Short answer: yes
Long answer: In some, but not all cases. It is up to the Senate.
The Constitution mandates removal from office upon conviction, but specifies that an additional penalty, being barred from any office of honor in the USA, is possible but not mandatory.
In US history, eight non-presidential office holders have been convicted in a Senate impeachment trial. In only three of those cases was the convicted party barred from holding future offices. In the other five cases, the Senate voted for removal only. In one of those instances, the impeached official went on to a long post-impeachment career in politics. Federal district judge Alcee Hastings of Florida was removed from office in 1989 for perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe. Since 1993, he has been representing a Florida district in the U.S. House of Representatives.
It won’t stop with impeachment. The elites have one goal in mind for Trump. They don’t just want him out of office. They don’t even want him in prison. If they succeed with impeachment they will use every bit of their stolen power to have him tried for treason and executed.
That being said, Trump isn’t even breaking a sweat.
Everything they’ve tried has backfired so far. Trump is letting Barr do his job quietly. The evidence will clear Trump and hundreds will be arrested for this attempted coup.
The Chessmaster looked pretty hysterical yesterday for someone not breaking a sweat. And the Finn looked pretty amused.
Scoopy keeps explaining what treason is. And people keep throwing the term around anyway.
Now an appropriate ending for Trump would be to do an Arius:”It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died.
Btw, your hero isn’t the only one in trouble here. The quiet jobdoer had better lawyer up himself.
And exactly what charges could the supposed coupsters be charged with? Oh that’s right, TREASON.
As I noted, his action of withholding military aid from Ukraine, after Congress authorized it, would be treason if we were at war with Russia. However, since Russia is not an “enemy,” it cannot be. The Constitution is very specific in its definition of treason.
And obviously it can’t be a coup, unless Mike Pence is running it, since it would not change the government itself, the balance of power, or anything within the government. Pence is the only person who can benefit from it and everything else – all the government’s people and all its policies – would remain exactly the same.
And even if Pence is behind it, using a brilliant, long-term, master strategy to seize power, “coup d’etat” (or “coup” for short ) would still not be the right word. In order for something to be a coup, it must be sudden, violent and illegal. This is slow-moving, peaceful, and is being done through due process.
In reality, the House is just legally exercising its constitutional authority to investigate and, if necessary, impeach a public official who appears to be using his office in a corrupt manner. Are they right about that? History will be the judge of that, but they are definitely within their constitutional rights.
You need to ask that question? You’re living the second most corrupt G7 country.
This is not correct.
Article II section 4 specifies what the Senate must do in a case of impeachment/conviction: “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.” Removal from office is the only thing mandated.
Article I, section 3, clause 7, specifies the maximum punishment for conviction, stating that there are only two things the Senate CAN do: remove and disqualify. “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.” This makes it clear that the Senate cannot imprison or fine the accused. The Senate has traditionally voted on those two possible actions separately. It has decided on removal + disqualification three times. On five other occasions it has only removed the accused from office. As I noted originally, one of the impeached/convicted judges went on to a long career in the House.
Quick summary: there are only two things the Senate can do (article II, section 4), and only one of them is mandatory (article I, section 3).
This is the universal interpretation, and that interpretation is why the Senate takes two separate votes on removal and disqualification.
Once again, the facts are that eight people have been convicted in impeachment trials, and only three have specifically been barred from office, In the other cases, one of the convicted judges went on to a long career in the House of Representatives.
Now … why is your interpretation incorrect? It is a matter of language, not law.
Article I, section 3, clause 7 of the Constitution explicitly states: “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.”
In other words, the Constitution specifies the MAXIMUM punishments, not the minimum. That clause says, “You can remove them from office and you can disqualify them, but you can’t throw them in the calaboose or take away their fortunes.”
Those are only two punishments the Senate can impose in these cases, and it considers and votes upon them separately.