Yeah that’s where I found out about it, here.
Seen it a bunch of times and was just curious is all.
Why is it bullsh.t? Do you have a legal reason or just going with your gut?
does that possibility not exist AT ALL?
Did someone really just make it up? That would be awful.
Some jack@ss took it upon himself to make the bizarre claim that the Senate can impose this punishment even if the President is NOT convicted ... and that scenario has now gone viral on FR.
This goes right up there with the “Electoral College is going to put Hillary Clinton in the White House even though Trump won the election” idiocy from December 2016.
Read the Constitution section on impeachment. It takes a 2/3 majority to convict, and it takes a conviction to impose ANY penalty.
A 2/3 vote is necessary for conviction in an impeachment trial. If convicted Trump would be ineligible to run. Otherwise there’s no way to prevent him from running.
A wobbly GOP leadership conceivably could conspire to deny him the Republican nomination, but that would not prevent Trump from running — he just would have to do so as an independent or as another party’s nominee. In any case a Senate vote could not accomplish this. The only relevant Senate vote is the impeachment trial, which requires 67 votes for conviction.