Tex117 said:

---

Shooter McGavin said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

And at this point, I say "let them make their case". A defense will be mounted, the hypocricy will be exposed, and the 67 votes required to convict will never be achieved.

Let them spend time on this rather than something actually damaging.

---

Whelp, it only takes a simple majority to convict of disqualification, which would then stop him from receiving alot of federal benefits....so yeah, it would be damaging.

---

Yeah, like he really needs benefits.

---

Considering that Deutche Bank has pulled any future funding, a personal guaranty coming up in the amount of $300 million, Signature bank closing his bank accounts, Trump branded hotels have shown soft sales, PGA pulling the tournament, yeah he might.

Plus, we are talking Secret Service, travel stipends, the whole bit. Its the point of it, even if he doesn't need the benefits.

---

Are you hiding under a rock? What hotel isn't having soft sales?


They are not going to take Secret Service from him. Anything else doesn't matter, the dude has plenty of money or access to capital. Don't kid yourself he is still a powerful guy with lots of people wanting to do business with him.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

First president in history to be impeached twice. Nice record.

I'm assuming the senate can still hold a trial after he leaves office. And if he is convicted he will lose the benefits of being a former president and will be unable to hold office again.

Post 1776, nice!

---

First President to be impeached twice for no reason.

FIFY

And conviction is not happening. DOA. Wont be a trial before inauguration. And after inauguration it would be unconstitutional.

WASTE OF TIME

---

It's a grey area. Not specifically prohibited in the constitution. If challenged then maybe the supreme Court will step in and save Trump from the trial. But if people are honestly worried that 67 senators will convict, then that says all we need to know.

Shooter McGavin said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

Shooter McGavin said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

And at this point, I say "let them make their case". A defense will be mounted, the hypocricy will be exposed, and the 67 votes required to convict will never be achieved.

Let them spend time on this rather than something actually damaging.

---

Whelp, it only takes a simple majority to convict of disqualification, which would then stop him from receiving alot of federal benefits....so yeah, it would be damaging.

---

Yeah, like he really needs benefits.

---

Considering that Deutche Bank has pulled any future funding, a personal guaranty coming up in the amount of $300 million, Signature bank closing his bank accounts, Trump branded hotels have shown soft sales, PGA pulling the tournament, yeah he might.

Plus, we are talking Secret Service, travel stipends, the whole bit. Its the point of it, even if he doesn't need the benefits.

---

Are you hiding under a rock? What hotel isn't having soft sales?


They are not going to take Secret Service from him. Anything else doesn't matter, the dude has plenty of money or access to capital. Don't kid yourself he is still a powerful guy with lots of people wanting to do business with him.

---

I don't think they will take away Secret Service either, but its on the table.

Then you can go slob over that dudes nob for all I care man. He wont be POTUS, he could be disqualified from ever running again, he has been banned from social media, his b.s. will begin to be purged from the Republican Party.

I don't care about his business dealings. If he can get it to work, great, but there are signs it may not work out. There is blood in the water, and if he gets tried and convicted by the Senate, he will be more of a paraih. If he can find his way around it, great. Good for him.
https://www.curbed.com/2021/01/trumps-dc-hotel-broker-cancels-insurrection.html

Tex117 said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

First president in history to be impeached twice. Nice record.

I'm assuming the senate can still hold a trial after he leaves office. And if he is convicted he will lose the benefits of being a former president and will be unable to hold office again.

Post 1776, nice!

---

First President to be impeached twice for no reason.

FIFY

And conviction is not happening. DOA. Wont be a trial before inauguration. And after inauguration it would be unconstitutional.

WASTE OF TIME

---

Please point to where you can say FOR SURE that there cannot be a trial in the Senate after he leaves office for disqualification.

---

It may not be "for sure" I suppose because there is no precedent here.

But the only cases of impeachment for any civil office AFTER they have left office were in cases where they had resigned - thus their term had not ended in effect. See linked article.

Once Trump is succeeded in the natural legal order of things he becomes a private citizen again. He was not removed from office before it expired and he did not resign. Impeachment does not apply to private citizens and its only intent is to remove from office which would have already happened naturally.

The Constitution specifically says

Quote:

---

The Constitution's Article II, Section 4 reads that "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 Constitution assigns the consideration of charges to the House of Representatives, with the Senate conducting a trial if the House approves impeachment articles against a civil officer.

---

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/can-president-trump-be-impeached-after-he-leaves-office

---

Well, you are ignoring the actual powers of Congress in Article 1 that states:

Quote:

---

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.

---

The disqualification language implies that the Senate could continue to try a person after they left office. Hell, its happened twice. Sen. William Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War William Belknap, 1876.

Just saying, it is far from certain.

---

No it did not happen twice.

Neither "left office".

Blount was specifically expelled from office and thus the determination of disqualification was another matter after being expelled.

Belknap resigned his office so he did not reach the conclusion of his term.


No one having left office due to the expiration of a term has ever been tried and expelled after the fact or excluded from future office.

And you are ignoring the AND in Article I which seems to imply removal from office is first then followed by possible disqualification. If there is no removal from office there is no precedent for simply disqualifying from service in the future.

Both issues would have to be determined by the SC..... even the issue of whether the CJ of the SC could/would preside over a trial in the Senate after an official has left office due to expiration of their term is not decided.

So again there is no precedent. I would be surprised if they were able to
a. determine the authority of the CJ to sit on a trial about a private citizen
b. determine if they can have a trial about a private citizen that is no longer in office due to expiration of term
c. only have a trial about disqualification without a conviction of a removal from office since that is moot

Those are three huge Constitutional questions - so my stance is that it is Unconstitutional until proven otherwise and I don't think that happens.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

First president in history to be impeached twice. Nice record.

I'm assuming the senate can still hold a trial after he leaves office. And if he is convicted he will lose the benefits of being a former president and will be unable to hold office again.

Post 1776, nice!

---

First President to be impeached twice for no reason.

FIFY

And conviction is not happening. DOA. Wont be a trial before inauguration. And after inauguration it would be unconstitutional.

WASTE OF TIME

---

It's a grey area. Not specifically prohibited in the constitution. If challenged then maybe the supreme Court will step in and save Trump from the trial. But if people are honestly worried that 67 senators will convict, then that says all we need to know.

---

Only takes 50 for disqualification. (Or so some precedent says).

Tex117 said:

---

Shooter McGavin said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

Shooter McGavin said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

And at this point, I say "let them make their case". A defense will be mounted, the hypocricy will be exposed, and the 67 votes required to convict will never be achieved.

Let them spend time on this rather than something actually damaging.

---

Whelp, it only takes a simple majority to convict of disqualification, which would then stop him from receiving alot of federal benefits....so yeah, it would be damaging.

---

Yeah, like he really needs benefits.

---

Considering that Deutche Bank has pulled any future funding, a personal guaranty coming up in the amount of $300 million, Signature bank closing his bank accounts, Trump branded hotels have shown soft sales, PGA pulling the tournament, yeah he might.

Plus, we are talking Secret Service, travel stipends, the whole bit. Its the point of it, even if he doesn't need the benefits.

---

Are you hiding under a rock? What hotel isn't having soft sales?


They are not going to take Secret Service from him. Anything else doesn't matter, the dude has plenty of money or access to capital. Don't kid yourself he is still a powerful guy with lots of people wanting to do business with him.

---

I don't think they will take away Secret Service either, but its on the table.

Then you can go slob over that dudes nob for all I care man. He wont be POTUS, he could be disqualified from ever running again, he has been banned from social media, his b.s. will begin to be purged from the Republican Party.

I don't care about his business dealings. If he can get it to work, great, but there are signs it may not work out. There is blood in the water, and if he gets tried and convicted by the Senate, he will be more of a paraih. If he can find his way around it, great. Good for him.
https://www.curbed.com/2021/01/trumps-dc-hotel-broker-cancels-insurrection.html

---

First, they aren't going to get a trial in the Senate so get that out of your head.

He isn't running again, so strike two.

He can, by partnering with some tech company, create his own social media. He has 70 million followers on Twitter.

There's always blood in the water for big business magnates, it is how they rise to the top.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

First president in history to be impeached twice. Nice record.

I'm assuming the senate can still hold a trial after he leaves office. And if he is convicted he will lose the benefits of being a former president and will be unable to hold office again.

Post 1776, nice!

---

First President to be impeached twice for no reason.

FIFY

And conviction is not happening. DOA. Wont be a trial before inauguration. And after inauguration it would be unconstitutional.

WASTE OF TIME

---

Please point to where you can say FOR SURE that there cannot be a trial in the Senate after he leaves office for disqualification.

---

It may not be "for sure" I suppose because there is no precedent here.

But the only cases of impeachment for any civil office AFTER they have left office were in cases where they had resigned - thus their term had not ended in effect. See linked article.

Once Trump is succeeded in the natural legal order of things he becomes a private citizen again. He was not removed from office before it expired and he did not resign. Impeachment does not apply to private citizens and its only intent is to remove from office which would have already happened naturally.

The Constitution specifically says

Quote:

---

The Constitution's Article II, Section 4 reads that "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 Constitution assigns the consideration of charges to the House of Representatives, with the Senate conducting a trial if the House approves impeachment articles against a civil officer.

---

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/can-president-trump-be-impeached-after-he-leaves-office

---

Well, you are ignoring the actual powers of Congress in Article 1 that states:

Quote:

---

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.

---

The disqualification language implies that the Senate could continue to try a person after they left office. Hell, its happened twice. Sen. William Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War William Belknap, 1876.

Just saying, it is far from certain.

---

No it did not happen twice.

Neither "left office".

Blount was specifically expelled from office and thus the determination of disqualification was another matter after being expelled.

Belknap resigned his office so he did not reach the conclusion of his term.


No one having left office due tot he expiration of a term has ever been tried and expelled or excluded from office.

And you are ignoring the AND in Article I which seems to imply removal from office is first and followed by possible disqualification. If there is no removal from office there is no precedent for simply disqualifying from service in the future.

Both issues would have to be determined by the SC..... even the issue of whether the CJ of the SC could/would preside over a trial in the Senate after an official has let office due to expiration of their term is not decided.

So again there is no precedent. I would be surprised if they were able to
a. determine the authority of the CJ to sit on a trial about a private citizen
b. determine if they can have a trial about a private citizen that is no longer in office due to expiration of term
c. only have a trial about disqualification without a conviction of a removal from office since that is moot

Those are three huge Constitutional questions - so my stance is that it is Unconstitutional until proven otherwise and I don't think that happens.

---

Don't think resignation matters at all. From a balance of power perspective, that would give the ability of an executive, or judicial branch the ability to disallow the Senate's ability to disqualify (and take away Federal perks). I would argue that they have the ability as vested in Art 1 to remove and disqualify, and while they can resign (making removal, moot), disqualification is still on the table.

I totally agree with you that its up in the air and an interesting Constitutional Question. But that was my point all along. Its not decided, yet some people think with absolute certainty that its not possible. It sure as hell is.

a. I don't think the CJ has to preside over the trial. The way that sentance reads, it says he SHALL preside when its POTUS. Doesn't say whether he has to do it if its a private citizen. I don't think that is a bar against hearing the case.

b. This is the real interesting question. I don't think it was the intent of the framers to let an elected official run out the clock on a trial when the Senate does have a remedy (ie disqualification) it can impose. Interesting question for sure.

c. I like this one and a good point. I do thing the two options are separate, and one is not dependent on another. But SCOTUS will tell us one way or the other.

Shooter McGavin said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

Shooter McGavin said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

Shooter McGavin said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

And at this point, I say "let them make their case". A defense will be mounted, the hypocricy will be exposed, and the 67 votes required to convict will never be achieved.

Let them spend time on this rather than something actually damaging.

---

Whelp, it only takes a simple majority to convict of disqualification, which would then stop him from receiving alot of federal benefits....so yeah, it would be damaging.

---

Yeah, like he really needs benefits.

---

Considering that Deutche Bank has pulled any future funding, a personal guaranty coming up in the amount of $300 million, Signature bank closing his bank accounts, Trump branded hotels have shown soft sales, PGA pulling the tournament, yeah he might.

Plus, we are talking Secret Service, travel stipends, the whole bit. Its the point of it, even if he doesn't need the benefits.

---

Are you hiding under a rock? What hotel isn't having soft sales?


They are not going to take Secret Service from him. Anything else doesn't matter, the dude has plenty of money or access to capital. Don't kid yourself he is still a powerful guy with lots of people wanting to do business with him.

---

I don't think they will take away Secret Service either, but its on the table.

Then you can go slob over that dudes nob for all I care man. He wont be POTUS, he could be disqualified from ever running again, he has been banned from social media, his b.s. will begin to be purged from the Republican Party.

I don't care about his business dealings. If he can get it to work, great, but there are signs it may not work out. There is blood in the water, and if he gets tried and convicted by the Senate, he will be more of a paraih. If he can find his way around it, great. Good for him.
https://www.curbed.com/2021/01/trumps-dc-hotel-broker-cancels-insurrection.html

---

First, they aren't going to get a trial in the Senate so get that out of your head.

He isn't running again, so strike two.

He can, by partnering with some tech company, create his own social media. He has 70 million followers on Twitter.

There's always blood in the water for big business magnates, it is how they rise to the top.

---

You have absolutely no idea if thats true. Not a freakin clue. I don't either, but what I'm saying is that it is possible. A very real possibility.

I certainly hope not. But its the point of it regardless of his intention. If he gets convicted , then it will be harder for him to stranglehold the Republicans even further. Its time to move past him.

Then he can knock himself out if he can find a partner. I hope he doesn't, especially if its communications related, but the free market will decide that.

True, its the soup de jour this week.

Wow this tex guy is delusional

Tex117 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

First president in history to be impeached twice. Nice record.

I'm assuming the senate can still hold a trial after he leaves office. And if he is convicted he will lose the benefits of being a former president and will be unable to hold office again.

Post 1776, nice!

---

First President to be impeached twice for no reason.

FIFY

And conviction is not happening. DOA. Wont be a trial before inauguration. And after inauguration it would be unconstitutional.

WASTE OF TIME

---

It's a grey area. Not specifically prohibited in the constitution. If challenged then maybe the supreme Court will step in and save Trump from the trial. But if people are honestly worried that 67 senators will convict, then that says all we need to know.

---

Only takes 50 for disqualification. (Or so some precedent says).

---

Math is hard. Snap quiz: 100 senators. How many constitute a majority?

Kamala doesn't count as breaking a tie because that was not the scenario you posted.

aggiehawg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

First president in history to be impeached twice. Nice record.

I'm assuming the senate can still hold a trial after he leaves office. And if he is convicted he will lose the benefits of being a former president and will be unable to hold office again.

Post 1776, nice!

---

First President to be impeached twice for no reason.

FIFY

And conviction is not happening. DOA. Wont be a trial before inauguration. And after inauguration it would be unconstitutional.

WASTE OF TIME

---

It's a grey area. Not specifically prohibited in the constitution. If challenged then maybe the supreme Court will step in and save Trump from the trial. But if people are honestly worried that 67 senators will convict, then that says all we need to know.

---

Only takes 50 for disqualification. (Or so some precedent says).

---

Math is hard. Snap quiz: 100 senators. How many constitute a majority?

Kamala doesn't count as breaking a tie because that was not the scenario you posted.

---

You are assuming that all Republicans vote lock step. Mitt Romney voted to convict the first time. 51. So math and politics must be very difficult.

FPS_Dough said:

---

Wow this tex guy is delusional

---

I'm not the poster that is saying with 100 percent what the Senate will do.

Most other posters understands its an open question.

Great point...

Kashchei said:

---

TwelveA said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

First president in history to be impeached twice. Nice record.

I'm assuming the senate can still hold a trial after he leaves office. And if he is convicted he will lose the benefits of being a former president and will be unable to hold office again.

Post 1776, nice!

---

Excellent. He should be convicted by the Senate, which would remove him from consideration as a candidate ever again.

Also: Trump is headed for multiple indictments and jail for his other crimes.

---

Probably trolling, but I'll bite.

What specifically are his "other crimes?" I'm still waiting on his initial crimes...

---

This ALWAYS results in a smoke-bomb out of the thread by whatever liberal said it.

See also:

Trumps is a racist. Oh really, why do you think he is a racist?

The 2016 election was hacked! Oh really, how exactly was it hacked?




The people that believe this might be less intelligent than the Q people.

We are heading into the darkest modern times of our nations history in the next week.

God help us all.

aTm2004 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

First president in history to be impeached twice. Nice record.

---

He's also the first President in history to be impeached where there is a written transcript exonerating him of what he was impeached for...twice.

---

also the first president impeached on charges for doing exactly what the democrats did...twice

Ulrich said:

---

I don't like Trump, but this Congress has completely devalued the concept of impeachment. They could save a lot of effort and just put out a non-binding resolution that they don't like Trump. It would be just as meaningful without corrupting an important check on the executive branch.

---

THat is Nancy for you.

Ulrich said:

---

I don't like Trump, but this Congress has completely devalued the concept of impeachment. They could save a lot of effort and just put out a non-binding resolution that they don't like Trump. It would be just as meaningful without corrupting an important check on the executive branch.

---

Great observation.

Unless the Senate tries the impeachment, a censure would probably be as strong as the impeachment.

infinity ag said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Is he out of office today?

Can he run gain in 2024?

---

You clearly don't know how any of it works.

---

Hence the question.

---

This happened about a year ago, and he's still president. What are you talking about?

Tex117 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

And at this point, I say "let them make their case". A defense will be mounted, the hypocricy will be exposed, and the 67 votes required to convict will never be achieved.

Let them spend time on this rather than something actually damaging.

---

Whelp, it only takes a simple majority to convict of disqualification, which would then stop him from receiving alot of federal benefits....so yeah, it would be damaging.

---

I wasn't aware of that, and additional investigation shows you are correct.

I withdraw the previous statement. And I have a much more critical eye on Mitch at this point.

waitwhat? said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Is he out of office today?

Can he run gain in 2024?

---

You clearly don't know how any of it works.

---

Hence the question.

---

The House can impeach for any reason at all. They could impeach a president for not liking hot dogs.

---

As well they should, if such a dreadful event ever comes to pass.

jrdaustin said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

And at this point, I say "let them make their case". A defense will be mounted, the hypocricy will be exposed, and the 67 votes required to convict will never be achieved.

Let them spend time on this rather than something actually damaging.

---

Whelp, it only takes a simple majority to convict of disqualification, which would then stop him from receiving alot of federal benefits....so yeah, it would be damaging.

---

I wasn't aware of that, and additional investigation shows you are correct.

I withdraw the previous statement. And I have a much more critical eye on Mitch at this point.

---

I was incorrect after doing more research. It still takes 67 votes to convict, but only 50 (once he has been found guilty) to disqualify.

We are all learning as we go!

Tex117 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

And at this point, I say "let them make their case". A defense will be mounted, the hypocricy will be exposed, and the 67 votes required to convict will never be achieved.

Let them spend time on this rather than something actually damaging.

---

Whelp, it only takes a simple majority to convict of disqualification, which would then stop him from receiving alot of federal benefits....so yeah, it would be damaging.

---

I wasn't aware of that, and additional investigation shows you are correct.

I withdraw the previous statement. And I have a much more critical eye on Mitch at this point.

---

I was incorrect after doing more research. It still takes 67 votes to convict, but only 50 (once he has been found guilty) to disqualify.

We are all learning as we go!

---

So are you saying a conviction is required BEFORE disqualification? Or can the Senate fall short of conviction, yet disqualify from benefits and future Office holding without the conviction?

That's an important distinction, and could have major Constitutional ramifications depending upon how things play out.

Must be doing something right

bangobango said:

---

atmtws said:

---

I hope he goes scorched earth and releases a **** ton of incriminating stuff on everyone sitting in the Capitol.

---

He would if he could. He won't because he can't. That won't stop some of you from thinking he's holding it all back for his big 4-d chess reveal, kind of like evidence on how the election was stolen.

---

Tex has been wrong this whole thread