Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump

[Bryce]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Which, in my opinion, is the relevant part of the Constitution that this impeachment trial is addressing. No one is trying to remove him from office.

Exactly. It’s about barring from future office. Aside from Johnathan “I’ve lost contact with reality” Turley and a few others this all looks kosher to most.

But the Senate does not have the power to convict a private citizen of insurrection or rebellion. That is up to a court to decide.

The last part,

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

unless I am GREATLY mistaken, indicates that congress can remove the label or charge if they wish to REMOVE said charges from a private citizen, NOT to impose them.

[Rate This]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Which, in my opinion, is the relevant part of the Constitution that this impeachment trial is addressing. No one is trying to remove him from office.

But that's the punishment - removal from office.

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.

And you can't issue the second punishment (ie, disqualification from future office-holding) without the removal happening first.

It doesn’t say that explicitly. It doesn’t tie them together at all in fact. It just says those are the penalties.

[Rate This]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Which, in my opinion, is the relevant part of the Constitution that this impeachment trial is addressing. No one is trying to remove him from office.

Exactly. It’s about barring from future office. Aside from Johnathan “I’ve lost contact with reality” Turley and a few others this all looks kosher to most.

But the Senate does not have the power to convict a private citizen of insurrection or rebellion. That is up to a court to decide.

The last part,

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

unless I am GREATLY mistaken, indicates that congress can remove the label or charge if they wish to REMOVE said charges, NOT to impose them.

Thing is that he was impeached as a president, and it says nothing about charges expiring and you can impeach up until they are out of office. Nobody reasonably expects an impeachment, trial and vote to occur in an hour for example if it was done on January 20th at 11am. So because the process is going there is a strong case to be made that it needs to be seen through to its conclusion.

[Robert Faygo]

The removal has already occurred. #ThanksBiden

[Robert Faygo]

The phrase "private citizen" appears nowhere in our Constitution - as opposed to "private property".

It is not debatable that Trump was our President on January 6th, thus I really fail to grasp the private citizen stuff. It's the equivalent of saying an alleged impaired driver shouldn't be subjected to prosecution if they drive home and get out of their car after flattening a pedestrian.

[km1125]

The phrase "private citizen" appears nowhere in our Constitution - as opposed to "private property".

It is not debatable that Trump was our President on January 6th, thus I really fail to grasp the private citizen stuff. It's the equivalent of saying an alleged impaired driver shouldn't be subjected to prosecution if they drive home and get out of their car after flattening a pedestrian.

But you're not prosecuting the 'impaired driver' to put him (or her) in jail, only to remove them from the vehicle. It would be a completely separate (and criminal) process to convict them of flattening the pedestrian. If you wanted to do that, then move to a criminal court. You are using the wrong tool for the job at hand.

[Robert Faygo]

The analogy is admittedly weak on my part. The point is that one is one does not escape judgement due to their situation changing after an alleged incident occurred.

Unquestionably, one of the major tools that the US Congress has to deal with malfeasance by Federal officials is the impeachment / trial process if they are interested in imposing Constitutionally prescribed penalties that are purposely separate from the traditional legal system.

[bmw]

So here's where I get confused. Conviction requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. But I've also read that the vote to prohibit him from running for office only requires a majority vote. Does this also mean that technically, the vote to remove him from office also requires only a majority vote? ie, you first need 2/3 to convict, and then the punishment is a separate question by majority vote, the punishment of which can include removal and/or prohibition from holding future office?

If that's how it works, then the Constitutional question of whether he can be tried as a private citizen isn't as cut-and-dry as conservatives make it seem, because he WAS impeached (as RT and RF have both noted) while he was still President, and the actions in question did occur in his role as President. The more I look into this, the more I'm inclined to think there's noting unconstitutional about having him tried now.

[Robert Faygo]

To my understanding, you are 100% correct, bmw.

The process of the trial is important for due process.

[bmw]

But then you have Article II, Section 4, which reads as follows:

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.

So that makes it sound like the removal from office is automatic upon conviction. Which obviously can't happen since he's already out of office.

[Robert Faygo]

Correct. As Joey Tribbiani would say, "it's a moo point".

[jadednihilist]

It's not about the removal from office as much as it is about the barring from holding future office part post conviction, which is essentially what is the only function that the Senate has in the impeachment process.