Can President Trump be impeached after he leaves office?

[Leigha]

Well, it seems that way. According to some scholars of the law, if the House votes to impeach while Trump is in office, the Senate can move forward to a trial... even after the president has left office. I guess the end game for Dems would be Trump not running in 2024? The drama may never end. 

https://www.justsecurity.org/74107/the-c...es-office/

[Syne]

That would just be more political theater than the last one...where everyone knew the Senate would not convict. Even having the Senate (50% plus Kamala tie-breaker), it takes two-thirds to convict, and thus disqualify from running in the future. If that were to happen, many GOP Senators would not be reelected.

[Leigha]

Yea, while there are some Republicans who are angry over the storming of Capitol Hill (blaming Trump), there really isn't any solid indication that they're interested in getting him out of office. Even after Dems become the majority, 16 Republicans would be required to convict and ban Trump from running for office again. I mean, it could happen but probably unikely.

[Syne]

They're likely to only get 4-7, including the almost guaranteed Romney, Murkowski, and Collins.

[stryder]

If a cop is proven dirty, then any actions that cop has done, good or bad have to be fully reviewed which in turn can throw any trials or convictions into question.

I'd assume the same thing applies to a president. Any deals done both publicly and behind closed doors would be brought into question and some of those deals are ones that involve various Republican. It's a case of not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them, at least that would be my assumption.

[Yazata]

Well, it seems that way.

Impeachment is about removing an individual from public office, so if the individual doesn't occupy a public office its applicability is questionable.

According to some scholars of the law, if the House votes to impeach while Trump is in office, the Senate can move forward to a trial... even after the president has left office. I guess the end game for Dems would be Trump not running in 2024?

The democrats just want to masturbate and broadcast the crazy and irrational hatred that seemingly is all that motivates them.

I think that the legal theory is that while the Constitution talks about removing people from public office and about making them ineligible to hold public office in the future, the Constitution (arguably) only mentions the need for a 2/3d's Senate majority for removal from office. So there are those on the left arguing that declaring somebody ineligible to hold office only requires a simple Senate majority. 

It doesn't seem to occur to any of them that using the police powers of the state and these kind of Constitutional impeachment provisions against political enemies in the absence of any real crime to justify them is exactly how Vladimir Putin rules in Russia. 

The drama may never end.

Since the democrats seemingly lack a vision and an agenda that will appeal to the American people, all they have is their highly-orchestrated campaign of hatred directed at perceived political enemies. So no, I don't expect the hatred and the divisiveness to stop. The country is broken, the democrats broke it, and there's no prospect of it being fixed in my lifetime.

Frankly, I don't think that the United States will even be a democracy in four years. We have already passed the tipping point. The US will more likely be a one-party state that only pretends at elections. With the CIA, FBI, Justice Department, voter-fraud on an industrial scale, the democrat-loaded federal civil service, the echo-chamber media and education, and increasingly vicious cancel-culture and street-thug intimidation will all ensure that the ruling elites are the only ones that can possibly win national office.

Again much more like Russia than the America of freedom, liberty and democracy that a few of us still remember, identify with and love.

[Syne]

Since the democrats seemingly lack a vision and an agenda that will appeal to the American people, all they have is their highly-orchestrated campaign of hatred directed at perceived political enemies. So no, I don't expect the hatred and the divisiveness to stop. The country is broken, the democrats broke it, and there's no prospect of it being fixed in my lifetime.

Frankly, I don't think that the United States will even be a democracy in four years. We have already passed the tipping point. The US will more likely be a one-party state that only pretends at elections. With the CIA, FBI, Justice Department, voter-fraud on an industrial scale, the democrat-loaded federal civil service, the echo-chamber media and education, and increasingly vicious cancel-culture and street-thug intimidation will all ensure that the ruling elites are the only ones that can possibly win national office.

Again much more like Russia than the America of freedom, liberty and democracy that a few of us still remember, identify with and love.

You sound like you really need to get out of California, Yaz. I realize it looks very bleak from a leftist-run state, but states will still have a high degree of autonomy in the next four years. Even if the federal government runs amok, state's rights ensure that local freedoms can be maintained, by those willing to do so. The federal government only has so much manpower, unless it becomes willing to use the armed forces against the states. And if that happens, it's outright civil war. Is the left insane enough to risk that? I really don't know.

[Yazata]

Even if the federal government runs amok, state's rights ensure that local freedoms can be maintained, by those willing to do so.

Even if that was true, which I doubt, it doesn't mean that the United States hasn't ceased to be a democracy on the federal level. Or that our national conversation remains free and open, such that everyone can speak their mind without fear of losing their job, being hauled off on phony charges or being physically attacked. 

The federal government only has so much manpower

That was true in nazi Germany too. Regular Germans could continue to live reasonably normal lives as long as they kept their heads down and didn't draw attention to themselves. Of course local state governments or city or county officials will inevitably draw attention to themselves if they declare their opposition to federal law and declare their states and cities to be 'sanctuaries' for those who choose to violate those laws. I expect any local official that tries to do that to be arrested, perp-walked on national TV and charged with sedition.

unless it becomes willing to use the armed forces against the states.

There's a precedent for that, for the federal government using military to enforce its will on states that refuse to submit. It's been done before and I expect them to do it again.

And if that happens, it's outright civil war. Is the left insane enough to risk that? I really don't know.

I'd like to think that the American people are willing to rise up to defend their own liberty, but I don't expect them to.

That's why I basically support the demonstration at the Capitol in DC. I probably would have been there myself had I been in DC. The Constitution gives the people the right to free speech and the right to peacefully assemble to make their grievances known. Going where the police say you can't go might not meet the standard of "peacefully", but that Rubicon was crossed long ago. How many of the left's BLM demonstrators continue to riot even after the police declare them an unlawful assembly? How many fight those police? How many loot and light arson fires? The Trump demonstrators didn't trash the Capitol building in DC. They didn't light it on fire. They didn't fill it with spray painted graffiti. They didn't arrive ready for battle in black uniforms, helmets and body armor. That's the precedent that's been set for demonstrations in this country. It's been repeatedly upheld by the courts. For those on the left at least, there's a Constitutionally guaranteed right-to-riot. But once again the applicability of the law seems to be a function of one's politics and the same principles don't apply to their political enemies.

I expect that we will enter a period where all organized opposition is sniffed out and suppressed. It isn't that hard when they have control of all of the communications media and have dossiers on every resident of the country. There will still be active disagreement from half the country, and misgivings by many of the rest, but if the dissidents don't have any control of the levers of power or public opinion, or any ability or freedom to speak freely or even communicate with each other by anything other than word of mouth, what can they do? They will just have to disagree in private because to speak up means your head comes off.

Face it Syne. The United States is well on its way to being even more totalitarian than Putin's Russia.

[Syne]

Even if the federal government runs amok, state's rights ensure that local freedoms can be maintained, by those willing to do so.

Even if that was true, which I doubt, it doesn't mean that the United States hasn't ceased to be a democracy on the federal level. Or that our national conversation remains free and open, such that everyone can speak their mind without fear of losing their job, being hauled off on phony charges or being physically attacked. 

While your pessimism is justified, I still think you living in a blue state is coloring your outlook. And I'm sure it would mine as well. In red states, you can speak your mind without getting fired, facing bogus "hate speech" charges, or getting attacked, and there are alternative social media platforms where open, non-censorious communication is still encouraged. Granted, the national conversation will likely be increasingly bifurcated, where the irrational left can continue to weave its fictional reality unchallenged, but it's not like they ever really listened to the other side anyway.

The federal government only has so much manpower

That was true in nazi Germany too. Regular Germans could continue to live reasonably normal lives as long as they kept their heads down and didn't draw attention to themselves. Of course local state governments or city or county officials will inevitably draw attention to themselves if they declare their opposition to federal law and declare their states and cities to be 'sanctuaries' for those who choose to violate those laws. I expect any local official that tries to do that to be arrested, perp-walked on national TV and charged with sedition.

Nazi Germany relied heavily on neighbors ratting each other out, just like Newsom and Cuomo encourage people to do in their blue states. But in red states, even if leftist busybodies try to, there are no laws or mandates being broken for local authorities to act upon. Just pussy leftists mewling into the sky. And unlike Nazi Germany, people in red states are armed, which makes them much less cowed by bullies, rioters, etc.. There's a reason they don't try that shit here. Just like leftist sanctuary cities/states, it's not about violating federal law themselves, which could have the liability of prosecution. It's about not cooperating with the relatively undermanned federal authorities, which courts have repeatedly excused.

unless it becomes willing to use the armed forces against the states.

There's a precedent for that, for the federal government using military to enforce its will on states that refuse to submit. It's been done before and I expect them to do it again.

While many will cite the Insurrection Act of 1807, few seem to know about the military limiting Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Granted, the left doesn't care about the Constitution or law. One problem with using the military is that it is still largely manned from red states, very unlikely to act against their own neighbors.

And if that happens, it's outright civil war. Is the left insane enough to risk that? I really don't know.

I'd like to think that the American people are willing to rise up to defend their own liberty, but I don't expect them to.

That's why I basically support the demonstration at the Capitol in DC. I probably would have been there myself had I been in DC. The Constitution gives the people the right to free speech and the right to peacefully assemble to make their grievances known. Going where the police say you can't go might not meet the standard of "peacefully", but that Rubicon was crossed long ago. How many of the left's BLM demonstrators continue to riot even after the police declare them an unlawful assembly? How many fight those police? How many loot and light arson fires? The Trump demonstrators didn't trash the Capitol building in DC. They didn't light it on fire. They didn't fill it with spray painted graffiti. They didn't arrive ready for battle in black uniforms, helmets and body armor. That's the precedent that's been set for demonstrations in this country. It's been repeatedly upheld by the courts. For those on the left at least, there's a Constitutionally guaranteed right-to-riot. But once again the applicability of the law seems to be a function of one's politics and the same principles don't apply to their political enemies. 

I expect that we will enter a period where all organized opposition is sniffed out and suppressed. It isn't that hard when they have control of all of the communications media and have dossiers on every resident of the country. There will still be active disagreement from half the country, and misgivings by many of the rest, but if the dissidents don't have any control of the levers of power or public opinion, or any ability or freedom to speak freely or even communicate with each other by anything other than word of mouth, what can they do? They will just have to disagree in private because to speak up means your head comes off.

Face it Syne. The United States is well on its way to being even more totalitarian than Putin's Russia.

If I lived in a blue state, I wouldn't expect resistance either. Leftist governors and mayors already act as authoritarians, and citizens essentially don't have the right to self-defense in public...nor the protection of police. But it is still pretty isolated to the blue states. It's only courts in those areas upholding rioting and unconstitutional mandates, but there are some cracks even there. And any of those ruling could get appealed to SCOTUS. It's only in blue states where the police are basically empowered to be the gestapo...but only against law-abiding citizens.

Again, see about getting out of a blue state...many are already fleeing. Look into alternative social media, like Parler, MeWe, Rumble, etc.. They haven't hit critical mass yet, IMO, but the leftists in big tech seem pretty determined to drive people to these platforms. And with the latest moves against Parler, maybe they will start getting their own hosting server infrastructure going.

IOW, the more radical the leftist's censorship online, the more likely it is to motivate alternatives that are further from their reach. And the more authoritarianism, the more likely red states are to protect freedom, like the rash of open-carry and constitutional-carry gun laws in response to Obama's rhetoric. The right has learned that, in order to protect freedom, we sometimes need to draw the line so far back that a few terms of Democrats can't undo them in one fell swoop.


But I agree that the specter of totalitarianism is upon us.

[Leigha]

Idk, I think that from a political vantage point, Trump could easily be seen as ''guilty,'' but legally? I think that may be tougher to sell.

In terms of pardoning, if Trump were found to be guilty of inciting violence, would he be able to pardon himself?