Schumer Thinks Senate Can Prevent Trump from Running Again

Schumer said today that he believes the Senate can prevent Trump from Running again by a simple vote forbidding it. What an utter moron Democrats have chosen to “lead” their Senate contingent!

They can, if and when they convict him. Chuck knows this. Unless he is setting the ground work for an unconstitutional vote … appealed to the Supreme Court who will refuse to hear the case calling it a “political question”. I put NOTHING past these bastards.

If there is a hot civil war (which I do not want to see) it will be the fault of the Democrat and Republican leadership and John Roberts,

Near as I understand it, the Senate cannot convict the President after he is out of office, and McConnel has already said he won’t bring it up until after Biden’s inauguration.

I’m not seeing anything that says it can’t be done, just that it hasn’t been done so far in our history

What do you know about history, @Gene? You hate this country’s history, its culture and its values because that was what you were taught in college.

A law that would bar a specific individual, who has not been convicted of a felony, from running for a second term as President would unconstitutional. That’s the sort of law that banana republics and communist regimes pass. But since you want this country to become a communist state, it’s the sort of legislation that you support.

Tell if I’m wrong about the communist part @Gene. Isn’t that what you want? Be honest.

You’re wrong about the communist part. Moving on.

It’s not that any new law will be made, the unprecedented part is convicting a former president of what they were impeached for. Everything else is standard.

This says that it cannot be done:

Article 2 Section 4 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.

Article 1 Section 3 The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

It applies to the President not the former President.

In Brazil’s last presidential election, one of the MAJOR candidates ran his campaign from prison where he had been CONVICTED of bribery. The winner of the election publicly stated that Hitler’s big mistake was that he was too soft on his opponents.

It’s nice to know that you are not a communist. Of course my loser nephews, who are over 25 and still living with their parents, say they are “socialists not communists,” which means they really are communists. The only difference is semantics. .

The only other president to be impeached was Andrew Johnson. Nixon resigned before the impeachment vote. Despite the fact that some of the Radical Republicans were just as nasty as the modern Democrats, they didn’t vote that Johnson could not hold public office. He was elected to the Senate in the mid 1870s…

This token was issued in 1866 during Johnson’s “swing around the circle” when he campaigned for Congressional candidates who supported his policies. He got his political head tied to him.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm

Impeached after he left office. His Trial was also held after that.

Trump was impeached while in office, it’s his trial that would take place after.

See above.

For the President, yes, but it has been done (see above).

1 Like

From you own link. “…he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further…” So the issue remains. No one has been SUCCESSFULLY impeached and convicted after leaving office. There will BE no trial of soon-to-be-former President Trump…period. I doubt even moronic Democrats are stupid enough to try to set such a precedence, though the stupidity of Democrats never ceases to surprise.

And you say the things I say are stupid.

Let’s go over this, shall we?

OD says that it applies to the President, not the former President.

FC says " Near as I understand it, the Senate cannot convict the President after he is out of office"

Then I post history that gives a historical example of impeachment and trial that took place after the cabinet member had resigned from office.

Here to refresh your memory:

On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.

This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.

On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles. As each vote fell short of the necessary two-thirds, however, he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further; he died in 1890.
Nowhere in there does it say the not guilty verdict had ANYTHING to do with the fact he had resigned.

So I assume that you agree that precedent showed that he can be impeached and tried AFTER he’s left office and the decision to find him guilty or not has nothing to do with the fact that he no longer serves in the office in question?

Oh, and this tidbit…

“…he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further…”

So what? Where does it say he can’t be prosecuted further? (Hint, it doesn’t).

No. I don’t agree. Remember that Belknap was accused of outright, blatant graft with multiple witnesses ready to testify against him, yet the Senate acquitted him. Why? Because he was no longer in the office which they said he’d disgraced…AND he was not the President of the United States! Sooner or later you lefty morons are going to HAVE to get over your TDS.

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials.

So … in 1876 the Senate AGREED to circumvent the Constitution. They can do it again but it’s still in violation of the Constitution. The question is: Will at least three justices stand up to Robert’s Rage and agree to hear the case?

More BS.

First, let’s go back…Here is the actual transcript where House managers for Belknap alleged that the Senate lacked jurisdiction in the case…

So we’ve established by a vote in the Senate they did have jurisdiction to try the case in the Senate. Source p.934 Hinds precedents

Though the motion to impeach was defeated 35-25 with one abstention and therefore narrowly missed the number needed to impeach.

Now I suspect that Belknap’s highly regarded service and the fact that he resigned before tril were the biggest reasons he wasn’t impeached.

Show me the section in the Constitution that says you cannot finish an impeachment after a person has left office.

I’ll wait.

They might, but the fact is, impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one and I suspect the SCOTUS will leave the decision to impeach and hold trial with the legislature where it belongs, especially given past precedent.

My post of 4 hours ago.