It’s only removal from office, and optionally also disqualification from holding any future Federal office.
But, even though impeachment is meant to look like a trial, it is not a trial. And if someone is determined to have committed a crime as part of the impeachment proceedings, they can still be prosecuted. That person might be able to complain that they can’t possibly get a fair trial after a public impeachment, but that’s a separate matter.
That person might be able to complain that they can’t possibly get a fair trial after a public impeachment, but that’s a separate matter.
I(love)ANAL, but if I were the prosecuting attorney in this case and the defense were to go this route, my rebuttal would be that the impeachment process are legal proceedings that are also meant to be fair and impartial. Thus, the impeachment itself could be admitted as a piece of evidence in the case supporting prosecution for the specific crime committed and covered by the articles of impeachment.
Logically, that makes sense to me, but maybe there’s a different strategy that would be more effective.
I can see where a pardon power given to a president is beneficial to society but such a power without any checks is clearly inappropriate when a corrupt president wields it. It’s as if the founding fathers had a much more positive outlook on the future of the US than it has evidence to believe.
Yeah, it desperately needs a check. Like, even if that check is “the president has to give a reason and Congress has to approve it.” We can even allow extremely flimsy reasons since it’s not like, a trial. But just enough that the reason has to be something not “This guy helped me do crimes.” Or “Own the libs.”
Trump would just pardon them. You’ll have to wait until Ds win in Presidential election.
The only limit the US Constitution puts on the President’s pardon power is that it cannot be used in cases of impeachment.
And as we know, the US Constitution sure has stopped them doing whatever they want.
Can jail time come from an impeachment? Or is it only removal from office if convicted?
It’s only removal from office, and optionally also disqualification from holding any future Federal office.
But, even though impeachment is meant to look like a trial, it is not a trial. And if someone is determined to have committed a crime as part of the impeachment proceedings, they can still be prosecuted. That person might be able to complain that they can’t possibly get a fair trial after a public impeachment, but that’s a separate matter.
I(love)ANAL, but if I were the prosecuting attorney in this case and the defense were to go this route, my rebuttal would be that the impeachment process are legal proceedings that are also meant to be fair and impartial. Thus, the impeachment itself could be admitted as a piece of evidence in the case supporting prosecution for the specific crime committed and covered by the articles of impeachment.
Logically, that makes sense to me, but maybe there’s a different strategy that would be more effective.
Honestly the Democrats need go start looking into pathways to delegitimizing Trump’s or ideally all presidental pardons.
I can see where a pardon power given to a president is beneficial to society but such a power without any checks is clearly inappropriate when a corrupt president wields it. It’s as if the founding fathers had a much more positive outlook on the future of the US than it has evidence to believe.
Yeah, it desperately needs a check. Like, even if that check is “the president has to give a reason and Congress has to approve it.” We can even allow extremely flimsy reasons since it’s not like, a trial. But just enough that the reason has to be something not “This guy helped me do crimes.” Or “Own the libs.”
How about Trump’s favorite reason “he gave me 2 million dollars in exchange for a pardon”?
You cant pardon an impeachment, so theres still something.
This administration has already guaranteed its spot in history but a little more corruption will just add to that