the question. From what I've read I agree with you that Congress should be able to convict him post Presidency but you and I and Congress don't get to decide.