What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

partyguinness

Tell me how wrote: »

I'd be leaning towards the views of the elected senators and representatives and all the lawyers and full time US political commentators who say he can be impeached on probably having a little bit more of an understanding of the process than your good self. No offence.

In other words, although the question is not certain and there are other lawyers, commemntators etc who argue that he cannot be impreached you are happy to fall down on that side of the debate because it suits your view. No problem.

partyguinness

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I thought this too, but apaprently he loses state pensions, security details and any other benefits afforded to ex-presidents.

As it stands, he can also hold office in the future if he decides to run again. A conviction (he's already been impeached - next stage is trial) will effectively block him from re-erntering politics pretty much on any worthwhile level.

Now whether any of that actually bothers him, is another question.

I believe the bar on pensions etc that would fall under 'Profit'.

I was listening on the BBC to one of the constitutional lawyers who represented him at the first impeachment and they seemed unusually relaxed (borderline dismissive) about this second impeachment on the basis that the SC will simply strike it down. Of course they have to appear that way.

ohnonotgmail

partyguinness wrote: »

In other words, although the question is not certain and there are other lawyers, commemntators etc who argue that he cannot be impreached you are happy to fall down on that side of the debate because it suits your view. No problem.

The simple fact is that nobody knows 100% either way. That will not stop the Dems from trying.

partyguinness

Section 3 states:

"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:..."

The most important phrase here is ", and".

This is the critical question for the Dems and clearly the one they are banking on: does disqualification follow removal from Office or is disqualification a stand alone sanction on impeachment?

There are strong arguments either way.

If the SC were to interpret it as disqualification follows removal from Office then the Dems are screwed. But of course then Trump essentially gets away with it and is free to run again. Courts tend to interpret Constitutional provisions narrowly in general which would favour Trump but again who knows at this stage.

Now, I hope Trump gets impeached, loses miserably in the SC and spends the rest of his life fighting bankruptcy and all manner of court cases (criminal and civil).

partyguinness

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The simple fact is that nobody knows 100% either way. That will not stop the Dems from trying.

I agree, which is why I said 'uncertain'.So the Dems may as well try. Nothing to lose and cannot be seen to let hiim get away with it which then allows him to run again.

ohnonotgmail

partyguinness wrote: »

Section 3 states:

"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:..."

The most important phrase here is ", and".

This is the critical question for the Dems and clearly the one they are banking on: does disqualification follow removal from Office or is disqualification a stand alone sanction on impeachment?

There are strong arguments either way.

If the SC were to interpret it as disqualification follows removal from Office then the Dems are screwed. But of course Trump essentially gets away with it and is free to run again.

Now, I hope Trump gets impeached, loses miserably in the SC and spends the rest of his life fighting bankruptcy and all manner of court cases (criminal and civil).

disqualification requires a separate vote in the Senate after a vote for conviction.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

disqualification requires a separate vote in the Senate after a vote for conviction.

I'd imagine it's both or neither in that case. Can't see them convicting him but being open to him running again.

jimmycrackcorm

partyguinness wrote:

If the SC were to interpret it as disqualification follows removal from Office then the Dems are screwed. But of course then Trump essentially gets away with it and is free to run again. Courts tend to interpret Constitutional provisions narrowly in general which would favour Trump but again who knows at this stage.

He already has been removed from office so that condition has been satisfied.

Tell me how

partyguinness wrote: »

In other words, although the question is not certain and there are other lawyers, commemntators etc who argue that he cannot be impreached you are happy to fall down on that side of the debate because it suits your view. No problem.

Actually, more the case of the likes of Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham et al saying he 'shouldn't' be impeached, not that he 'couldn't' be impeached.

Understand the difference?

partyguinness

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd imagine it's both or neither in that case. Can't see them convicting him but being open to him running again.

That's what I am wondering: is it both or neither.

On conviction, is it removal and disqualification or can you have one without the other (as a moot point I cannot see how you can have disqualification without removal of a sitting President as it is inherently contradictory)? In this case just disqualification as there is no President to remove from office.

The SC may go narrow and say "No. Disqualification follows removal" and Trump is free to run again. Or the SC takes a wider interpretation and defer to the Houses and a wider view that refrains from encroaching on the Houses i.e. it's best to let them decide and we will stay out of it or affirm their process.

As I have said there are strong arguments either way. It will be interesting if it gets that far.

Quin_Dub

partyguinness wrote: »

That's what I am wondering: is it both or neither.

On conviction, is it removal and disqualification or can you have one without the other (as a moot point I cannot see how you can have disqualification without removal of a sitting President as it is inherently contradictory)? In this case just disqualification as there is no President to remove from office.

The SC may go narrow and say "No. Disqualification follows removal" and Trump is free to run again. Or the SC takes a wider interpretation and defer to the Houses and a wider view that refrains from encroaching on the Houses i.e. it's best to let them decide and we will stay out of it or affirm their process.

As I have said there are strong arguments either way. It will be interesting if it gets that far.

There is precedent albeit from a long time ago where a Judge was impeached after leaving office and bared from holding future office.

Given that no President in or out office has ever been convicted in an Impeachment trial then that is the only piece of case law in relation to this issue.

ohnonotgmail

partyguinness wrote: »

That's what I am wondering: is it both or neither.

On conviction, is it removal and disqualification or can you have one without the other (as a moot point I cannot see how you can have disqualification without removal of a sitting President as it is inherently contradictory)? In this case just disqualification as there is no President to remove from office.

The SC may go narrow and say "No. Disqualification follows removal" and Trump is free to run again. Or the SC takes a wider interpretation and defer to the Houses and a wider view that refrains from encroaching on the Houses i.e. it's best to let them decide and we will stay out of it or affirm their process.

As I have said there are strong arguments either way. It will be interesting if it gets that far.

they vote for conviction first. if that passes then they CAN vote for additional sanctions including disqualification from further office.

partyguinness

Tell me how wrote: »

Actually, more the case of the likes of Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham et al saying he 'shouldn't' be impeached, not that he 'couldn't' be impeached.

Understand the difference?

Getting impeached and convicted is one thing but whether or not it holds up in the long run is quite another i.e. what will the SC decide.

Call me old fashioned but I like to go back to basics and actually read the relevant Constitutional provisions and form my own opinion and put out some points for discussion rather than simply regurgitate and echo commentators fed through the media (be it pro or anti Trump).

Dismissing a post or point of view on the basis that X, Y and Z say such and such is not conducive to healthy debate and discussion which is kinda to the whole point of these threads. Otherwise, it is just an echo chamber. Understand?

partyguinness

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they vote for conviction first. if that passes then they CAN vote for additional sanctions including disqualification from further office.

Fair enough I am not disputing the mechanics of it all. It seems inevitable that it will end up in the SC and that is what I am pondering.

partyguinness

Quin_Dub wrote: »

There is precedent albeit from a long time ago where a Judge was impeached after leaving office and bared from holding future office.

Given that no President in or out office has ever been convicted in an Impeachment trial then that is the only piece of case law in relation to this issue.

If I am not mistaken I don't believe it went past that State's federal supreme court so what the US SC would decide is another matter. Although Trump is on such a losing streak he will probably file it in the wrong Court.



Unchartered territory.

ohnonotgmail

partyguinness wrote: »

Fair enough I am not disputing the mechanics of it all. It seems inevitable that it will end up in the SC and that is what I am pondering.

maybe it will but as the power to impeach and convict is solely the preserve of congress the SC might be loathe to overturn any decision.

Tell me how

partyguinness wrote: »

Getting impeached and convicted is one thing but whether or not it holds up in the long run is quite another i.e. what will the SC decide.

Call me old fashioned but I like to go back to basics and actually read the relevant Constitutional provisions and form my own opinion and put out some points for discussion rather than simply regurgitate and echo commentators fed through the media (be it pro or anti Trump).

Dismissing a post or point of view on the basis that X, Y and Z say such and such is not conducive to healthy debate and discussion which is kinda to the whole point of these threads. Otherwise, it is just an echo chamber. Understand?

I understand you are bothered with someone having a different opinion to you.
I defer to people who are working specifically in various fields in order to give me the pertinent information. Maybe that is an echo chamber to you but if so, I bet you wouldn't have placed me in the same echo chamber as McConnell and Graham.

Do you dig deep in to every topic before expressing an opinion on it?

The Cares act Trump signed last April was 880 pages long. Should we all read all of it before commenting on it?

Penn

Best quote on Giuliani's legal trouble I saw was that he'd probably try to countersue Dominion and end up suing Domino's

everlast75

Roberts will not preside over the impeachment hearing

Overheal

everlast75 wrote: »

Roberts will not preside over the impeachment hearing

He's not required to. Only for impeachments of The President of the United States. Donald Trump is not the POTUS, Joe Biden is.

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.

So the President Pro Tempore of the Senate will preside, Patrick Leahy. This won't stop Republicans from using this information to falsely call it a fake impeachment though.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1353806234680492032?s=19

Plenty of loonies prepared to follow Trump off a cliff.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1353746930392854528?s=19

I'm sure Dominion are trembling in their boots

Wildlife Actor

Tell me how wrote: »

I understand you are bothered with someone having a different opinion to you.
I defer to people who are working specifically in various fields in order to give me the pertinent information. Maybe that is an echo chamber to you but if so, I bet you wouldn't have placed me in the same echo chamber as McConnell and Graham.

Do you dig deep in to every topic before expressing an opinion on it?

The Cares act Trump signed last April was 880 pages long. Should we all read all of it before commenting on it?

In fairness to partyguinness, we're not talking about 880 pages here. It's one sentence. And like most law, it's a matter of language, not scientific knowledge, so to debate it is not above and beyond this forum.

A purposive interpretation suggests that a president should not be entitled to be "saved by the bell." If the power disappears once the president is no longer president then, if the wind was against him, he could dodge all consequences other than removal by resigning while the senate is deliberating whether to convict, having conducted the trial. The precedent case that was mentioned by another poster may be along those lines, but I'd like to see it.

The problem is that the US Supreme Court like their literal and originalist interpretations (the ridiculous approach to gun control is testament to that) and we're looking at a GOP stacked court at the moment. On a literal reading, the comma followed by the "and" in the constitutional provision are strongly indicative that the "other" consequences of conviction (debarment from future office etc) can only arise as ancillary or consequential upon the removal.

Maybe they will be a bit more nuanced but I wouldn't put my house on it. Of course if that literal approach is right there is no impediment to impeachment if god forbid the crud was reelected.

It's tricky and I wouldn't scoff at the view that it's not lawful. As someone else said, they should still give it a go, because every cut helps and getting off on a technicality won't be a big win for trump's reputation.

Tell me how

Wildlife Actor wrote: »

In fairness to partyguinness, we're not talking about 880 pages here. It's one sentence. And like most law, it's a matter of language, not scientific knowledge, so to debate it is not above and beyond this forum.

A purposive interpretation suggests that a president should not be entitled to be "saved by the bell." If the power disappears once the president is no longer president then, if the wind was against him, he could dodge all consequences other than removal by resigning while the senate is deliberating whether to convict, having conducted the trial. The precedent case that was mentioned by another poster may be along those lines, but I'd like to see it.

The problem is that the US Supreme Court like their literal and originalist interpretations (the ridiculous approach to gun control is testament to that) and we're looking at a GOP stacked court at the moment. On a literal reading, the comma followed by the "and" in the constitutional provision are strongly indicative that the "other" consequences of conviction (debarment from future office etc) can only arise as ancillary or consequential upon the removal.

Maybe they will be a bit more nuanced but I wouldn't put my house on it. Of course if that literal approach is right there is no impediment to impeachment if god forbid the crud was reelected.

It's tricky and I wouldn't scoff at the view that it's not lawful. As someone else said, they should still give it a go, because every cut helps and getting off on a technicality won't be a big win for trump's reputation.

Of all the commentary I've heard about Trump's second impeachment, until that comment was made here, I haven't heard anyone state that it is illegal. Maybe I've missed some commentary, but I listened to pretty much all of the debate in the house last week ad had it on while working and don't recall anyone saying that it technically couldn't be done, but just that it shouldn't, for reasons including supposedly wanting to focus on unity or that he was indeed right to actively encourage people to call in to question the results of the election.

Wildlife Actor

Tell me how wrote: »

Of all the commentary I've heard about Trump's second impeachment, until that comment was made here, I haven't heard anyone state that it is illegal. Maybe I've missed some commentary, but I listened to pretty much all of the debate in the house last week ad had it on while working and don't recall anyone saying that it technically couldn't be done, but just that it shouldn't, for reasons including supposedly wanting to focus on unity or that he was indeed right to actively encourage people to call in to question the results of the election.

There's quite a bit actually. Here's a pretty balanced looking article on it
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/22242411/trump-impeachment-constitution-senate-trial-conviction-disqualify-william-belknap

Has a more developed discussion on the two approaches I mentioned, plus a third, that it's no business of the courts to get involved at all, which is interesting.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1353921378332774401?s=19

#ETTD strikes again

everlast75

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1353846711001735168?s=19

Tell me how

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1353846711001735168?s=19

I hope people contact that office asking to book the former President, Barack Obama, for a high value speaking engagement.

everlast75

Tell me how wrote: »

I hope people contact that office asking to book the former President, Barack Obama, for a high value speaking engagement.

Funnily enough, it's not the "former twice impeached president's office".

What a sad little ***** he is.

flazio

It's been nearly a week now, how come none of the right wing news channels have gotten an interview with him yet? This has been the quietest he's ever been.