Upon further review of authority more reliable than your "Wiki User", Article 1 does not prohibit a convected felon from holding the office of president. However how long do you think Congress would wait before obvious impeachment hearings? That was my line of thought and I mistakenly quoted Article 1.
I had also forgotten about your first cult leader and the true father of Trumpism, Lyndon LaRouche who ran for president many times even though he was a convicted felon.There is no precedence of course! Because our country had no president as destructive as Trump. I am attaching an interesting article on this topic.
If after-office impeachment is possible - Dem's will fuck this asshole good and for good!
P.S. Just for Nicky - please note I am using 'impeached and convicted' just to be technically correct.
The whole point of impeachment is removal from office. Once he’s out it’s a moot point. The idea is his immunity from prosecution is gone, so the state and federal civil authorities can have at him.
It’s like law school day today.
The article I linked to makes a different point, though.
Although in all fairness, they make this point very poorly.
Jinxie is right, but he forgets one thing. Yes Trump will become a private citizen in a couple of weeks and once he is no longer POTUS it will be possible (ok probable) that he can be prosecuted for any alleged crimes, both state and federal which would seem to make impeachment moot. "Seem to" being the operative word here. Yes, the only penalty impeachment carries is removal from office, AND never being allowed to hold office again. OTOH, let's REALLY reach here. Let's say Trump is tried and convicted for a crime, pick one, I am sure you think he is guilty of all sorts of crimes, even with a felony conviction, there is NOTHING in the constitution that would forbid him from running for POTUS again. THAT is the point of impeaching him after the fact.
You are still an idiot, you were technically right, but you were too stupid to even know what the point you were making really was. ROFLMFAO.
So thanks for a shameless post riddled with internal contradictions and stupidity.
All you've proven is you're still capable of making shameless posts about unimportant matters simply to prove you haven't run away. *Yawn*
Now just leave again. And by all means don't discuss anything substantive to defend your god. Actually, I'm not worried about that because you're too big a pussy.
Let me give you a hint: an ex-President is not an ‘ordinary’ Private citizen.
Even a post presidential impeachment- strips him off all the ex-presidential rights and privileges ... which includes one powerful one? I will let you ponder that.
You’re as usual a banal pathetic who fails all normal human intellectual calling.
Under Article I a convicted felon may not hold the office of president. He could still run for Congress or state dog catcher.
Although if you can find it there I will be happy to be proven wrong. In the meantime here you go, an actual link on the subject.
At least you are still smarter than the idiot who started this thread, but that's like saying you are more honest than LTM or less senile than BobFromStateFarm.
I eagerly await your link proving me wrong. I promise a quick and public apology if you can do so.
Upon further review of authority more reliable than your "Wiki User", Article 1 does not prohibit a convected felon from holding the office of president. However how long do you think Congress would wait before obvious impeachment hearings? That was my line of thought and I mistakenly quoted Article 1.
I had also forgotten about your first cult leader and the true father of Trumpism, Lyndon LaRouche who ran for president many times even though he was a convicted felon.
the Executive Branch. In order to run for President, a person only has to be a natural-born citizen, 35 years old and a resident of the U.S. for 14 years. The Constitution does not bar a convicted felon from running for President although many states would prevent a convicted felon from voting for himself.
Gerhardt embarks on a purely academic discussion. He even cites himself as authority fir Adam’s statement, which comes nowhere near a rule of law. Ultimately he concludes the same as I did though. It really comes down to the the language that “President may be removed”. It follows that process must occur while he is still in office from the plain language of the law.
Thank you. I just wanted to see how others are reading the article. A disagreement was expected. 
Pursuing impeachment with only days left in his term, even worse after his term, would fly in the face of Biden’s goal of unity.
Not really! It will strengthen both parties Democrats and 'good' republicans whoever is left. Unity at the cost of the country is not worth any shit.
He simply said he has other priorities and the Congress needs to do what it deems necessary. They don't need him to do it anyway, and he didn't oppose it. In fact, he said if this had happened six months ago he'd been in favor of impeachment or the 25th or whatever it took.
will not have control of the Senate until January 19th when Ossoff and Warnock are sworn in. At that time, Schumer can call for a vote to set and trial date, and after the vote (assuming he gets 51 votes) must then notify Chief Justice Roberts that there will be an impeachment trial, probably set for at least a week away. The next day, January 20th, Trump leaves office at 12:00 noon, and the impeachment trial becomes moot.
The long and short of this is that Pelosi will push through an impeachment vote that will just make her look stupid when there is not enough time to get a conviction inn the Senate before Trump leaves office on inauguration day by operation of law.
Even if, as seems likely, the impeachment trial could not start until after Jan. 19th, it's still of value to try to convict because it would keep Trump from ever running again for any public office. Even if the trial never happens, the stain for his being the only President to be impeached twice will be a lasting stain he richly deserves.
The Congress cannot simply remain silent after what happened.
The question I have is whether or not such a move would be best for the country. Trump would undoubtedly play the role of a martyr which his far right crazies would jump upon. Perhaps if he is officially ignored it would show how he has played the role of an agent provocateur whereby those arrested will bear the brunt of prosecution while he escapes any official action.
BTW, this is an honest question, not an argument.
Would it be best for the country?
The way I look at it: What is best for the country is always a complex question at any point of NORMAL time. There are always contrarian views and many of them; and there is never a clear acceptable answer. No 'correct' answer ever pans out over time to be the correct one.
What is happening in the country today is NOT any normal time. Donal Trump has been attacking this country's democratic systems for years. Republican party, most of their leaders have been supporting him for last 4 years thinking 'that's best for the country' and in most cases, best for their pockets and power. (Not that Dems won't do that if they were in power - it's a cyclical thing of roulette of power). Look where we are today by following what one party thought was the best for the country.
What or who was thought to be best for the country has attacked the country - from within - in real terms.
So I say and I hope you would agree it is not a normal time! Last time we were 'invaded' like this was more than centuries ago and by the British.
This man has announced an war against our country and is delivering on it! So responses should be fitting a war like response. No amount of punishment will be enough to deal with this. So anything - impeachment to imprisonment on charges including inciting terrorism, and doubling down on them to prevent any future copy-thug to save the country will not only be the best for the country, it is the only thing that needs to be done to save this democratic republic we live in.
That's of course, if we want to keep it democratic and country of laws.
P.S. What i am wondering about is why Republicans are not punishing him so that Democrats don't have to ?
It's not. And to let it go after what he's done would be morally wrong. Members of Congress need to go on record about this lawlessness and the people need to see them do it. And who refuses to do it.
It's time for them to stand up.
Anything that might Quell the Cult is good for the nation.
.
I agree that impeachment will expose the positions of Rep Representatives in the House. Recall:
http://www.vox.com/2021/1/7/22218225/house-republicans-senate-electoral-college-votes-storm-capitol-election-stop-the-steal-trump-biden
A majority of House Republicans voted to reject results from Arizona and Pennsylvania
"... The majority of House Republicans still chose to reject electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania, hours after a pro-Trump mob fueled by conspiracy theories stormed the Capitol Wednesday, leaving one woman dead and a nation rattled. ..."
As evidence and testimony is brought before the House, let's see how they vote NOW.
.
Impeachment might not come to a vote in the Senate but it is still important to have that 2nd impeachment ON THE RECORD. If it comes to a vote in the Senate, it is important to see how Senators vote. Will Sue Collins vote NO because, "I think Trump has learned his lesson."? Pfffft. And so on, down the roll.
.
Opinions seem to vary, but, as I read it, a sitting Pres (or other office holder) can be impeached (indicted). Once removed by resignation or expiration of their term, the Senate can STILL VOTE on impeachment because there are at least two sorts of votes: (1) Guilty or Not Guilty on the impeachment charges. A 2/3 vote will remove the person from office. Moot if the person is no longer in office. (2) In a separate vote, the person can be barred from holding office in the future. A simple majority (51/49 or 50/50 + VP tie breaker) is all that is needed to impose the post-removal penalties.
.
With a second impeachment on the record, Trump's cult will still be crying. With many civil and criminal suits pending, I want to see Trump testify UNDER OATH in Federal, State, and Local courts and maybe even before Congressional Committees. Unlike tweeting (no more!) or being interviewed on Fox and OANN, sworn testimony will be debunked or corroborated ON THE RECORD for all of his cult to see. Perjury charges will further highlight the lies. "Testimony" by Fox interview is bullshit.
.
Trump has lost his access to most Soc Media platforms. In theory, he can write Letters to the Editor or Op Ed pieces and seek publication in the major Main Stream Media (NYTimes, WaPo, LATimes, WSJ, ...). That will mean he has to be able to write cogent 250-1000 word essays, like his friend Joe Shapiro did for him on his SATs many years ago.
.
Editors often fact check and EDIT Letters and Op Eds; submitters who disagree with the changes can withdraw their submissions. Editors can co-publish an Editorial addressing a Letter or Op Ed or they can solicit and co-publish a counterpoint Op Ed commentary. (Trump Cult members won't be reached by such MSM essays, anyway.)
.
Impeachment by Congress.
(Possible conviction by Congress.
Courtroom Testimony UNDER OATH.
That's what I want to see.
.
Please.
It's not. And to let it go after what he's done would be morally wrong. Members of Congress need to go on record about this lawlessness and the people need to see them do it. And who refuses to do it.
It's time for them to stand up.
No it is not! Grandstanding is what Trump does every day!
Read Nicks post ... and hope you can comprehend what he wrote.
Have you condemned or do you condemn the terrorist attack on US Capitol, incited by your king ? Yes or No?
So far you haven’t responded to this question and hiding like a chicken shit party hack that hates USA and consequently you don’t recognize the value of an impeachment even after he leaves the office!
but the consequences are different depending on whether done before or after his term expires.
Self appointed experts like CaCa the dimwit has derailed the topic of the thread by limiting the conversation to impeachment in the office only. And, others fell for it.
Anyway, nation’s expert prof Larry Tribe was interviewed on this topic that I started yesterday in my OP. @GlugGlug Go listen to that interview and you might learn something other than how to blow CuckDuLooter
And, CaCa, have you condemned the terrorist attack on our Capitol?