Impeachment pending?

[clean]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/update-1-us-house-democrats-to-introduce-impeachment-charges-against-trump-on-monday-sources/ar-BB1cAwS0?li=BBnb7Kz

What is the minimum time an impeachment process can take?

[ergative]

It sounds like the real bottleneck is getting the Senate back to DC for a vote: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/impeachment-president-trump-capitol.html

I'm more interested in the historical precedents where former officials were impeached, and where only a simple majority was needed to bar them from holding further public office.

[mahagonny]

Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime. The only options to impeach. True? if so, this is a problem, because the Congress then has the option to deem him exempt from enforcement of the law in a given situation. The possibility should have been considered that the Congress fails to do what it needs to, so we would be relying on the the law and the courts to hold each citizen accountable. When did he stop being a citizen?
And if, for example, Charles Manson, appropriately, went to prison because his people murdered on his instructions...

'Department that drafts the attorney general's legal opinions and provides its own opinions for the counsel to the president and other DOJ offices -- as part of his decision not to charge Trump with obstructing justice.
How does the OLC opinion affect Mueller's investigation? Here is what the OLC guidance said about indicting a sitting president.
What does the ruling say?
Legal opinions on two occasions from the OLC concluded that criminally prosecuting a sitting president would undermine his or her ability to perform the duties of the executive branch.
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions," the 1973 guidance, written when President Richard Nixon was facing obstruction of justice charges.'

Well, sure...but then so would his habit of committing crimes. And you know haw many times you have to do something before it becomes a habit. Once.

Charging him with a crime would not be done now because obviously time is running out, but if it might have been an opportunity sometime ago. This should be settled/revisited. In my layperson's opinion.

[ergative]

Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime. The only options to impeach. True? if so, this is a problem, because the Congress then has the option to deem him exempt from enforcement of the law in a given situation.

As I understand it, impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. He can still be charged with crimes once he leaves office. The only way impeachment interacts with that is by determining whether he leaves office earlier or later.

My concern is the issue of self-pardons. If he tries it, there will be a bunch of messy court cases, but it is absolutely imperative that we get a firm precedent that the president cannot pardon himself. Otherwise he is immune from prosecution while in office, and can pardon himself on January 20th at 11:59, and so escapes any consequences for anything he does while in office.

[writingprof]

As I've written elsewhere, Democrats will find a reason not to impeach him or not to convict him.  They want Trump to run again, and, strategically, they're right to want that.

[apl68]

I'm more interested in the historical precedents where former officials were impeached, and where only a simple majority was needed to bar them from holding further public office.

At this point that would seem more relevant.

[Sun_Worshiper]

As I've written elsewhere, Democrats will find a reason not to impeach him or not to convict him.  They want Trump to run again, and, strategically, they're right to want that.

Haha what?

Democrats in the House will almost certainly impeach Trump next week.  There will probably be foot dragging by Senate Republicans that prevents him from being convicted before January 20th. I don't think anyone in Washington wants Trump to run again.

Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime. The only options to impeach. True? if so, this is a problem, because the Congress then has the option to deem him exempt from enforcement of the law in a given situation.

As I understand it, impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. He can still be charged with crimes once he leaves office. The only way impeachment interacts with that is by determining whether he leaves office earlier or later.

My concern is the issue of self-pardons. If he tries it, there will be a bunch of messy court cases, but it is absolutely imperative that we get a firm precedent that the president cannot pardon himself. Otherwise he is immune from prosecution while in office, and can pardon himself on January 20th at 11:59, and so escapes any consequences for anything he does while in office.

The (only?) way to get a clear precedent on self-pardons is for Trump to self-pardon and then have that struck down by the courts. My guess is that he does self-pardon, but it doesn't get resolved because he never faces criminal prosecution at the federal level.

His more serious dangers are in NY state and (maybe) Georgia, and the self-pardon won't protect him from those.

Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime.

There is a Justice Department memo that recommends against charging a sitting president. That's why Mueller didn't think he could charge Trump with obstruction of justice.

[jimbogumbo]

Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime.

I believe he can be charged with a crime. I think what we heard was that it is DOJ policy not to charge a sitting President. Instead charges would be filed after the term is over.

[Vkw10]

Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime.

I believe he can be charged with a crime. I think what we heard was that it is DOJ policy not to charge a sitting President. Instead charges would be filed after the term is over.

DOJ reports to President, which makes charging sitting President with crime difficult. If he was holding a bloody knife with stabbing victim bleeding out on ground, he'd be arrested and charged. For anything less clear, the conflict of interest problems with arresting the boss are enormous.

[nebo113]

Something I don't understand, or maybe wish were otherwise: I have been hearing you cannot charge a sitting President with a crime.

I believe he can be charged with a crime. I think what we heard was that it is DOJ policy not to charge a sitting President. Instead charges would be filed after the term is over.

DOJ reports to President, which makes charging sitting President with crime difficult. If he was holding a bloody knife with stabbing victim bleeding out on ground, he'd be arrested and charged. For anything less clear, the conflict of interest problems with arresting the boss are enormous.

Except he thinks he could kill someone on 5th Ave and get away with it.  NOT any more!

[mahagonny]

As I recall President Ford's pardon of Nixon was before the fact. Nixon had not been charged with crimes. His wish that Nixon not be prosecuted was respected, but it didn't have to be. A few people grumbled but most saw Ford a trustworthy guy who wanted the best for the USA and was qualified to make that determination. But if a preemptive pardon really holds legally against a challenge,  why couldn't you pardon a person for a crime he has not yet committed? Why couldn't you just declare flat out, he is henceforth unpublishable for breaking any law? And of course there are nations where that happens.

[ciao_yall]

As I recall President Ford's pardon of Nixon was before the fact. Nixon had not been charged with crimes. His wish that Nixon not be prosecuted was respected, but it didn't have to be. A few people grumbled but most saw Ford a trustworthy guy who wanted the best for the USA and was qualified to make that determination. But if a preemptive pardon really holds legally against a challenge,  why couldn't you pardon a person for a crime he has not yet committed? Why couldn't you just declare flat out, he is henceforth unpublishable for breaking any law? And of course there are nations where that happens.

You can pardon someone for a crime for which they have not been charged. But you can't pardon someone for a crime they haven't yet committed. It's not like a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card.

Nixon was pardoned for anything he might have done while President, but the day after the pardon he was criminally liable he did from that point forward.

[mahagonny]

As I recall President Ford's pardon of Nixon was before the fact. Nixon had not been charged with crimes. His wish that Nixon not be prosecuted was respected, but it didn't have to be. A few people grumbled but most saw Ford a trustworthy guy who wanted the best for the USA and was qualified to make that determination. But if a preemptive pardon really holds legally against a challenge,  why couldn't you pardon a person for a crime he has not yet committed? Why couldn't you just declare flat out, he is henceforth unpublishable for breaking any law? And of course there are nations where that happens.

You can pardon someone for a crime for which they have not been charged. But you can't pardon someone for a crime they haven't yet committed. It's not like a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card.

Nixon was pardoned for anything he might have done while President, but the day after the pardon he was criminally liable he did from that point forward.

thank you...but if it were learned that Nixon had strangled someone to death while in office, the Ford pardon covers it?

[clean]

Murder is a state crime, so the pardon would NOT have covered it.  Presidential pardons cover federal crimes.  Remember, governors can pardon too, but not pardon federal crimes, only state crimes. 

But, yes, murder is a pardonable offense. 

I dont remember the specific crime, but Trump pardoned some Blackwater folks for crimes committed in Iraq.

[ciao_yall]

As I recall President Ford's pardon of Nixon was before the fact. Nixon had not been charged with crimes. His wish that Nixon not be prosecuted was respected, but it didn't have to be. A few people grumbled but most saw Ford a trustworthy guy who wanted the best for the USA and was qualified to make that determination. But if a preemptive pardon really holds legally against a challenge,  why couldn't you pardon a person for a crime he has not yet committed? Why couldn't you just declare flat out, he is henceforth unpublishable for breaking any law? And of course there are nations where that happens.

You can pardon someone for a crime for which they have not been charged. But you can't pardon someone for a crime they haven't yet committed. It's not like a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card.

Nixon was pardoned for anything he might have done while President, but the day after the pardon he was criminally liable he did from that point forward.

thank you...but if it were learned that Nixon had strangled someone to death while in office, the Ford pardon covers it?

One supposes that were theoretically possible. But if it were even suspected I'm sure Ford would have drawn up narrower pardon language.

And can pardons be reversed? TLTG.