Impeachment and trial in senate

I came across an article that claimed there was precedent for a senate trial for someone who left office. It was just a paragraph and the writer left it at that.


I looked it up and have confirmed that such a thing did happen.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap


In 1876, William Belknap, Secretary of War in the Grant administration, resigned on the day the House impeached him for alleged corruption. the senate held trial and acquitted him.

But is there precedent between resigning and after end of term in office? Or does it matter?

There’s this thing called the constitution. If you read it, I’m sure you’ll find your answer.

There’s this thing called the constitution. If you read it, I’m sure you’ll find your answer. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Which is why in another thread you admitted that the SC "might" get involved?

But is there precedent between resigning and after end of term in office? Or does it matter? Originally Posted by winn dixie

good question. I don't know the answer to that.

there was an argument about this in the 1876 senate about going to trial since the guy had resigned and they voted yes, they had the right to hold a trial.

so this question wasn't answered as he was acquitted of said charges.

If the senate convicted him, there likely would have been a challenge to the process, the supreme court likely would get involved.

the twist here is that I think the chief justice may have to recuse himself since he presided over the trial.

so, this is an known unknown.

Interesting thing about this is that the Grant administration's DOJ was going to indict Belknap on corruption charges. Belknap managed to talk Grant out of this.

Which is why in another thread you admitted that the SC "might" get involved?
Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Not because the answer isn’t already there but because lawyers will sue the house or senate alleging that the answer is something other than what’s in the plain text

If you want your answer, start with the plain text and I’m not sure it’s so complicated.

Whats the end game for the dims here? Just to be vindictive. Thats already known!

But really aside from just keeping Trump from holding office again what else can happen?

Waste of time and money! More important and real things to do in Congress!

Not because the answer isn’t already there but because lawyers will sue the house or senate alleging that the answer is something other than what’s in the plain text

If you want your answer, start with the plain text and I’m not sure it’s so complicated. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I guess a Leftist admitting we should look at the "plain text" as a way to interpret law is a good beginning.

There’s this thing called the constitution,