Will Trump be convicted in the senate next week?

[Tilted]

I don’t think he loses his pension or secret service detail without a specific vote on that.

How the law works on this isn't absolutely clear. But I think the best reading of current law is that President Trump wouldn't lose his Secret Service protection even if he was convicted in the impeachment trial. There's some nuance in the law which we can explore if you'd like.

But when it comes to certain benefits - e.g., office space, staffing allowance, annual monetary allowance - he would lose those if he was removed from office by impeachment and conviction. Because of how the law is worded though, that would only happen if that were how he left office. So if he left office at the expiration of his term, and then were later convicted in an impeachment trial, he wouldn't lose those benefits. Removal as a result of impeachment conviction wouldn't be how he left office.

 

[Gilligan]

Oh Boy Another Sapidus MPD

Like a wart...never goes away.

 

[Tilted]

...

I suspect Biden may do something utterly useless - offer a pardon. A pardon is an admission of guilt, and Trump believes - as I do - he didn't commit a crime. He needs 17 Republicans to believe he did and vote against him. I seriously doubt there are that many votes for it.

...

Just to be clear, then-President Biden couldn't pardon him from an impeachment charge. I think you're referring to the impeachment and not some federal criminal charge, but I'm not certain. Anyway, President Trump could be pardoned for federal crimes but not for impeachment.

Also, the answer to the thread title question is: No.

 

[Dakota]

No...

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Will Trump be convicted in the senate next week?

Convicted of what? You bloody waste from a menstrual cycle. The US Constitution does not allow for the impeachment of a non-sitting President. Also known as a ex-President. GFYS with an unlubricated red brick and stop with the idiotic non sequiturs.

 

[Hijinx]

I am pretty sure that they cannot - and should not - remove Secret Service protection. I don't think there is any legal precedent.
Remember that without Secret Service protection - he is a risk for National Security. They protect HIM, but by doing it for all former Presidents, they do it for US. Despite what they've said in the news - they can't do that.

For a guy who actually donated his Presidential pay each year - the pension isn't relevant. If they yank it from him, it would be petty.

Which leaves the "inability to run for office" thing. To my knowledge it MUST be specifically added to an actual conviction - it does not just come automatically.

Which leaves us with this --

WHAT IS THE POINT of an impeachment trial after leaving office? Constitutionally the only reason we impeach is to remove from office - there is no legal, constitutional reason for a trial AFTER office - if there were - Nixon would have been tried after resigning. The purpose of impeachment is the legal means to remove a person from office. If they are no longer there - why bother? I mean - would you put him on trial if he DIED? He's not in office. This is a juvenile, petty effort that will only divide the nation.

I suspect Biden may do something utterly useless - offer a pardon. A pardon is an admission of guilt, and Trump believes - as I do - he didn't commit a crime. He needs 17 Republicans to believe he did and vote against him. I seriously doubt there are that many votes for it.

Lastly - Trump is 74. For him to run for President again, he'd be 78. Is he SO MUCH A DANGER they must make it a law that he can't run again? I mean, if he's a crook - what are the chances he'd win?

Unless he isn't.

President Ford gave Nixon a pardon in order to avoid a trial of an ex- President.

 

[Will99]

How the law works on this isn't absolutely clear. But I think the best reading of current law is that President Trump wouldn't lose his Secret Service protection even if he was convicted in the impeachment trial. There's some nuance in the law which we can explore if you'd like.

But when it comes to certain benefits - e.g., office space, staffing allowance, annual monetary allowance - he would lose those if he was removed from office by impeachment and conviction. Because of how the law is worded though, that would only happen if that were how he left office. So if he left office at the expiration of his term, and then were later convicted in an impeachment trial, he wouldn't lose those benefits. Removal as a result of impeachment conviction wouldn't be how he left office.

Yea, I agree. From what I have read it seems that most things which might be taken away would have to be by a separate vote because he is no longer in officer, but since there is no precedent I think the lawyers will have to figure it out later if they try to take things away.

 

[Tilted]

Yea, I agree. From what I have read it seems that most things which might be taken away would have to be by a separate vote because he is no longer in officer, but since there is no precedent I think the lawyers will have to figure it out later if they try to take things away.

There wouldn't need to be a separate vote. President Trump would lose those benefits, just by being removed through impeachment and conviction, because of what the law says.

But if that didn't happen before he otherwise left office (and, of course, it won't), then he wouldn't lose those benefits because of how the law is worded. And the Senate wouldn't be able to vote to tack on the loss of those benefits as punishment after a conviction because the Constitution doesn't allow the Senate to do anything other than (1) remove from office and (2) disqualify from future office.

 

[Will99]

There wouldn't need to be a separate vote. President Trump would lose those benefits, just by being removed through impeachment and conviction, because of what the law says.

But if that didn't happen before he otherwise left office (and, of course, it won't), then he wouldn't lose those benefits because of how the law is worded. And the Senate wouldn't be able to vote to tack on the loss of those benefits as punishment after a conviction because the Constitution doesn't allow the Senate to do anything other than (1) remove from office and (2) disqualify from future office.

I read something different. Obviously he isn’t going to be removed. What I read is that since he is now out of office and has those things, some things wouldn’t automatically be lost and it would require a separate vote, but not require a supermajority. I’d be interested to read what you are reading to get a better understanding. Can you cite your source?

 

[WingsOfGold]

Spite?

Nawwww, senile bastard said he wants us to unite!

 

[vraiblonde]

Anyway, the short answer is no, Trump will not be convicted in the Senate.

 

[Tilted]

I read something different. Obviously he isn’t going to be removed. What I read is that since he is now out of office and has those things, some things wouldn’t automatically be lost and it would require a separate vote, but not require a supermajority. I’d be interested to read what you are reading to get a better understanding. Can you cite your source?

3 US §102(Note)(g) lists a number of benefits which a "former President" is entitled. It also defines "former President," for purposes of that section, to mean

... a person

(1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;

(2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and

(3) who does not then currently hold such office.

Section 4 of Article II refers, of course, to impeachment and conviction. So if a president's service as President of the US ends by impeachment and conviction, then they aren't a "former President" for purposes of 3 US §102(Note)(g) and thus aren't entitled to the benefits listed therein. If their service as President of the US ends for any other reason - as President Trump's will tomorrow - then they are a "former President" for purposes of that section.

If President Trump didn't lose those benefits by function of that law, then the Senate couldn't vote to deprive him of those benefits (pursuant to impeachment and conviction) because the Constitution says (in Section 3 of Article I):

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.

The Senate can't impose any punishment beyond (1) removal and (2) disqualification. It can't just decide to also deprive an impeached and convicted person of certain benefits which existing law entitles them to. That said, Congress could of course change the law. But that would require the approval of both houses of Congress and the consent of the president.

The thing that the Senate would have to vote on, if it convicted President Trump, would be the disqualification. That wouldn't happen just because the Senate convicted him.

 

[herb749]

Too late, he's out of office tomorrow.

 

[Will99]

3 US §102(Note)(g) lists a number of benefits which a "former President" is entitled. It also defines "former President," for purposes of that section, to mean



Section 4 of Article II refers, of course, to impeachment and conviction. So if a president's service as President of the US ends by impeachment and conviction, then they aren't a "former President" for purposes of 3 US §102(Note)(g) and thus aren't entitled to the benefits listed therein. If their service as President of the US ends for any other reason - as President Trump's will tomorrow - then they are a "former President" for purposes of that section.

If President Trump didn't lose those benefits by function of that law, then the Senate couldn't vote to deprive him of those benefits (pursuant to impeachment and conviction) because the Constitution says (in Section 3 of Article I):



The Senate can't impose any punishment beyond (1) removal and (2) disqualification. It can't just decide to also deprive an impeached and convicted person of certain benefits which existing law entitles them to. That said, Congress could of course change the law. But that would require the approval of both houses of Congress and the consent of the president.

The thing that the Senate would have to vote on, if it convicted President Trump, would be the disqualification. That wouldn't happen just because the Senate convicted him.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the information.

 

[Tilted]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the information.

You're welcome.

 

[SamSpade]

The Senate can't ...

And this may be one of the most disturbing things about our government - whether or not the law permits them to doesn't seem to be a deterrent any longer - whether or not it is Constitutional doesn't seem to have any bearing on their actions. I don't think, in any way, having a Senate trial for impeachment AFTER he leaves office is Constitutional, period. And many such constitutional legal scholars have made that clear.

Yet - they'll do it anyway. When you tell the Senate or Congress or other government officials (like governors), sorry buddy, but the law says you can't do that, their reaction is "watch me". I half expect to hear "L'etat c'est moi!".

It doesn't stop them.

I used to think that the law was like this great big wall or off switch. Kind of like when I was really small, and my parents explained what a speed limit was, and I thought it actually KEPT cars from going faster. But it doesn't. They just plain break the law.

Do you know what bothers me most about the impeachment trial and so on? They claim they are doing it to "unify" the country.
They just don't get it. They don't know that people love Trump and are certain that anyone who does must be mentally deranged and in need of help.

 

[Clem72]

Section 4 of Article II refers, of course, to impeachment and conviction. So if a president's service as President of the US ends by impeachment and conviction, then they aren't a "former President" for purposes of 3 US §102(Note)(g) and thus aren't entitled to the benefits listed therein. If their service as President of the US ends for any other reason - as President Trump's will tomorrow - then they are a "former President" for purposes of that section.

I assume, like most governmental things there will be an "effective date". If they did actually convict, then they will likely make it effective as of the day before his term ends or the day of the "offense" (6th?).

Also, did I miss something? Haven't seen you post in a long while.

 

[Tilted]

And this may be one of the most disturbing things about our government - whether or not the law permits them to doesn't seem to be a deterrent any longer - whether or not it is Constitutional doesn't seem to have any bearing on their actions. I don't think, in any way, having a Senate trial for impeachment AFTER he leaves office is Constitutional, period. And many such constitutional legal scholars have made that clear.

Yet - they'll do it anyway. When you tell the Senate or Congress or other government officials (like governors), sorry buddy, but the law says you can't do that, their reaction is "watch me". I half expect to hear "L'etat c'est moi!".

It doesn't stop them.

I used to think that the law was like this great big wall or off switch. Kind of like when I was really small, and my parents explained what a speed limit was, and I thought it actually KEPT cars from going faster. But it doesn't. They just plain break the law.

Do you know what bothers me most about the impeachment trial and so on? They claim they are doing it to "unify" the country.
They just don't get it. They don't know that people love Trump and are certain that anyone who does must be mentally deranged and in need of help.

Well, there's different degrees of clarity on what the Constitution would allow. For what I referred to there, it is very clear that the Senate can't impose additional punishment beyond removal and disqualification. The relevant provision is so clear that few would even try to argue to the contrary and they'd have almost no chance of getting traction if they did.

That said, you're right in general about politicians doing things that aren't consistent with the Constitution or relevant laws. But the problem isn't really the politicians, it's us - the electorate. Plenty of people claim to care about the Constitution and about the rule of law. But the vast majority of people - to include, I think, majorities of both sides of various ideological divides - don't sincerely care about such things. They, at least, aren't principled in what they claim to believe - e.g., in wanting the Constitution to be adhered to.

For many, the Constitution is just something they use to criticize the actions and advocacy of others. It's merely a prop used to assert their occupancy of the high ground. When it comes to what they support, they don't let it get in the way; they just pretend it wouldn't prohibit what it is they want. They want what they want and want to oppose what they want to oppose; the Constitution only matters to the extent it supports what they want or opposes what they don't want, or to the extent they can pretend it does those things. Many of the same people who have decried President Obama's unconstitutional actions have supported President Trump's blatantly unconstitutional actions. And, of course, many of the people who have decried President Trump's unconstitutional actions have supported President Obama's blatantly unconstitutional actions. Most are hypocrites on such things. So we get elected officials who are hypocrites on such things.

To the issue of post-office impeachment trials, that's one of the areas where the answer isn't entirely clear. There are plausible arguments to be made either way; the Constitution itself just doesn't clarify the issue. Sure, you can find pundits and scholars who will argue that such impeachment trials aren't allowed. But you can find pundits and scholars who will argue that they are. For many, the position they'd argue aligns with what they'd prefer to be the case. I think the better argument is that such trials are allowed, though I'm open to any new arguments as to why they aren't. Regardless, there's precedent from long ago which supports them being allowed. And, absent clarity from the Constitution itself, the more reasonable assumption would, I think, be that such trials are allowed. That doesn't, btw, align with what I'd like to see happen with regard to President Trump's recent impeachment.

 

[Tilted]

I assume, like most governmental things there will be an "effective date". If they did actually convict, then they will likely make it effective as of the day before his term ends or the day of the "offense" (6th?).

Also, did I miss something? Haven't seen you post in a long while.

Yes, I hadn't posted in a long time until a few weeks ago. Vrai tricked me into coming back to defend my honor!

They could claim the effective date wasn't something other than when they voted to convict. (I don't think they'd do that.) But that still wouldn't change the fact that the way President Trump's service in office ended was other than through impeachment and conviction. He left office because his term expired today. Nothing that happens in the future can change that reality.

 

[Hijinx]

Yes, I hadn't posted in a long time until a few weeks ago. Vrai tricked me into coming back to defend my honor!

They could claim the effective date wasn't something other than when they voted to convict. (I don't think they'd do that.) But that still wouldn't change the fact that the way President Trump's service in office ended was other than through impeachment and conviction. He left office because his term expired today. Nothing that happens in the future can change that reality.

And his term expired because 71 Million Americans were cheated out of their vote.

Nothing changes that reality either.