Night of The Living Dead-on-Arrival Impeachment Trial
What to expect from the Zombie impeachment trial
The Senate Trial of Donald Trump starts Tuesday, February 9, 2021. The trial is a Zombie because, as Rand Paul famously said, it’s “Dead On Arrival” After 45 Senators Vote It’s Unconstitutional.
Yet it still will walk and talk.
Lots of talk.
The deal reached between Schumer and McConnell provides that each side will have two hours on Tuesday to argue over the constitutionality, or not, of an impeachment trial for someone no longer in office.
3 SEC. 2. When, pursuant to Senate Resolution 16, the
4 Senate convenes as a Court of Impeachment on Tuesday,
5 February 9, 2021, there shall immediately be 4 hours of
6 argument by the parties, equally divided, on the question
7 whether Donald John Trump is subject to the jurisdiction
8 of a court of impeachment for acts committed while Presi
9 dent of the United States, notwithstanding the expiration
10 of his term in that office.
Of course, the vote on constitutionality is a done deal, 50 Democrats will vote to move forward, and at least 1-2 Republicans will vote with them. The only issue is whether more than 45 Republicans will vote that the trial is unconstitutional.
You can read Trump’s Trial Memorandum here, the part addressing unconstitutionality starts on page 13. Jay Sekukows ACLJ also issued a Memorandum on why the trial is unconstitutional, and Byron York lists 5 Reasons the trial is unconstitutional in non-legal terms.
You can read my posts here:
- Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office
- Impeachment Problem? Chief Justice Roberts May Not Have Constitutional Authority To Preside At Trial Of FORMER President
- Report: Senate Republicans Negotiating Terms of Unconstitutional Post-Departure Trump Impeachment Trial
- Mitt Romney on board with post-departure impeachment trial of Trump
- Reports: Chief Justice John Roberts Will Not Preside At Upcoming Trump Senate Trial
Under the deal (see link above), Wednesday will be devoted to motions, the House then gets up to 16 hours over two days to present its case. What will that case look like? Accorgding to Politico, there probably won’t be any witnesses during the House presentation:
Democrats made a push for witnesses central to President Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial. But not this time.
Senate Democrats are making it clear they’re taking a different approach than they did for Trump’s infamous Ukraine call. Now, they say their experience as witnesses to the Jan. 6 insurrection is enough.
Trump then gets the same time to present his defense. As we previewed this weekend, Trump’s lawyers intend on playing video of Democrats, some of whom are in the Senate, using more threatening and inciting language than Trump used.
There is the possibility of witness subpoenas, but it’s not clear Democrats even will try that:
8 SEC. 8. (a) If the Senate agrees to allow either the
9 House of Representatives or the former President to sub
10 poena witnesses, the witnesses shall first be deposed and
11 the parties shall be allowed other appropriate discovery.
12 The Senate shall decide after deposition and other appro
13 priate discovery which, if any, witnesses shall testify, pur
14 suant to the Rules of Impeachment. No testimony shall
15 be admissible in the Senate unless the parties have had
16 the opportunity to depose such witnesses and to conduct
17 other appropriate discovery.
18 (b) If the Senate agrees to allow either party to sub
19 poena witnesses, provisions for the admission of evidence,
20 issuance of subpoenas, arrangements for depositions,
21 other appropriate discovery, testimony by witnesses in the
22 Senate, if such testimony is ordered by the Senate, and
23 any related matters are to be determined by subsequent
24 resolution of the Senate.
As much as some Democrats may want to subpoena Trump, he won’t obey a subpoena from an unconstitutional tribunal, and if Democrats tried to enforce it (not sure how they would do that), the constitutionality issue ends up in court and eventually SCOTUS. Considering that the Chief Justice is not presiding, because this isn’t a real impeachment trial, Democrats are likely to lose.
Then there’s more talk. And more talk.
Night of The Living Dead-on-Arrival Impeachment Trial.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
…not to be too particular but Monday is February 8th.
I’m so confused. Trump is being tried for impeachment. Does that mean the Democrats still think he is president? If so, why isn’t Biden the usurper, imposter, or insurrectionist?
If they vote to convict the president, are they voting to remove Trump or Biden from office? If they convict Trump, is Biden removed from office? If Biden is removed from office after they convict the president and remove him from office, does Kamala become president, or does Pence?
I mean, I thought the provision for impeachment and trail pertained to the president, but Biden, they keep telling me, is president, but they say they are impeaching and attempting to convict Trump, so that means he must be president.
I’m so confused.
This insane travesty couldn’t have happened with that POS McConnell, and the other trash in Congress calling themselves ‘republicans’.
Schumer, McConnell reach deal on Trump impeachment trial:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/537876-schumer-mcconnell-reach-deal-on-trump-impeachment-trial?amp
So if the Senate debates whether or not their impeachment trial is constitutional, and the vote holds that it is – more or less along party lines I assume, can Trump simply petition the USSC to confirm or deny the Senate’s “ruling” since it’s a legal/constitutional decision?
Sure would like to see a senator from WV and AZ break ranks and vote against the “constitutionality”
No, he cannot. It’s entirely up to the senate. See Nixon v USA — the only three questions the judicial branch can look at are (1) were the senators sworn in? (2) was the conviction by a 2/3 vote? and, if the defendant is the president, (3) did the chief justice preside? Other than that nothing about impeachment is justiciable.
“(3) did the chief justice preside? Other than that nothing about impeachment is justifiable.”
looks like he would be able to sue, since it has been reported the chief justice will not preside over the trial
But he is not the president.
In any case it’s moot, because (1) he won’t be convicted, and (2) even if he is convicted and disqualified from any future “offices under the united states”, no future president is likely to appoint him to one. He would not be disqualified from elected office, and that is something he would take to court if some board of elections refused to put him on the ballot.
Interesting, so there is a difference between elected officials and unelected officials highlighted in the impeachment process or constitution more generally? I hadn’t realised that. Which section is it in; or is based on something else?
Trump either is or is not President for purposes of Impeachment.
There is no indication in the text of the Constitution that would indicate that “the President” for purposes of whether Impeachment is possible means something different from “the President” for purposes of determining who presides.
If one were to hold that “the President” means anyone ever having been sworn into the office and thus thought, wrongly, that a former President is subject to impeachment, one would have to conclude that “the President” can only be tried when the Chief Justice presides. It is not only a question of the Vice President being conflicted as the “heir apparent” so to speak but because the impeachment of elected officials is the most prone to factional bias the involvement of the Chief Justice is the only hope for any semblance of fair trial of the President.
That being said, Mr. Trump is not “the President” and therefore the Impeachment and conviction would be a bill of attainder in the guise of an unconstitutional mpeachment.
@ Felixrigidus
Im not sure that was what Milhouse was getting at but I could be wrong.
I see your point about whether he is or isnt President. I dont know the answer to that. I know some quarters have stated that in effect the constitution allows it because of the practical implications. In other words a lame duck president is immune to impeachment in effect.
A bill of attainder has a particular mechanism i.e. it is legislation run through the normal process and signed by the President which then specifies an individual for punishment, since impeachment has its own constitutionally specified route it cant be a bill of attainder. Impeachment is impeachment is impeachment. The question is whether it runs contrary to the constitution and that seems a grey area, I lean towards constitutional.
“He would not be disqualified from elected office, and that is something he would take to court if some board of elections refused to put him on the ballot.”
That is the main takeaway. Many of us are assuming/hoping fmr. President Trump would want to walk through absolute hell again…
Mark, the term “officer of the united states”, or “office under the united states”, is used throughout the constitution, and it always means someone appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
That’s why the list of people who can be removed by impeachment is “the president, the vice president, and all civil officers of the united states”. The first two are not “civil officers of the united states”, so they had to be listed separately. Congressmen are also not “civil officers of the united states”, and that is the reason the senate cited in dismissing the impeachment of William Blount. It didn’t acquit him, it said it was not a valid impeachment in the first place.
Felix, impeachment is not a bill of attainder because it cannot impose a criminal penalty. It’s not a criminal process at all but a political one, and its consequences are confined to political ones. That’s why the supreme court said in Nixon v USA that it couldn’t intervene in an impeachment, except to inquire whether the process laid out had been followed.
The constitution doesn’t explicitly say whether former officers can be impeached; since before 1788 they could be, if the framers meant to forbid it they would have said so. And we have clear evidence that the common understanding for at least the next century continued to be that former officers could be impeached. But the clause about who presides is a completely separate one, and it specifies that “when the president of the united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside”. Trump was the president of the united states, so he is subject to impeachment, but he isn’t now, so the chief justice doesn’t preside.
The constitution doesn’t explicitly say whether former officers can be impeached; since before 1788 they could be, if the framers meant to forbid it they would have said so.
BS! BS! BS! The federal government operates on delegated powers! If a power is not delegated by the Constitution, the federal government may not exercise it!!!
Therefore, it is not, the government can do it if it is not forbidden…it is the government can only do it if it is Constitutionally delegated!
The Constitution delegates authority to impeach and try a president, a vp, and civil officers.
NO ONE ELSE!! End of discussion!
@Milhouse, that argument is not convincing.
The Constitution does not define the bill of attainder as imposing a criminal penalty but reaches all attempts of the legislature to immediately punish or penalize an individual or individuals, regardless of whether that penalty is used normally or created for this individual.
Historically, Impeachment is precisely a criminal process with certain peculiarities, namely that Parliament acts instead of prosecution (House of Commons) and as judge and jury (House of Lords). The US constitution removed all possible sanctions but removal from office and the possibility to add to that removal a disqualification for future office. However, it still requires an indictment that must allege “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Senate tries the case brought and circumscribed in the Impeachment and then either acquits or convicts. This is not a normal criminal trial, but it is (at the very least) a (quasi-)criminal process.
Disqualification certainly diminishes a right and constitutes a penalty. If not for the fact that the Constitution allows the Senate to impose that penalty after a conviction and removal from office following a constitutional trial initiated by Impeachment the individualized imposition by Congress of that penalty would be a clear case of a bill of attainder.
As @Mark mentions, if the President doesn’t sign it into law there might be an additional constitutional defect, but the primary defect that even with the signature it cannot ever be a constitutional law.
That is not what Nixon v United States says. Indeed, Rehnquist’s majority opinion explicitly states:
The Supreme Court will not hold that the question of whether a private citizen can be subjected to Impeachment and disqualification is not justiciable, as the explicit prohibition against bills of attainder shows there is no such commitment. If the courts deny that is justiciable they hardly can claim judicial review over bills passed into law (legislation is clearly textually committed to the legislature) and the power to declare them unconstitutional and void—with the sole exception of bills of attainder. That overturning of Marbury v Madison seems rather unlikely.
You would be right if the constitution had explicitly said who can be impeached and tried, and the congress ignored that provision. But it doesn’t.
We do not agree on that point. The constitutional text seems pretty clear in light of the debates at the convention, the contemporary discussion when comparing the Impeachment in the constitution of different states and in England with the regulations put into the proposed Constitution: Impeachment removes officers to ensure good governance.
In any case, the Supreme Court would have to decide, and that is all I’m saying here.
We do agree that it is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to do so, because there will be no conviction.
@felixrigidus and Milhouse
Interesting discussion thank you both.
The Constitution dictates who can be impeached. Not the Senate. The Senate has sole authority over the trial, not over who is Constitutionally eligible to be impeached.
The Constitution allows only a president, a vp, and civil officers of the US to be impeached and tried.
If a person is not one of these, the Senate has no jurisdiction and cannot proceed.
There is nothing for the Senate to do. They have no authority!!
The Constitution decides who, not the Senate!
It doesn’t say that. It says that’s who can be removed through impeachment. It doesn’t say at all who can be impeached, so we have to look to the common understanding in 1788, which we know was that former officials remained subject to impeachment, though obviously they could no longer be removed.
BS! millhouse! Who else can be impeached???? Only the ones listed in the Constitution!
Furthermore, that’s the punishment for impeachment!! Removal from office!!!
You are completely FOS, millhouse!! The Constitution lists the people who can be impeached!
The punishment for being convicted is removal from office. you idiot.
You can’t remove from office someone who is no longer in office!!
Does the Senate have jurisdiction over a private citizen????
You are completely insane!
P.S. Before 1788 they could impeach former officials???
The Constitution was ratified in 1787!!!
New Constitution, new rules!!
No authority to try a private citizen!!
Is “we have to look to the common understanding in 1788” documented someplace in the constitution?
I’m not convinced of your argument for one practical reason commiting an appropriately impeachable offence at the end of a presidents term in effect becomes impossible to impeach. Given it includes the ability to disqualify from future office that would make it a toothless clause in that scenario.
It seems to me that the constitution is silent on the point of former Presidents etc and that a reasonable inferring can be made based on the intentions of the clause. Namely to prevent a wholly inappropriate person from holding office again.
Both of AZ’s senators are Democrats. Mark Kelly I can’t imagine would break ranks. I guess there’s an outside chance with Sinema.
Call me crazy…isn’t The Supreme Coursts Job to Interpret The Constitution?
No, it’s not. The job of SCOTUS is to hear cases and rule on controversies.
The government is the creature, the Constitution is the creator. The creature has no authority over its creator.
Look to Thomas Jefferson to see what the courts’ role is in our Country.
And when those cases and controversies center on what the constitution says, it is the judiciary’s role to say what the law is.
No, it’s not. It’s their job to use the Constitution and laws as they were written, defined, and ratified/made law.
Courts don’t make law, they use the law.
a liberal view of justice. SCOTUS only job IS to interpret the constitutional issue in a case.
Call me crazy…isn’t The Supreme Coursts Job to Interpret The Constitution? Not the Senate or House!
.
“Then there’s more talk. And more talk.”
The point seems to be just that:
More impeachment mudslinging, more anti-Trump rants, more killing of the carcass that is (they hope) Trump’s political career, more cries of “Death to all Trumpists.”
This is a smoke and mirrors distraction. They are keeping us focused on the shiny object instead of what Biden is doing, and the composition of their monstrous $1.9T “stimulus.”
A Football Coach gives an impassionate “win one for the Gipper” speech before the game. During the game, a player fouls the opponent with a head to head contact hit. The opponent player gets a career-ending neck injury.
No one goes after the coach for what he said.
No one has ever successfully used a “I was inspired to do a bad thing” defense.
Trump did absolutely noting wrong!
Ty whstrat,
Alan Dershowitz pretty much said this…
https://www.waynedupree.com/2021/02/dershowitz-trump-testify/
I have contended for many years that who dislikes someone is often the best indication of that person’s worth.
Trump has taken on a selfless job, he has well in light of all the nasty shit the swamp has inflicted on him. I has been refreshing to have a proesident who actually cares about the country and citizens.
That is why all those nasty POS hate Trump.
We all need to do our best to make sure that the swamp does not have the last word on history.
Dead on arrival, but will whimper for awhile until it finally stops moving.
the interviewing and deposing of witnesses could take months and expose many complicit parties. the question would then become exactly who would be called at the “trial” and if somebody could block a witness testifying
the old national security defense, with pages of redacted information
As I recall, the responsibility of calling and deposing witnesses falls almost exclusively on the *House* and since they didn’t, a fair Senate would then not have any.
Of course, since when have the Dems had any concern about ‘fairness’ when they hold the whip hand.
When one political party has foresworn the law and the Constitution, one cannot expect them to obey either in a trial just as this. And since the Republican caucus in the Senate has already had a secret majority vote to micturate on their voter base, one must assume that they are likely to side with the Democrats in anything.
I am glad that President Trump is apparently not going to attend the sham-peachment proceedings, because in that legislative group, surrounded by NG troops taking orders from that group, his safety cannot be assured.
Subotai Bahadur
The real question is “what further insanity is this distracting us from”?
As if we don’t know?
We’ll be enslaved by the end of the year, if we don’t threaten – and begin the plan -for secession.
Stealing the election and biden further destroying our Country.
Further insanity?
Tinfoil hat time again … sooner or later election fraud will be proven or someone with convincing influence will spill the beans. We already have the Time magazine article admitting it but in partisan terms. “Fortified” for Biden = Conspiracy and Collusion against Trump. If the fraud were proven in the near term it would make for a real constitutional crisis and the question of remedy / relief could incite a civil war / revolution.
With 30 some election fraud cases still pending, I’ve wondered if the real motivation for impeachment and conviction, is to deprive Trump of standing to bring suit and/or deprive him of remedy / relief – i.e., impeachment and conviction makes him ineligible to resume the presidency. Or perhaps conviction would let the Dems claim all remaining election lawsuits are moot, since Trump is disqualified from the obvious remedy / relief such suits might bring.
If Trump is not convicted, the Dems will spend the next 4 years looking over their shoulders and refuting claims Biden* is an illegitimate “Commander in Thief”.
I feel there will be enough Republicans to convict President Trump of the false charges
That’s how absolutely traitorous they are
They don’t give a sh!t about fair, legal, Constitution, or the people they are suppose to represent
They are just plain evil
We are the circus
That is not even slightly likely. The maximum number of votes to convict will be 55, and I think it’s likely to be less than that. There are likely to be some senators who, like me, think the trial is constitutional but the defendant is innocent.
For anyone not in denial: you are spot-on.
The Republicans are voting for their future. Those that think the GOPe wins will vote. to Impeach. Those that. are afraid of primary season will vote no impeachment. They are all politicians not patriots. They will vote their self interests.
I don’t think that’s fair at all, given the level of support Trump has within the Republican grassroots id suggest that the brave thing to do is to vote against him. This has borne out with Liz Cheney, facing a big backlash yet has carried on.
I think its fair to say that Trump will continue to be a dominant force in the Republican party until at least 2024.
I’m no fan of Republicans in general but I can respect someone who votes based on their convictions.
I see the Republican grass roots supporting Trump and not the Republican leadership. His public approval is still higher than Congress. What’s unfair is the way Trump has been treated. Basically he’s been impeached twice for what the Democrats have done.
I’m not clear on what you mean by ‘what the Democrats have done’? Could you elaborate?
I appreciate your point that there is a strong difference between the GOP grassroots and the GOP representatives but that doesnt change the fact that most GOP congressmembers and senators fundamentally support Trump through there vote choices whereas Cheney hasnt (in terms of impeachment).
Trumps treatment hmm that’s a tough issue, I mean from my stand point he did a lot wrong how that translates into opposition measures id need to think about. With the state of discourse I think its worth having some introspection on all sides on how these issues are debated. It seems to me that both sides are so entrenched in there respective views that a rational debate on how one deals with any of the issues Trump throws up has been lost to partisan ad hominem attacks. In other words I think Trump did a lot of things wrong but don’t necessarily agree with the response to him. How we go from here I don’t know, I guess that’s one reason why I’m here to see what bridges there are.
For what its worth I don’t think the left has behaved particularly well in the last four years, I think the emotional response has been daft on many occasions.
I think politics has become too heated.
Discourse? How do you have discourse when Republicans have been excluded from the public square by virtually every forum?
Congratulations Professor Jacobson. It appears that you are drawing trolls who possess higher rhetorical skill than is typical for such people.
Err thanks I guess. For clarity I’m not a troll, I’m very happy to be proven wrong. Hell I’m as prone as anyone in making mistakes. I like to think when I’m wrong, I’m drunk though then at least I can disavow all knowledge of said mistake.
Most Republicans’ conviction is that Trump is innocent of the charges against him. Therefore they will vote to acquit. Do you respect that?
I would say all of them are convinced of his innocence, as are many or most Democrats, and those who voted to impeach, or will vote to convict, are the ones bowing to pressure despite their convictions. The pressure of the Washington elite, whose esteem and company they crave.
Optimist. It is of my opinion that 95% of the Republican Senators don’t care a whit about Trump’s guilt or innocence. They will be voting on “How will this vote affect my re-election chances?”
The reaction of Liz Cheney’s constituents should stiffen some spines, I would hope. Mitt is hopeless. He has no spine.
there are already four that are up in 2022 and aren’t running again. They could care less about voter pressure.
There is an interesting Atlantic article on impeachment, which makes the case that although impeachment hasn’t ended up convicting anyone it sets the stage to highlight an alleged infraction that the public at large should take note of. In other words even in the failure to convict the trial has two jurors: The senate in the immediacy and the public at large for the whole thing. Thus everyone can decide for themselves based on the case presented whether it has merit or not and accordingly decide who to vote for.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/impeachment-is-working-just-not-as-the-framers-expected/617954/
I’m not sure I entirely share the optimism here (with regard to the functionality of impeachment) but its interesting article never the less.
Interesting is not the one word I would use to describe it.
David Frum, Impeachment Is Working—Just Not as the Framers Expected starts with a blatant lie
and continues with more lies
Every single assertion in these three sentences is false, and because David Frum is too intelligent a person not to know it, deliberately false.
The article is interesting insofar as it provides an opportunity to gaze into the abyss. Its conclusion is an utterly predictable “Orange Man Bad.” Again, not what I’d describe as “interesting”. Trite seems to capture its essence much better.
_________
Come to think of it, the article is more interesting than I originally thought.
The “correction” of an inconsequential technicality provides a new level of deception beyond the usual in today’s media landscape. The reason for this is that the function (and most likely, therefore, the real purpose) of this correction is to signal that all facts alleged and not corrected must be true. After all, if even inconsequential innocent technical mistakes are corrected, surely massive and consequential material deliberate lies will be corrected as well? Yeah, sure. If only they’d adhere to the most basic ethical standards.
Come on, man. Hunter Biden is coming clean. He just wrote a biography detailing his porno and drug escapades that denies everything. And President Potato Head is so proud of his genius son, and the new scheme he cooked up to get millions in political paybacks to the family through book sales on this ghostwritten masterpiece.
“President Potato Head”
I’m so stealing that.
Well those views are commonly held and from the record it does appear to be true. Breaking down what he said:
1) Ukraine
a) Well Trump did prevent military aid at that time
b) He phoned up his Ukrainian counterpart and the following was stated:
President Zelenskyy (cont.)
I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
The President
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people.
From where I’m standing that looks pretty bad, what’s your take on the conversation?
2) Trumps Speech
a) Contextually he has pushed a false narrative so this is difficult to create a case if you happen to believe there was election fraud. That creates quite a difference perspective and makes discussion of this point a challenge. Do you believe there was election fraud?
b) The Capitol riots happened, and a democratic process was disrupted its hard to view it in any way other than extremely negatively.
3) Trump Georgia phone call
a) What’s your view on this, I’m curious? He definitely phoned up to try and get them to do something about the election result; finding additional votes based on, again, peddling an election fraud lie. I guess again that this depends on your view of whether there was election fraud.
It seems to me that this is a perspective issue, you seem to believe there was election fraud and thus through that prism Trump did no wrong on points 2 and 3. I wonder if you hypothetically assume there wasn’t election fraud i.e. put yourself in the other sides shoes can you see that they perhaps look bad?
You just confirmed everything Felix said. Frum deliberately lied.
You just quoted Trump’s words to Zelenskyy. We can all see that he did not ask him to fabricate anything. He asked him to find out what happened. That’s the exact opposite of what Frum alleges! How do you get from “find out what happened” to “make something up”? If you’re going to fabricate something then you have no interest in what happened, and no need to find it out.
The same applies to the Georgia call. We know exactly what he asked Raffensperger to do: Find enough fraudulent votes to change the result. He was very explicit: There are so many fraudulent votes that you don’t have to find them all, you don’t even have to find most of them; all you need to find is just a few thousand of them, and we can write off all the rest. Surely that can’t be too difficult.
Whether there actually were so many that finding a few thousand was an easy task is irrelevant. It’s very clearly what Trump believed. There’s just no possible way to deny that. And yet Frum, and you, have invented out of whole cloth an allegation that is the exact opposite. That is outright dishonesty.
What Milhouse said.
What Felix said.
Is the impeachment trial all about having Trump argue that he is not the president?
He clearly isn’t the president. Nobody claims he is. Certainly he doesn’t.
As Ive said previously, if you have to squint your eyes, turn the text on its side and (sponge bob fingers) use your imagination then the thing you think you are reading doesnt way what you want it to say.
The media will report this, breathlessly, but you will not get the truth from them. Democrats will be Democrats and lose interest as soon as its one of their own up for impeachment (and more likely actually DESERVING of impeachment) and the brain dead left will shout something about how their feelings have been hurt by Trumps mean words.
Fuck. Them. All.
The clear purpose of the Democrats (100%) and the GOPe is to destroy the USA and the voters who support Trump and the USA. This is what evil looks like.
The point of this trial is to destroy Trump any way they can. The Russian hoax failed in spite of all the lies. The Ukrainian hoax failed in spite of all the lies under oath. Now comes the third and final try of the swamp to take out the evil Trump. Expect many more lies today from the swamp creatures. They have no shame and face no repercussions for their dishonesty.
I just hope the masses are watching the other hand while this BS is going on.
“Now comes the third and final try of the swamp to take out the evil Trump.
I’m not so sure that this is the final try…
Insurrection? AFter all that Democrats said since HRC lost in 2016, they look like dwellers in a glass house picking up stones.
Can you imagine the difference Democrats COULD have made to America if they had actually worked with Trump to make America a better place these last 4 years.
You can include a significant number of Republicans in that comment
What the Democrats intend is more like producing a movie than holding a trial. They are going to inundate the public with lies and emotional appeals to paint a picture of Trump as an evil tyrant trying to overthrow the Constitution and install himself as dictator for life.
The rules they’ve made will limit the time available, preclude calling witnesses, and prevent Trump from putting on a real defense, or overturning the entire premise by showing how the election was stolen (and how both parties participated in it). It should be DOA, but the Democrats seem to believe they can get enough propaganda value value out of it to be worthwhile.
Well, they started as you predicted. An emotionally charged deeply dishonest purely fictional movie and fake tears instead of rational argument.
Allow me to give my opinion on a few points here.
First of all, there is a common misconception as to what constitutes impeachment of a public official. Impeachment is not the removal of an official from office. Impeachment is analogous to indictment, in the criminal justice system. it simply means that a body [the House of Representatives], which is authorized to present charges against a person before a trier of fact [the Senate] for the purpose of determining guilt or innocence. So, could Donald Trump have been constitutionally impeached by the HoR? In this case, yes; as he was the sitting President at the time. Now, it is up to the Senate to dispose of the impeachment charges against Trump. And, this is where it gets complicated.
The purpose of impeachment and conviction was not to punish an official. It was designed to remove a person, convicted of wrongdoing, from a position of trust within the US Government. And, as the Founders assumed that members of the Executive Branch might be reluctant to remove those appointed by the President, or the President himself, they granted this power to the elected branch of government, the Legislature. Impeachment ws not applied to the Congress, because the Houses of Congress were granted the power to discipline their members, up to and including expulsion. So, impeachment was not necessary to remove members of those bodies. We cam logically assume that removal was the goal because Art.2 Sec.4 states that the impeached official SHALL be removed from office, upon conviction by the Senate.
So, we have a sitting President, impeached, while still in office, by the HoR. A constitutional act. However, now the case moves on to the Senate, after the official impeached is out of office. This means that the main goal, removal of the offending official, can no longer be accomplished. In other words, the goal of impeachment has been rendered moot. The Senate can debate the actions of Trump, his character or his taste in shoes. The only thing they can not do is impose any penalty, as all penalties require his being removed from office and he no longer holds office. And, without a penalty, which can be imposed, the Senate can not try him for high crimes or misdemeanors.
Now, dismissal of the case against Trump, for lack of jurisdiction due to his having left office, does not preclude ordinary criminal indictment, charging and trial, for high crimes and misdemeanors, from taking place. However, to engage in a “trial”, of dubious constitutionality, is simply not going to fly.
Exactly!
The circumstances of the impeachment no longer exist. President Trump is no longer holding office. The punishment can no longer be rendered if the Senate were to convict. The Senate cannot convict, however, because the Senate has no jurisdiction over a private citizen.
This is a putrefying spectacle of abuse of power and consuming hatred for one man.
A minor point.
When the House of Representatives took the vote Trump was still in office, and the Impeachment is not unlawful because of that.
However, delivery to the
House of LordsSenate is an integral part of the act of Impeachment, and since Speaker Pelosi (once again) deliberately delayed delivery, in this case until after Trump had left office, it would seem that the Impeachment itself was late ab initio.In any case, that article brought to the Senate must be adjudicated by the Senate. However, the Senate should dismiss because late Impeachment is unconstitutional or at the very least moot.