Impeachment of Trump and Disqualification to Hold Office
I dropped a letter in the mail today (with a stamp and everything) to Donald Payne telling him I support impeachment. It probably won't arrive before Biden's inauguration but I wanted to do an outreach from a constituent. Payne has said he supports impeachment but I think its important to let our politicians know where we stand.
(Side note: Mr. Payne serves on the House Committee on Homeland Security. I'll be sending another letter asking for some subpoenas of Capitol Police personnel and others to investigate wtf happened Wednesday.)
On the disqualification question and the numbers needed, I think there are currently 99 seated Senators. 50 R, 49 D. Kelly Loeffler will serve until Rafael Warnock is sworn in. Perdue's term ended with the last session of Congress, so now all that remains is for Ossoff to be sworn in. Then we have 50 R and 50 D Senators.
The question is what do Romney and/or Murkowski do if faced with an opportunity to vote away Trump's right to seek office again. I think Romney would love to take Trump out of future presidential contention (and I disagree that he wouldn't be a problem in 2024). Murkowski made some noise about not being sure if the Republican party is right for her anymore.
I'd be quite happy to see them remove his eligibility to run again. He blundered into the Presidency in 2016. It could happen again.
dave said:
basil said:
cramer said:
basil said:
Interesting
I thought so. That's what we really want.
That would solve a problem mostly for the Republicans
Don't forget about Donny Jr. I'm sure daddy would love to hold rallies for him.
If Trump is disqaulified from holding office, he can't raise any money for a presidential run. Even if he wants Don. Jr., to run, Trump could transfer the money to Don Jr. Trump would be able to raise a fortune if he is not disqaulified from holding office.
Although it's never been done before, there is nothing that prevents a president who has left office from being impeached and tried in the Senate. After Jan. 20, with Kamala Harris as VP, the Democrats will have 51 votes. They probably would have it before Jan. 20, with Romney and Murkowski.
I think you need to convict before you can disqualify, and conviction does still need 2/3. The Guardian article says that ("These precedents show the Senate is permitted to disqualify President Trump from future office holding on a majority vote if he is impeached and convicted."), as does the most straightforward reading of the constitution (how can you have a punishment without first being convicted?).
It's certainly in Republican 2024's hopefuls best interests to prevent Trump from running for office, so maybe that gets enough to convict. Also, if the trial happens after 1/20, the text is a bit vague as to who would preside ("When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside" -- who presides over the trial of a former president?).
PVW - Thanks. From The Guardian article:
"The power of Congress to disqualify an impeached president from holding office has received less attention through history than the power of Congress to remove a president from office. The Constitution is clear that after a House majority vote to impeach and a two-thirds Senate vote to convict, the president is removed from office.
Yet Article I Section VII clarifies that removal is not the only punishment impeachment can bring. It reads: “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 clause shows definitively that the Senate can inflict a penalty that would prevent Trump from holding office again. Under established Senate practice, that vote to disqualify would require only a simple majority vote in the Senate, less than the two-thirds vote required for conviction."
note that the 2/3 majority is of the people in the room, not out of 100. It's possible, that if it came down to it, that enough R's would take the middle road of not showing up, allowing a lower number of senators to convict.
maybe. it would take a lot of cat herding.
I've also read that if he was convicted, Congress could deny him his pension and SS detail.
I'm sure there would be a lot of court activity around the whole mess.
drummerboy said:
I've also read that if he was convicted, Congress could deny him his pension and SS detail.
I'm sure there would be a lot of court activity around the whole mess.
Another Trump scam - After he leaves office he will be able to charge taxpayers a fortune for when his Secret Service detail stays at his properties - Mar-a-Lago and his other properties.
If he's convicted, he loses his SS detail.
cramer said:
drummerboy said:
I've also read that if he was convicted, Congress could deny him his pension and SS detail.
I'm sure there would be a lot of court activity around the whole mess.
Another Trump scam - After he leaves office he will be able to charge taxpayers a fortune for when his Secret Service detail stays at his properties - Mar-a-Lago and his other properties.
If he's convicted, he loses his SS detail.
Maybe we negotiate a compromise, he can keep his SS detail but only if they stay at Hampton Inn
basil said:
cramer said:
drummerboy said:
I've also read that if he was convicted, Congress could deny him his pension and SS detail.
I'm sure there would be a lot of court activity around the whole mess.
Another Trump scam - After he leaves office he will be able to charge taxpayers a fortune for when his Secret Service detail stays at his properties - Mar-a-Lago and his other properties.
If he's convicted, he loses his SS detail.
Maybe we negotiate a compromise, he can keep his SS detail but only if they stay at Hampton Inn
I think a better compromise would be to find a nice, secure location in which to house former President Trump for a few years. With a strong fence and some guards.
nohero said:
basil said:
cramer said:
drummerboy said:
I've also read that if he was convicted, Congress could deny him his pension and SS detail.
I'm sure there would be a lot of court activity around the whole mess.
Another Trump scam - After he leaves office he will be able to charge taxpayers a fortune for when his Secret Service detail stays at his properties - Mar-a-Lago and his other properties.
If he's convicted, he loses his SS detail.
Maybe we negotiate a compromise, he can keep his SS detail but only if they stay at Hampton Inn
I think a better compromise would be to find a nice, secure location in which to house former President Trump for a few years. With a strong fence and some guards.
Ah, you are envisioning prison guards as SS detail. Creative thinking! That's what we need in this country.
basil said:
Maybe we negotiate a compromise, he can keep his SS detail but only if they stay at Hampton Inn
sorry, but in reference to Trump, the term "SS detail" has me a little freaked out.
There was a law change in 2013, being impeached does mean the pension is gone, but the secret service detail is still there. Because he charges his security detail rent it will cost us a hell of a lot more than his pension ever would.
What do people think of the 14th amendment approach?
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, is most famously known for providing citizenship and equal protection under the law to anyone born or naturalized in the United States, including formerly enslaved and free Black people.
But as calls emerged almost immediately for President Trump’s ouster and ban from office via the 25th Amendment or impeachment — neither course is expeditious or easily accomplished — Foner began pondering a different remedy provided by Section Three of the amendment, which says:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
The argument basically being that, given Congress likely won't actually vote to remove Trump from office, but he still presents a future danger, this clause can be invoked to bar Trump from future office via a majority vote.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/11/14th-amendment-trump-insurrection-impeachment/)
Rather see it applied to Cruz, Hawley, and the other insurrectionists in Congress.
Watching the debate.
Have you ever noticed that Republicans are largely full of sh!t?
oooh! Dis! CNN just turned away from the debate as Jim Jeffords was about to speak. Saved me from turning down the volume.
Good speech from Rupublican Rep. Dan Newhouse. A vote for impeaching.
Here's a link to the articles of impeachment:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24
drummerboy said:
Watching the debate.
Have you ever noticed that Republicans are largely full of sh!t?
I saw that with Gingrich's contract with America. Anyone remember the details of that contract? No. That's because it was a bs nothing, full of crap.
Unlike FDR's Soc Sec or LBJ Medicare which had real significance.
Their contract showed Republicans they can really shovel shḭt and still get many buyers.
drummerboy said:
oooh! Dis! CNN just turned away from the debate as Jim Jeffords was about to speak. Saved me from turning down the volume.
Not Jim Jeffords - who was a relatively decent guy from VT. It was Jim Jordan, a guy who literally ignored the molestation of his wrestlers.
BREAKING: Queens man impeached — againhttps://t.co/uI79KFIjLK
Steve said:
drummerboy said:
oooh! Dis! CNN just turned away from the debate as Jim Jeffords was about to speak. Saved me from turning down the volume.
Not Jim Jeffords - who was a relatively decent guy from VT. It was Jim Jordan, a guy who literally ignored the molestation of his wrestlers.
No wonder my son didn't understand who I was talking about.
Yes, Jeffords was the guy who switched from R to D after Bush's election, if I recall correctly.
Steve said:
Not Jim Jeffords - who was a relatively decent guy from VT. It was Jim Jordan, a guy who literally ignored the molestation of his wrestlers.
And was awarded the Medal of Freedom by a now twice impeached President.
Kind of think it tarnishes the medal.
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
It seems fairly certain that unless Trump resigns, the House is going to start impeachment proceedings. Unlike the two-thirds vote in the Senate required to remove him from office, it seems that only a simple majority is required to disqualify Trump from holding office.
"The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.854 This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote."856
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html
Here's an article that was in the Guardian yesterday that says only a simple majority is required:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/07/we-must-impeach-trump-and-bar-him-from-holding-office-again-now