Impeachment timing

[Loki]

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.

[George K]

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]

[Loki]

Please someone tell me what the strategy is for the Senate Trial. No conviction, so there must be some other win.

[George K]

[Jolly]

In other words, a steaming pile of political horse dung that does nobody any good.

[George K]

@jolly said in Impeachment timing:

In other words, a steaming pile of political horse dung that does nobody any good.

An impeachment trial, if successful, will accomplish two things:

1. Prevent Trump from holding federal office in the future.
2. Put everything else on the back burner.

Priorities.

[Jolly]

1. They ain't finding 17 Republicans to vote for it. So it ain't happening.

2. It is going to suck all the oxygen out of the room.

[George K]

Rand Paul just commented that Chief Justice Roberts will not participate as the juror for an impeachment trial, because Trump is not the president.

The constitution states that the Chief Justice shall preside over the trial. If he's not coming over, the whole thing is little more than a show trial.

[LuFins Dad]

@jolly said in Impeachment timing:

In other words, a steaming pile of political horse dung that does nobody any good.

1. Red meat to the masses on both sides.

2. Sleight of hand always requires a distraction

3. Successful or not, it sends a message to other outsiders considering a run.

4. It’s all they got. Biden wasn’t elected to increase vaccinations by roughly 10K a day. He wasn’t elected rejoin the Paris Accord, he was elected to be Not-Trump.

[George K]

Federalist 39 (James Madison):

"The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office."

So, he has been impeached, but can he be convicted if no longer in office (though some will argue that impeachment doesn't occur until the articles are delivered to the Senate)?

[Jolly]

@george-k said in Impeachment timing:

Rand Paul just commented that Chief Justice Roberts will not participate as the juror for an impeachment trial, because Trump is not the president.

The constitution states that the Chief Justice shall preside over the trial. If he's not coming over, the whole thing is little more than a show trial.

But...but...Schumer said it would a be a deliberate and fair trial!

[George K]

I would love to see this go to SCOTUS.

I understand both sides of the argument - though watching heads explode (on both sides) regardless of how SCOTUS rules.