Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-25-2019, 11:56 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,666

Trump is impeached. How quickly, or even could he be removed before the election?


Let's say that Trump does, indeed get impeached by both houses. Whether you think this is likely or not, for the purposes of this thread it happens. The evidence is so damning and conclusive that enough Republicans are on board with doing it. So, first question...how quickly could it happen if that's the case? Let's say a total bombshell falls (I think several have already fallen at this point, but something REALLY big...so big that it's incontrovertible), say, next week. How quickly would/could the process go to impeach him, and then remove him? What time frame might we be looking at, realistically, given the scenario above?

Is there even enough time, if it all comes together, to impeach and remove Trump before the election? If that does happen, what happens to Trump's current re-election run? I assume...and this might be a bad assumption, which is why I'm asking...that if he's impeached, he can't continue his campaign. Is that true?

This stuff is probably more GQ type questions, with some Pit and GD thrown in for how contentious this might be, but what I'd like to hear is more fact based answers. Since it's about Trump and the election, this seemed to be the right forum.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #2  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:02 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,558
That's a fair question. Now that you mention it I am wondering myself. If these were normal times, the House and the Senate could speed up the process if the Senate gave word through back channels that removal was a slam dunk. But the Senate GOP is not to be trusted, so even in this situation the House might need to formally investigate all of its best leads to their conclusions so the Senate can't renege and be like "that's all you have? LAME! Innocent!"
  #3  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:06 PM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,650
There are no particular due process requirements that take time and there are no appeals from conviction in the Senate. If Republican Senators came on board with removal, it could likely happen within a few days. The "if" there is so big, it could collapse into a star under its own gravity.
  #4  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:09 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,419
I don't think that's really knowable considering no president has ever been removed from office.

My impression is the Democrats want to get the impeachment part over as quickly as possible but that might not be possible before the end of the year if that.

The Senate? Who knows? As long as they want it to. In the unlikely scenario that the senate has the evidence and will to remove him, as in your imagined case, probably a few months? Clinton was acquitted in 6 months so it seems reasonable that a removal could take at least that long. I seen no tactical advantages for the republicans to drag a lose out to right before the elections. I can see a case for acquitting a month before the elections, a removal, no. That leaves zero time for a plan B.

Last edited by Ashtura; 10-25-2019 at 12:11 PM.
  #5  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:13 PM
Author Balk is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 225
I was thinking along the same lines. What would happen If a president running for reelection is removed from office before the election? Suppose it's only a month or two before. They really wouldn't have time to get a new candidate in place. Would they have primaries? Or how would the nominee be selected? Or leave the president on the ballot, and have the electorial college work it out. They could select anybody.
  #6  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:20 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Author Balk View Post
I was thinking along the same lines. What would happen If a president running for reelection is removed from office before the election? Suppose it's only a month or two before. They really wouldn't have time to get a new candidate in place. Would they have primaries? Or how would the nominee be selected? Or leave the president on the ballot, and have the electorial college work it out. They could select anybody.
Well, you can't reinstate Trump if he's removed. I have a feeling in such a late breaking scenario, that Pence would be "default republican candidate". Few republicans are going to really want to run a month after Trump was removed from office, and Pence sort of has an obligation to carry on like Ford did.
  #7  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:31 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,847
The Senate could vote to disqualify him from future public office in addition to removing him. So if conviction happens late in the campaign, then Republicans will just have to nominate someone else. If it's too late to get on the ballot in some states, tough cookies. Hitch your wagon to an untamed horse and you take a chance on wiping out.
  #8  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:42 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
The timeline for the Clinton impeachment was this:

Quote:
The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the United States House of Representatives voted to commence impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the United States, for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which were subsequently detailed in two articles of impeachment. The specific charges against the president were lying under oath and obstruction of justice, charges that stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones. The catalyst for the president's impeachment was the Starr Report, a September 1998 report prepared by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for the House Judiciary Committee.[1]

On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached (the other being Andrew Johnson who was impeached in 1868),[a] when the House formally adopted the articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication. The trial in the Senate began in January 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office – in this instance 67. On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal. On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while 50 voted for acquittal.[3] Consequently, Clinton remained in office for the balance of his second term.[4]
So ... ~4 months from formal vote to open the impeachment inquiry to final vote in the Senate.

Yeah, they've got plenty of time to get it done before the election. The Senate has the option, but is not required, to impose a punishment that bars the President from holding office again. If they did so, and if it were late enough that the Republicans couldn't decide on a candidate and get him on the ballot in some states, I don't know. I suspect you'd have some emergency appeal court cases.
  #9  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:47 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,895
A fun interactive. It starts with defaults set to at Clinton and Nixon baselines. With that as the default we are looking at acquittal (or conviction I guess) on March 23.

Assuming such huge bombshells that support for impeachment conviction is 50% or more even within GOP voting groups, yet Trump would not resign, then one would suppose that GOP leadership would want to speed it along, to have at least some time to choose a candidate.There is no reason it could not go very fast. Why not by mid January? House puts on its show and the Senate trial is kept for a short as leaders think the public will tolerate.


A party can change its bylaws for choosing a candidate anytime they want. There is no Constitutional requirement to have a primary and/or caucus system. Each state's leadership could select delegates and those delegates could decide at an open convention on short notice if need be.

Note the similar circumstance could be created if Trump drops dead of a heart attack or stroke in late September or in October. How is it chosen who is their nominee? The VP candidate or the runner up in the nomination process, such as it was, or what?
  #10  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:20 PM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,324
I think the answer is anywhere between "less than a few days" and "never", depending on the political calculation in the Senate, since there is no defined time limits on the process.

Hypothetically, a scenario where Trump is revealed with out a doubt to be a North Korean plant, caught trying to supply them with the nuclear launch codes (with video evidence, multiple confessions, etc) would get the process moving pretty quickly.

Anything less than incontrovertible evidence that the president represents a clear and imminent danger is going to have the process time decided almost soley upon:

1. current Trump approval ratings for Republican voters in the individual Republican senator's states, especially during primary season for senators subject to reelection

2. current Trump approval ratings for all voters in the individual Republican senator's states (or for senators like Joe Manchin who need to court republican & independent voters), especially after primary season for senators subject to reelection.

3. How well the individual senator thinks that dragging the process out ("let's hear more evidence!" "the election is only xx months away, let's let the people decide!" "We need more time to dig up dirt on all the witnesses!") is going to influence 1 & 2 above, weighed against the risk of future new bombshells dropping.
  #11  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:46 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Author Balk View Post
I was thinking along the same lines. What would happen If a president running for reelection is removed from office before the election? Suppose it's only a month or two before. They really wouldn't have time to get a new candidate in place. Would they have primaries? Or how would the nominee be selected? Or leave the president on the ballot, and have the electorial college work it out. They could select anybody.
Found this from 2008. Should apply as well to removal by resignation or impeachment as well.
Quote:
... what would happen if one of the presidential candidates were to die or become otherwise incapacitated before Election Day: Would Palin or Biden assume the nomination?

Not necessarily. Each party has its own protocol for this scenario, but in neither case does the running mate automatically take over the ticket. If John McCain were to die before the election, the rules of the Republican Party authorize the Republican National Committee to fill the vacancy, either by reconvening a national convention or by having RNC state representatives vote. The new nominee must receive a majority vote to officially become the party candidate. If Barack Obama were to die before the election, the Democratic Party’s charter and bylaws state that responsibility for filling that vacancy would fall to the Democratic National Committee, but the rules do not specify how exactly the DNC would go about doing that. (Congress could also pass a special statute and push back Election Day, giving the dead candidate’s party time to regroup.)
  #12  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:27 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Let's say that Trump does, indeed get impeached by both houses.
Only one house has the power of impeachment.
  #13  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:34 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,586
Could the Senate just decide to never hold the trial portion?
  #14  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:34 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
There are no particular due process requirements that take time and there are no appeals from conviction in the Senate. If Republican Senators came on board with removal, it could likely happen within a few days.
In an ideal world, the House would impeach in the morning, the Senate would convict after lunch, and John Roberts would bang his gavel onto a trap door release button.
  #15  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:38 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,597
I'm pretty sure Trump could still run for another term unless explicitly barred from doing so. Impeachment only removes one from office.

As for the timeline, I always assumed it would be effectively instantaneous. Once the Senate convicts, that should be it right there, and then it is, "Sir, we are here to escort you out of the White House. *Sigh* yes you can bring your phone."
  #16  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:46 PM
squidfood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
I'm pretty sure Trump could still run for another term unless explicitly barred from doing so. Impeachment only removes one from office.
Constitution I.3.7: "Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

I've seen some discussion here and there on whether the disqualification is part and parcel of removal, or whether it requires an explicit addition - not sure there's a firm legal decision there?
  #17  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:55 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
I'm pretty sure Trump could still run for another term unless explicitly barred from doing so. Impeachment only removes one from office.

As for the timeline, I always assumed it would be effectively instantaneous. Once the Senate convicts, that should be it right there, and then it is, "Sir, we are here to escort you out of the White House. *Sigh* yes you can bring your phone."
Huh. You are right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes
... They also limited the possible punishments that the Senate may impose to “removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” But they only required that an impeached and convicted official “be removed from office” – but did not mandate that the person also be disqualified from holding a future office.

Nowhere does the Constitution define the standards for disqualification. Moreover, the Senate has declined to establish a standard.

But, as Ohio State University law professor William Foley points out, Senate procedures require separate votes to convict someone of an impeachable offense and to impose a disqualification penalty.

So even if President Trump were impeached and convicted, there is the possibility that he could be reelected to the same office from which he had been removed. ...
So the Senate could vote to convict and to remove but not to disqualify and the GOP could leave him in place as the nominee ... if the convention was already held they might not have any choice but to?
  #18  
Old 10-25-2019, 03:27 PM
Balance is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 8,436
I think a lot of the responses have been fighting the hypothetical, arguing about how long the Senate will drag out the trial. The stated assumption is that something happens (or is publicly revealed) that is big enough for a sufficient percentage of Republicans to be behind convicting Trump and removing him from office.

That leaves the question as "How long will the process take?"

The House would still have to have hearings and depositions, draw up the formal Articles of Impeachment, and vote on them. Depending on the charges, there would likely be lots of smaller fish to catch in the net, so there would be referrals to investigative agencies as facts were established. Barring extraordinary circumstances, even with a slam-dunk case, I would expect them to take at least a month to get the ducks in a row. With the holiday season coming up, if they don't call special sessions, the formalities could stretch into January.

The Senate, by contrast, could potentially do its part in a day or two: read the Articles, review key evidence, allow the defense to present its case, then vote. The defense lawyers could try to drag it out some by pounding on the table, but I doubt they'd be allowed to do so for long. Whatever else may be said of Roberts, he's been a judge long enough to recognize stall tactics when he sees them.

Once the Senate votes, that's all she wrote. Article II, Section 4 says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4
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.
By my reading, that "on...Conviction" means removal is effective instantly when the vote is tallied. At that moment, the former President is stripped of all authority, and whoever is next in line at that moment becomes President.

All of that is to address how long the process would probably take. However, it suggests a much lower minimum time. The Constitution doesn't specify anything about the trial itself; technically, the Senate doesn't have to allow defense arguments at all. If we posit a hypothetical piece of evidence that clearly marks the President as a clear and present danger to the US, the process could theoretically take place as fast as you could convene both chambers and shuttle Roberts over to the Senate to preside. The Speaker could write a one-liner Articles of Impeachment on the way ("The President, having declared on live television that he would order a nuclear strike against one U.S. city per day until a Constitutional amendment is passed making him President for life, has demonstrated that he is unfit to hold the office of the Presidency."). The House is called to order and votes as soon as a quorum is in their seats, unanimously approving the articles and sending them to the Senate. As soon as the Chief Justice is in place, the Articles are read, the Chief Justice decrees whatever formalities he considers appropriate (probably minimal, under the circumstances), and then the vote is held.

If both houses are already in session, the biggest time factor could theoretically be "How long does it take the Chief Justice to cross the street?"

Last edited by Balance; 10-25-2019 at 03:29 PM. Reason: Additional posts while I was typing the wall of text changed the direction of the thread a bit.
  #19  
Old 10-25-2019, 03:31 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,872
If he is convicted by the senate, Pence would immediately become president. As for Trump’s campaign, I assume Pence would step into the top spot, choose someone as his VP, and things would keep rolling right along.
  #20  
Old 10-25-2019, 03:36 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,558
If he were eliminated in the last couple of weeks, and it comes with ineligibility for re-election, and it is too late to eliminate him from the ballot, Pence could still win because I assume that the Electors that were pledged to the now-invalid Trump on the ballot could vote instead for Pence and another player to be named later in the unlikely event that they should win enough Electors in this chaotic situation.

Speaking of which, I wonder if that still holds in the even more unlikely scenario where Taliban Trump is impeached after a successful reelection. I assume the GOP - even if not Trump himself - would still win the Presidency, due to the Electoral College.

Last edited by Ludovic; 10-25-2019 at 03:37 PM.
  #21  
Old 10-25-2019, 03:59 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Could the Senate just decide to never hold the trial portion?
McConnell has gone on record as saying the constitution requires him to hold a trial in those circumstances. I’m pretty sure he will hold the trial. What form it will take is a different question.
  #22  
Old 10-25-2019, 05:06 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
If he were eliminated in the last couple of weeks, and it comes with ineligibility for re-election, and it is too late to eliminate him from the ballot, Pence could still win because I assume that the Electors that were pledged to the now-invalid Trump on the ballot could vote instead for Pence and another player to be named later in the unlikely event that they should win enough Electors in this chaotic situation.

Speaking of which, I wonder if that still holds in the even more unlikely scenario where Taliban Trump is impeached after a successful reelection. I assume the GOP - even if not Trump himself - would still win the Presidency, due to the Electoral College.
If it happened after the election and the reelected president were disqualified from office, then the electors would still be the electors and either someone has to decide whom they will vote for or they split their votes randomly and the house chooses the president from among the top three, each state having one vote. It would be a disaster. The last time the house chose the president (1824) it went on for months. Meantime, I guess the old VP would remain president.
  #23  
Old 10-25-2019, 06:07 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
If it happened after the election and the reelected president were disqualified from office, then the electors would still be the electors and either someone has to decide whom they will vote for or they split their votes randomly and the house chooses the president from among the top three, each state having one vote. It would be a disaster. The last time the house chose the president (1824) it went on for months. Meantime, I guess the old VP would remain president.
No. There would be a VP elected, and that person would be "acting President" until (and unless) the House chose one. (20th Amendment, Section 3.)
  #24  
Old 10-25-2019, 06:38 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 652
Do the Senate's rules permit a senator to call for an immediate vote following a brief presentation of prosecution charges and a rudimentary defense? If so, can the trial be abbreviated to mere days, if that long? If not, do Senate procedures allow any similar blockage of a full prosecution? Roberts presides, yes, but how flexibly?
  #25  
Old 10-25-2019, 09:22 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Do the Senate's rules permit a senator to call for an immediate vote following a brief presentation of prosecution charges and a rudimentary defense? If so, can the trial be abbreviated to mere days, if that long? If not, do Senate procedures allow any similar blockage of a full prosecution? Roberts presides, yes, but how flexibly?
I think not and I hope not. What I think happens is that as soon as the Senate is officially notified of the impeachment that they stop all other business, give John Roberts a call, and from then until the vote they're nothing more than jurors and Roberts will preside just like any judge in any trial.
  #26  
Old 10-26-2019, 12:19 AM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Let's say that Trump does, indeed get impeached by both houses.
It is literally impossible for any president to be impeached by both houses.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I think not and I hope not. What I think happens is that as soon as the Senate is officially notified of the impeachment that they stop all other business, give John Roberts a call, and from then until the vote they're nothing more than jurors and Roberts will preside just like any judge in any trial.
During Clinton's trial, the Senate kept the mornings for legislative business, and conducted the trial in the afternoons.
Quote:
The trial would begin at 1 p.m. every day — leaving the morning for any legislation to consider — and if matters went past 6 p.m., the doors were closed and TV cameras turned off.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...2d2_story.html
(A little over half-way down.)

Any trial of Trump will likely be similar.
Quote:
During a closed-door lunchtime meeting Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (with some assistance from Clinton impeachment veteran Sen. Lindsey Graham) laid out an Impeachment Trials 101 lesson on how such trials play out.

McConnell told his conference that if the House votes to impeach, the Senate trial would begin every day at around 12:30 p.m. and run six days per week with only Sundays off.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...to-republicans
  #27  
Old 10-26-2019, 02:07 AM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I think not and I hope not. What I think happens is that as soon as the Senate is officially notified of the impeachment that they stop all other business, give John Roberts a call, and from then until the vote they're nothing more than jurors and Roberts will preside just like any judge in any trial.
I'd worry less if Roberts were "any judge" and if some judges weren't rotten to the core. Yes, it's a highest-profile case and no, Roberts won't appear TOO obviously biased. But he can subtly favor the defense; his rulings can't be appealed; and he needn't sweat his career, especially after acquittal, when T-world gratitude will shower upon him.

I don't expect Roberts to order senators (jurors) sequestered when not in session. But how he paces the trial - might politics influence him there? Might some message reach him that the GOP expect better election results if he slows or hastens things a bit?

I also worry that, before or during a trial, this POTUS goes totally, justifiably paranoid and finds pretext to impose martial law and suspend courts and congress. How can he then be removed from office?
  #28  
Old 10-26-2019, 02:15 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
What I think happens is that as soon as the Senate is officially notified of the impeachment that they stop all other business, give John Roberts a call, and from then until the vote they're nothing more than jurors and Roberts will preside just like any judge in any trial.
The senators are still fully-empowered senators, and Roberts will be nothing more than their presiding officer.

It's very unlike a jury trial, because the "jurors" also sit as the court of appeals, and can make on-the-spot reversals of anything the "judge" does.

Edit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
But he can subtly favor the defense; his rulings can't be appealed; and he needn't sweat his career, especially after acquittal, when T-world gratitude will shower upon him.
As far as I know, all of his rulings can be appealed. Any Senator can appeal, immediately, and it's decided then and there by the Senate.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 10-26-2019 at 02:20 AM.
  #29  
Old 10-26-2019, 05:27 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
I also worry that, before or during a trial, this POTUS goes totally, justifiably paranoid and finds pretext to impose martial law and suspend courts and congress. How can he then be removed from office?
It's not that simple. There are restrictions on when the president can declare martial law, and where there are restrictions, there are judicable matters. He can't actually suspend the Courts as a whole, nor can he actually suspend Congress.

In short, the way it's set up, Congress and the Judiciary would have to go along with his actions. Otherwise you get what happened to Lincoln, where the Court is empowered to decide whether the actions are constitutional.

And it would be possible for it to go the other way, and for the states to declare martial law to stop the insurrection by Trump himself. The thing with insurrections is that they are a popularity contest--it's only an insurrection if the majority opposes it.

And if there is no clear majority, then you've just described a declaration of civil war.

At least, that is my lay understanding. And that's even assuming the military goes along with Trump.

Last edited by BigT; 10-26-2019 at 05:28 AM.
  #30  
Old 10-29-2019, 02:48 AM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It's not that simple. There are restrictions on when the president can declare martial law, and where there are restrictions, there are judicable matters. He can't actually suspend the Courts as a whole, nor can he actually suspend Congress.
This POTUS has not shown respect for legal restrictions. One of his heroes is supposedly Andrew Jackson, who told SCOTUS to enforce their own damn rulings. The judicial and legislative branches may consider themselves suspended if troops are at their doors.

Quote:
At least, that is my lay understanding. And that's even assuming the military goes along with Trump.
Blatantly disobeying orders from the commander-in-chief, head of government, head of state, is mutiny - here, a military coup. Is the cure worse than the disease?
  #31  
Old 10-29-2019, 03:10 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
This POTUS has not shown respect for legal restrictions. ...
I disagree. I think he's generally shown himself amenable to obeying legal rulings. For example, the 2020 census will not feature a citizenship question, because the court ruled against President Trump and he's going to follow their ruling. Likewise, when his immigration ban was ruled unconstitutional, he rewrote it again and again until he found a format the courts agreed to.
  #32  
Old 10-29-2019, 12:00 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
I'd worry less if Roberts were "any judge" and if some judges weren't rotten to the core. Yes, it's a highest-profile case and no, Roberts won't appear TOO obviously biased. But he can subtly favor the defense; his rulings can't be appealed; and he needn't sweat his career, especially after acquittal, when T-world gratitude will shower upon him.
I think you are underestimating Roberts. Yes, he's a conservative judge, but he isn't a Republican judge. I doubt that he has a great deal of love for Trump. He doesn't need to win a primary so the main motivation that keeps Republican law makers from ditching Trump doesn't apply to him. His main motivation is his legacy. I'm unclear about how it would even be possible for Trump to "shower gratitude upon him" in a way that would be meaningful. He's going to run the trial by the book. If/when Trump is acquitted it will be because of the Republican jury, not the judge.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 10-29-2019 at 12:01 PM.
  #33  
Old 10-29-2019, 04:28 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,754
Yes, everyone, we know that the Senate doesn't impeach. The impeachment process still involves both houses, though, and it's perfectly clear what "impeached by both houses" means.

As for how quickly Pence would be sworn in after the conviction? In cases where the President has died, the VP has been sworn in very quickly, IIRC less than an hour for Lyndon Johnson. I don't see why this sudden vacancy would be any different.

And any subsequent election would be decided in the Electoral College, just like all elections are. The most likely scenario would be that the ballots would be unchanged, and the "electors pledged to support Donald Trump" would be instructed by the RNC to vote for some other candidate picked by the RNC (who might or might not be Pence). Whether they would or not would be up to them, but they got the position of (prospective) elector in the first place because they were loyal to the party. State laws concerning faithless electors might also come into play, but those laws are probably unconstitutional, and would probably be found as such if they were ever seriously challenged (as they would be in this case).
  #34  
Old 10-29-2019, 05:09 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
The Senate could vote to disqualify him from future public office in addition to removing him. So if conviction happens late in the campaign, then Republicans will just have to nominate someone else. If it's too late to get on the ballot in some states, tough cookies. Hitch your wagon to an untamed horse and you take a chance on wiping out.

If the senate, by some miracle, did convict and remove him, Democrats should vote no to barring him from running again. Saddle them with him in 2020 and onward.
  #35  
Old 10-30-2019, 08:54 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Blatantly disobeying orders from the commander-in-chief, head of government, head of state, is mutiny - here, a military coup. Is the cure worse than the disease?
This is just silly. The military is under civilian control, true (and that's a good thing) but they're required to obey all lawful orders. If Trump is removed via impeachment and conviction then no orders he could give would be lawful. In addition, any soldier obeying them would be exposed to accusations of rebellion and treason.
  #36  
Old 11-01-2019, 12:31 AM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
This is just silly. The military is under civilian control, true (and that's a good thing) but they're required to obey all lawful orders. If Trump is removed via impeachment and conviction then no orders he could give would be lawful. In addition, any soldier obeying them would be exposed to accusations of rebellion and treason.
Sorry if I was unclear. After a senate vote of "guilty" then of course he can issue no lawful orders. My fear is that he'll metaphorically throw a spanner (or a bomb) into the works before that vote, while he is still CinC

Let's say the House passes articles of impeachment on 20 November and McConnell schedules the trial to begin on 1 December. But something TERRIBLE happens on 22 November (JFK Day) prompting the immediate declaration of martial law and roundups of suspicious dissidents.

Yes, the military might refuse to follow such orders. That's a coup, right?
  #37  
Old 11-01-2019, 01:57 PM
rocking chair is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: on the porch
Posts: 7,937
when nixon resigned, ford was sworn in, it took a bit for nixon to be totally packed up and ford was in blair house while things were turned around in the white house. nixon had time to get some things together as he was warned ahead of time that the senate would convict.

should trump be convicted in the senate, things would move much faster. pence would be sworn in with alacrity, and would spend time in blair house.

sanford, walsh, and weld are the republicans that have so far put their names forward for president. should things be done by the end of the year, anyone of them could do well in primaries. perhaps if trump is out of the way kasich may throw his hat in.
  #38  
Old 11-01-2019, 02:23 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
This is just silly. The military is under civilian control, true (and that's a good thing) but they're required to obey all lawful orders. If Trump is removed via impeachment and conviction then no orders he could give would be lawful. In addition, any soldier obeying them would be exposed to accusations of rebellion and treason.
Exactly- the emphasis is on "lawful" there.

How exactly would this go down? Trump decides on his own that he's El Presidente de por Vida despite the impeachment, and declares the courts, and Congress to be null and void, and directs the military to back him up?

That would go over like a lead balloon, I suspect; first, in that case, Congress would probably whip up a 25th Amendment removal so fast it would make our heads spin. While the GOP congresspeople are a bunch of odious sycophants, I think that the idea that he just unilaterally tried to eliminate their positions by fiat would rankle something fierce.

Second, the courts wouldn't stand by idly either; they'd probably declare his actions unconstitutional/illegal/whatever in short order.

Third, the military would almost certainly recognize that this is anti-Constitution type action on the part of the President, and refuse those orders.

I'm not seeing any chain of events that would credibly lead to a dictatorship or anything like that.
  #39  
Old 11-01-2019, 07:04 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I'm not seeing any chain of events that would credibly lead to a dictatorship or anything like that.
22 November 2019: A mushroom cloud rises over Silicon Valley. Secret intel reveals a DemoLib conspiracy with a convenient foreign power, maybe Iran. Martial law ensues.

Yes, that's the nightmare. What, it can't happen here?
  #40  
Old 11-01-2019, 08:35 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think he's generally shown himself amenable to obeying legal rulings.
I agree.

Putin was generally amenable to obeying legal ruling during this first term. Even his second. Destroying democracy takes a lot of hard work, and DJT may well not be up to it.

Maybe one of Donald's kids will turn out to be the real thing Dad only talks like.
  #41  
Old 11-03-2019, 05:09 PM
Bookkeeper's Avatar
Bookkeeper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canuckistan
Posts: 2,836
If the Senate votes for Guilty, then Pence and Chief Justice Roberts are both right there. I suspect that Pence would have his Bible ready to hand for the swearing in. 15 minutes, tops.
  #42  
Old 11-03-2019, 06:57 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,239
The key to Trump's survival is Mitch McConnell, and to a lesser extent, Lindsay Graham, which is ironic when you consider how both have been attacked and chastened by Trump's base. But while they may fear Trump's base, they are also the ones who will punish Trump if the base so much as shrinks. As long as McConnell and the senate conservatives fear Trump's base, they will protect him. But if the base starts to peel voters, then you'll probably see senators, many of whom have crossed Trump, abandon Trump, not so much to punish Trump but to save their party in the senate.
  #43  
Old 11-04-2019, 02:57 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Do the Senate's rules permit a senator to call for an immediate vote following a brief presentation of prosecution charges and a rudimentary defense? If so, can the trial be abbreviated to mere days, if that long? If not, do Senate procedures allow any similar blockage of a full prosecution? Roberts presides, yes, but how flexibly?
Kind of. Robert Byrd moved for a dismissal right after the Managers presented their case against Clinton but it was voted down.
  #44  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:04 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I think not and I hope not. What I think happens is that as soon as the Senate is officially notified of the impeachment that they stop all other business, give John Roberts a call, and from then until the vote they're nothing more than jurors and Roberts will preside just like any judge in any trial.
That is incorrect.
He is presiding over a deliberative body. The Senate can still make motions with the CJ empowered to carry them out (if passed) in the name of the Senate.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017