Politics Thread

[STL_XUfan]

Tough to try the President who is no longer President. He’s a private citizen. There’s the issue. Also, the CJ has indicated he will not preside over/hear the case. And not likely to get 2/3 of Senate to convict.

So, again. Another waste of time by morons.

You do realize that the President isn’t the only person that can be impeached right?

The President, while President, was impeached by the house. It is now up to the senate to hold the trial to decide if they should convict. One of the penalties they are allowed to impose is barring the person from holding further office, which makes sense since anyone that was impeached could avoid conviction by simply resigning and then being reappointed or running for election again.

As far as the CJ, he is only required to preside over the trial when the sitting president is on trial because the sitting VP would have a conflict of interest (Since a conviction would promote the VP to president). No such conflict exists for the current president of the senate (VP Harris) to preside over the trial.

[Strange Brew]

You do realize that the President isn’t the only person that can be impeached right?

The President, while President, was impeached by the house. It is now up to the senate to hold the trial to decide if they should convict. One of the penalties they are allowed to impose is barring the person from holding further office, which makes sense since anyone that was impeached could avoid conviction by simply resigning and then being reappointed or running for election again.

As far as the CJ, he is only required to preside over the trial when the sitting president is on trial because the sitting VP would have a conflict of interest (Since a conviction would promote the VP to president). No such conflict exists for the current president of the senate (VP Harris) to preside over the trial.

MOR already answered on the penalties and the CJ presides per the Constitution. But sounds like he’s not having it.

[XU '11]

One of the penalties they are allowed to impose is barring the person from holding further office, which makes sense since anyone that was impeached could avoid conviction by simply resigning and then being reappointed or running for election again.

Hm. I disagree with this. Impeachment is there so that if the president (or whoever) does something so egregious part-way through their term, the representatives of the people (Congressmen) can say this was a mistake and you need to leave. If the person can still win another election, banning them from running again clearly isn’t the will of the people. I’m not saying the will of the people is always correct, but taking that option away isn’t typically what free democracies do...

[Masterofreality]

MOR, thanks for reading. Your examples make some sense.
But you are wrong about some crimes, even felonies.
They can be "sealed" records, whereby no public access is allowed to the records.
And, they (felonies in some instances, as well as juvenile records) can be "expunged" and completely erased. (after sentences are completed and some time certain has passed).
https://www.dfm-law.com/blog/2019/09...u-should-know/

It sounds to me on reading the article, they are endeavoring to apply the same approach, but I could be wrong.
Changing an old news article if facts are dropped, I would agree as in your example, would be wrong.

As to "impeachment," the former president has already been impeached. Noting the Senate does will change that.
Whether he will be tried/convicted/acquitted remains to be seen. The "and" wording would seem to be the sticking point.
For sure I hope he's held accountable for his actions.
Mitch having the trial delayed may work against him, as more information comes out about him trying to illegally change the election results.

Can you be more wrong...on everything?
I'm not going back into everything you've said. My already made points stand.
But "Mitch" did not delay an impeachment HEARING, not trial. Not a Trial because John Roberts has already said he will NOT preside. He sees the sham.
Mitch and Schumer agreed to delay the hearing. And there is absolutely no evidence of McConnell trying to change election results.
Stop reading Vox and Buzzfeed

[paulxu]

I'm pretty sure I'm right about criminal records being expunged (note the article).
The former president has already been "impeached" while in office. That is a fact, and assumedly will stay as such.
What becomes in the trial is yet to be determined.
Apologize for my pronoun confusion; in noting "him" trying to change election results, I was referring to Trump, not McConnell.
There's ample evidence he tried to do just that. In, and of itself, a federal crime.
Perhaps he'll be called to account on those activities now that he has left office, and no longer protected by an OLC opinion.

ps. I don't read Buzzfeed or Vox. I note the following for reference on the trial:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/yes-the...mp-11611356881

[STL_XUfan]

But "Mitch" did not delay an impeachment HEARING, not trial. Not a Trial because John Roberts has already said he will NOT preside. He sees the sham.
Mitch and Schumer agreed to delay the hearing.

I am lost at your line or reasoning. If Roberts decides not to preside over the trial, that would mean that he agrees the term president is limited to the sitting president and therefore he is not required to preside over the trial. However, you seem to be arguing that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has express veto power over all presidential impeachments? That if he simply refuses to show up, then the Senate has no power to impeach the President. This would pose a gigantic separation of powers issues (likely resolved with the impeachment and removal of the Chief Justice).

On the hearing vs. trial semantics, there is no difference. An impeachment trial is basically whatever the Senate decides is an impeachment trial. The constitution gives sole power over impeachment trials to the Senate and no other branch. This was the question before the court in Nixon v. United States (different Nixon) and it was the unanimous decision of the Court that the judiciary has no inherit right to review the hearing procedures established by the Senate as it would violate the separation of powers.

The more interesting question to me is whether or not the president being out of office renders the issue moot. I do not think it does, but I could see it being raised in good faith as an argument. If tested, I think the courts it would defer to majority decision of the Senate on the issue for the same reasons as provided in Nixon v. US.

As far as the question raised by XU '11, I agree that I feel queazy allowing congress to disqualify who the voters can vote for. However, the language of impeachment clause seems fairly clear on the issue that they hold that power. Further, this power to disqualify who can run for office was actually expanded by the 14th amendment.

[Strange Brew]

I am lost at your line or reasoning. If Roberts decides not to preside over the trial, that would mean that he agrees the term president is limited to the sitting president and therefore he is not required to preside over the trial. However, you seem to be arguing that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has express veto power over all presidential impeachments? That if he simply refuses to show up, then the Senate has no power to impeach the President. This would pose a gigantic separation of powers issues (likely resolved with the impeachment and removal of the Chief Justice).

On the hearing vs. trial semantics, there is no difference. An impeachment trial is basically whatever the Senate decides is an impeachment trial. The constitution gives sole power over impeachment trials to the Senate and no other branch. This was the question before the court in Nixon v. United States (different Nixon) and it was the unanimous decision of the Court that the judiciary has no inherit right to review the hearing procedures established by the Senate as it would violate the separation of powers.

The more interesting question to me is whether or not the president being out of office renders the issue moot. I do not think it does, but I could see it being raised in good faith as an argument. If tested, I think the courts it would defer to majority decision of the Senate on the issue for the same reasons as provided in Nixon v. US.

As far as the question raised by XU '11, I agree that I feel queazy allowing congress to disqualify who the voters can vote for. However, the language of impeachment clause seems fairly clear on the issue that they hold that power. Further, this power to disqualify who can run for office was actually expanded by the 14th amendment.

It is why there is SOP among the branches. The Congress can overreach in this case and the Judicial can check and balance that overreach. Basics..

[Masterofreality]

I am lost at your line or reasoning. If Roberts decides not to preside over the trial, that would mean that he agrees the term president is limited to the sitting president and therefore he is not required to preside over the trial. However, you seem to be arguing that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has express veto power over all presidential impeachments? That if he simply refuses to show up, then the Senate has no power to impeach the President. This would pose a gigantic separation of powers issues (likely resolved with the impeachment and removal of the Chief Justice).

On the hearing vs. trial semantics, there is no difference. An impeachment trial is basically whatever the Senate decides is an impeachment trial. The constitution gives sole power over impeachment trials to the Senate and no other branch. This was the question before the court in Nixon v. United States (different Nixon) and it was the unanimous decision of the Court that the judiciary has no inherit right to review the hearing procedures established by the Senate as it would violate the separation of powers.

The more interesting question to me is whether or not the president being out of office renders the issue moot. I do not think it does...

Nixon & Trump are totally different situations. If you are “lost” it’s because you want to be and don’t want to see clearly.
Nixon was still in office. Then resigned and so there was no legal precedent. As Strange Brew said below the SOP is definitely designed to prevent overreach. Hence, as an example, the Presidential veto.
And you answered your own “lost” question. The Biased House can do anything they want, including performative, time wasting actions then foist it over on the Senate. A true Constitutionally compliant Impeachment hearing requires that the Chief Justice preside, not a politically biased actor like Harris. The Senate can do whatever they do, but the fact remains is that there is no “defendant” to be removed from office. Roberts sees this trash and wants no part of it. So even if Harris is a tie breaker vote. The decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court, will be found to be invalid & unConstitutional and the High Court will override it.
-No valid defendant per the Constitution
-No valid presider per the Constitution

Actions are irrelevant and performative. All for political points.
Abhorrent for country unity.

[bobbiemcgee]

So Roberts on the SCOTUS will vote on his own wussiness?

[Masterofreality]

By the way. Sure glad Dementia Joe had that “We’ll immediately change the course of the Pandemic” definitive statements during the campaign. Then Friday Joe, who obviously can’t remember yesterday, says “There’s nothing we can do to change the course of the Pandemic during the next several months. “

Ha. Lies, begin. Keep Track Paul since you were so diligent with the last President’s alleged mistruths.