In re the matter of impeaching and convicting a former POTUS

[Torie]

Mitch McConnell issued a memo yesterday that stated that absent unanimous consent of the Senate (which isn't happening), any trial of Trump after being presented with Articles of Impeachment from the House would have to take place after his term has expired. What? Isn't the whole point of the process one of removing a federal office holder from office, and if that office holder is no longer in office, does not that render the whole proceeding moot? None of this makes sense, this particular old lawyer mused to himself. What is going on here? Is this just  merely a display of performance art by the Dems (and others of course) that they need for psychological reasons, a form of censure on steroids?

The old lawyer hit the search engine, and voila, his old friend the Volokh Conspiracy came to the rescue. While, yeah, you guessed it, the law on the matter is somewhat less than crystal clear, there is more afoot most likely than merely performance art. However rather than my attempting to characterize it, and act as a "spoiler" to boot, read the article for yourself, to find out, if this matter sufficiently intrigues you. The essay also touches briefly on the matter of a POTUS pardoning himself. Shocking as it may seem, not, that seems to be on Trump's mind at the moment. Who knew?

https://reason.com/volokh/2019/12/05/can-the-house-impeach-a-former-president/

[Inmate Trump]

Even if the trial waits until after he's out of office, he can still be convicted and charged.

Yes, he needs to be removed NOW, but we also need justice.  This might be the best we can get.

He'll still be impeached, and he will be the first president to be impeached twice.  He'll be the first to be tried after his term.  He might be the first to be convicted ever--there's a possibility of that.

[Torie]

Yes, but what is the point to it all, other than it being a censure on steroids? That's the thing. And the article explains that there is indeed more afoot. And that is why I deemed the screed worthy of being put up, and not only that, on its very own thread!

[DaleCooper]

Yes, but what is the point to it all, other than it being a censure on steroids? That's the thing. And the article explains that there is indeed more afoot. And that is why I deemed the screed worthy of being put up, and not only that, on its very own thread!

Conviction prevents him from holding office again.

[Torie]

Yes, but what is the point to it all, other than it being a censure on steroids? That's the thing. And the article explains that there is indeed more afoot. And that is why I deemed the screed worthy of being put up, and not only that, on its very own thread!

Conviction prevents him from holding office again.

Ahha!

[Middle-aged Europe]

An article on NBC News also argued that Trump's impeachment trial could take place after he left office, citing the precedent of Secretary of War William Belknap who was impeached but ultimately acquitted in 1876 after he had resigned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/can-trump-be-tried-senate-impeachment-charges-even-after-he-n1253544

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, but what is the point to it all, other than it being a censure on steroids? That's the thing. And the article explains that there is indeed more afoot. And that is why I deemed the screed worthy of being put up, and not only that, on its very own thread!

Conviction prevents him from holding office again.

That's optional.

[brucejoel99]

Yes, but what is the point to it all, other than it being a censure on steroids? That's the thing. And the article explains that there is indeed more afoot. And that is why I deemed the screed worthy of being put up, and not only that, on its very own thread!

Conviction prevents him from holding office again.

That's optional.

If the votes to convict are there, then the votes to disqualify are more-than-there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, but what is the point to it all, other than it being a censure on steroids? That's the thing. And the article explains that there is indeed more afoot. And that is why I deemed the screed worthy of being put up, and not only that, on its very own thread!

Conviction prevents him from holding office again.

That's optional.

If the votes to convict are there, then the votes to disqualify are more-than-there.

Not necessarily.

[brucejoel99]

Yes, but what is the point to it all, other than it being a censure on steroids? That's the thing. And the article explains that there is indeed more afoot. And that is why I deemed the screed worthy of being put up, and not only that, on its very own thread!

Conviction prevents him from holding office again.

That's optional.

If the votes to convict are there, then the votes to disqualify are more-than-there.

Not necessarily.

Disqualification only requires a simple majority (so, by the time the trial actually happens: 50 + Kamala if she's allowed to preside over the trial of a former President, or 50 + literally 1 Republican - so, Murkowski - if it still has to be Roberts). The votes would be there.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Yes, but what is the point to it all, other than it being a censure on steroids? That's the thing. And the article explains that there is indeed more afoot. And that is why I deemed the screed worthy of being put up, and not only that, on its very own thread!

Conviction prevents him from holding office again.

That's optional.

If the votes to convict are there, then the votes to disqualify are more-than-there.

In this case, I'm sure that's true.  But you'd think it was an automatic thing (2/3 > 1/2) but surprisingly, there's at least one exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsted_L._Ritter

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, but what is the point to it all, other than it being a censure on steroids? That's the thing. And the article explains that there is indeed more afoot. And that is why I deemed the screed worthy of being put up, and not only that, on its very own thread!

Conviction prevents him from holding office again.

That's optional.

If the votes to convict are there, then the votes to disqualify are more-than-there.

In this case, I'm sure that's true.  But you'd think it was an automatic thing (2/3 > 1/2) but surprisingly, there's at least one exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsted_L._Ritter

For Alcee Hastings the exception wasn't and isn't hypothetical.

[leonardothered]

Let’s say Trump does something in the interim between now and the start of Biden’s presidency. Do you want to be the repubs who didn’t do anything to stop him, or the dems who almost certainly did everything in their power?

That’s a big rationale for this as well, and history will look more favorably on it.

[Ferguson97]

Let’s say Trump does something in the interim between now and the start of Biden’s presidency. Do you want to be the repubs who didn’t do anything to stop him, or the dems who almost certainly did everything in their power?

That’s a big rationale for this as well, and history will look more favorably on it.

If Republicans cared about how they would look to the history books, they would impeached Trump for the Ukraine call.

[HisGrace]

Yes, but what is the point to it all, other than it being a censure on steroids? That's the thing. And the article explains that there is indeed more afoot. And that is why I deemed the screed worthy of being put up, and not only that, on its very own thread!

Conviction prevents him from holding office again.

Can't think of a better way to "heal" than to purge Trump from public life. The "OMG, we can't impeach Trump because we need to heal" argument does not hold water.

[leonardothered]

Let’s say Trump does something in the interim between now and the start of Biden’s presidency. Do you want to be the repubs who didn’t do anything to stop him, or the dems who almost certainly did everything in their power?

That’s a big rationale for this as well, and history will look more favorably on it.

If Republicans cared about how they would look to the history books, they would impeached Trump for the Ukraine call.

They care about staying in power, and every giant blunder Trump continues to make dwindles their chances further and further because he still has a hold on 25% of the total electorate, at least that much if not more. If they're shown to have done nothing it dramatically increases division in their ranks when he does something.