Trump has been impeached again, but it's unlikely the trial will happen before he's out of office. Can that legally be done? Its only effect would be to ban him from future public offices, if the Senate so votes. It wouldn't deprive him of "ex-president' benefits, since he'll leave the office by honorable discharge, so to speak.

@gmcgath I think the sole purpose of this impeachment is to disqualify him from running for president a second time. They needed something, anything to stick and the capital debacle just conveniently happened to occur at exactly the right time. It's pure spite.

@SADIDAS If it's spite, Trump deserves all the spite that can be thrown at him.I grant that with all that he's done, it can be hard to decide what to charge him with.

@gmcgath There's no meaning to 'legally done' at this point. Legalities are as gone as America.

@gmcgath they just want to lynch him and his family at this point. I was called an extremest today for saying Trump wasn't Hitler . These people are Soo propogandized and wound up that they don't see the trees from the Forest.

@Wanyo @gmcgath can greet them in the love and in the light of the One Infinite Creator. And tell them about how the Age of Peace has come and the first step to entering the New Age Sylvan timeline is forgiveness, compassion, and unconditional love for all beings.
More to the script here:

@gmcgath It is legal--it's like the statute of limitations for crimes; you must only initiate the proceedings while the president is in office; you can complete them later.

@billblake2018 That's not clear. Article 2, section 4 gives removal from office as the purpose of conviction after impeachment. The rules of criminal law don't apply.

Article 2, Section 3, clause 6, says that the Chief Justice will preside if the president is being tried; but after January 20, it won't be the president on trial. It doesn't look like a situation contemplated by the Constitution. I think impeachment becomes moot when the impeached person leaves office.

@gmcgath The legal experts I follow on twitter all agree that once the proceedings are initiated, they can run to completion, and their reasoning looks sound to me.

As for your specific example, it doesn't have the effect you seem to think it does. All it says is that *if* the president is tried, the Chief Justice must preside. It says nothing about whether an *ex*-president can be tried, only that the Chief Justice isn't required to preside over his trial.

@billblake2018 That brings up the related question of who will preside. Harris would legally be the default, but having her preside could make it look too much like a political trial. She could recuse herself in favor of the president pro tem of the Senate, but as far as I can tell, they haven't elected a new one yet. If they don't by January 21, then I think Grassley still has the job. Can the Senate ask the CJ to preside, even though he isn't required to? That might be the best solution.

@gmcgath I agree, and the Senate certainly can ask. ("Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings", which means they can decide who presides over the trial.) The CJ wouldn't get a vote, of course, but then he wouldn't in normal circumstances. Under the present circumstances, the legislature should not be the sole branch involved, and Roberts isn't a part of either faction.


no, you can't remove someone from an office they no longer hold.

@gmcgath it's the decay of words, just like how now a bunch of larpers making a fool of themselves is a "coup"

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Liberdon is a Mastodon instance for libertarians, ancaps, anarchists, voluntaryists, agorists, etc to sound off without fear of reprisal from jack or zuck. It was created in the wake of the Great Twitter Cullings of 2018, when a number of prominent libertarian accounts were suspended or banned.