What to do with Trump between now and when Biden takes over

[BDKJMU]

Biden compares Republicans to NAZIS. Fuck him.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbauma ... a-n2582860

Trump incited an insurrection against our country. Fuck him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not true. It hasn’t been proven in court, so it didn’t happen.

[UNI88]

The election was stolen from Trump!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not true. It hasn’t been proven in court, so it didn’t happen.

Hallelujah! You've seen the light!

[BDKJMU]

Next best option: impeach Trump in the House ASAP. Send it to the Senate. If they don't take it up before inauguration (they won't)... take it up with the new Senate. Convict Trump and ban him from future federal office.

It doesn't really matter, because I think he'd rather Don Jr. or Ivanka run in 2024, but seems like the only real course they have.

That's not clear cut.

Could Trump Be Impeached After He Leaves Office? Would Conviction Prevent Him From Holding Office in the Future?

....
The inquiry isn’t one without relevant history — and is of course one ripe for lengthy debate.

William Belknap, the war secretary to President Ulysses Grant, was impeached after he’d already resigned. The House of Representatives investigated Belknap for corruption, and found him to have regularly received illegal kickbacks. Articles of Impeachment were drafted, and on March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on them, Belknap tearfully resigned.

The House still voted to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The Senate, having determined that it retained jurisdiction over former government officials, held a full trial in the following months. House managers argued at the time that Belknap should not be allowed to escape justice by simply resigning. Ultimately, a majority of the Senate voted to convict Belknap on all articles; the vote failed to reach the two-thirds supermajority required for conviction, though, and Belknap was acquitted.

The history here might be of special interest to Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who passionately urged the Senate to turn the clocks back to 1876 just moments before throngs of would-be MAGAlutionaries started scaling the walls of the Capitol building.

University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, believes a former president could be impeached based on the Belknap precedent.

Others, though, do not agree. Law&Crime spoke with Tulane Law professor and impeachment expert Ross Garber, who said, “Impeachment could only happen while Trump is in office, not after he leaves.”

On its face, Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution does not appear to allow for impeachment of former federal officials. It reads:

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.

Certainly, an argument could be made that Belknap’s post-resignation impeachment did not carve out a broader precedent. The gears of the Belknap impeachment, after all, had already been turning at the time of his resignation. That is quite a different thing than initiating impeachment proceedings after Trump (hopefully) vacates the Oval Office.

Of course, Congress could mirror the Belknap impeachment by adopting articles before January 20, 2021 and following up with trial thereafter. That raises the next question.

If Trump were to be impeached, would it prevent him from holding office in the future?

Some have suggested that impeachment is a worthwhile endeavor even if it has little practical effect with regard to Trump himself.

Theoretically, Trump could run for office again in the future; if the events in D.C. on Wednesday proved anything, it’s that many Americans will continue to support Trump regardless. Therefore, a kind of proactive impeachment might well have merit.

However, whether conviction on impeachment charges would actually prevent Trump from holding future office remains something of an open question.

Article II, section 4 provides for the immediate consequences of a federal official’s impeachment: that those convicted “shall be removed from office.” For this point, there is broad agreement; a president or other official who is convicted on impeachment charges must be removed from office.

Article I, section 3, clause 7 give additional guidance: “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 is a limitation on the penalties for impeachment, primarily understood as a way of emphasizing the non-penal nature of the impeachment process. Impeachment is not a criminal matter, but a civil affair. The plain language, as well as the history of this disqualification clause supports the interpretation that disqualification from future office is discretionary, as opposed to automatic.

Ross Garber explained that the disqualification provision of the impeachment language might not prevent a president who has been impeached and removed from being elected president (or to Congress) in the future. “That clause is limited to precluding an official from holding ‘any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States’,” Garber said. “The text of other provisions of the Constitution suggests this does not include the presidency or a seat in the House or Senate.”

Indeed, legal scholars have often recognized the inconsistency in language within the Constitution when referring to various federal offices. For a detailed discussion about these inconsistencies, see here.

Bottom line: even if Trump were to be impeached and convicted, there would be debate about which, if any, federal offices he might be legally able to hold in the future. Further, thanks to federalism, none of this would have the legal function of preventing Trump from holding state level office in the future.

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/ ... he-future/

[UNI88]

Nothing wrong with Twitter banning, but if they meted out bans equally it would help alleviate criticism.

Yes. They should also ban all lefty presidents that incite a coup.

(Did I get that right UNI?)

[JohnStOnge]

Congress SHOULD impeach him, remove him from office, and MOST importantly take action to make sure he can never run for Federal office again. We don't need to have to go through this shit again in another 4 years. The guy needs to be permanently shelved.

It won't happen because the Republicans are completely gutless. But it should.

[JohnStOnge]

Next best option: impeach Trump in the House ASAP. Send it to the Senate. If they don't take it up before inauguration (they won't)... take it up with the new Senate. Convict Trump and ban him from future federal office.

It doesn't really matter, because I think he'd rather Don Jr. or Ivanka run in 2024, but seems like the only real course they have.

That's not clear cut.

Could Trump Be Impeached After He Leaves Office? Would Conviction Prevent Him From Holding Office in the Future?

....
The inquiry isn’t one without relevant history — and is of course one ripe for lengthy debate.

William Belknap, the war secretary to President Ulysses Grant, was impeached after he’d already resigned. The House of Representatives investigated Belknap for corruption, and found him to have regularly received illegal kickbacks. Articles of Impeachment were drafted, and on March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on them, Belknap tearfully resigned.

The House still voted to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The Senate, having determined that it retained jurisdiction over former government officials, held a full trial in the following months. House managers argued at the time that Belknap should not be allowed to escape justice by simply resigning. Ultimately, a majority of the Senate voted to convict Belknap on all articles; the vote failed to reach the two-thirds supermajority required for conviction, though, and Belknap was acquitted.

The history here might be of special interest to Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who passionately urged the Senate to turn the clocks back to 1876 just moments before throngs of would-be MAGAlutionaries started scaling the walls of the Capitol building.

University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, believes a former president could be impeached based on the Belknap precedent.

Others, though, do not agree. Law&Crime spoke with Tulane Law professor and impeachment expert Ross Garber, who said, “Impeachment could only happen while Trump is in office, not after he leaves.”

On its face, Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution does not appear to allow for impeachment of former federal officials. It reads:

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.

Certainly, an argument could be made that Belknap’s post-resignation impeachment did not carve out a broader precedent. The gears of the Belknap impeachment, after all, had already been turning at the time of his resignation. That is quite a different thing than initiating impeachment proceedings after Trump (hopefully) vacates the Oval Office.

Of course, Congress could mirror the Belknap impeachment by adopting articles before January 20, 2021 and following up with trial thereafter. That raises the next question.

If Trump were to be impeached, would it prevent him from holding office in the future?

Some have suggested that impeachment is a worthwhile endeavor even if it has little practical effect with regard to Trump himself.

Theoretically, Trump could run for office again in the future; if the events in D.C. on Wednesday proved anything, it’s that many Americans will continue to support Trump regardless. Therefore, a kind of proactive impeachment might well have merit.

However, whether conviction on impeachment charges would actually prevent Trump from holding future office remains something of an open question.

Article II, section 4 provides for the immediate consequences of a federal official’s impeachment: that those convicted “shall be removed from office.” For this point, there is broad agreement; a president or other official who is convicted on impeachment charges must be removed from office.

Article I, section 3, clause 7 give additional guidance: “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 is a limitation on the penalties for impeachment, primarily understood as a way of emphasizing the non-penal nature of the impeachment process. Impeachment is not a criminal matter, but a civil affair. The plain language, as well as the history of this disqualification clause supports the interpretation that disqualification from future office is discretionary, as opposed to automatic.

Ross Garber explained that the disqualification provision of the impeachment language might not prevent a president who has been impeached and removed from being elected president (or to Congress) in the future. “That clause is limited to precluding an official from holding ‘any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States’,” Garber said. “The text of other provisions of the Constitution suggests this does not include the presidency or a seat in the House or Senate.”

Indeed, legal scholars have often recognized the inconsistency in language within the Constitution when referring to various federal offices. For a detailed discussion about these inconsistencies, see here.

Bottom line: even if Trump were to be impeached and convicted, there would be debate about which, if any, federal offices he might be legally able to hold in the future. Further, thanks to federalism, none of this would have the legal function of preventing Trump from holding state level office in the future.

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/ ... he-future/

He could not run for President again. You can take that to the bank.

[BDKJMU]

That's not clear cut.

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/ ... he-future/

He could not run for President again. You can take that to the bank.

WOULD not and COULD not are 2 completely different things. But I’m going to put just a little more stock in what Con law professors say (and the author is clearly no Trump fan) than what a long winded, nutty guy on a message board says..

Regardless of whether Trump is impeached for a 2nd time, there’s zero chance of him being convicted by the required 67 votes in the Senate..

[Gil Dobie]

Sooner the Trumps are gone, the sooner we get back to Conks vs Donks, instead of Trumpettes vs Americans.

[Ibanez]

Trump incited an insurrection against our country. Fuck him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not true. It hasn’t been proven in court, so it didn’t happen.

100% true. You’re just oblivious to facts and are unable to objectively view reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

What will Melania do?

[BDKJMU]

Not true. It hasn’t been proven in court, so it didn’t happen.

100% true. You’re just oblivious to facts and are unable to objectively view reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope. Just like you said with voter fraud allegations- prove it in court.

[Ibanez]

100% true. You’re just oblivious to facts and are unable to objectively view reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope. Just like you said with voter fraud allegations- prove it in court.

I don’t have to. We all have heard Trump tell his supporters to fight. To not give in. To stand by and stand ready. Then we saw his lawyer call for combat and the Trump tell them to not give in to weakness. Then Trump sends a video message telling criminals he loves them and they’re special.


It’s not the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Nope. Just like you said with voter fraud allegations- prove it in court.

I don’t have to. We all have heard Trump tell his supporters to fight. To not give in. To stand by and stand ready. Then we saw his lawyer call for combat and the Trump tell them to not give in to weakness. Then Trump sends a video message telling criminals he loves them and they’re special.


It’s not the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And we saw witnesses an videos of voting irregularities and fraud.

[AZGrizFan]

Nope. Just like you said with voter fraud allegations- prove it in court.

I don’t have to. We all have heard Trump tell his supporters to fight. To not give in. To stand by and stand ready. Then we saw his lawyer call for combat and the Trump tell them to not give in to weakness. Then Trump sends a video message telling criminals he loves them and they’re special.


It’s not the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We also saw Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, etc., tell their people to take it to them in the streets....if you see them in a restaurant or at church or on the street to attack them...and then sit back and condone and support 10 SOLID MONTHS of rioting, looting, burning, etc. We also saw BLM/ANTIFA ACTUALLY burn and loot DC several months ago, defacing public property and causing millions of dollars in damage. NOTHING was said or done then. This isn’t a one-way street Mark. Quit trying to make it so.

[Ibanez]

I don’t have to. We all have heard Trump tell his supporters to fight. To not give in. To stand by and stand ready. Then we saw his lawyer call for combat and the Trump tell them to not give in to weakness. Then Trump sends a video message telling criminals he loves them and they’re special.


It’s not the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And we saw witnesses an videos of voting irregularities and fraud.

We didn't see video of fraud. We saw video of something fishy occurring in Georgia - and it was then investigated and confirmed to be nothing hinky going on. Votes weren't being tallied 3 times. It was sure fishy, I agree. It shouldn't have happened but if that answer is good enough for the Trump supporting, Republican SoS and Governor of Georgia then it's good enough for me.

[Ibanez]

I don’t have to. We all have heard Trump tell his supporters to fight. To not give in. To stand by and stand ready. Then we saw his lawyer call for combat and the Trump tell them to not give in to weakness. Then Trump sends a video message telling criminals he loves them and they’re special.


It’s not the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We also saw Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, etc., tell their people to take it to them in the streets....if you see them in a restaurant or at church or on the street to attack them...and then sit back and condone and support 10 SOLID MONTHS of rioting, looting, burning, etc. We also saw BLM/ANTIFA ACTUALLY burn and loot DC several months ago, defacing public property and causing millions of dollars in damage. NOTHING was said or done then. This isn’t a one-way street Mark. Quit trying to make it so.

Yes we did. And that was 100% wrong. I never said it was a 1-way street, Tom. You're right nothing was done. Why didn't Trump's Justice Department go after those people? Is his DoJ in on the conspiracy? The BLM/Antifa mayhem of 2020 is awful and it shouldn't have been condoned. But there's a difference between the two - BLM/Antifa was about mayhem over racism. They didn't attempt to seize a body of our Government. They didn't plan on various websites and discuss logistics about how to get weapons to federal building, that they're going to arrests law makers ( at least it wasn't reported). The Trump Supporters did just that. There's now evidence on Parlar, TheDonald and other sites that people were actually planning something. They attacked a seat of our Republic in hopes to overturn an election. There is a difference. Both are terrible. One is an act of grave violence. One is an act against the very government it claims it wants to save.


Trump supporters get a free pass b/c someone else did it and its completely ridiculous and intellectually dishonest to defend criminal behavior. You're rationalizing criminal, traitorous behavior.

[Gil Dobie]

I heard rumors, that Trump bought some land in Guyana.

[kalm]

I heard rumors, that Trump bought some land in Guyana.

Smart move. Guyana is hot right now! Cheap land and available cheap water are what you need to build a successful golf course. Maybe he can host an event there since the PGA of America is cutting ties with Trump hosting the 2022 PGA Championship.

Honestly this is sad and not a time for shadenfreude.

Spoiler: show

[BDKJMU]

We also saw Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, etc., tell their people to take it to them in the streets....if you see them in a restaurant or at church or on the street to attack them...and then sit back and condone and support 10 SOLID MONTHS of rioting, looting, burning, etc. We also saw BLM/ANTIFA ACTUALLY burn and loot DC several months ago, defacing public property and causing millions of dollars in damage. NOTHING was said or done then. This isn’t a one-way street Mark. Quit trying to make it so.

Yes we did. And that was 100% wrong. I never said it was a 1-way street, Tom. You're right nothing was done. Why didn't Trump's Justice Department go after those people? Is his DoJ in on the conspiracy? The BLM/Antifa mayhem of 2020 is awful and it shouldn't have been condoned. But there's a difference between the two - BLM/Antifa was about mayhem over racism. They didn't attempt to seize a body of our Government. They didn't plan on various websites and discuss logistics about how to get weapons to federal building, that they're going to arrests law makers ( at least it wasn't reported). The Trump Supporters did just that. There's now evidence on Parlar, TheDonald and other sites that people were actually planning something. They attacked a seat of our Republic in hopes to overturn an election. There is a difference. Both are terrible. One is an act of grave violence. One is an act against the very government it claims it wants to save.

Trump supporters get a free pass b/c someone else did it and its completely ridiculous and intellectually dishonest to defend criminal behavior. You're rationalizing criminal, traitorous behavior.

Yeah, they only attempted to seize and/or burn down multiple police precincts, local, state, and fed govt buildings in multiple cities, a whole section of a city.

[Skjellyfetti]

This is what I don't get about the "well, if the 25th or impeach Trump, it's just going to piss off his supporters more."

Inaugurating Biden is going to piss off his supporters more.

The only thing that won't will be Trump somehow seizing a 2nd term.

[GannonFan]

This is what I don't get about the "well, if the 25th or impeach Trump, it's just going to piss off his supporters more."

Inaugurating Biden is going to piss off his supporters more.

The only thing that won't will be Trump somehow seizing a 2nd term.

I agree with that - I wouldn't base my decision solely on what I think his supporters will feel about it.

[AZGrizFan]

This is what I don't get about the "well, if the 25th or impeach Trump, it's just going to piss off his supporters more."

Inaugurating Biden is going to piss off his supporters more.

The only thing that won't will be Trump somehow seizing a 2nd term.

Disagree. Attempting to impeach Trump in literally the last week of his presidency will do waaaaaaay more harm than good at this point.

[Ibanez]

Yes we did. And that was 100% wrong. I never said it was a 1-way street, Tom. You're right nothing was done. Why didn't Trump's Justice Department go after those people? Is his DoJ in on the conspiracy? The BLM/Antifa mayhem of 2020 is awful and it shouldn't have been condoned. But there's a difference between the two - BLM/Antifa was about mayhem over racism. They didn't attempt to seize a body of our Government. They didn't plan on various websites and discuss logistics about how to get weapons to federal building, that they're going to arrests law makers ( at least it wasn't reported). The Trump Supporters did just that. There's now evidence on Parlar, TheDonald and other sites that people were actually planning something. They attacked a seat of our Republic in hopes to overturn an election. There is a difference. Both are terrible. One is an act of grave violence. One is an act against the very government it claims it wants to save.

Trump supporters get a free pass b/c someone else did it and its completely ridiculous and intellectually dishonest to defend criminal behavior. You're rationalizing criminal, traitorous behavior.

Yeah, they only attempted to seize and/or burn down multiple police precincts, local, state, and fed govt buildings in multiple cities, a whole section of a city.

Yup and they were wrong to do that.

See, I can be consistent and call out multiple groups for their criminality. What is your excuse?

[kalm]

This is what I don't get about the "well, if the 25th or impeach Trump, it's just going to piss off his supporters more."

Inaugurating Biden is going to piss off his supporters more.

The only thing that won't will be Trump somehow seizing a 2nd term.

There is obvious noise everywhere with this. The thinly veiled noise is the complete castration from all quarters. That suggests threats are being taken seriously.

[Ibanez]

This is what I don't get about the "well, if the 25th or impeach Trump, it's just going to piss off his supporters more."

Inaugurating Biden is going to piss off his supporters more.

The only thing that won't will be Trump somehow seizing a 2nd term.

Disagree. Attempting to impeach Trump in literally the last week of his presidency will do waaaaaaay more harm than good at this point.

It won't do any good. He's leaving. The time for symbolism is past. Trump has been asleep at the wheel since election night and there seem to be controls in place to make sure he can't do anything dangerous with regards to starting a war or anything. Let him finish in shame and slink away to Florida - where old New Yorkers go to die.