She's too busy revealing that Rudy was a double agent all along.
Follow the money man
Isn't there still also questions if trial even can legally occur once Trump is out of office?
It has never been done before and seems like there is uncertainty about legality.
Now Luttig has opined, in the pages of the Washington Post, that the Senate's impeachment trial of President Trump cannot be held after he leaves office. This time, Luttig is wrong. The Senate can indeed try and convict Trump once he again becomes an ordinary citizen, although the only available judgment will be to disqualify him from holding a federal government office in the future.
"Once Trump's term ends on Jan. 20," according to Luttig, "Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him." Luttig supports his position by citing two provisions of the Constitution. Article II, Section 4 provides that "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment," and Article I, Section 3 provides that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." This leads Luttig to argue that only the constitutional impeachment "of a president" can result in future disqualification from office, thus making the impeachment of a non-president impossible.
This is a logical error. Removal from office is only one of the two available constitutional outcomes of an impeachment trial, and that does not make potential removal a mandatory predicate for holding a trial in the first place. In fact, the Senate has twice before considered the impeachment of "officers of the United States" (a senator and a cabinet secretary) who had already left office. Luttig blows right past these precedents, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court would never agree that the Senate "has the power to impeach a president who is no longer in office." That is his second mistake.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Although the Chief Justice must preside over impeachment trials of the president, the Supreme Court otherwise has no role to play. In a 1993 case involving the impeachment of federal judge Walter Nixon, the Court unanimously held that impeachment is essentially a "nonjusticiable" political proceeding that is not subject to judicial review. More recently, the current Court has made it clear that it firmly intends to stay out of political controversies, holding that partisan gerrymandering likewise presents a nonjusticiable political question.
The constitutional separation of powers confers the "sole power of impeachment" upon the House of Representatives, which has now exercised it for the second time with regard to President Trump. It will be up to the House to present the Article of Impeachment to the Senate, at whatever time it deems appropriate. It will then be up to the Senate to conduct a trial, or not, in the exercise of its own sole power. If the timing is such that Donald Trump is no longer president, a conviction may not extend beyond "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States," but that will still be a trial well worth holding.
Thanks. I've just never heard "eve" used in that context.
No, It Would Not Be Unconstitutional for Trump's Impeachment Trial to Take Place After He's Out of Office
No, It Would Not Be Unconstitutional for Trump’s Impeachment Trial to Take Place After He's Out of Office
If the timing is such that Donald Trump is no longer president, a conviction may not extend beyond “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,” but that will still be a trial well worth holding.lawandcrime.com
She's too busy revealing that Rudy was a double agent all along.
where?I also have seen argument to other way so it seems to be bit open in the air.
thoI do expect Schumer to go ahead with it and see what happens :D
She's too busy revealing that Rudy was a double agent all along.
She's too busy revealing that Rudy was a double agent all along.
Rudy didn't get paid
Guess he didn't get that pardon for any Epstein-related charges that might one day come his way.Nope!
Dershowitz says he won’t be part of Trump’s legal team - Washington Examiner
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, a usual ally of President Trump, says he will not defend the president in his second impeachment trial impending in the Senate. Dershowitz circled back on his vow that he would help Trump if he were to face another impeachment, telling the Boston Herald on...www.google.com
I mean, it's cute, but does it really matter? I can't imagine anyone's vote will be in any way dependent on a lawyer's arguments.
You have to be an aid for several years before they'd let you even be co counsel on a case like thisAny law students willing to do pro-bono work. Because I am 100% sure Trump will not pay.
Dude hasn't paid an attorney for a while, is toxic, has shown no respect for his attorneys(almost every firm in the top 100 that has supported him in the past has dropped him), anyone who fails or slights him gets attacked by the mob, and he's a horrible ex president.This article seems optimistic. Even if it's a pro bono case because he doesn't have the money or isn't willing to pay, it's still a big high-profile case, he'll obviously find some representation.
But there's already a precedent where a person was impeached and convicted after their resignation. Nixon wasnt impeached because they (Congress) achieved their objective (removal).I don't have links (in work atm), but last night came across short write up by ex Federal Judge, he argued that trial wouldn't be lawful to hold after Trump has left office.