Yesterday all 50 Democratic senators were joined by 6 Republicans in a vote to continue the trial of former President Donald Trump. While a simple majority is sufficient for the trial to proceed, it’s not enough to convict. Unless something emerges in the course of the trial which would convince the 44 Republicans who voted that the trial was unconstitutional, it’s hard for me to see how any of them would vote to convict.
So the outcome is a foregone conclusion. That would make the second instance in American history in which a trial of impeachment failed to convict at least in part because enough senators believed that once an individual had left office he or she was no longer subject to impeachment.
If you believe there should be consequences for President Trump’s words before the breaching of the Capitol on January 6, blame the House. They should have acted with a greater sense of urgency. Laws should be put in place governing the situation.
Surely you jest. A stolen election (admitted by Time), a false-flag pseudo-riot, a kangaroo, Stalinist show trial, the Capitol building held by 5,000 armed troops, surrounded by a steel wall topped by razor wire, with traffic barriers…
It should be obvious, even to people living in the bluest Hell Mouth, that there has been a successful coup d’etat. All American institutions are illegitimate and corrupt, every single department, agency, and every single individual in them, including specifically the courts (even the Supremes) and the military.
And there is no recourse.
This has nothing to do with law, whether speed to action or actual incitement, in which relevant case law pertains.
This is a political show trial. A very sad day for the institutions people were nauseatingly blathering about a few weeks ago.
I think the Senate lacks the power to convict Trump because he is no longer President and also because the House did not complete impeachment before he was out of office. I believe the primary purpose of impeachment is to remove someone from public office, and Justice Story observed in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) that the impeachment provisions are structured to assume the person was still in office, raising doubt whether someone no longer in office could be disqualified from future office.
The idea that former officials cannot be impeached appears frequently over the years, only challenged in one or two cases. In the impeachment of Judge English (1926) it appears to me that the prospect of avoiding conviction by resignation was held out as an inducement. English resigned two days before the Senate trial commenced, and the House immediately moved to dismiss the impeachment. This is why arguments to the consequences aren’t persuasive to me. The worse outcome is having someone unfit in office and the barest incentives to resign are worth more than the added recourse of disqualification.
I would also vote in favor of censure and a special investigation into any ties between the White House and the mob.
Me, too. As I’ve said before I also think that laws need to be passed to govern the situation, including amending the Constitution if necessary.
White House and the mob:
In N.Y. as I’ve heard it, you can’t do business WITHOUT dealing with the mob. Is that what you mean? Paying an extra $2/window or $1/ton for garbage collection?
@Dave, a lot of state constitutions have more detailed impeachment provisions, such as definitions of high crimes and misdemeanors. I was a little surprised looking at the Congressional Record and seeing a Senator in the Belknap impeachment express concern that the offenses were not defined, and that case involved bribery. (Any ambiguity probably results from the strange fact scenario in which many of the key actors were not the Secretary, and there is no federal common law, so what “bribery” means, and who is criminally liable, potentially varies from state to state)
A better rule might be simply to provide for impeachment upon the concurrence of two-thirds of both legislative chambers. Quicker, cleaner, and sufficiently difficult that it doesn’t recreate a parliamentary system.
Is it even possible to impeach and convict anyone anymore? I am pretty doubtful. Set it at 2/3 and it won’t happen. Set it at 50% and way too many get impeached and convicted.
Steve