Republicans senators are beginning to coalesce around a new talking point: impeaching former President Donald Trump is now unconstitutional because he has left office.
a new talking point: impeaching former President Donald Trump is now unconstitutional because he has left office.
No one is making that claim, because he was impeached while still in office. The claim they are making is that it is unconstitutional for the senate to put him on trial after him having left office.
that it sets a bad precedent for the presidency
Shit, Linds… it’s not as if you’ve been worried about bad precedents for the presidency over the last 4 years…
Lindsey Graham should resign his U.S. Senate seat and return to his starring role in “Petticoat Junction.”
There is just no "Race-to-the-courthouse-door’ argument here that would deny
the Congressional impeachment power. The ban on future service it is rendered useless if POTUS can commit that High Crime or Misdemeanor on 1/19/Whatever. Rep Jamie Raskin said this last Sunday on ‘the shows’.
It’s above my paygrade but it would be nice for some trial tactic which would REQUIRE/FORCE Senate to explicitly force vote on the High Crime and Misdemeanor w/o this ‘process dodge’
Here’s another macro for you.
Experts Dismiss GOP’s New Claim That …
E.g, Experts Dismiss GOP’s New Claim That … We Can’t Issue More Disaster Relief Because of Debt!
Experts Dismiss GOP’s New Claim That …A Green New Deal Will Wreck the Economy and Cost Jobs!
Experts Dismiss GOP’s New Claim That … Abstinence Only Based Sex Education Reduces Unwanted Pregnancies.
See how that works. Automation!
After ENDLESS FUCKING bad faith arguments from the R tirbers about how the multiple instances of “Russian Hoax” perjury is really only a ‘PROCESS CRIME’
Bad faith much? Let me count the way.
The GOP Rabble is offering opinions…Felons offering business fairness seminars
There could be argument that impeachment (which has already happened) is not possible if the officeholder is out of office, but clearly the trial can go forward.
For the former argument, two weeks ago I was pretty firmly on the side of “the Constitution’s plain language says that only the President, Vice President, and civil officers can be impeached in the House” - meaning that former Presidents aren’t subject to impeachment. By which I mean specifically the House vote, not the media generality “impeachment” referring to any/all parts of the process.
After reading about the precedent set by the impeachment of William Belknap, I’m not so firm on that any more. I don’t place any particular significance on the difference between “the President” and “the Vice President” and “civil officers” - the Constitution intended them all to be treated the same for the purpose of impeachment, so if Belknap can be impeached after leaving office, so can the President.
Experts, schmexperts.
We’re Republicans. We don’t need no stinking experts.
Lindsey Graham should resign his U.S. Senate seat and return to his starring role in “Petticoat Junction.”
♫ Come ride the little train that is rolling down the track at the Junction ♫
The Constitution does not explicitly (or implicitly) say that a former president cannot be impeached. So I think we’re cool with it.
I am sure not an expert on this and it is uncharted territory, but Trump has already been impeached by the House while he was still in office, and the Senate will now hold a “trial” to decide if he should be convicted and barred from public office in the future after he has left office.
I totally agree we are on the right side of the trial after leaving office.
I ask this not as a reason not to proceed but how we can actually stop them if they get the majority back.
But how are we going to stop them from impeaching Obama, Both Clintons, and even Jimmy Carter after he is gone?
The Senate’s own web site appears to offer clear and convincing precedent that former officials can be tried after leaving office:
On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.
This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”
The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.
On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles.
¯\_ (ツ) _/¯
“Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.”
That’s what they are urging …that a President who has been impeached by the House while in office cannot be tried by the Senate after his term ends.
But that is not how they are describing it:
“I think it’s obvious that the post-presidential impeachment has never occurred in the history of the country for a reason: that it’s unconstitutional, that it sets a bad precedent for the presidency and it continues to divide the nation,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters Friday
No, Lindsey, what is obvious is that this is the first time a President has committed sedition in response to losing an election.
The searing memory of what happened to their House majority after the impeachment of Clinton should help. Not mention the un-personing of Newt Gingrich, who led that impeachment.
Never underestimate the mendacity of Republican lawyers in Congress.
All valid precedent. But still, when one side is blowing smoke, it helps to be precise and accurate in one’s responses. Abetting the conflation of impeachment with trial does not help.