If a person is convicted in an impeachment trial, other consequences beyond removal, which you point out has already occurred de facto,* shall, according to law, follow. Legal experts seem to agree that these consequences are according to existing law. In addition other consequences could be imposed according to the will of Congress or the Senate. The consequences according to existing law are loss of a 200K/yr pension. However, according to law, if Trump were convicted he would not lose his secret service protection. It is virtually certain, that if the Senate convicts this time around Trump would be barred from ever holding Federal Office again, as to imposed that consequence that would only require a simple majority vote. For that reason, we can say with great certainty, that if Trump were to be convicted, he could not run again for the Presidency in 2024. _______________ *Technically he hasn't been "removed" his term has simply expired according to Constitutional Law. If the Senate should vote to Convict, however, that would be a "removal" for legal purposes, and other consequences according to existing law would follow. This is why a second impeachment trial is the just thing to occur, beyond the obvious need to prevent a bad precedent from being set that could come back to bite the Nation in its Constitutional Ass. Trump's transgressions are unusual. Because Trump has commited many of his "crimes" in plain sight with millions of witnesses. Therefore we do not need the formality of a trial to know many of the things he is quilty of, anymore than we would need an experiment to know the consequences of stepping in front of a speeding railroad locomotive. Rather we need the trial in a desperate attempt to keep Trump's unconscionable acts from becoming acceptable by precedent.
If you are going to attempt to play lawyer... act like one. Please cite... the relevant law from the constitution or Sup. Ct... which states that there need only be a simple majority to bar Trump from holding office. This way those reading your argument can look it up and see if you provided opinion or you have strong legal authority for your argument. The articles I read stated this questions is unanswered. But... it too did no really cite support for that opinion... but that would be expected since authors are not usually asked to prove a negative....
You are the one claiming to be a lawyer. Apparently, having never been to law school, I'm a better lawyer than you, because at least I know that there is no directly relevant Constiutional Law that you imply exists in your request above. As a lawyer you studied the Constitution. You should be aware that the Constitution leaves the rules by which the two Houses of Congress operate up to the two Houses. Furthermore, if their is a law laying out the procedure for a vote on whether a convicted person may hold federal office again, it would be statutory, not Constitutional law. As it turns out a Simple Majority Vote will be all that's required after conviction to prevent Trump from holding future Federal Office. If you are uncertain of this, the proper person to ask is Chick Schumer, not me. Schumer is a lawyer, and a good one (Harvard). See 3 USC Paragraph 102. As someone who apparently slept through class, you'll be interested to know that the Former Presidents Act defines a former president as anyone whose term in office ended by some means other than being impeached and removed. Therefore if Trump is convicted, my reading is he will not qualify for all of these juicy emoluments laid out in 3USC 102. Looks like we'll take his travel budget away as well. Guess he'd have to buy a ticket on AA to get to Mar-a-Lago. Trump may end up bankrupt, maybe you could offer to take him in. San Diego would be a nice place for him and the lovely Melania to hang out and free load off of you.
Jem(on the Texas SC lawsuit) Real lawyer I wont even get into all of Lawyer Jems birther lawsuit predictions.
What a loser you are.. You told us a simply majority was needed... I asked you for your legal support... and you come back with a bunch detritus and red herrings. You are such a bad lawyer... they won't even let you stay at Holiday Inn express. Just admit... you made that up for your 50 cents a post. By the way Perry Mason... you just made more shit up about it being statutory. Apparently you don't even know the definition of statutory. Show us the controlling statute which says what you claim it says.
No. jem. I didn't make it up. I listen. And I learn. And that's what I learned from Chuck Schumer. And, jem, it's right! There will have to be a two-thirds majority to convict. But if that JACKASS is, by some miracle of Republican conscience, convicted, then there will be a vote on whether he should ever hold Federal Office again. It will take only 51 votes to keep that JACKASS from ever holding Federal Office again! Isn't that wonderful. Yeah!!! Let's celebrate!
I just wanted to mention, jem, that your reading comprehension is abysmal. I didn't say it was statutory. You must have missed the word "if" in my sentence and the use of the subjunctive mood of the verb "to be", as in "would be." Did you play hooky to play tennis with the girls when you should have been in your 7th grade English class playing footsy with them under your desk?
More bullshit from piezoe and still no legal support for his claim it will only take a simple majority.
but, but, Jimmy's Peanuts! Bernie's summer home! https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...making-more-than-1-6-billion-while-president/ Trump reported making more than $1.6 billion while president Donald Trump reported making more than $1.6 billion in outside revenue and income during his four years as President of the United States, according to a review of his financial disclosures by CREW. While Trump publicly took credit for donating his taxpayer-funded salary, that ended up being less than 0.1% of the revenue and income he disclosed during his presidency. Despite seeing a major dropoff in hospitality related revenue in 2020 due to the pandemic, in total Trump disclosed at least $1,613,583,013 in revenue from the Trump Organization and other outside income. Trump disclosed a high end of $1,790,614,202, but it is impossible to know exactly how much he pocketed as president, as some of his assets list a vague “Over $5,000,000” in yearly income and because of the structure of Trump Organization businesses, reported revenue does not necessarily reflect his personal income from them. One of the reports also included 19 days of revenue and income before Trump assumed the presidency.