Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vox)   The latest "throw this at the wall and see if it sticks" attempt: Is it Constitutional for the Senate to convict a former President?   (vox.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Impeachment in the United States, impeachment trial, Impeachment, United States Senate, former President Donald Trump, impeachment process, Judge Walter Nixon, United States Constitution  
•       •       •

1510 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jan 2021 at 3:03 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



115 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-01-23 11:23:39 AM  
Yes. Next question.
 
2021-01-23 11:25:03 AM  
Depends. Is the former President a Republican?
 
2021-01-23 11:28:40 AM  
I expect millions of Muricans will become sudden Constitutional experts between now and Feb. 9.
 
2021-01-23 12:11:39 PM  
     Impeachment proceedings were initiated against a Member of the President's Cabinet in 1876, when impeachment charges were filed against William W. Belknap, who had been Secretary of War. The House and Senate debated the power of impeachment at length and determined that the Secretary remained amenable to impeachment and trial even after his resignation. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2007, 2467. In 1978, the House voted to table a privileged resolution impeaching Andrew  Young, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. 95-2, July 13, 1978, p 20606.

The House and Senate have the power to impeach and try an accused official who has resigned. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 2. It was conceded (in the Belknap impeachment proceeding described above) that a Cabinet Secretary remains amenable to impeachment and trial even after his resignation. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2317, 2318. As a practical matter, however, the resignation of an official about to be impeached generally puts an end to impeachment proceedings because the primary objective--removal from office--has been accomplished. This was the case in the impeachment proceedings begun against President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 and Judge George English in 1926. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.2. President Nixon resigned following the decision of the Committee on the Judiciary to report to the House recommending his impeachment, and further proceedings were discontinued. 93-2, H. Rept. 93-1305, p 29361. Judge English resigned before commencement of trial by the Senate and the proceedings were discontinued at that point. 6 Cannon Sec. 547. Judge Delahay (1873) and Judge Kent (2009) likewise resigned prior to Senate proceedings.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/G​P​O-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112​-28.htm
 
2021-01-23 2:16:50 PM  
Well, it's not UN-constitutional.
 
2021-01-23 2:38:53 PM  
The bigger question for me is whether the Constitution allows impeachment against anyone or only current/former elected/appointed officials. To me it's pretty clear it allows impeachment of ANYONE, so, like, there's no reason we couldn't impeach Felicity Huffman on bribery to make sure she never gets elected.
 
2021-01-23 2:59:22 PM  

GardenWeasel: Yes. Next question.


Done in one.
 
2021-01-23 3:06:15 PM  
If it wasn't, then everyone ever impeached would resign seconds before an affirmative conviction vote was finalized, and thus void all the consequences of the conviction.
 
2021-01-23 3:06:56 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-01-23 3:08:06 PM  
Well the house did approve of it before he left office so yes.
 
2021-01-23 3:08:07 PM  
Only way to find out is by trying so lets go.
 
2021-01-23 3:08:18 PM  
Keep it up, dumba**es. The next bad-minded POTUS is gonna rob the treasury during his last week in office and everyone will point to the precedent you establish.
 
2021-01-23 3:08:21 PM  

GardenWeasel: Impeachment proceedings were initiated against a Member of the President's Cabinet in 1876, when impeachment charges were filed against William W. Belknap, who had been Secretary of War. The House and Senate debated the power of impeachment at length and determined that the Secretary remained amenable to impeachment and trial even after his resignation. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2007, 2467. In 1978, the House voted to table a privileged resolution impeaching Andrew  Young, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. 95-2, July 13, 1978, p 20606.

The House and Senate have the power to impeach and try an accused official who has resigned. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 2. It was conceded (in the Belknap impeachment proceeding described above) that a Cabinet Secretary remains amenable to impeachment and trial even after his resignation. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2317, 2318. As a practical matter, however, the resignation of an official about to be impeached generally puts an end to impeachment proceedings because the primary objective--removal from office--has been accomplished. This was the case in the impeachment proceedings begun against President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 and Judge George English in 1926. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.2. President Nixon resigned following the decision of the Committee on the Judiciary to report to the House recommending his impeachment, and further proceedings were discontinued. 93-2, H. Rept. 93-1305, p 29361. Judge English resigned before commencement of trial by the Senate and the proceedings were discontinued at that point. 6 Cannon Sec. 547. Judge Delahay (1873) and Judge Kent (2009) likewise resigned prior to Senate proceedings.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GP​O-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112​-28.htm



So you're saying "maybe" but my Republican filters are hearing "no, you are literally worse than Hitler for even asking."
 
2021-01-23 3:10:17 PM  
Today is day whatever since Biden was sworn in that I have not googled or read anything about the other one. It's nice. I'm pissed I felt like I had to pay such rapt attention in case democracy failed. It was exhausting.  F*ck anyone involved.
 
2021-01-23 3:10:33 PM  
The morons want to impeach Obama.
 
2021-01-23 3:10:59 PM  
 
2021-01-23 3:11:36 PM  
More than 150 legal and Constitutional scholars, and the co-founders of the uber-conservative Federalist Society, sign a joint letter arguing that a president ABSOLUTELY can tried by the Senate in an impeachment trial even after he's left office

We had a thread on this.

https://politizoom.com/2021/01/21/tru​m​p-can-forget-2024-150-legal-scholars-f​ederalists-included-say-he-can-be-conv​icted
 
2021-01-23 3:11:40 PM  
"A bevy of legal scholarship"

They need a bevy of editors at Vox
 
2021-01-23 3:12:17 PM  
I remember a Fox News Legal guy, just after Clinton left office, on Fox and Friends talking about how they could impeach Bill Clinton again, even though he was out of office, if it was proven he took money to pardon Mark Rich.  I think the guy now is a major Trump supporter.  We should find the video to see if we can use it against them.
 
2021-01-23 3:13:14 PM  
Long answer: Since there is absolutely no question donnie instigated (and his campaign paid for) the insurrection, questioning the constitutionality of impeaching him now that he is out of office is the GOP's only hope.

Short answer: YES
 
2021-01-23 3:13:29 PM  
I'd certainly hope so. Since the president can't be arrested in office (or for what they do in office) and instead must be impeached, which takes time, there would otherwise exist a window in the last month or two of office (even the last day or week!) in which they might do whatever heinous thing they see fit to do and then say, "haha, can't get me before I'm out of office, suckers!" See also the pardoning of Nixon...

I encounter passengers on my bus at work that believe in this concept and use the few seconds they have left on board to verbally abuse me (or others) or make a mess because I can't throw them off at that point. They'll even laugh as they do it. Thanks to cameras and radios, we still get to hold them accountable. I have CSBs, but for another time.
 
2021-01-23 3:15:30 PM  

winedrinkingman: I remember a Fox News Legal guy, just after Clinton left office, on Fox and Friends talking about how they could impeach Bill Clinton again, even though he was out of office, if it was proven he took money to pardon Mark Rich.  I think the guy now is a major Trump supporter.  We should find the video to see if we can use it against them.


Yes. This is conservative legal "scholar" Johnathan Turley, I believe. He even wrote an article in 1999 about how you could impeach and convict a President after they  left office which showed up on Twitter recently, when he was arguing that there's no way on God's Green Earth that Trump could be impeached and tried once he's out of office.
 
2021-01-23 3:16:48 PM  

JustToLetYouKnowFriend: More than 150 legal and Constitutional scholars, and the co-founders of the uber-conservative Federalist Society, sign a joint letter arguing that a president ABSOLUTELY can tried by the Senate in an impeachment trial even after he's left office

We had a thread on this.

https://politizoom.com/2021/01/21/trum​p-can-forget-2024-150-legal-scholars-f​ederalists-included-say-he-can-be-conv​icted


Don't miss our next article, "Is gravity optional?" We found at least 1 person on the planet willing to go on the record saying it is, so the optionality of gravity is clearly a hotly contested controversy.
 
2021-01-23 3:17:29 PM  
Anyone else tired of people treating the Constitution like a holy text? I understand it is the foundation of our government but it was also written 200+ years ago by men. They were not infallible, omniscient, nor omnipotent. Especially with regards to items that are not explicitly written we really should be asking less what did some founder mean and more what makes the most sense for the current situation in the modern world. I'm really tired of the founder fillatio especially considering a lot of people treat their own interpretation of the constitution, often in place of a much simpler direct reading of the text, as a defense for their horrible positions or actions...also remarkably similar to religious texts.
 
2021-01-23 3:17:49 PM  

JustToLetYouKnowFriend: More than 150 legal and Constitutional scholars, and the co-founders of the uber-conservative Federalist Society, sign a joint letter arguing that a president ABSOLUTELY can tried by the Senate in an impeachment trial even after he's left office

We had a thread on this.

https://politizoom.com/2021/01/21/trum​p-can-forget-2024-150-legal-scholars-f​ederalists-included-say-he-can-be-conv​icted


That was a mistake. Farkers like their hot takes three days late.
 
2021-01-23 3:18:32 PM  
A friend who is retired from being an attorney and a professor of law told me that his constitutional question is who would serve as the judge.  The Constitution says that the SCOTUS Chief Justice will for impeachments of the President.  His point is that is doesn't have language to include an ex-President.   My counter was that trump was impeached while he was President.

It'll be even more interesting if he were convicted and an appeal ends up before SCOTUS.  That would put Chief Justice Roberts in an awkward position.
 
2021-01-23 3:19:07 PM  

GardenWeasel: As a practical matter, however, the resignation of an official about to be impeached generally puts an end to impeachment proceedings because the primary objective--removal from office--has been accomplished.


In this case, the primary objective just may be to disqualify him from (Federal? Or only Executive?) office forever.

// I can't believe the GOP is going to win seats in the midterms
// or at least that it doesn't look like a walkover
// and yes, I know we're 3 days into a new admin, I should wait and not be so defeatist
// the fact that the GOP isn't being run out of several towns on their respective rails - and that there are currently ZERO recall efforts against shiat Republicans - means we go back to "normal" in 10-12 months
 
2021-01-23 3:19:58 PM  
I'm not the one who came up with this but, can't we just convict him of this? Screw the impeachment. Try him in a court. Or am I missing something. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
 
2021-01-23 3:20:08 PM  

INTERTRON: JustToLetYouKnowFriend: More than 150 legal and Constitutional scholars, and the co-founders of the uber-conservative Federalist Society, sign a joint letter arguing that a president ABSOLUTELY can tried by the Senate in an impeachment trial even after he's left office

We had a thread on this.

https://politizoom.com/2021/01/21/trum​p-can-forget-2024-150-legal-scholars-f​ederalists-included-say-he-can-be-conv​icted

Don't miss our next article, "Is gravity optional?" We found at least 1 person on the planet willing to go on the record saying it is, so the optionality of gravity is clearly a hotly contested controversy.


If Trump didn't eat so many hamberders, his cult would claim he levitates.

File photo of a levitating cult leader:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-01-23 3:20:40 PM  

Gough: It'll be even more interesting if he were convicted and an appeal ends up before SCOTUS.  That would put Chief Justice Roberts in an awkward position.


It would just get laughed out of the room for lack of standing, and the lawyer possibly sanctioned for frivolous litigation.
 
2021-01-23 3:20:42 PM  

Gough: A friend who is retired from being an attorney and a professor of law told me that his constitutional question is who would serve as the judge.  The Constitution says that the SCOTUS Chief Justice will for impeachments of the President.  His point is that is doesn't have language to include an ex-President.   My counter was that trump was impeached while he was President.

It'll be even more interesting if he were convicted and an appeal ends up before SCOTUS.  That would put Chief Justice Roberts in an awkward position.


Would it? Justice Thomas's wife apparently funded a bunch of the nut jobs bused in.  I'm sure he will be fine.
 
2021-01-23 3:20:55 PM  

Firm Tautology: Well, it's not UN-constitutional.


I'll get the lights.
 
2021-01-23 3:21:00 PM  

lithven: Anyone else tired of people treating the Constitution like a holy text? I understand it is the foundation of our government but it was also written 200+ years ago by men. They were not infallible, omniscient, nor omnipotent. Especially with regards to items that are not explicitly written we really should be asking less what did some founder mean and more what makes the most sense for the current situation in the modern world. I'm really tired of the founder fillatio especially considering a lot of people treat their own interpretation of the constitution, often in place of a much simpler direct reading of the text, as a defense for their horrible positions or actions...also remarkably similar to religious texts.


I think John Mulaney had a bit along the lines of

"When I was a kid, the founding fathers were like michael jordan in the 90s. Now, theyre like michael jordan now."
 
2021-01-23 3:21:26 PM  

INTERTRON: JustToLetYouKnowFriend: More than 150 legal and Constitutional scholars, and the co-founders of the uber-conservative Federalist Society, sign a joint letter arguing that a president ABSOLUTELY can tried by the Senate in an impeachment trial even after he's left office

We had a thread on this.

https://politizoom.com/2021/01/21/trum​p-can-forget-2024-150-legal-scholars-f​ederalists-included-say-he-can-be-conv​icted

Don't miss our next article, "Is gravity optional?" We found at least 1 person on the planet willing to go on the record saying it is, so the optionality of gravity is clearly a hotly contested controversy.


read that as 'gravy', was delicious
 
2021-01-23 3:22:02 PM  

whatshisname: "A bevy of legal scholarship"

They need a bevy of editors at Vox


A bevy of editorial.

Don't mix your tenses.
 
2021-01-23 3:24:22 PM  
I would point out that if a defendant dies they stop the trial.

Now Trump has already been impeached so it's just a matter of the trial, but should he happen to suffer a fatal stroke in the next week or two, he should be able to avoid trial in the Senate. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.
 
2021-01-23 3:26:28 PM  

fasahd: I'm not the one who came up with this but, can't we just convict him of this? Screw the impeachment. Try him in a court. Or am I missing something. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


Whynotboth.gif

The purpose of impeachment isn't criminal punishment; it's removal from power, and (or, in this case) barring from seeking power/office in the future.

Criminal proceedings are wholly separate.  It's why Gerald Ford still chose/needed to pardon Nixon.
 
2021-01-23 3:27:46 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-01-23 3:33:11 PM  

fasahd: I'm not the one who came up with this but, can't we just convict him of this? Screw the impeachment. Try him in a court. Or am I missing something. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


If an independent prosecution begins before or during the impeachment trial, GOP Senators will be very inclined to decide that the matter is best left up to the courts and thus choose to punt on conviction in the Senate. That saves them somewhat from having to commit to something that would be used against them.

I suspect that part of the pursuit of impeachment is strategically directed exactly towards making GOP Senators take a decisive position that is either for or against Trump and Trumpism because they will lose support no matter which way they decide. To the extent this is true, people will avoid pursuing the more direct criminal justice route until after the Senate Impeachment Trial to better force their hands.
 
2021-01-23 3:35:46 PM  

wademh: I suspect that part of the pursuit of impeachment is strategically directed exactly towards making GOP Senators take a decisive position that is either for or against Trump and Trumpism because they will lose support no matter which way they decide. To the extent this is true, people will avoid pursuing the more direct criminal justice route until after the Senate Impeachment Trial to better force their hands.


It will have that effect, but the purpose of the impeachment is to protect the United States of America.  It is not a partisan thing.  In fact, I suspect most members of the democratic party wish that our country wasn't in a position where a major US party had to choose between political success and supporting insurrection and bigotry.
 
2021-01-23 3:36:26 PM  

GardenWeasel: Yes. Next question.


I'm personally hoping for a public drawn and quartering through the streets of DC. But convicted would be okay, I guess.
 
2021-01-23 3:36:56 PM  
Hey, well if it's constitutionally meaningless, I guess Republicans have no excuse not to convict, right?  I mean, if they believe it won't actually do anything?
 
2021-01-23 3:37:13 PM  
There's no noted restriction on it and, IMHO, the process was started while Trump was POTUS and should continue.  The only reason it didn't end while he was POTUS was because of the goddamned GOP's obstruction of the process.
 
2021-01-23 3:37:23 PM  

wademh: I would point out that if a defendant dies they stop the trial.

Now Trump has already been impeached so it's just a matter of the trial, but should he happen to suffer a fatal stroke in the next week or two, he should be able to avoid trial in the Senate. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.


"...or hang himself in his jail cell, or get struck by a bolt of lightning, Im going to blame some of the people in this room."
 
2021-01-23 3:37:48 PM  
Look. We either impeach him or file criminal charges. Which would the GOP rather have?

Nothing in the constitution says you can't file criminal charges on a president after he leaves office.
 
2021-01-23 3:37:58 PM  

Gubbo: Depends. Is the former President a Republican?


Exactly. If we start holding Republicans accountable for their conduct, that would set a very bad precedent.

Also, it would be uncivil and divisive.
 
2021-01-23 3:38:08 PM  
Drumpf could have avoided this if he had resigned.

But he didn't do that because, as we all thought, that would open him up to immediate indictment for other things.  Curiously that hasn't happened.  In fact there hasn't been a word said about it.  And here, we were all expecting it by 1:00 on the 20th.

Is everyone waiting until after the impeachment?
 
2021-01-23 3:39:15 PM  

andrewagill: The bigger question for me is whether the Constitution allows impeachment against anyone or only current/former elected/appointed officials. To me it's pretty clear it allows impeachment of ANYONE, so, like, there's no reason we couldn't impeach Felicity Huffman on bribery to make sure she never gets elected.


It must be high crome and misdemeanours, and those are only possible by someone with the power to commit high crimes and misdeneanours. Bribery of someone prior to election is not a high crime. If she is elected and then makes good on the previous bribe using her powers, then Huffman would commit a high crime and be impeachable.
 
2021-01-23 3:39:17 PM  

paulleah: Look. We either impeach him or file criminal charges. Which would the GOP rather have?

Nothing in the constitution says you can't file criminal charges on a president after he leaves office.


Oh, this is totally a "both" thing.  Both are called for.
 
2021-01-23 3:39:32 PM  
If it's NOT constitutional, it effectively means the last few weeks of a president's term are some f*cking hall pass sh*t where trying to overthrow the government is just a monkey shine we have to grin and bear.
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.