Ok, Constitutional Scholars: Conviction of Trump in the Senate on the article of impeachment requires a two thirds majority to remove him from office. However, he's already gone. A...

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Conviction of Trump in the Senate on the article of impeachment requires a two thirds majority to remove him from office. However, he's already gone. A second, optional v**e, requiring only a majority, could keep him from holding office in the future. The question, however, is, must Trump first be convicted by the two thirds majority in order for the optional second v**e to be taken?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Are you sure that there is a second optional v**e, I did not see that in the constitution when I read it but maybe I missed it. It would only stand to reason that without a conviction there can be no disqualification for holding future office.

Here is the governing clause I saw,

"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."

It would seem to me that once convicted there would be an automatic disqualification from holding future office, I don't see a provision for a second v**e, but you know how the democrats are, they think that they can do anything they want let the constitution be damned.

Triple G

Not tested in court, but speculation is...

Impeaching him does nothing; only convicting him would," said Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University. "And under current law (the Former Presidents Act), convicting him only strips him of those benefits if he is convicted while still in office (which looks certain not to happen)."

Meanwhile, a 1962 law provides Secret Service protection for former presidents, at their request, "for a reasonable period after he leaves office."

"The FPA provides some limited security and travel expenses to former presidents and their spouses, but only if they aren't using the Secret Service protection that is provided under the other separate law," said Demian Brady, director of research for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. "So the FPA's benefits specifically limit its benefits in the case of impeachment and removal, but the other law that provides Secret Service protection does not. A separate law would be required to (do) that."

Congress could pass a new law to strip Trump of his post-presidency benefits, and it would not require the same two-thirds v**e that a conviction in the Senate would. But impeachment alone — even the second in Trump’s one-term presidency — wouldn’t disqualify Trump from receiving some benefits.

On the last point of Costiloe’s tweet, Kalt said Trump could lose his ability to run for office again "even after he has left office," if the Senate v**es to convict him.

The Senate has never convicted an impeached president, much less a former president. However, Michael J. Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, wrote in a post for the Just Security law forum that, "if an impeachment begins when an individual is in office, the process may surely continue after they resign or otherwise depart."

"Understandably, members of Congress and the American people might lose the appetite for subjecting a president to impeachment once he has left office for good," he wrote. "But that is a political choice not a constitutional directive.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/13/fact-checking-v***l-post-impeachment-and-trumps-post-presidency-benefits/6654559002/

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Unless something drastically changes, he won’t be convicted. Republicans are still afraid of losing his base.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Triple G wrote:

Not tested in court, but speculation is...

Impeaching him does nothing; only convicting him would," said Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University. "And under current law (the Former Presidents Act), convicting him only strips him of those benefits if he is convicted while still in office (which looks certain not to happen)."

Meanwhile, a 1962 law provides Secret Service protection for former presidents, at their request, "for a reasonable period after he leaves office."

"The FPA provides some limited security and travel expenses to former presidents and their spouses, but only if they aren't using the Secret Service protection that is provided under the other separate law," said Demian Brady, director of research for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. "So the FPA's benefits specifically limit its benefits in the case of impeachment and removal, but the other law that provides Secret Service protection does not. A separate law would be required to (do) that."

Congress could pass a new law to strip Trump of his post-presidency benefits, and it would not require the same two-thirds v**e that a conviction in the Senate would. But impeachment alone — even the second in Trump’s one-term presidency — wouldn’t disqualify Trump from receiving some benefits.

On the last point of Costiloe’s tweet, Kalt said Trump could lose his ability to run for office again "even after he has left office," if the Senate v**es to convict him.

The Senate has never convicted an impeached president, much less a former president. However, Michael J. Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, wrote in a post for the Just Security law forum that, "if an impeachment begins when an individual is in office, the process may surely continue after they resign or otherwise depart."

"Understandably,members of Congress and the American people might lose the appetite for subjecting a president to impeachment once he has left office for good," he wrote. "But that is a political choice not a constitutional directive.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/13/fact-checking-v***l-post-impeachment-and-trumps-post-presidency-benefits/6654559002/

Not tested in court, but speculation is... br br ... (show quote)

Vindictive BASTICHES you people. Unbelievable!

Let me ask, there is accumulating evidence mounting that Biden was actually selling the influence of his office to the Ukrainian oligarchs and the Chinese, what kind of punishment will you folks require for him, a man who actually did commit crimes against the nation other than having a political ideology different from yours?

Triple G

Kmgw9v wrote:

Unless something drastically changes, he won’t be convicted. Republicans are still afraid of losing his base.

Anonymous v**e?

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Blurryeyed wrote:

Are you sure that there is a second optional v**e, I did not see that in the constitution when I read it but maybe I missed it. It would only stand to reason that without a conviction there can be no disqualification for holding future office.

Being found guilty (by 2/3 v**e) removes him from office. The second v**e determines whether he can run again. If he loses the first, the second is a slam dunk. I make no prediction on whether he will be found guilty.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Blurryeyed wrote:

Vindictive BASTICHES you people. Unbelievable!

It is not vindictive; it has to do with accountability, and the protection of law and order, right and wrong.
Some understand—others never will.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Blurryeyed wrote:

Are you sure that there is a second optional v**e,... (show quote)

Now that I've gone back to Article 1 Section 2, I do not see that there are two separate v**es. Another question comes up. It says that two thirds of the senators must be present to v**e. It doesn't say that a two thirds majority is required to convict. I've read elsewhere that a two thirds majority is required to convict. Where did that come from?

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

Kmgw9v wrote:

Unless something drastically changes, he won’t be convicted. Republicans are still afraid of losing his base.

That's another reason why two terms are all they should get.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

thom w wrote:

Being found guilty (by 2/3 v**e) removes him from office. The second v**e determines whether he can run again. If he loses the first, the second is a slam dunk. I make no prediction on whether he will be found guilty.

Where do you find the second v**e in the constitution, how can you say that the conviction alone does not preclude this?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Kraken wrote:

That's another reason why two terms are all they should get.

Why are you so obsessed, Trump is gone yet here you remain. BTW Biden just took a big dump on your country, why does this not seem to bother you?

Triple G

Blurryeyed wrote:

Vindictive BASTICHES you people. Unbelievable!

Let me ask, there is accumulating evidence mounting that Biden was actually selling the influence of his office to the Ukrainian oligarchs and the Chinese, what kind of punishment will you folks require for him, a man who actually did commit crimes against the nation other than having a political ideology different from yours?

Says the guy yelling “lock her up” for the past 12 years. The American people were able to see the GOP put Mrs. Clinton through many months of investigation and 11 hours of testimony. They need the same treatment for trump based on judicial fairness.

By the way, with all three branches of government under their control, with several senate commissions, with outside resources (Fitton) and 3 AG’s (Huber, Horowitz, Durham)the GOP still came up with nothing that rose to the level of charges/indictment.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

Blurryeyed wrote:

Why are you so obsessed, Trump is gone yet here you remain. BTW Biden just took a big dump on your country, why does this not seem to bother you?

He has not gone far enough for me yet.

I need to see him pay for his insanity.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Triple G wrote:

Says the guy yelling “lock her up” for the past 12 years.

So, when did you hear me yell that? If she did indeed use her foundation which consequently lost funding when she left office to sell influence she should have faced justice, just as the FBI should have been more forth coming about her email server, but I did not want to see anyone go to prison without a trial where the facts would indeed come out. Somehow our politicians, especially our democrat politicians, are protected from facing actual accountability.

You talk a bit of smack.