General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat happens is Trump is impeached and convicted?
Nixon resigned before any of that could happen. What if Trump doesn't? Then what?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,587 posts)He could then be prosecuted for any crimes he committed for which the statute of limitations hasn't run out. Mike Dense could pardon him, but only for federal crimes.
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)he might call for a civil war, he is that fn crazy.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Surely someone has told him that impeachment isn't appealable. I guess he just doesn't care.
But he'll see.
NewsCenter28
(1,835 posts)Just finished throwing up over an Alan Dershowitz piece on The Hill. Apparently even Justice Bryer says that the SCOTUS may have the ability to rule impeachment unconstitutional. So its a door that these slippery bastards may try to exploit within the confines of a very friendly SCOTUS.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)NewsCenter28
(1,835 posts)Its below. Just know that I am only posting it because it informs us of something Dotard may try to pull off:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/446394-dershowitz-supreme-court-could-overrule-an-unconstitutional-impeachment?amp
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)(But please let me know if I have the wrong cite ...)
And they are quoted discussing conviction and removal by the Senate, not impeachment. (Dershowitz, unsurprisingly, muddled his argument and conveniently edited Justice Souter's quote, probably in order to confuse the issue).
Justice David Souter, a George H. W. Bush appointee, echoed his predecessor: If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results judicial interference might well be appropriate.
Justice White's quote came in a footnote to his concurrence in U.S. v. Nixon (1974), so it has no legal significance or precedential value. Neither does Justice's Souter's comment, which he made in his concurrence in Nixon v. U.S. (1993) (a different Nixon, an impeached judge, not Richard). His full quote is: "If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply " `a bad guy,' " judicial interference might well be appropriate. In such circumstances, the Senate's action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence."
Neither of these comments have the force of law and neither of these Justices is currently on the Supreme Court (White is deceased, Souter is retired). But more important, these comments refer not to impeachment, but to trial and conviction, In this instance, it is very unlikely that the Republican Senate would convict Trump at all, much less do so on a buggaboo.
Trump didn't threaten to appeal conviction and removal. He said he would appeal impeachment. Nothing in Dershowitz's tortured and misleading argument supports his claim that an impeachment can be appealed - (he also doesn't offer any valid legal basis for claiming a conviction and removal can be appealed, either - footnotes in concurrences aren't law).
In other words, once again, Dershowitz is full of shit.
NewsCenter28
(1,835 posts)When I went back and actually read it in its entirety, it is Justice White. Not sure at all where I got that from originally.
Actually, I do find the conviction scenario appeal somewhat concerning. If we do actually see an impeachment this time, I dont see it dying quite so easily in the senate because for the house to have had taken that step probably would have been preceded by the unveiling of spectacular crimes that shake even the Republican senate a little.
Imagine that through blood, sweat, and tears, we get 67 but in the meantime, he somehow gets a 3rd SCOTUS nominee confirmed (in Barrs ilk) who strikes all of our hard work down. That would be horrifying!
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I wouldn't worry too much about an appeal of a conviction.
First, regardless what commentators say, the Supreme Court is very unlikely to entertain an appeal of a Senate trial presided over by their Chief Justice.
Second, it would be very difficult to argue - and even more difficult to convince Justice Roberts' colleagues - that a Senate trial he presided over by the Chief Justice was in any way procedurally deficient.
And finally, Mitch McConnell is not going to subject Trump to a kangaroo court - well, at least not a kangaroo court that's stacked in any way against him.
And the fact that the best Dershowitz could do was scrape up random, partial quotes from two former justices in a concurrence and a footnote to support his claim should tell you something.
I'm not the least bit concerned. Dershowitz is just, once again, doing Trump's dirty work, throwing a lot of bullshit into the atmosphere hoping to get everyone confused and bothered.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,587 posts)Brett Kavanaugh, writing about the separation of powers doctrine. He thinks presidents should not be prosecuted while still in office, but he also said: "...the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress."
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf
I don't think that even if the Supreme Court theoretically could bail him out, even his own appointees would do it.
Oh, and here's what Kavanaugh said about the appointment of judges: "The Senate should consider a rule ensuring that every judicial nominee receives a vote by the Senate within 180 days of being nominated by the President. Six months is sufficient time for senators to hold hearings, interest groups to register their preferences, and citizens to weigh in on the qualifications of a judicial nominee for lifetime office."
I wonder whether Turtle Boy ever read this article?
hlthe2b
(102,120 posts)I no longer read his writings as more than an attempt to appease Trump and other conservatives. Given his history, I can't say I understand--maybe he just enjoys being a contrarian. Maybe he's losing it. Maybe he really does hold a grudge towards all he feels have held his feet to the fire and held him personally in some disdain.
If you never saw the exchange with (former student) Jeffrey Toobin on CNN (who "owned" Dersh in a most embarrassing way), you'd probably enjoy it.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/03/22/jeffrey_toobin_vs_dershowitz_why_have_you_been_carrying_water_for_trump_this_is_not_who_you_used_to_be.html
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)hlthe2b
(102,120 posts)I can't wait until fellow Harvard prof, Laurence Tribe sees this:
Dershowitz: Supreme Court could overrule an unconstitutional impeachment
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/446394-dershowitz-supreme-court-could-overrule-an-unconstitutional-impeachment
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)sarisataka
(18,483 posts)Of an impeachment conviction
Congress has sole power of impeachment; their decision is final
DFW
(54,291 posts)If he's convicted at a trial where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was presiding, who would he appeal to? Clarence Thomas?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,587 posts)Yesterday he was talking about how "the courts" would never allow him to be impeached, obviously not knowing that the courts have no power over impeachment. Even the Chief Justice doesn't act as an actual judge in an impeachment trial; he's just the "presiding officer" whose only function is to be sure the Senate's rules are followed. Spanky obviously thinks "his" Supreme Court will keep him out of all kinds of trouble. Won't he be surprised...?
Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #12)
NewsCenter28 This message was self-deleted by its author.
DFW
(54,291 posts)The House could do that tomorrow.
The problem is the Senate. Not only will we never get 20 Republicans of the current Senate to vote for removal from office, McConnell might well find a way to ignore the impeachment altogether and never even let it come to the constitutionally mandated trial. McConnell isn't in the slightest worried that 20 of his caucus will desert him and vote for Trump's removal. He just doesn't want a televised trial where Trump's crimes are spelled out one by one, only to be declared worthy of an "innocent" verdict by his "law and order" party.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)but that will change sooner than later.
The Senate, as you say, will never move.
However, I think one of the reasons Pelosi is keeping a tight rein right now is that she's hoping enough evidence will be pulled out that could convince a handful of Senators to vote to convict. Even if the Senate doesn't convict, getting a bipartisan vote to remove him would be huge.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)one where the GOP is a Party of integrity, that could happen.
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)Of course, they have been lacking integrity since Eisenhower left office.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)highmindedhavi
(355 posts)And their base goes on offense
OnDoutside
(19,948 posts)fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)And then we focus on impeaching Pence.
still_one
(92,061 posts)gordianot
(15,233 posts)If a Democratic Administration comes near the Presidency he is in a world of hurt.
dchill
(38,442 posts)Possible siege?
dweller
(23,613 posts)PARTY AT RANDR's 😜
✌🏼️