HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What happens is Trump is ...

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:03 PM

What happens is Trump is impeached and convicted?

Nixon resigned before any of that could happen. What if Trump doesn't? Then what?

32 replies, 3720 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply What happens is Trump is impeached and convicted? (Original post)
Raven Jun 2019 OP
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #1
Thomas Hurt Jun 2019 #2
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #3
NewsCenter28 Jun 2019 #13
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #15
NewsCenter28 Jun 2019 #17
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #23
NewsCenter28 Jun 2019 #26
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #29
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #27
hlthe2b Jun 2019 #28
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #30
hlthe2b Jun 2019 #21
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #24
sarisataka Jun 2019 #4
DFW Jun 2019 #6
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #12
NewsCenter28 Jun 2019 #16
malaise Jun 2019 #25
DFW Jun 2019 #5
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #9
guillaumeb Jun 2019 #7
madinmaryland Jun 2019 #10
guillaumeb Jun 2019 #11
highmindedhavi Jun 2019 #8
OnDoutside Jun 2019 #14
fescuerescue Jun 2019 #18
still_one Jun 2019 #19
gordianot Jun 2019 #20
dchill Jun 2019 #22
randr Jun 2019 #31
dweller Jun 2019 #32

Response to Raven (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:06 PM

1. It means he's no longer the president and he has to remove his wide orange ass from the White House.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raven (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:06 PM

2. Looks like he would try to appeal to the SC...failing that

he might call for a civil war, he is that fn crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:11 PM

3. That was such a laughable assertion from him

 

Surely someone has told him that impeachment isn't appealable. I guess he just doesn't care.

But he'll see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:27 PM

13. Actually that's incorrect

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 it’s a door that these slippery bastards may try to exploit within the confines of a very friendly SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewsCenter28 (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:31 PM

15. I found the link. Checking it out now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:35 PM

17. I hesitate to provide the link because it's garbage but it's below

It’s 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewsCenter28 (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 07:08 PM

23. I think it was Justices Souter and White (not Breyer)

 

(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).

"Two former, well-respected justices of the Supreme Court first suggested that the judiciary may indeed have a role in reining in Congress were it to exceed its constitutional authority. Justice Byron White, a John F. Kennedy appointee, put it this way: “Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibility because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 07:19 PM

26. Right I just barely scanned the article the first time because I can't stand right-wing sources

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 don’t 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 Barr’s ilk) who strikes all of our hard work down. That would be horrifying!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewsCenter28 (Reply #26)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 07:31 PM

29. Byron/Breyer - the confusion makes sense to me!

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 07:20 PM

27. Check out this law review article from 2009 by none other than

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 07:31 PM

28. Yes.It was clear to me he'd muddled the whole thing & conflated as he has in other past "opinions"

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #28)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 07:33 PM

30. Thanks for the link. I'll take a look.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:45 PM

21. Apparently the "preeminent" Dershowitz (who lost his marbles some time ago)


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 07:12 PM

24. I give my take on Dershowiz's argument above ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:12 PM

4. There is no appeal

Of an impeachment conviction
Congress has sole power of impeachment; their decision is final

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:16 PM

6. Sure--appeal to whom?

If he's convicted at a trial where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was presiding, who would he appeal to? Clarence Thomas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:24 PM

12. But he doesn't know that.

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...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #12)


Response to DFW (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 07:14 PM

25. ROFL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raven (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:14 PM

5. Impeaching trump is not a hurdle

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:23 PM

9. Right now the House is also a hurdle - there aren't 218 votes to open an impeachment inquiry

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raven (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:18 PM

7. In an alternate universe,

one where the GOP is a Party of integrity, that could happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:23 PM

10. If the GOP was a party of integrity, they never would have let tRump be nominated.

Of course, they have been lacking integrity since Eisenhower left office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madinmaryland (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:24 PM

11. True, the GOP is lacking integrity, but possessed of an abundance of racism. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raven (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:21 PM

8. Ultra conservative Pence takes over

 

And their base goes on offense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raven (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:29 PM

14. Unfortunately he will never face justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raven (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:37 PM

18. Pence becomes President

And then we focus on impeaching Pence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raven (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:38 PM

19. Obviously, he will be re-elected in 2020

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raven (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:41 PM

20. I think there is a chance he will not peacefully relinquish office.

If a Democratic Administration comes near the Presidency he is in a world of hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raven (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:48 PM

22. Forcible ejection from the White House.

Possible siege?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raven (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 07:51 PM

31. Party On

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #31)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 08:06 PM

32. oh hell yeah !

PARTY AT RANDR's 😜

✌🏼️

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread