3 ms·

> I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office If a military officer commits a felony offense the week before they're dischar

> I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office If a military officer commits a felony offense the week before they're discharged, I don't think the military would/should say "well you're so close to leaving, so we'll still give you an honorary discharge and a pension." I feel like the same concept applies here, otherwise we're opening the door to the president being able to commit impeachable offenses with impunity as long as they're close to the finish line. Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk.

alasdair_ 6y ago
>Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk. I doubt it. Congress can impeach for almost anything - it doesn't have to be anything illegal - they just need to have enough votes for it.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > Congress can impeach for almost anything - it doesn't have to be anything illegal - they just need to have enough votes for it. I know this part is true. However, and again I'm not a lawyer, but I think inciting an insurrection is actually illegal?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > However, and again I’m not a lawyer, but I think inciting an insurrection is actually illegal? It is, but even if they use the name of a crime or tort, Congress isn’t bound to apply the same definitions or rules of evidence as a court of law, and the decisions of the Senate in an impeachment trial can’t be entered as evidence of the facts found by the Senate in a civil case the way a criminal conviction can. So, while the trial (regardless of outcome) may generate a potential trove of free-for-others-to-use evidence, I don’t think a Senate conviction (or acquittal, for that matter) has much direct bearing on future civil litigation.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk. No, unlike a criminal conviction, I don’t think it would. OTOH, any evidence gathered and publicly presented against Trump in the impeachment trial could be a valuable gift to those with substantially-related civil claims.

alasdair_ 6y ago

>Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk. I doubt it. Congress can impeach for almost anything - it doesn't have to be anything illegal - they just need to have enough votes for it.

mullingitover 6y ago
> Congress can impeach for almost anything - it doesn't have to be anything illegal - they just need to have enough votes for it. I know this part is true. However, and again I'm not a lawyer, but I think inciting an insurrection is actually illegal?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > However, and again I’m not a lawyer, but I think inciting an insurrection is actually illegal? It is, but even if they use the name of a crime or tort, Congress isn’t bound to apply the same definitions or rules of evidence as a court of law, and the decisions of the Senate in an impeachment trial can’t be entered as evidence of the facts found by the Senate in a civil case the way a criminal conviction can. So, while the trial (regardless of outcome) may generate a potential trove of free-for-others-to-use evidence, I don’t think a Senate conviction (or acquittal, for that matter) has much direct bearing on future civil litigation.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk. No, unlike a criminal conviction, I don’t think it would. OTOH, any evidence gathered and publicly presented against Trump in the impeachment trial could be a valuable gift to those with substantially-related civil claims.