If a person is convicted in an impeachment trial, other consequences beyond removal, which you point out has already occurred de facto,* shall, according to law, follow. Legal experts seem to agree that these consequences are according to existing law. In addition other consequences could be imposed according to the will of Congress or the Senate. The consequences according to existing law are loss of a 200K/yr pension. However, according to law, if Trump were convicted he would not lose his secret service protection.
It is virtually certain, that if the Senate convicts this time around Trump would be barred from ever holding Federal Office again, as to imposed that consequence that would only require a simple majority vote. For that reason, we can say with great certainty, that if Trump were to be convicted, he could not run again for the Presidency in 2024.
_______________
*Technically he hasn't been "removed" his term has simply expired according to Constitutional Law. If the Senate should vote to Convict, however, that would be a "removal" for legal purposes, and other consequences according to existing law would follow. This is why a second impeachment trial is the just thing to occur, beyond the obvious need to prevent a bad precedent from being set that could come back to bite the Nation in its Constitutional Ass.
Trump's transgressions are unusual. Because Trump has commited many of his "crimes" in plain sight with millions of witnesses. Therefore we do not need the formality of a trial to know many of the things he is quilty of, anymore than we would need an experiment to know the consequences of stepping in front of a speeding railroad locomotive. Rather we need the trial in a desperate attempt to keep Trump's unconscionable acts from becoming acceptable by precedent.
Last edited:
You are the one claiming to be a lawyer. Apparently, having never been to law school, I'm a better lawyer than you, because at least I know that there is no directly relevant Constiutional Law that you imply exists in your request above. As a lawyer you studied the Constitution. You should be aware that the Constitution leaves the rules by which the two Houses of Congress operate up to the two Houses. Furthermore, if their is a law laying out the procedure for a vote on whether a convicted person may hold federal office again, it would be statutory, not Constitutional law. As it turns out a Simple Majority Vote will be all that's required after conviction to prevent Trump from holding future Federal Office. If you are uncertain of this, the proper person to ask is Chick Schumer, not me.
