17 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 11 '21 at 17:29 comment added JimmyJames As a side note, there is precedent to impeaching former officials. William Belknap was impeached after leaving office:. Technically, though Trump was impeached (both times) while still in office.
Feb 11 '21 at 11:14 comment added WernerCD @Joshua considering the circus will move foward, future votes won't be "no juristiction"... it'll be another acquittal. As a Trump supporter, I think impeachment is "legal" after office (to bar further office). Conservatives have argued as much. I also think the impeachment #1 was 100% partisan politics with a forseen outcome... just as impeachment #2 is. The impeachment(s) were promised in 2016 and the acquittals are all but guarenteed along party lines (with a few defectors - couple more this time than last)
Feb 11 '21 at 9:09 comment added Jontia @Joshua that appears to have been part of the theme at the trial of the previous American to have been impeached after leaving office. Where it appears from the very thin NBC article that many senators did vote against conviction because they didn't believe they had jurisdiction rather than accepting that as a settled matter and deciding on the merits of the case. Given the Jurisdiction thing has been voted on twice, clearly accepting that decision is not going well.
Feb 11 '21 at 5:18 comment added Joshua I am not prepared that to claim that 56-44 is enough to actually say the Senate has jurisdiction. If this proceeds in the expected manner, Trump will be acquitted on almost exactly the same vote count. What shall we say then, that he didn't commit the crime, or that the Senate has found no jurisdiction? The side voting to acquit will almost certainly say no jurisdiction again.
Feb 10 '21 at 15:01 comment added David Hammen @fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf I completely agree with Jontia. It takes time to write a good answer, sometimes a lot of time. It irks me to no end when I submit what I thought was a good answer, only to have the questioner rewritesthe question in a way that renders my answer moot.
Feb 10 '21 at 14:58 comment added David Hammen @fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf A good (but not perfect) analogy to the impeachment process is the process that criminal proceedings undergo. Prosecutors present reasons for presenting accusations of a crime to a grand jury. The impeachment in the House is the equivalent of the grand jury hearing. The accused do not have a right to testify at grand jury hearings in most states. The impeachment trial in the Senate is the equivalent of a jury trial. The accused can appeal to the judge in a jury trial to dismiss the case before it even starts. This was the purpose of the first two votes in the Senate.
Feb 10 '21 at 14:57 comment added Jontia A new question is probably better, once there are answers adn votes making edits can cause voters and answerers to get confused. If I understand correctly, what you actually wanted to know was "Why bother with the Impeachment in the House, given there are only consequences if the Senate votes to convict, then why not just have the whole thing handled by the Senate?"
Feb 10 '21 at 14:55 comment added fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf I'll edit my question because I still have doubts.
Feb 10 '21 at 14:51 comment added Jontia @fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf the Senate votes don't override the House votes. The only way either house signals its desires on anything is by voting, so the fact that the trial is resolved by a Senate vote is just them doing things the way they always do. The fact of impeachment is not overridden. If the Senate does not muster the 2/3 majority required to convict the individual remains Impeached, but not convicted. What the point of that is, why the Impeachment and Conviction are separated is probably another question.
Feb 10 '21 at 14:48 comment added David Hammen @fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf There have been two votes in the Senate already regarding impeachment, one before the articles of impeachment were derived to the Senate, and another on the first day of the trial. Those first two votes were on the constitutionality of the impeachment. There may well be several more votes on other motions before the critical vote, which is whether or not to convict. There may be even more votes afterwards should 2/3 of the Senate vote to convict.
Feb 10 '21 at 14:47 comment added fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf I always thought that the House votes to impeach and the Senate holds a trial. I never knew there was a 2nd Senate vote that overrides the House vote.
Feb 10 '21 at 14:45 comment added fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf Or did this Senate vote "occur" because the House voted while he was a government employee and the Senate trial is for someone that's not a government employee anymore?
Feb 10 '21 at 14:45 comment added Jontia @fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf note the use of the word "trial" and "try" in both quotes. Impeachment happens in the House. Trump has been Impeached twice. It's a conviction for Impeachment that can happen in the Senate. Assuming by "second vote" you mean after each house impeachment?
Feb 10 '21 at 14:41 comment added fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf Thanks. What I don't seem to understand is why there is a second vote. Doesn't the vote to impeach come from the House, regardless of what the Senate thinks?
Feb 10 '21 at 14:25 history edited Jens CC BY-SA 4.0
Typo corrected
Feb 10 '21 at 14:24 comment added David Hammen You beat me to it, so I'll discard my answer that said almost the exact same thing and upvote yours.
Feb 10 '21 at 14:20 history answered Jontia CC BY-SA 4.0