As stated by Mr. Dershowitz, it is unconstitutional for The Senate to try an ex-president. Furthermore, I will add to this in my own words----any attempt by The Senate to hold a trial of Mr. Trump will spend months and perhaps years getting adjudicated in the judicial system before it would be finally ruled on to be unconstitutional.
Once again -- You are pushing nonsense again. The Senate has in the past held a trial for impeached individuals who left office. They clearly can do so and any lawsuit by Trump would quickly be dismissed by the courts.... just like his "election fraud" lawsuits. Let's take a look at reality. Congress can impeach Trump now and convict him when he’s gone The Senate has conducted past trials after officials have resigned or left office https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/11/trump-impeachment-senate-trial/ It now seems likely that the House of Representatives will impeach President Trump this week but that there will be no Senate trial until after the Jan. 20 inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden. Trump’s defenders will surely contend that a president cannot be tried by the Senate after he has left office. They are wrong. Both of us have studied and written about impeachment for many years. We each concluded long ago that the history, structure, rationale and application of the Constitution’s impeachment clauses provide powerful evidence for “late impeachability.” This evidence includes precedents: cases in which the House has impeached and the Senate has tried people who had already left office. We also believe that, while impeaching someone who has left office is usually pointless, in some cases — perhaps including Trump’s — it may serve important national interests. The text of the Constitution’s pardon clauses does not directly address late impeachability. Article II, Section 4 states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” On its face, this says only that officeholders are removed if in office when convicted; it does not say that an official must still be in office at the time of his or her impeachment and conviction. Congress has used this clause to limit impeachment to people who were officers at the time they committed their offenses, not to people who were officers at the time of their trial. Article I, Section 3, provides another consequence besides removal: “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” The Framers were concerned not just with the risks of leaving a bad official in place, but also with the danger to constitutional order such a person might pose if readmitted to the government in the future. That fear is just as applicable to those who have just left office as to those still in it. There is strong historical evidence for late impeachability. The Constitution’s Framers were conscious of late impeachment. In drafting the impeachment provisions of the federal constitution, the Framers were heavily influenced by the experience of the states they represented. Between 1776 and 1787, 10 of the newly independent states adopted constitutions that included impeachment provisions. Five specifically permitted late impeachment; no state explicitly forbade it. English impeachment also had an influence, and during the constitutional convention, Parliament was in the process of impeaching Warren Hastings, who had already retired from the office of governor general of Bengal when Parliament impeached him. The Framers were acutely aware of the Hastings proceeding, with George Mason raising it as an example during debate on the impeachment clauses. The first impeachment trial under the new Constitution, in 1798, was of an ex-official: Sen. William Blount had conspired to give the British control over then-Spanish Florida and parts of French Louisiana. As soon as the plot was exposed, the House impeached him. The Senate expelled him soon after. At his impeachment trial, Blount’s lawyers argued Blount could not be tried because he was no longer a senator. That argument failed. Blount was ultimately acquitted by a vote of 14-11, but on the basis that senators are not “officers” subject to impeachment in the first place. An even stronger precedent is the 1876 case of ex-secretary of war William Belknap. After his corrupt scheme to sell a post as Indian agent was revealed to the House, Belknap quickly resigned before he could be impeached. But the House impeached the “late Secretary of War” anyway. The Senate debated late impeachability for over a month before voting 37-29 that it had the power to try an ex-officer. Belknap was nonetheless narrowly acquitted. Based on senators’ statements, there probably would have been enough votes to convict Belknap if he had not already left office. But the Senate did decide it had jurisdiction — in the end, it determined only that Belknap shouldn’t be convicted, not that he couldn’t be. Subsequent precedents reinforced late impeachability. In 1926, federal judge George English resigned a few days after being impeached. The Senate dismissed the case after the House argued there was little point in proceeding — but the House managers also took pains to note that English’s resignation “in no way affect[ed] the right of the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, to hear and determine” the case. Other cases involving resignations ended with similar language (choosing not to proceed with the trial, despite having the power to do so) including most recently the case of Judge Samuel Kent in 2009. In sum, Congress has repeatedly asserted its late-impeachment powers, but has rarely found late impeachment worth pursuing. When would it be? The two most important reasons to pursue a late impeachment are, first, to deter presidents’ misbehavior during their waning days in office, and second, to permanently remove them from public life if their conduct suggests they would pose a continuing danger to the country if they ever returned to a position of national authority. Impeachment represents an important disincentive to presidential misconduct. It would be odd to think that such misconduct was no longer worth deterring once the president was a lame duck. But that would be the effect of declaring misconduct unimpeachable if it’s committed late enough in the term. Likewise, a president who combines impeachable conduct with aspirations of returning to government presents a special future danger. Given Trump’s expressed interest in running for president in 2024, this factor seems to apply here. The current impeachment effort against Trump has been spurred by the fatal attack on the Capitol by his supporters in an attempt to prevent the certification of his election defeat. That means Congress has especially poignant and traumatic reasons for considering whether Trump’s return to public life might pose such a danger. Ultimately, though, it is not enough to say ex-presidents can be impeached. Nor is it enough to note that Trump’s case exhibits the characteristics that make late-impeachment cases worthwhile. The bottom line is that none of this matters unless a two-thirds Senate majority is willing to convict. The real question is never whether an impeachment is possible; it is whether it will accomplish anything. That is not a question for lawyers — it’s one for politicians and voters.
In-sur-rec'-tion - an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government Trump’s 2024 Hopes Just Crashed Into the 14th Amendment A provision of the Constitution designed to bar Confederate leaders from office may keep Trump from running again. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...dent-may-be-ineligible-after-u-s-capitol-riot Donald Trump might already be ineligible to serve as president of the United States in the future. That’s true even without an impeachment process that ends with a formal ban from future public office. The relevant constitutional provision is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War and mentioned in the article of impeachment proposed before the House today. The provision bars a person from holding any office “under the United States” if the person has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government or “given aid to the enemies” of the U.S. Does this provision to apply to Trump? The first part certainly does: Trump took an oath to uphold the Constitution when he became president. The trickier question is the second part: Has Trump’s conduct amounted to insurrection? You can be sure that, if Trump runs for office in the future, someone will go to court charging that he is ineligible to become president because of his conduct leading up to, on and following Jan. 6, 2021. Because this is a constitutional question, the courts will have to adjudicate it. The first question is whether the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection against the government of the United States. In vernacular terms, it certainly was. Republicans like Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell called it an insurrection right off the bat. The article of impeachment speaks of insurrection. But what we need is the legal definition under the Constitution, not the usage of politicians in the heat of the moment. The Constitution doesn’t define insurrection. Neither does the Insurrection Act, the federal statute that you might expect to include a definition. Most dictionary definitions of insurrection call it a violent uprising against the government. Not all of the Jan. 6 participants were violent, of course. But some were. As for the uprising part, again, not all the rioters wanted to bring down the government. But at least some clearly intended to interfere temporarily with the congressional process for declaring Joe Biden to be president. At least some wanted to use force to compel Congress to declare Trump, not Biden, the president-elect. That act would have subverted the democratic process. In some sense, at least, it would have amounted to overturning the U.S. government by force. The upshot is that, at least with regard to the mob itself, it seems possible that a court could conclude that an insurrection was happening on Jan. 6. It isn’t a slam-dunk case; the authors of the 14th Amendment almost certainly had in mind an insurrection much more like the Civil War. But a court would certainly have enough reason to find that Jan. 6 involved an insurrection for it to be worthwhile for us to go on to the next question. That question is, assuming the march on the Capitol was an insurrection: Did Trump himself engage in insurrection when he spoke to the crowd and encouraged or incited the march? If a court says yes, Trump isn’t eligible to be president again. It’s worth noticing that the 14th Amendment does not use the word “sedition,” which is often employed to describe verbal acts that organize or plan an insurrection. That absence could be used by Trump or his lawyers to argue that even if the march on the Capitol was an insurrection, and even if Trump verbally helped bring it about, he was not himself “engaged” in insurrection for purposes of the 14th Amendment ban on holding office. The counterargument would be that insurrection necessarily requires a level of verbal encouragement and planning — and that inciting a crowd to engage in insurrection is every bit as insurrectionary as rebelling oneself. If this is right, then the question becomes whether Trump actually incited insurrection. Privacy Policy and Terms of Service and to receive offers and promotions from Bloomberg. Answering this question in a constitutional way will not be simple. If this were a criminal prosecution, the First Amendment would apply, and the relevant test would be the one drawn from the landmark 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio. The case says that the government can’t punish speech advocating force unless the speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.” Trump’s Jan. 6 speech is close to the line. On the one hand, circumstances could be read to interpret his words as encouraging the crowd to enter the Capitol forcefully, which was a crime. On the other hand, Trump chose his words very carefully. His direct speech did not call for criminal action in any explicit way. And it would be difficult to prove that he intended the crowd to breach the Capitol. Thus it’s possible that Trump’s words might not meet the Brandenburg standard, if it requires explicit words or proof of intent — and it may well require both. Ah, but Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not a criminal sanction! And because the provision is in the Constitution, it arguably is not limited by the First Amendment. So a court could still conclude that Trump’s words counted as insurrection for the purposes of the 14th Amendment even if they would not have qualified as incitement under the Brandenburg standard. That means Trump could be barred from holding office for an act that would not get him thrown in jail. In practice, it’s unlikely that a court would be prepared to disqualify a former president from running for office again. But it’s a close issue — and one the Supreme Court may have to take up if Trump announces a 2024 candidacy.
As Trump goes broke --- Nobody will buy his hotel in Washington. Nobody Still Wants to Buy Trump’s D.C. Hotel, and Its Broker Has Quit https://www.curbed.com/2021/01/trumps-dc-hotel-broker-cancels-insurrection.html Who could have guessed that inciting an insurrection against the United States government would be bad for one’s personal brand? JLL, the real-estate brokerage that has been marketing the sale of the Trump D.C. hotel, says it is no longer involved in the effort, according to the Washington Post. The Trump Organization has been shopping its lease on the 263-room hotel for the past year, hoping to fetch $500 million for a hotel that, according to one potential buyer, has underperformed since Donald Trump took office in 2017. It’s unclear exactly when JLL backed out or what role last week’s insurrection played in the decision. There were already clear signs that the hotel was becoming a liability when the Trump Organization put plans to sell it on indefinite hold in November after bids came in at less than half the asking price. And its requirement that the new owners retain the Trump name as part of any deal was a sticking point that has likely become untenable now that the name is synonymous with the mob that stormed the Capitol last week. The hotel saga is emblematic of the challenges the Trump Organization will face after Trump leaves office next week. Trump hotels worldwide have suffered since his fateful trip down the Trump Tower escalator in 2015, which transformed his brand from brash rich guy to racist authoritarian demagogue. Businesses and conferences won’t want to deal with the potential blowback from booking a Trump hotel, and the president’s business partners are already cutting ties with his properties. The PGA announced over the weekend that the 2022 PGA Championship, one of the tour’s four major tournaments, will no longer be played at Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey. It likely won’t be the last business to cut ties.
Nice article from Jonathan Turley, Constitutional scholar and also a Democrat like Dershowitz---- How A Snap Impeachment Could Shatter Our Constitutional Balance https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/11/how-a-snap-impeachment-can-shatter-our-constitutional-balance/ Author Franz Kafka once wrote, “My guiding principle is this: Guilt is never to be doubted.” Congressional Democrats appear close to adopting that Kafkaesque standard into the Constitution as they prepare for a second impeachment of President Trump. In seeking his removal for “incitement,” Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before the end of his term. Democrats are seeking to remove Trump on the basis of his speech to supporters before the Jan. 6 rioting at the U.S. Capitol. Like many, I condemned that speech as it was still being given, calling it reckless and wrong. I also opposed the challenges to electoral votes in Congress. However, Trump’s speech does not meet the definition of incitement under the U.S. criminal code. Indeed, it would be considered protected speech by the Supreme Court. There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent; the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters present were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests we have witnessed over the last four years, including Trump’s 2017 inauguration, the criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol police knew of the planned march but declined an offer of National Guard personnel because they did not view violence as likely.
Rank-And-File Republicans Record Videos Demanding Trump’s Immediate Removal “Not one more day, not one more hour of this plague in our Oval Office,” said one conservative critic in videos shared by Republican Voters Against Trump. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rank...rump-remove-office_n_5ffd7880c5b63642b6feea84
Near Impossible to Keep Trump From Holding Future Office https://www.newsmax.com/john-gizzi/...t-storming-the-capitol/2021/01/12/id/1005351/ Rep. Tom Reed, R.-NY, wrote in a Tuesday op-ed for The New York Times his intention to introduce a censure resolution in the House for the president "to ensure accountability occurs without delay for the events of Jan. 6." Then, in a somewhat startling sentence, The New Yorker called on Congress to "also look at alternatives that could allow Congress to bar Mr. Trump from holding federal office in the future." As appealing as that might be to some never-Trumpers, historians and political scientists agree "alternatives" to bar Trump from future office are almost non-existent.
Your article said The Senate has disqualified three people from holding future office though,thats a lot of precedent. I would also suggest you not put your hopes in The Supreme Court saving Trump in anyway.There are only 2 judges that like him.
---President fully exonerated--- FBI warned of violent 'war' at Capitol in internal report issued day before deadly riot: Report https://abc7chicago.com/fbi-warned-of-violent-war-at-capitol-before-deadly-riot-report/9595802/ WASHINGTON -- The FBI warned of a violent "war" at the US Capitol in an internal report issued a day before last week's deadly siege, but it wasn't acted on urgently enough to prevent the domestic terrorist attack, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. The Post said that last Tuesday, an FBI office in Norfolk, Virginia, issued an "explicit internal warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and 'war.'" The report "painted a dire portrait of dangerous plans, including individuals sharing a map of the complex's tunnels, and possible rally points for would-be conspirators to meet up" in several states before heading to Washington.