Who comes after Trump in 2024?

[stgislander]

Maybe Elise Stefanik.

I almost said her as well, but I'm not sure she's ready for Executive prime-time. She's probably ready for a House leadership position. A Senate run may not be out of the question, but coming from NY may be difficult. Her best shot would be running against Kirsten G.

 

[kom526]

Not if he's actually removed by the Senate. He's unable to hold office again of any kind in the federal government if that happens.

Article One, Section Three, final paragraph:
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.




Edit: But, let's face it, he's never being convicted in the Senate based on the evidence provided by Schiff.

I think Sam was referring to Pence.

 

[This_person]

I think Sam was referring to Pence.

@SamSpade

 

[SamSpade]

@SamSpade

No, I really did think Trump could run again. Even after reading the Constitution, I somehow missed the part about an office of honor.

 

[Auntie Biache']

I almost said her as well, but I'm not sure she's ready for Executive prime-time. She's probably ready for a House leadership position. A Senate run may not be out of the question, but coming from NY may be difficult. Her best shot would be running against Kirsten G.

Is anyone ever really ready?

 

[Merlin99]

Not if he's actually removed by the Senate. He's unable to hold office again of any kind in the federal government if that happens.

Article One, Section Three, final paragraph:
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.




Edit: But, let's face it, he's never being convicted in the Senate based on the evidence provided by Schiff.

I wonder if they can vote to give him a medal?

 

[stgislander]

Is anyone ever really ready?

Maybe not, but look what happened when we elected someone with zero executive experience and minuscule legislative experience.

 

[This_person]

I wonder if they can vote to give him a medal?

Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants!

 

[This_person]

Maybe not, but look what happened when we elected someone with zero executive experience and minuscule legislative experience.

To be fair, let's look at what happened when they DID have executive or legislative experience!

I agree with you in concept - I'd rather vote for a governor who became that after being Speaker of his state's House who became that after a decorated military career. But, we've had governors and generals and the whole gambit, and many were not good.

Everyone's favorite aunt has a good point - no one is ready and you won't know if they're good or not until they get the opportunity to prove themselves.

 

[stgislander]

To be fair, let's look at what happened when they DID have executive or legislative experience!

I agree with you in concept - I'd rather vote for a governor who became that after being Speaker of his state's House who became that after a decorated military career. But, we've had governors and generals and the whole gambit, and many were not good.

Everyone's favorite aunt has a good point - no one is ready and you won't know if they're good or not until they get the opportunity to prove themselves.

Good points indeed.

 

[Toxick]

Toximus Maximus...is there really any other option??? :mic drop:

I accept.

Here is my official Campaign Motto:

 

[workerbee]

With a 7 to 2 SCOTUS favoring originalists... who cares!

 

[awpitt]

Not if he's actually removed by the Senate. He's unable to hold office again of any kind in the federal government if that happens.

Actually, a Senate conviction only removes the person from office. After that, the Senate takes a second vote (simple majority) on whether or not to disqualify the person from holding federal office again.

 

[Stjohns3269]

I almost said her as well, but I'm not sure she's ready for Executive prime-time. She's probably ready for a House leadership position. A Senate run may not be out of the question, but coming from NY may be difficult. Her best shot would be running against Kirsten G.

Jesus. One grandstanding rule breaking performance by a freshman with no experience and you guys are already tossing her out as a presidential candidate my god the GOP is desperate.

Is rule breaking now a prerequisite for GOP contenders?

And Jim Jordan. I might vote for Pence over that idiot

 

[Gilligan]

Jesus. One grandstanding rule breaking performance by a freshman with no experience and you guys are already tossing her out as a presidential candidate my god the GOP is desperate.

And Jim Jordan. I might vote for Pence over that idiot

Rats. Yr still here.

 

[This_person]

Actually, a Senate conviction only removes the person from office. After that, the Senate takes a second vote (simple majority) on whether or not to disqualify the person from holding federal office again.

Fair enough. I don't think they HAVE to, but if precedent is such that they do that, I get it.

 

[awpitt]

Fair enough. I don't think they HAVE to, but if precedent is such that they do that, I get it.

Actually, it's the Senate rules. Once example is Alcee Hastings. He was a federal judge who was impeached, then convicted but wasn't disqualified. He later ran for a seat in Congress and won.

 

[This_person]

Actually, it's the Senate rules. Once example is Alcee Hastings. He was a federal judge who was impeached, then convicted but wasn't disqualified. He later ran for a seat in Congress and won.

Right. I agree it's possible for them to do it that way. Constitutionally, they don't have to (could do it in one vote) is all I'm saying.

Admittedly, it seems odd that the rules allow for that - since the impeachment conviction requires a 2/3 vote, it would seem reasonable that the judgement for said conviction would also require a 2/3 vote. But, I haven't looked into it beyond reading article one, section 3. It does seem reasonable that the judgement and the conviction be separate votes, though, so I fully agree it is possible to do that separately (and not provide full judgement for a conviction - hell, seems they could convict without removal from office, too, then??).

So, various rules of each house being malleable by the leadership of each house, they could do it together, or they could do it separately. That's what I'm gathering (just need to change the rule to do it together).

 

[awpitt]

Right. I agree it's possible for them to do it that way. Constitutionally, they don't have to (could do it in one vote) is all I'm saying.

Yes, you're right. This just happens to be how the Senate has decided to do it. They could change the rules at anytime.

hell, seems they could convict without removal from office, too, then??).

That's a good question. I haven't seen anything that says that though. The closest thing would be for the House and the Senate to censure the president.

 

[stgislander]

Jesus. One grandstanding rule breaking performance by a freshman with no experience and you guys are already tossing her out as a presidential candidate my god the GOP is desperate.

Is rule breaking now a prerequisite for GOP contenders?

And Jim Jordan. I might vote for Pence over that idiot