It’s an interesting question. I think the basic argument for “no” is that the penalty is removal, and he’s already gone, while the basic argument for “yes” is that the penalty also includes not being able to hold an office of trust in the future. (Related – Rubio says it’s arrogant for the Senate to tell voters who they can vote for in the future)
On that second point, how far does it go? Can Congress impeach and convict someone who’s been out of office for years? What if, for example, Obama wanted to run for the Senate again. Could a Republican Congress impeach and convict him, thus barring him from that office?
I lean toward the opinion that trying to parse the language is largely posturing and justification. The real question about impeachment is whether they can get away with it politically. I don’t believe the courts can review an impeachment, and I don’t see why they’re bound to follow precedent. The only review is the voter.
From that point of view, Congress can impeach and convict for any reason they think they can explain to the voters.
My prediction is that the Senate will not convict, but both sides will use it to grandstand. They’ll all enjoy the distraction and the attention. Anything, you know, to avoid that nasty business of passing laws. And it will be so very unifying.
My prediction: There will not be enough votes from the Senate to convict him. He will then be able to boast that he got exonerated twice in impeachment trials. As I understand the ban from office, it only requires a majority (not two thirds) and is not dependent on whether he is guilty according to the article of impeachment. If this is true, he will most likely be banned. Then he and the Republicans will be bitching and moaning to high heavens that he was punished for a crime he did not commit. This will strengthen his position as a mover and shaker in the GOP (or rather POG: Party of Grievance), but that will only serve to split that party even more deeply, if not decisively. He could have otherwise just sort of faded away, but as things are: not now or in the near future.
I have no idea if they can convict him and what that means. They certainly won’t. Orange bozo is still the shadow head of the Repug crime family. Maybe they’ll get 53 votes. Maybe. I guess they can have the trial because they voted the impeachment while he was still in office. It all seems absurd to me.
If they “vote” that he can’t run for office again, can a Repug majority Congress vote him back able to run for office? I think they should just let the people decide as despicable as he is.
While it is all great drama, I’d like to see them publicly lay out the evidence for or against Voldemorange. I would like to see if he’s guilty of something…or just a stupid fool. It seems obvious that a lot people at the coup had a plan…but others were just hapless idiots caught up in the mob mentality. Did the coup people have any inside help, or not? Voldemorange certainly gave them cover to do what they did. Was it organized, or just luck?
Actual law professor on Twitter pretty much nails Republican response;
“ You can’t impeach and remove a President while he’s in office because it’s up to the people to vote him out of office, and you can’t impeach and remove a President after he’s voted out of office because the impeachment power is only for Presidents in office.”
The language is “impeach and remove,” so some will argue that implies the person is in office, although there is at least one example of impeachment after someone had resigned. Precedent, you know — which Jonathan Swift defined as “something that was done illegally before which can be done legally now.” 🙂
Rand Paul says Chief Justice Roberts refused to preside over the trial because it’s clearly unconstitutional. If that’s so, I think Roberts owes the country a statement to that effect.
But it’s all for show anyway. The Senate will not convict. This is all about “unity.”