Will Trump get convicted during impeachment trial?

[Cassawary]

Originally Posted by FatherSioux [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Imagine still believing this hocus pocus.

Creating new precedent with a bored and famously litigious billionaire is a plan so brilliant AOC could have thought it up

[DMN]

Originally Posted by Caroll [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Can you please point out the part in the United States Constitution that says, "once a president is no longer in office, he can longer be impeached," to me? Which article and section?

"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The senate has no jurisdiction for anything other than those explicitly mentioned in constitution.

[cd288]

Originally Posted by Cassawary [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It requires a separate vote and would be subject to court challenge, Mr Dingus

Actually the constitutional precedents go against it being subject to court challenge. It's not a 100% impossibility, but it would be very difficult to challenge your impeachment conviction in a separate judicial proceeding (not to mention that the Supreme Court probably wouldn't even agree to hear the case because they would say their job is to defer to the legislature on impeachment rules and results of conviction, which is true).

"The judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments" that's from a 1993 SCOTUS case. So, looks like again you don't know what you're talking about.

It's also arguable about whether it requires a separate vote. Some might say it does, but there's also precedent for viewing it as a default outcome of a conviction.

Glad to have helped you become more informed today! Just another positive to today on top of the inauguration!

[Cassawary]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually the constitutional precedents go against it being subject to court challenge. It's not a 100% impossibility, but it would be very difficult to challenge your impeachment conviction in a separate judicial proceeding (not to mention that the Supreme Court probably wouldn't even agree to hear the case because they would say their job is to defer to the legislature on impeachment rules and results of conviction, which is true).

"The judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments" that's from a 1993 SCOTUS case. So, looks like again you don't know what you're talking about.

It's also arguable about whether it requires a separate vote. Some might say it does, but there's also precedent for viewing it as a default outcome of a conviction.

Glad to have helped you become more informed today! Just another positive to today on top of the inauguration!

Is this how we sound when sassing the Red hats?

Wow rude 😂

[cd288]

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The senate has no jurisdiction for anything other than those explicitly mentioned in constitution.

Speaking as a lawyer, you're kind of misconstruing that quote. If a court were to look at that, they would say that the quote relates to what the President can be REMOVED from office for. It speaks to what actions by the President are needed for removal. It doesn't speak to whether they can convict a former President in a trial conducted after he's left office for an impeachment that occurred while he was in office.

Legally/constitutionally speaking, they are essentially fully within their right to hold a trial in the Senate (and in fact need to do so now that they have impeached him). What they probably couldn't do would be to impeach him AFTER he's left office...but there's nothing preventing a trial from occurring after he's left office, because removal from office isn't the only penalty that is applied and the impeachment occurred while he was still in office.

[Cassawary]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Speaking as a lawyer, you're kind of misconstruing that quote. If a court were to look at that, they would say that the quote relates to what the President can be REMOVED from office for. It speaks to what actions by the President are needed for removal. It doesn't speak to whether they can convict a former President in a trial conducted after he's left office for an impeachment that occurred while he was in office.

Legally/constitutionally speaking, they are essentially fully within their right to hold a trial in the Senate (and in fact need to do so now that they have impeached him). What they probably couldn't do would be to impeach him AFTER he's left office...but there's nothing preventing a trial from occurring after he's left office, because removal from office isn't the only penalty that is applied and the impeachment occurred while he was still in office.

There's no precedent for a President even being removed, so all your big city lawyer talk is just that - talk. 🦜

[Caroll]

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The senate has no jurisdiction for anything other than those explicitly mentioned in constitution.

I was right. It doesn't mention anything about being out of office. The trial will continue. Prove I'm wrong.

[DMN]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

but there's nothing preventing a trial from occurring after he's left office, because removal from office isn't the only penalty that is applied and the impeachment occurred while he was still in office.

Where was it in the constitution where the senate could try private citizens?

Originally Posted by Caroll [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was right. It doesn't mention anything about being out of office. The trial will continue. Prove I'm wrong.

No, like most things in life, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Caroll]

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Where was it in the constitution where the senate could try private citizens?



No, like most things in life, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Insulting the person when unable to provide facts. That's cool. I hope your problems get better.

[Bonethunder]

Originally Posted by Caroll [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The person who lost the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House in four years is also going to be re-elected in a landslide? After losing by an "Electoral College landslide," himself?

That's an interesting conclusion. He's an electoral loser on literally every single metric. No one comes close in modern history except Hoover.

Good thing he pardoned a felony weapons charge for Lil' Wayne, though. That really is a great message for the party of Law and Order and probably has a lot of appeal to his base.

The election was a scam he lost nothing, look at the maps. They fed stacks of biden ballots in the machines over and over in battleground cities like philly and pittsburgh / atlanta etc

sorry you lost at life