I’ll go on the record with saying this is what I expect. One of the many reasons they were right to impeach. Now he claims to oppose violence. All part of his ultimate defense.
Even if his rabid base would eat that raw meat up, it goes against his interest as that action would be enough to pull 17 GOP senators vote to convict him, and to punish him as severely as possible. The other fallout to his businesses that he’s already experienced would both persist and even grow.
He has the adulation of his rabid base without doing that already.
could; not “would”
The Senate GOP may be significantly less deranged that the House (due to requiring at-large statewide votes and many of them not having to worry about reelection for 4 or 6 further years) but I’m not counting on them with any certainty – then again, he knows he can’t reliably predict what would happen, either…
deleted post
Obviously my opinion so “could” but I believe would.
The most severe punishment possible from impeachment is being banned from holding another federal office.
Trump will ignore the ban, like he ignores everything else.
Pardoning the insurrectionists is an outrageous act that extends Trumps power into the Biden administration.
One thing I’m wondering is why Traitor1 has not dismissed the director of the FBI. That would seem likely to add to the anarchy factor and hinder the Bureau from finding evidence that might be damaging to Donnie.
According to Wikipedia: (…) although the FBI director is appointed for a 10-year term, the president has the power to dismiss the director for any reason. (…) although Presidents have occasionally clashed with FBI directors, Comey was only the second director to be dismissed since the Bureau’s foundation
The FBI seems to have emerged as the main government entity fighting the traitor. It seems likely that the next dictator wannabe will put more effort into packing the FBI leadership with loyalists.
Agreed completely. I think he’s going to let those who were arrested pound sand. In fact, his rabid base has already decided it wasn’t “their kind” in the first place.
No. An ex-president receives benefits including a pension and an expense account. An impeachment could strip him of these.
Does he also lose the Secret Service protection? That’d be great. After all, if they’re not required to follow the clown around, then he can’t gouge the Secret Service on the hotel charges.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything of the sort. He isn’t entitled to those benefits according to the Constitution, and so can they cannot be stripped from him by impeachment. Those are government policies, to be granted or removed at the whim of the administration of the day.
Probably not. It’s unprecedented.
Mind you, I hope that his protection will be handled by prison staff. Perhaps the security detail will have to get jobs as prison staff to protect him.
It’s entirely possible he put his feelers out and found out a majority of the Cabinet wouldn’t go along with it.
The law in question only removes those if he’s impeached and removed from office. So it wouldn’t apply if he is only convicted after the 20th.
Not the Constitution, the Former Presidents Act 1958 grants the perks, and allows them to be withdrawn from impeached and convicted Presidents.
How will he ignore the ban? Please explain.
Since the impeachment, his behavior has been, well, unimpeachable. I think that is purposeful and means he really fears the ban. He also fears losing his pension, his expense allowance, and, most importantly, his secret service protection that allows him to screw hundreds of thousands $$ out of the government for housing his guards.
So no, he will not pardon the rioters. This fact alone puts me on the side of thinking the impeachment was a good idea (not whether it was warranted–it clearly was–but whether a good idea).
Only four more days. In fact only 93 hours and 36 minutes.
It does seem that @BigT is correct on this. Conviction after he leaves the office on 1/20/21 leaves those all in place. He is then “a former president” and all so defined “former presidents” are entitled to them. The disqualification is not conviction but removal by being so convicted. Under most circumstances a distinction without a different but these are … unpresidented times. 
Yep, that one single word seems to make the difference in how it would be interpreted, especially by more textualist judges.
I could see an argument from an originalist that the intent was to include those convicted by impeachment, but I trust the lawyer whose short video I linked, as he tends to lay out the arguments like that. He claims that the one given in the Reason article seems to be the “best reading”–i.e. the one the judges would likely side with.
Regardless of whether a former President is impeached or not, his pension and Secret Service protection are matters of policy and can be changed at anytime. Back in the nineties Congress removed the lifetime Secret Service protection for former Presidents, changing the law so that future former Presidents would only get protect for ten years after leaving office. That was quickly reverted after 9/11.