GOP senators ask about conviction versus disqualification
Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., asked both the House managers and Trump's defense council, "if the Senate's power to disqualify is not derivative of the power to remove a convicted president from office, could the Senate disqualify a sitting president, but not remove him or her?"
The House managers and Trump's defense team had starkly different answers to the constitutionality of this question.
"No," Bruce Castor, Trump's lawyer, said. He then proceeded to attack Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, and other House managers on the process and grounds of their case.
"That was profoundly inaccurate and irrelevant to what the question is, so I'm going to get back to the question," Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said in response to Castor's answer.

"Under Article Two, Section Four, a president who is in office must be convicted before removal. And then must be removed before disqualification, OK? But if the president is already out of office, then he can be separately disqualified."
Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, went on to explain that senators could vote to convict and then vote not to disqualify if they didn't want to prevent Trump from reelection.
"If they felt that the evidence demonstrated that the president was guilty of incitement to insurrection, they could vote to convict," Raskin said. "But if they felt that they didn't want to exercise the further power established by the Constitution to disqualify, they wouldn't have to do that."





