Trump incited a riot at the United States Capitol on January 6 that left five people dead and endangered the life of the Vice President and every member of Congress. On the one hand, Senate Republicans do not want to defend Trump's conduct. On the other hand, Senate Republicans don't want to convict Trump of "incitement of insurrection" because Trump remains a popular figure among the GOP base.
Doesn't matter though. You could see this argument coming a mile away. Enough Republicans will say that he is guilty of causing the insurrection, but say that he can't constitutionally be convicted. The GOP pays fealty to power and money, not democracy and fairness. End the filibuster. Make DC and Puerto Rico a state. Bring back a better version of the Voting Rights Act. End gerrymandering.
Without this, the GOP will continue to power-grab and manipulate districts, and more and more this country will be ruled a minority only in danger of being primaried from the right, causing an even more dangerous slide into delusion and deceit.
Kind of wish the Founding Fathers were a *little* bit more explicit on whether a president can be impeached after their term is ended, but at least the prevailing opinion sides with the affirmative.
Seems to me he was in office when he did the list of high crimes and misdemeanors, impeached by the House for a second time before he left office. He should be tried in the Senate since while two out of three ain't bad, the process must be allowed to completion. That is what the Constitution states: a 3 step process.
Charges,
Impeachment in House and
Trial in Senate.
No need for hand wringing over interpretation by legal pundits.
You did a great job on these corporate donations. My Daddy was right. Hit them in the wallet. It has gotten their attention!
Luttig's is a simplistic argument readymade for the simple minds who will use it and learn it as fact. As a US history teacher I encounter these false facts ALL THE TIME. But the impeachment clauses and precedents do make for interesting legal argument and, in the classroom, a deep dive into the Constitution.
Bottom line, they need to hold him accountable. He won't be convicted, but they need to move forward. This piece is helpful to understand is it or is it not constitutional. I am curious. I've also been hearing that even if he's not convicted there would be a way of not allowing him to run again for any public office. What mechanism would be used to do this? Would there be support?
It's important to remember that "impeachment" is the term for an "indictment" of an elected official, as opposed to a private citizen. A grand jury hands down an indictment, indicating there is enough evidence of criminal behavior to warrant charges and trial. In the case of Trump's second impeachment, the House acted as the Grand Jury and found there was enough evidence of criminal behavior to warrant a trial, and charged him in the Articles of Impeachment. To NOT hold a trial in the Senate is the equivalent of a grand jury handing down criminal charges against a private citizen, and no trial taking place. We have a legal system that calls people to account for criminal behavior. Just because Trump isn't president anymore doesn't make his crimes go away, or render accountability null and void.
Trump must be Impeached. Every politician who supported the idea that the election of Biden was illegal should be prosecuted and lose the right to ever hold office again and every single person involved in the traitorous act of storming our capital should be fined and jailed. No need for more discussions or debates necessary. Let’s get this done. Now.
The GOP has no standing lecturing anyone, even a cactus, on the constitution. Now that Trump announced opening an office to promote and continue to advance his destructive agenda you’d think the GOP would be all over trying to banish him to Devil’s Island.
Generally, jurors decide facts not legal questions of "jurisdiction" to hear a case. The issue of jurisdiction is usually decided by the judge before the trial. The Senators who think there is no jurisdiction want to avoid deciding the facts. They are not going to prevail on this theory to prevent the trial, and they should be prevented from having to make a determination as to whether to convict on the facts. There could or should be something like a special verdict form that requires Senators to vote guilty or not guilty first, and then allows them to separately express their view on "jurisdiction." That way they don't get to avoid their responsibility to decide the facts and, if Trump is convicted, he can try to challenge the legal question of jurisdiction in the courts.
It is unfortunate that Pelosi decided to deliver the article to the Senate so quickly. The House should have kept it as a threat against Trump if he ever ran again. Why elect a president who would be tried for impeachment on his first day in office?
Conviction for impeachment is the ONLY consequence that the constitution provides for a president who fails to discharge his duty. As this column points out, if a former president cannot be tried after leaving office, there is NO consequence at all. The judicial precedent referenced in the column is interesting, but after yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court that the emoluments case must be dismissed as moot, none of this matters as anything more than an intellectual exercise. Just as an emoluments verdict against Trump could have forced him to disgorge his profits from the Trump International hotel, an impeachment guilty verdict could prevent him from using his former president status to accumulate (or help others accumulate) federal campaign contributions. But if the Supreme Court isn't willing to acknowledge the larger issue, the entire concept of impeachment has been rendered moot...
I believe that Congress should proceed with the trial, present the evidence, and see if a conviction in the Senate is warranted.
If we don't attempt to find out if the extensive evidence of insurrection and sedition is enough for a conviction and if 17 Republicans will support facts or still defend this indefensible incitement by #45.
I'm not a lawyer (thank the stars) but I believe the waters need to be tested and then we [may] know just how important our Constitution is to the Republicans--or not.
Plus, if it gets to the Federal courts, for some obscure most likely idiotic reason, well, more information in this area would also be a great thing.
Doesn't matter though. You could see this argument coming a mile away. Enough Republicans will say that he is guilty of causing the insurrection, but say that he can't constitutionally be convicted. The GOP pays fealty to power and money, not democracy and fairness. End the filibuster. Make DC and Puerto Rico a state. Bring back a better version of the Voting Rights Act. End gerrymandering.
Without this, the GOP will continue to power-grab and manipulate districts, and more and more this country will be ruled a minority only in danger of being primaried from the right, causing an even more dangerous slide into delusion and deceit.
Kind of wish the Founding Fathers were a *little* bit more explicit on whether a president can be impeached after their term is ended, but at least the prevailing opinion sides with the affirmative.
Will we find 17-18 Republicans with the spine to stand up to Trump and his brainwashed supporters? Sadly, I somehow doubt it.
Seems to me he was in office when he did the list of high crimes and misdemeanors, impeached by the House for a second time before he left office. He should be tried in the Senate since while two out of three ain't bad, the process must be allowed to completion. That is what the Constitution states: a 3 step process.
Charges,
Impeachment in House and
Trial in Senate.
No need for hand wringing over interpretation by legal pundits.
You did a great job on these corporate donations. My Daddy was right. Hit them in the wallet. It has gotten their attention!
Luttig's is a simplistic argument readymade for the simple minds who will use it and learn it as fact. As a US history teacher I encounter these false facts ALL THE TIME. But the impeachment clauses and precedents do make for interesting legal argument and, in the classroom, a deep dive into the Constitution.
Bottom line, they need to hold him accountable. He won't be convicted, but they need to move forward. This piece is helpful to understand is it or is it not constitutional. I am curious. I've also been hearing that even if he's not convicted there would be a way of not allowing him to run again for any public office. What mechanism would be used to do this? Would there be support?
It's important to remember that "impeachment" is the term for an "indictment" of an elected official, as opposed to a private citizen. A grand jury hands down an indictment, indicating there is enough evidence of criminal behavior to warrant charges and trial. In the case of Trump's second impeachment, the House acted as the Grand Jury and found there was enough evidence of criminal behavior to warrant a trial, and charged him in the Articles of Impeachment. To NOT hold a trial in the Senate is the equivalent of a grand jury handing down criminal charges against a private citizen, and no trial taking place. We have a legal system that calls people to account for criminal behavior. Just because Trump isn't president anymore doesn't make his crimes go away, or render accountability null and void.
Trump must be Impeached. Every politician who supported the idea that the election of Biden was illegal should be prosecuted and lose the right to ever hold office again and every single person involved in the traitorous act of storming our capital should be fined and jailed. No need for more discussions or debates necessary. Let’s get this done. Now.
The GOP has no standing lecturing anyone, even a cactus, on the constitution. Now that Trump announced opening an office to promote and continue to advance his destructive agenda you’d think the GOP would be all over trying to banish him to Devil’s Island.
Generally, jurors decide facts not legal questions of "jurisdiction" to hear a case. The issue of jurisdiction is usually decided by the judge before the trial. The Senators who think there is no jurisdiction want to avoid deciding the facts. They are not going to prevail on this theory to prevent the trial, and they should be prevented from having to make a determination as to whether to convict on the facts. There could or should be something like a special verdict form that requires Senators to vote guilty or not guilty first, and then allows them to separately express their view on "jurisdiction." That way they don't get to avoid their responsibility to decide the facts and, if Trump is convicted, he can try to challenge the legal question of jurisdiction in the courts.
It is unfortunate that Pelosi decided to deliver the article to the Senate so quickly. The House should have kept it as a threat against Trump if he ever ran again. Why elect a president who would be tried for impeachment on his first day in office?
Conviction for impeachment is the ONLY consequence that the constitution provides for a president who fails to discharge his duty. As this column points out, if a former president cannot be tried after leaving office, there is NO consequence at all. The judicial precedent referenced in the column is interesting, but after yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court that the emoluments case must be dismissed as moot, none of this matters as anything more than an intellectual exercise. Just as an emoluments verdict against Trump could have forced him to disgorge his profits from the Trump International hotel, an impeachment guilty verdict could prevent him from using his former president status to accumulate (or help others accumulate) federal campaign contributions. But if the Supreme Court isn't willing to acknowledge the larger issue, the entire concept of impeachment has been rendered moot...
I believe that Congress should proceed with the trial, present the evidence, and see if a conviction in the Senate is warranted.
If we don't attempt to find out if the extensive evidence of insurrection and sedition is enough for a conviction and if 17 Republicans will support facts or still defend this indefensible incitement by #45.
I'm not a lawyer (thank the stars) but I believe the waters need to be tested and then we [may] know just how important our Constitution is to the Republicans--or not.
Plus, if it gets to the Federal courts, for some obscure most likely idiotic reason, well, more information in this area would also be a great thing.
Nothing ventured--nothing gained.
Brilliantly written once again, Judd.