It’s two-thirds of the members present. From the US Constitution:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Here’s what I’m confused about. What is Biden’s plan in all of this second impeachment? Personally, I think he and Kamala should stay far the hell away from DC when it’s going on. Go and open vaccination centers. Meet with state Governors. Be all about the pandemic and let the Senate decide (they’re definitely voting no) then let all the state charges happen.
As far as what the rest are doing to impeach, are they planning on just using his 1/6 speech? IMO, that’s hardly evidence. They have to-- must must must-- include all of his previous texts telling Proud Boys to “get ready” and other shit like that. This insurrection wasn’t planned in one week.
Why would he be immune? I’d imagine a criminal trial would be in order, under the circumstances.
Biden is not in the senate. He plays no part in this and has said that he will make no statements and let the senate do its job. What else do you want.
As for what they are going to use, you can just read the Article of Impeachment (here’s the kernel):
President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.
Yes, I know he’s not in the Senate, but he should just avoid giving any thoughts on the matter, avoiding giving any more ammunition to shit-crazed Q lovers.
See, I’m hoping for this time around the evidence points to Trump personally and not so much to his administration, but more to Trump and his close, crooked associates. Chipping away at the whole realization that “ya know what? This guy really DOESN’T know anything.”
Here’s hoping Raffensperger gets to testify about that phone call they listed.
For any such crimes while in office the solution would be impeachment. The ability to impeach should be available and have teeth for the full term. Allowing running out the clock permits atrocities to be committed last minute (as Trump did). The person (Trump) who committed incitement to insurrection should be held responsible ‘as president’ if he committed that act while president, and as citizen if done while citizen. The legal remedy for a president is impeachment.
As for how long can we go back, while in matters of the court there is the statute of limitations, but impeachment has no such limit. Impeach Lincoln if you wish for augmenting the voter roles unconstitutionally with 2/5ths non citizens. Good luck in getting enough following of such a concept.
This is the common wisdom, but I’m not sure I agree. There is an argument that people didn’t so much vote for Biden as they voted against Trump, and did so in large part on the message that Biden would undoing the damage to undo the damage Trump caused.
I think Beau of the Fifth Column makes a compelling argument that Biden should lean into the impeachment, rather than treating it as a liability. He recommends basically saying he agrees with it because Congress decided it, and that he’ll agree with what his AG decides to do, but that he won’t get involved. And he recommends spending the time of the impeachment actively showing all the things he’s doing to undo the damage Trump has done.
I tend to think that Beau is in a pretty interesting position, being both a leftist and a Southerner/redneck type, and argues they aren’t as incompatible as many people think. (Plus he sounds like a good ol’ Southern boy). So I think he’s worth listening to (meaning considering what he says) on these sorts of things.
Sure, I agree with all the executive orders Biden should be signing undoing Trump crap while the news trends on impeachment. I just don’t want to hear Biden saying, “I want him arrested and his golf courses closed!” or anything like that. 'Cause then the “coming to get R gunns!” talk starts up again. 
There are things that should get a president kicked out of office and/or (if they are out of office) barred from being elected to public office again, that would not give them serious jail time if they were private citizens. Lying about the validity of an election and calling on your followers, who you know include violent groups you’ve told to “stand back and stand by”, to march on the Capitol to “stop the steal” is such a thing.
Comparing holding a trial for Trump, who was impeached while still in office, with impeaching Lincoln shows either ignorance or insincerity.
Or sincerity, if the majority of population finds that the former slaves should not be given human rights, and would like to see them as a underclass, according to the democracy as founded, and the constitution as amended as a compromise, decides that it is in the best interest of our nation state to continue a underclass, and thus vote, that is how it must be.
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate.
What is ‘right’ is really up to the people who decide. The responsibility is up to them to decide the world they want to live in.
Perhaps more confusing, but take it this way, if the insurrectionist got their way, things would be legally different.
Oh I get it. I misunderstood your original post, because I’ve seen “They’ll impeach Lincoln next” so many times as an argument this impeachment trial. If it wasn’t an argument against convicting Trump my reply was invalid.
This seems clear enough in hindsight, but I didn’t read it carefully enough.
Can you try a dead man for anything else? There are other cases where trying someone posthumously could result in some penalty against the family-- a tenured professor tried for something that could result in loss of position, tenure notwithstanding, could result in the widow, as well as underaged children, if there are any, to be denied his pension-- even to be required to return pension already paid out. But I have never heard of a university doing this.
And I know of a couple of cases where serious allegations have come to light only after the death of a colleague. Some people write memoirs, and then stipulate that they must be published posthumously, as well as after the death of certain persons mentioned in them.
Now, that’s allegations, not proof positive.
I think that an impeachment of a dead president could be more expensive than 10 years of a $20,000 pension. So how long the widow is likely to be around to collect might end up being a factor. Probably, also, when you add in the time of the senate and congress lost to the proceedings, to the cost of the proceedings, you end up reckoning on even more than $200,000.
Its worth remembering that Trump’s second impeachment came while he was still president.
I’m going to speculate they couldn’t do that. I think whatever penalty is imposed can only start at the moment of the impeachment and not apply retroactively.
Allowing retroactive penalties would open the door to some bizarre twists. Congress could theoretically impeach Trump in 2021 and then retroactively prohibit him from holding federal office backdated to 2015. By doing so, they would nullify Trump’s presidency and declare that any actions he took as President were invalid.
If the government decides you falsified the claim under which you received disability, you can be required to pay it back.
Of course, it’s probably the case that relatives can’t be required to pay it back, so it’s not a perfect analogy.
Back to the “Its unconstitutional!” argument. Since when does congress decide on the constitutionality of anything? Isn’t that the job of the judiciary? As usual, if you cant attack the facts, attack the law. Or the procedure. Or the investigators. Convict or not after hearing the evidence, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE. File an appeal if you feel it was somehow illegal. Juries determine facts, not the law.
In the end, we have only ourselves to blame. The collective “we” elects these turds and refuses to hold them accountable for the lies and hypocrisy.
Since the founding of the republic.
No, it’s not.
In Marbury v Madison, in 1803, 16 years after the adoption of the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court kind of accidentally established the principle of judicial review. It was a convenient dodge that got them out of issuing a judgement in a political hot potato case - the court ruled that Congress didn’t actually have the power to grant the court the power to review the issue. Almost incidentally, that ruling established that the courts could nullify acts of Congress as being unconstitutional. Prior to that, for the first 16 years of the Constitution, courts didn’t weigh in on issues of Constitutionality at all.
Members of every branch are always supposed to be bound by the Constitution, and are supposed to always take into account whether their actions are in accord with it.
Your argument would seem to be that if some members of Congress introduced a bill to outlaw the practice of Judaism, it would be inappropriate for other lawmakers to object that it would be unconstitutional.
(NOTE: I personally think that the impeachment trial of a former President probably is constitutional, but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk either way, and raising the objection certainly isn’t in an of itself inappropriate).
It’s easy to over-extend comparisons to actual judicial trials, but to the extent that comparison is valid, the Senate is the judiciary here (the whole court, not just the jury). “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Part of a trial, which is what the Constitution says the Senate should conduct, is that the court determines the relevant law.
When dealing with a real court, there is an ability to appeal if the trial court makes an error, but AFAIK the current case law is that the grant of “sole power” to the Senate forecloses all avenues for appeal to the judiciary whatsoever.