Impeachment timing
-
Can a President be impeached for things that he did prior to becoming President?
Even if he were a private citizen?
-
Can a President be impeached for things that he did prior to becoming President?
Even if he were a private citizen?
@taiwan_girl said in Impeachment timing:
Can a President be impeached for things that he did prior to becoming President?
Even if he were a private citizen?
The better question is whether a President can be impeached for things they did as VP...
The Brad
-
I think you should do away with Presidents. They're a bloody liability.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Impeachment timing:
Can a President be impeached for things that he did prior to becoming President?
Even if he were a private citizen?
The better question is whether a President can be impeached for things they did as VP...
@lufins-dad said in Impeachment timing:
The better question is whether a President can be impeached for things they did as VP.
AFAICT, The Constitution doesn't specify "High crimes and misdemeanors" while in office.
"“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.”"
I think this means whatever the House of Representatives wants it to mean.
-
Now, Senate Republicans are also, apparently, beginning to realize the issues involved in the impeachment of a former president. They are reportedly adopting the position that an ex-president cannot be impeached. The idea is that impeachment is the Constitution's method for removing a president found guilty of a certain set of offenses -- "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The important thing is that it is a method for removal, and you cannot remove a president who has already left office.
Democrats argue that there can still be an impeachment trial for former President Trump because the Constitution says that a convicted president can also be disqualified from holding "any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States" -- that is, any federal office, like the presidency or member of Congress. But here is the thing: The Constitution says 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." Who did the framers mean when they referred to "the president"? Did they mean the President of the United States? There's only one of them at a time. Or did they mean anyone who has served as president? It seems obvious they meant the president in office. The text of the Constitution is pretty clear: Impeachment is for the serving president. Donald Trump is not the president now.
By the way, The Speaker still has not delivered articles of impeachment to the Senate.
-
Assuming the scenario that 17 GOP senators will never convict what is the benefit of going through with this. Can someone explain the rationale in my scenario? Also assuming same how does this tie to the Unity vision and mission statement?
To be clear this is not a rhetorical question.
-
Assuming the scenario that 17 GOP senators will never convict what is the benefit of going through with this. Can someone explain the rationale in my scenario? Also assuming same how does this tie to the Unity vision and mission statement?
To be clear this is not a rhetorical question.
@loki said in Impeachment timing:
Assuming the scenario that 17 GOP senators will never convict what is the benefit of going through with this. Can someone explain the rationale in my scenario? Also assuming same how does this tie to the Unity vision and mission statement?
This is the question what was asked in January. No one, afaik, came up with a satisfactory answer, other than, "It was cathartic, sort of like taking a huge dump."
"Unity?" Fuggheddabodit!
-
Assuming the scenario that 17 GOP senators will never convict what is the benefit of going through with this. Can someone explain the rationale in my scenario? Also assuming same how does this tie to the Unity vision and mission statement?
To be clear this is not a rhetorical question.
@loki said in Impeachment timing:
Assuming the scenario that 17 GOP senators will never convict what is the benefit of going through with this. Can someone explain the rationale in my scenario? Also assuming same how does this tie to the Unity vision and mission statement?
To be clear this is not a rhetorical question.
-
Throwing red meat to the rabid masses on both sides.
-
Sleight of Hand... Look at my assistant in the lingerie while I tie this mirror up with fishing line....
-
Teach a lesson to any outsider that they will utterly destroy you if you don’t play the game.
-
Circus Maximus
-
-
@loki said in Impeachment timing:
Assuming the scenario that 17 GOP senators will never convict what is the benefit of going through with this. Can someone explain the rationale in my scenario? Also assuming same how does this tie to the Unity vision and mission statement?
This is the question what was asked in January. No one, afaik, came up with a satisfactory answer, other than, "It was cathartic, sort of like taking a huge dump."
"Unity?" Fuggheddabodit!
@george-k said in Impeachment timing:
@loki said in Impeachment timing:
Assuming the scenario that 17 GOP senators will never convict what is the benefit of going through with this. Can someone explain the rationale in my scenario? Also assuming same how does this tie to the Unity vision and mission statement?
This is the question what was asked in January. No one, afaik, came up with a satisfactory answer, other than, "It was cathartic, sort of like taking a huge dump."
"Unity?" Fuggheddabodit!
So unity falls apart on the first flight. I think Biden has used the word too many times to duck this.
-
-
A lot of insider baseball here:
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/16/when-is-an-officer-impeached-v/
The House has voted to impeach and has approved an article of impeachment, and Pelosi has even named a team of managers to prosecute the impeachment case. But Pelosi has once again decided to sit on the articles and to not formally notify the Senate that the president has been impeached. This time it might have more substantial consequences.
On the upside, the delay does provide an opportunity for the House to improve its case. The House could adopt additional articles of impeachment or rewrite the one it has already improved. The Speaker could appoint additional managers or remove some who have already been named. The House can spend the time preparing for its prosecution, time that might be particularly valuable since the impeachment itself proceeded on an expedited schedule without hearings.
On the downside, the House's slow process has weakened its own rhetorical framing of the need for impeachment. I thought the House should have impeached Trump immediately after the riot, before the electoral count even resumed. If the president posed an immediate danger to the republic and the Congress, then there was no time to waste. Instead, the House chose to waste time—an entire week—to impeach a president who only had two weeks left in his natural term of office. If you believed that Trump was fomenting an insurrection from the White House, this is not how you would react. There are still good reasons to impeachment and convict the president, but the House needs to take care in how it explains the case in order to deemphasize the immediate threat and emphasize the long-term principle.
More significantly, the House risks handing the Trump defense team unnecessary legal arguments. It will already be difficult to persuade two-thirds of the senators that a former president can be put on trial and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe that the House can impeach a former president and that the Senate can try a former president, but the textual case is stronger for the latter than the former.
But if you are of the view that the Senate can try all constitutionally valid impeachments, even when the officer has left the office, but an impeachment is only constitutionally valid when the impeached individual is a current officer, then the timing of the impeachment matters. Some of what Judge Luttig has written suggests that he is of this view. This might be the one circumstance in which, under the federal constitution, the question of when an officer is impeached has actual constitutional consequences.
If you take that possibility seriously—and some senators might—then it matters a great deal when exactly the House used its impeachment power to formally impeach Trump such that it can validly authorize the Senate to hold an impeachment trial. As I observed in the earlier posts, the traditional understanding of the impeachment power in the United States up until the early twentieth century was that the "impeachment" occurs when an authorized member of the lower chamber appears on the floor of the upper chamber and "impeaches" an officer by formally leveling an accusation and demanding a trial. Starting in 1912, the House has taken the view that the "impeachment" occurs when the House votes to adopt a resolution of impeachment. Under the modern view, Trump has already been impeached, and so there should be no question about whether the Senate can start a trial whenever the House gets around to exhibiting articles of impeachment. Under the traditional view, Trump has not yet been impeached and will not be impeached until the House formally notifies the Senate.
-
Ok. It’s on. So Trump will continue to dominate the headlines. So far the odds of conviction are really low.
Unity will have to wait.
-
An impeachment trial is going to reveal so many facts regarding what happened on January 6th. The narrative will change dramatically one way or the other.
For example, it was reported the barricades had been breached during Trump’s speech, 40 minutes of walking apart. Some Congresscritters already had evacuated or gone into hiding. No way the breachers had heard Trump’s speech.
It will be a very interesting week if Trump in the headlines is what you want.
-
Interesting.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-former-president-be-impeached-and-convicted
So it seems important to know what this “power of impeachment” is that has been vested in the House. The founders borrowed this power from British parliamentary practice and state constitutional practice, which does not suggest that the “power of impeachment” was intrinsically limited to incumbent officers. Quite the contrary, in fact: British practice indicates that the “power of impeachment” is the power to lodge formal allegations that an individual engaged in misconduct while holding a governmental office. Impeachments of former officers were both known and explicitly textually allowed. The framers did not discuss the matter one way or another, but they could easily have understood that the “power of impeachment” implicitly includes a jurisdiction over former officials. The text is at best vague and at worst includes former officers. And if the House can impeach them, then the Senate can try them, because the Senate has the power “to try all impeachments.”
Of course, in Trump’s case the impeachment is of a current officer, and so the question is whether the Senate loses jurisdiction if the impeached officer resigns or completes his term before the trial. But if the Senate has the power “to try all impeachments,” then it would seem that it has the power to try all individuals whom the House has impeached and brought to trial regardless of whether that individual still holds public office. The House has frequently chosen to drop its impeachment efforts when an officer resigns; in those cases, it has generally either not voted on an impeachment resolution, not drafted articles of impeachment or not presented articles of impeachment to the Senate. But the fact that the House frequently concludes that its goals have been accomplished by the officer’s resignation does not mean that the House could not have seen the impeachment through all the way to a Senate verdict.
It is true that Article II, Section 4 does specify what happens to specified officers upon conviction in a Senate impeachment trial. This language generally has been read, quite reasonably, to limit the potential scope of the impeachment power. The named offices are the president, vice president and all civil officers of the federal government. This is understood to mean that federal military officers are not subject to the impeachment power, and neither are state government officials nor private individuals. The Constitution could have been written differently, but this extension of the jurisdictional scope of the impeachment power to other individuals would have departed from inherited practice and could be expected to require an explicit textual delegation. According to Section 4, incumbent officers “shall be removed” upon conviction,which is why the Senate does not take a separate vote on whether to remove—instead, removal is automatic and instantaneous upon conviction. Section 4 says nothing about what happens to former officers. And Article I states that the punishment that the Senate can levy after conviction “shall not extend further” than removal and disqualification. So while the Senate has limited punishments it can impose, Article I says nothing about whether Senate trials or punishments are limited to incumbent officers.
-
@loki I agree. The prospects of getting 17 GOP votes (and all 50 Democrats) to vote to convict is slim. However, if the Speaker delivers the articles on Monday, he remains impeached (see my other post about what timing actually qualifies as "impeached." To wit; when the House votes (and that's been the standard since 1912), or when the articles are delivered (after he's left office).
This will be a constitutional lawyer's wet dream. The constitution is, according to one camp very vague. According to the other camp, it says "The President." Join those arguments with the timing, and it's a food fight.
-
In other words, a steaming pile of political horse dung that does nobody any good.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
