 |
 |
The Trump Impeachment Thread
| February 14th, 2021 at 6:44:54 AM permalink | |
| Wizard Administrator Member since: Oct 23, 2012 Threads: 239 Posts: 6095 | I thought I would do the radical thing of actually reading the Constitution when it comes to impeachment. The word appears only six times, so it's not that hard. Here they are with my comments as they apply to Trump's second impeachment. The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. -- Article 1, Section 2 There seems no debate about this. Is that how they spelled "choose" back then? The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. -- Article 1, Section 3 Does this explain why Justice Roberts did not preside this time -- because Trump wasn't a sitting president? I would really like to know the reasoning behind that. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. -- Article 1, Section 3 This one would seem to cut the House's way -- that it was legitimate to ask for "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." The President shall ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. -- Article 2 Section 2 This one doesn't seem pertinent to the case at hand. It does clear up the question that Trump couldn't have retroactively pardoned his own impeachment, not that anyone was worried about that. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. -- Article 2, Section 4 This one obviously cuts Trump's way. At the time of the trial, Trump was none of those things. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. -- Article 3, Section 2 This one doesn't seem to apply to the case at hand. All things considered, I have to side with the position that the Constitution does not allow for a trial of an ex-president. The House's side seems to argue that it doesn't exclude this by saying "There is no January exception." It seems to me a long-standing foundation of our legal system that one can't be prosecuted for something that is neither legal nor illegal. In other words an action that isn't addressed either way. Mitch McConnell addresses these same passages in his speech yesterday, which I thought was outstanding. Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj5pvgXAgMs I welcome all thoughts. Meanwhile, I'm glad this is over. We can revisit it in 2024 when Trump runs again and will probably win the GOP primary against a large field. Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber |
| February 14th, 2021 at 6:49:48 AM permalink | |
| Mission146 Administrator Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 4147 |
I don't personally believe that it created a precedent because there was almost no chance he'd have won reelection even if he had run. Secondly, having won two terms previously (even though he resigned during the second), I'm not sure he Constitutionally could be POTUS again. On the other hand, there's nothing stopping Trump from running again and I think his probability of success is at least greater than Nixon's would have been. IOW, there's at least a pragmatic reason to attempt an impeachment. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
| February 14th, 2021 at 6:53:31 AM permalink | |
| Gandler Member since: Aug 15, 2019 Threads: 27 Posts: 4256 |
Nixon was also pardoned by his VP for the activity in question after his VP took power, so he couldn't really be impeached (or convicted). This is why Trump was musing about reigning and letting Pence pardon him. Nixon was given a very general pardon that fogived him for just about any crime during that time period. |
| February 14th, 2021 at 7:12:10 AM permalink | |
| Mission146 Administrator Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 4147 | (Quotes clipped, relevance)
Justice Roberts recused himself from presiding and it was the fact that Trump was no longer the President that gave him the option to recuse. He probably also recused because some of the mudslinging (and other statements) made by Trump regarding the SCOTUS might be seen as creating the perception that Justice Roberts is not an impartial judge. This refers to 28 U.S. Code § 255 which actually suggests that a judge MUST recuse himself if his impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Notably, it says could reasonably be questioned---which means lack of impartiality does not have to be proven. Anyway, I don't know why he did it---but Trump no longer being POTUS is why it was an option.
That's my position. If the only possible reprisal was removal from office, then there would be no reason to remove someone who is not there.
That's correct. Some people were concerned that Trump might pardon himself, but even if it was decided that he can actually do that, that would only apply to criminal charges...not Impeachment.
True, but an actual conviction stipulates that a person can be prohibited from ever being an officer of the Federal Government again. I don't know why they would put that in there if Impeachment could only be done whilst a person is in office.
My argument would be, if the Constitution did not intend for this possibility, then how might someone who committed a heinous act (under the impeachment guidelines) possibly be prevented from holding further elected office? The position that only a sitting President can be tried would also lead to a POTUS essentially having carte blanche (with exception to clearly defined criminal acts) to essentially do whatever the hell he wants to in his last few days of office simply because the Legislative Branch is powerless to remove him. It simply can't be done that fast. Anyway, the mere acquittal in this case has not created a precedent that one must be sitting in order for Impeachment proceedings to take place. Quite the opposite, in fact, because the first vote the Senate had was on that specific issue...and they voted that the trial should go ahead and take place. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
| February 14th, 2021 at 8:08:09 AM permalink | |
| Wizard Administrator Member since: Oct 23, 2012 Threads: 239 Posts: 6095 |
They obviously threw that in there to prevent the impeached person from holding office again. I take it your point is that a careful reading of the Constitution would suggest the trial was legitimate for the purpose of doing just that.
Good point, which was a central point of the House's case about the constitutionality question. To play the devil's *ahem* advocate, one might argue that Article 1 Section 3 addresses that.
In other words, if the former president did something so heinous, he would be held accountable in the criminal courts. Finally, they might say that as another failsafe is the voters. In other words, if he did something so heinous, the voters wouldn't elect him. To argue my own point, I agree with Trump that he could shoot someone in cold blood and plain view on Fifth Avenue and not face any consequences. In fact, I will entertain bets on him winning the 2024 GOP primary. My prediction is the non-Trump Republicans will divide their vote among a wide field. Anyway, can we agree the whole thing pits the letter of the Constitution to the spirit of it? Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber |
| February 14th, 2021 at 8:18:57 AM permalink | |
| SOOPOO Member since: Feb 19, 2014 Threads: 22 Posts: 4185 |
100% incorrect! Wizard posted above that you CANNOT be pardoned out of an impeachment! The 'pardoning' would only protect Trump from a federal criminal prosecution. There are plenty of states that I'm sure are planning to charge Trump with various made up crimes, but it is their right to do so, EVEN IF Biden pardons Trump. As far as Mission saying Trump has a chance of being re-elected, someone offer me what odds they want and I will take the no! He lost this time, and probably 5-10% of people who voted for him would not next time, and ZERO% of those that voted against him would change their vote TO him. Plus the overall demographics favor the Dems... anchor babies reaching age, old white Trumpers dying, etc.... |
| February 14th, 2021 at 9:10:29 AM permalink | |
| Wizard Administrator Member since: Oct 23, 2012 Threads: 239 Posts: 6095 |
I can't speak for Mission, but will you entertain a bet on Trump not winning the GOP primary? I could see him winning that, but losing in the general election. The odds should obviously depend on whether there is a "must run for action" rule. Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber |
| February 14th, 2021 at 9:42:17 AM permalink | |
| SOOPOO Member since: Feb 19, 2014 Threads: 22 Posts: 4185 |
Sure. But there is a negligible chance that I will remember we made the bet! |
| February 14th, 2021 at 10:13:12 AM permalink | |
| Gandler Member since: Aug 15, 2019 Threads: 27 Posts: 4256 |
I stand corrected, you are both right it, seems the pardon was to prevent criminal prosecution so the issue would quiet down. The interesting thing I read is that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt (that you committed the crimes are accepting reprieve for them). Which is why some people refuse them. As Trump never admits anything I would be curious if he would accept a Pardon if one were offered. I can see a circumstance where he refuses and insists that it is a witch-hunt. Of course we will probably never know because his only chance of getting a pardon was resigning and hoping Vice President Pence issued one.... And, as he will never be President again (I shouldn't say that I may jinx things) his chances of having an opportunity to resign with a deal in place for the VP to pardon him are over. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-1/pardons-and-reprieves https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/ |
| February 14th, 2021 at 11:31:37 AM permalink | |
| fleaswatter Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 3 Posts: 1087 | Trump 2.....................Nancy Pelosi and the idiot house impeachment managers 0 I watched most of the losers’ press conference after Trump was acquitted. They are completely clueless. They seem to fail to understand that they LOST. Nancy will go down in history as the only Speaker of the House to bring two failed impeachments. I have read here many comments here concerning the constitutionally of the senate trial. I believe this issue has yet to be determined. Just because a majority of the senate voted to hold the trial, that vote DOES NOT make the trial constitutional. Many, many times throughout our countries’ history, laws voted on and passed by elected officials including the US senate have been determined to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. I wish that there would be some way for the US Supreme Court to actually rule on the issue. The “trial” was a complete joke (even though I do agree with the final result). Anyone who believes that the senate “trial” was fair and judged impartially by the senators needs to have their heads examined. Yes, I am happy with he outcome but I am not in denial that the process was corrupt. While reading many of the posts here, I think that it would be “karma” if some members here found themselves in a similar situation as a defendant as Trump was but were found to be guilty. How would you like to be a defendant in a trial where: -you are not allowed “due process” -you have a biased judge who has said that you are guilty before the trial even started, such an Senator Leahy did -you are facing prosecutors, such as the “House Impeachment Managers” who lie, and additionally provided fabricated, false and misleading evidence -you have jurors who have predetermined your guilt prior to the “trial”, such as both the democrats and republicans have I think you would “change your tune” real fast. Let's go Brandon |