Democrats do not need 20 Republicans to remove Donald Trump from office?

[kentuck]

Jeffrey Rosen, a legal expert, just made a very important point on a CNN morning show.

He said the law only requires a simple majority to prevent a president from running for re-election or any public office ever again. That means that in a Senate trial, four Republican votes would not convict Trump and remove him immediately, but it would prevent him from running again.

How important could that be?

[Zoonart]

1. THAT IS HUGE!

[FreepFryer]

2. Disqualification is seen by most to be a second vote only held after a conviction vote succeeds.

I posted at length about this previously on DU. While the language is unclear, I am not sure a disqualification vote would be held after an unsuccessful vote to convict, especially in a Republican Sneate against a Republican president.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html

[TwilightZone]

4. Correct.

"Should a conviction occur, the Senate retains limited authority to determine the appropriate punishment. Under the Constitution, the penalty for conviction on an impeachable offense is limited to either removal from office, or removal and prohibition against holding any future offices of “honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

It's not either/or. It only comes into play if the president is removed and is administered through an additional vote.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

[kentuck]

5. I do not interpret it that way?

From your link:

"The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.854 This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote."

[TwilightZone]

7. It's quite clear.

The key word is "and".

"Under the Constitution, the penalty for conviction on an impeachable offense is limited to either removal from office, or removal and prohibition against holding any future offices of “honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”"

"If the Senate, by vote of a two-thirds majority, convicts the official on any article of impeachment, the result is removal from office and, at the Senate’s discretion, disqualification from holding future office."

There are two options:

1) Removal from office
2) Removal from office and prohibition from running for further office.

The latter is not a standalone option. The Congressional Research Service is clear on that point.

[kentuck]

8. Thanks for the info.

I may have misinterpreted Jeffrey Rosen's comments?

But it seems there may be some precedent in impeachment trials?

[TwilightZone]

3. It's a separate issue and only comes into play if the president is removed from office.

It's not either/or. The penalty is either removal from office or removal from office *and* prevention from running for office again. Prevention from running for office is not an available option if he's not removed.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

https://www.ajc.com/news/national/could-trump-impeached-and-removed-from-office-then-run-again-for-reelection/bl1tTKI0yZ5ElthFGslmhI/

Edit to add quote from first source:

"Should a conviction occur, the Senate retains limited authority to determine the appropriate punishment. Under the Constitution, the penalty for conviction on an impeachable offense is limited to either removal from office, or removal and prohibition against holding any future offices of “honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."

[Buckeyeblue]

6. It would be interesting as a compromise if they voted to remove but not disqualify

He could live to run again. I don't think that would happen but these Senate Republicans are so damn dumb that nothing would surprise me.

[spanone]

9. K&R...

[kentuck]

10. Regardless, a simple majority would be a very important vote.

It would prevent a claim of exoneration. They could call it "acquittal" but a more accurate description might be "failure to convict"?

[FreepFryer]

11. That's probably why McConnell would never permit it. Bears noting that Pres. Clinton didn't get one.

Something tells me if they coulda, they woulda.