So next up: Schumer was talking about invoking the 14th amendment

[Vivienne235729]

Is this just a simple majority? Or do we need 2/3 again? How feasible is this? Or should we just hope they start to criminally go after trump? I just want accountability. Is this a pipe dream I keep entertaining? Is there anything we can do?

[soothsayer]

1. Needed the conviction in order to proceed?

[triron]

3. No.

Link to tweet

[qazplm135]

8. yes

that "finding" isn't going to be what bars Trump from running again. Courts are. And courts aren't going to simply go with a majority vote in the senate without some sort of conviction. They aren't. So it would all be for show.

[StarfishSaver]

10. Reich is wrong

No surprising, since he's not a lawyer or constitutional expert.

But the Due Process Clause prohibits this, as does the Constitutional bar against bills of attainder. It also violates the principles of the separation of powers.

[Trueblue Texan]

12. Yes, we need to go there...

No more seditionists!

[StarfishSaver]

7. A court or judicial process has to determine whether someone is guilty of insurrection

Congress can't declare someone guilty and them kick them out of or bar them from office.

[bluestarone]

11. So if i understand you right

Rump could be found guilty of this, in a courtroom, THEN Congress could revisit this?

[StarfishSaver]

13. Yes.

I also think it's possible for Congress to set up some kind of judicial process for this that does not require him to be indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of insurrection in the traditional sense. I'm not sure what that process would be, but I think as long as it's fair and impartial, it would work. For example, there can something like a FISA court. But all of that can take awhile and may not be worth rushing just to get at him because of all kinds of unintended consequences.

I strongly believe the more effective approach is for there to be vigorous investigations, criminal prosecutions (for insurrection and other crimes) - and most important, we need to stay politically engaged, pulling out all the stops to get people registered and to the polls to increase our numbers in 2022 and to give him pause about even thinking about running again.

[bluestarone]

15. TY!

Agree with every word above!!!! WE CAN DO THIS!!! TO add here, i believe we could use Moscow Mitch's words today in the court room!!! (if Rump is taken to court)

[sfstaxprep]

2. Pipe Dream

Just my opinion.

I am not expecting Justice. Never really have.

[myohmy2]

4. +1

...

[StarfishSaver]

20. It's a pipe dream because the Constitution doesn't permit it

But justice can be had. We need to focus on criminal investigation and prosecutions and House and Senate hearings/investigations.

Even if Trump had been convicted in the Senate, the only result would have been disqualification from federal office. That's pretty small potatoes.

[sfstaxprep]

22. Disqualification From Federal Office Is Small Potatoes?

Not to him. Just watch how he rolls now.

He's rejuvenated, just like after they saved his sorry ass from Covid-19.

The only saving grace is he's off Twitter, but he's going to be in our face every day now anyways.

[StarfishSaver]

24. It is for him

Because he would not pay any attention to the disqualification. He doesn't want to be president again. He wants to RUN for president again. And he was going to do that whether or not he was disqualified.

And if he were disqualified, the minute it came into effect - for example, if a state party kept him off the ballot - he would have sued, claiming that the disqualification was invalid because the Senate lacked jurisdiction. And the courts would take such a case because this wouldn't require a court determination about impeachment but about whether the Senate had jurisdiction to disqualify a former president pursuant to impeachment, which is a justiciable issue.

So, yes, a disqualification wouldn't keep him out of our faces - that's what I mean by "small potatoes."

[StarfishSaver]

5. I wish Democratic leaders and scholars wouldn't get people's hopes up about this. They need to expla

that the only way this can be done is if a court somehow is involved. Congress can't on its own just declare a president guilty of a crime and then disqualify him from office. That violates several provisions of the Constitution and there is no way it will be upheld.

Congress' power to disqualify someone from holding office is limited to the impeachment clause. They can't do it in other ways on their own.

Think about it. If Congress had this power, the Republican Congress could have declared, with a simple majority, Hillary Clinton guilty of insurrection and barred her from running for president. Or they could have done the same thing to Barack Obama and kicked him out of office.

The determination of whether someone is guilty of insurrection is not up to Congress. It has to be done by a court in order to comport with the Due Process Clause.

[triron]

16. Not according to Robert Reich:

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

17. Yes, you already said this in this thread. And I told you Robert Reich is wrong

[Vivienne235729]

18. And SCOTUS has said that they will not be involved.

TY. It makes sense about Hillary. I guess we will have to wait and see if they will go after him for any of his criminal acts while in office.

[StarfishSaver]

19. This is a different issue. The Supreme Court WOULD get involved

The Court doesn't take appeals of impeachments, but this issue is unrelated to impeachment.

[Vivienne235729]

21. So you're saying SCOTUS will get involved if charges are found

In criminal or civil cases? I have been looking for news from SDNY but all I have seen is old stuff from a month or so ago.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/01/15/politics/manhattan-da-trump-organization-family-compound-westchester/index.html

[StarfishSaver]

23. I don't understand your question

[Vivienne235729]

25. I don't understand all that is going on and am trying to piece it together

So let me ask you it this way: when would SCOTUS be involved? Why would they get involved? In the past I have just always thought they see cases when it is not resolved on a state level.

[StarfishSaver]

26. The Supreme Court would probably get involved in a case like this the typical way

If, for example, Congress tried to disqualify Trump through a simple majority and that disqualification were invoked in some way (for example, a state party refusing to put him on the primary ballot), he would bring suit in federal court probably asking for an injunction stopping the disqualification from going in to effect. And the case would go through federal district court and then appealed to the Court of Appeals and then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court would decide whether to hear the case or let the lower court decision stand.

Does that help?

[qazplm135]

6. unless he's convicted in a trial

in a court, then yes, it's a pipe dream.

Accountability is great, but I'll settle for loser and never holding office again while the civil and criminal noose tightens for his myriad other crimes. Also knowing that ultimately he will die in disgrace and history books will forever speak ill of him until they forget him is pretty good too.

There is no karma, good people get screwed, bad people get lucky. Best we can do is the right thing as often as we can, and to atone when we do the wrong thing. We can try to hold other people accountable but have to understand that's not always going to happen, and not let it affect our life. Trump's one skill has always been avoiding responsibility.

[WarGamer]

9. It's over.

Now let's Make America (progressively) Great Again.

Vaccines and proper taxation for rich assholes is a good place to start.

[BannonsLiver]

14. I don't think it's going to happen

I’m frankly glad this is over and we can now move on to Covid relief and other things. Politically that comes with a higher upside.