1. Rob Grigjanis says

    Just heard that Liz Cheney will be voting in the House to impeach, and that Mitch McConnell is so pissed he might vote to convict in the Senate. Not holding my breath on the latter, but Trump must be shitting himself.

  2. billseymour says

    I’m totally stealing “T****”! 😎

    I wish people would point out that the 25th Amendment and impeachment are not mutually exclusive and have different goals.

    — The 25th gets T**** out of office immediately.  That’s a good thing.

    — Impeachment (followed by conviction) makes it impossible for T**** to ever hold elective office again and denies T**** a pension paid for by the taxpayers.  That’s two good things.

  3. billseymour says

    This is interesting.  538 reports:

    There is little precedent for this, but some legal experts say that the Senate could, in a two-thirds vote, convict Trump of the impeachment charges, even if he is out of office.  Then, with a simple majority, the Senate could vote to disqualify Trump from holding any office again.

    That seems to say that it’s controversial whether conviction is moot once the impeached person is out of office, and that it’s not automatic that a person impeached and convicted is disqualified from holding office again.

    And it says nothing about a convicted person’s pension.  Is there some source for that?  I’m just believing what I read in the FtB bubble, so I really don’t know.

  4. billseymour says

    OK, I just read the first of the two Washington Post articles that the 538 post links to.

    … eight judges were convicted and removed from office by the Senate.  Three of the judges were also disqualified from holding office again.

    So, yeah, it’s not automatic.

    Also (emphasis mine):

    If impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, Trump could lose many of the benefits afforded to former presidents, … (though he would still be entitled to Secret Service protection.)  Whether a post-presidency conviction, such as Trump potentially faces, constitutes “removal” might be a question for the courts to decide.

  5. says

    OK, perhaps someone can enlighten me about the following:

    I’ve read about drivers of getaway cars facing charges related to the actions of the robbers they were helping get away. Each member of a criminal gang taking part, in any way, in a particular crime, can face charges related to the actions of the other members. Am I mistaken about this?

    If true, why is it that all people known to have been illegally in the Capital Building (including their leaders who may have not been on site, such as Trump) are not facing ALL the following charges: Breaking and entering, destruction of government property, assaulting a police officer, making terror threats, accessory to murder, and either sedition or treason?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *