Below is my (expanded) column in the Hill on the prudential (as opposed to the constitutional) concerns raised by the second Trump impeachment trial. Senators will have to resolve these questions before reaching the merits. The prudential concerns may also weigh heavily in the possible rejection of witnesses after the snap impeachment. The House blundered by leaving the record and witnesses entirely to the Senate to develop. The Senate could now chose to rule on the record — or lack thereof. Even a couple days of hearings could have created a record of documents and witness accounts — and an opportunity for a formal response from the President. It could also have allowed for suggested changes on the language of the article to allow for broader support. I have no objection to removing a president on his final day, but the House should create a minimally sufficient record to support a constitutional determination of a high crime and misdemeanor.
Here is the column:
The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump appeared to effectively end before it even began Tuesday. In a threshold procedural vote on the constitutionality of trying a former president, 45 senators voted in favor of a motion to challenge the trial, and that means almost half of the Senate believes Trump might not be subject to a trial, let alone a conviction, as a former president. It also means House impeachment managers may not be able to secure the Senate votes to convict.
For those members who believe the trial is invalid, the votes would not change based on the merits. In the 1999 impeachment of Bill Clinton, some Senate Democrats argued against a trial due to a lack of votes to convict him. They argued for simple votes without a trial on prudential grounds. But this time the larger prudential issue looms over the upper chamber. With acquittal now likely, members of the Senate may focus on the costs of a “snap impeachment” for the institution.
Before they took the oath for the impeachment trial and voted on the dismissal motion raised by Rand Paul, I met with all Senate Republicans to discuss the historical and constitutional issues. I did the same before the first impeachment trial of Trump. It was an intense and, in many ways, an inspiring discussion. Senators honestly struggled on whether they could vote to “remove” a president who is no longer in office.
The vote on the dismissal motion is not likely to end the debate over the constitutionality of a trial, which has strong arguments on both sides. There are only two cases where a retroactive removal was attempted. In 1789, resigned Senator William Blount refused to appear for what he saw as an unconstitutional trial. The Senate agreed and dismissed the case. A closer parallel involved former Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. The same threshold vote was taken with the same result as almost half of the Senate voted to dismiss the trial as unconstitutional. The motion failed narrowly and the Senate had the trial then acquitted him.
But now the Senate is faced with the second prudential issue. There are cases which, even if legally brought, contain errors so significant they must be dismissed as unsound on prudential rather than constitutional grounds. This case raises such a fundamental error. The problem is not what was sent to the Senate but what was not. There was no record. For the first time in history, the House of Representatives sent an article of impeachment to the Senate without any hearing, any testimony, any response from the president. Not a word. It just sent a poorly crafted article of impeachment like a conclusion in search of proof.
Witnesses may be essential to establish intent by President Trump, which could be based on his actions before or after the riot. However, there are a myriad of sources for circumstantial or direct evidence. Like many, I have called for an investigation including inquiries on when National Guard troops were offered to Congress and whether Trump in any way delayed or obstructed the use of National Guard troops. That might not have been possible in a couple days. However, there was information available from the congressional side on whether troops were first offered, when they were requested, and any communications with the White House. If Trump refused to give authority for deployment, it would be strong circumstantial evidence of intent.
I am actually surprised that the House did not simply hold hearings after the vote. Weeks have gone by during which the House could be creating an evidentiary records either referenced at trial or made available to senators. Why not? Instead, the House is demanding witnesses at trial but could be creating a post-impeachment record. It is not ideal but it is better than waiting for a trial with limited or no witnesses.
Modern impeachment have uniformly had a record in the form of witness testimony or some other source of evidence. Early impeachments were handled in a very different Congress where evidentiary hearings were not common as they are today. Indeed, the modern committee system did not exist. The Framers left it to the House to establish the basis for an impeachment. The expectation was that the vote of high crimes and misdemeanors would not be a simple conclusory vote but supported in some form to meet the constitutional standard. Witness testimony was not necessarily the expectation. That is why the House is often analogized to a grand jury which is different from a trial in its rules and operation. While the Constitution only requires the articles of impeachment, all impeachments had some record of some kind to serve as the foundation for a presidential impeachment. However, such testimony has been the norm either in House hearings or the incorporation of witness testimony as with the Clinton impeachment.
Moreover, I am not aware of any impeachment where the accused, particularly a president, was not given a formal opportunity for a response. Finally, there was the establishment of certain critical facts. Even with the William Blount case, the position was clear given the move to expel Blount before his trial in the Senate. Thus, while the records differed in major ways (particularly with regard to modern witness testimony), there was a record. The House shouldered the burden (much like a grand jury) in establishing the foundation for an impeachment while the Senate would then take that record and hold a trial. The expectation was that the Senate could hold witness testimony (which is why I have supported witnesses in presidential and judicial impeachments).
The issue is whether the Senate wants to legitimize this radical departure from the traditions of both chambers. Some of us called for the House to hold at least a day of hearings to allow the chance for the president to respond. Yet the House refused to call any witness or hold any hearing on the article of impeachment. House leaders said there was not a day to spare then did nothing. They waited almost two weeks to submit the article to the Senate. It also did not make formal demands from the Administration for responses or create a record of any kind from evidence in control of Congress.
It is a familiar pattern. When I testified in the first impeachment hearing on Trump, I objected that the House was moving in the shortest time and on the thinnest record with any impeachment of a president. I testified that Trump could be impeached on two articles, the two ultimately adopted by the House, but cautioned that such a rush was unnecessary and would fail in the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee did not call a sole witness, which led the Senate to decline to call any witness. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff back then also insisted there was no time to waste then waited weeks to submit the articles to the Senate.
After the House destroyed its own rationale for its rushed impeachment, I wrote about a dangerous prudential concern for the Senate in accepting such an insufficient record for the trial. While the Constitution does not specify a record, this was a shocking departure from tradition. I suggested a Senate compromise to dismiss the article of obstruction of Congress to show the House it should never repeat such an abbreviated process but to give the House the trial witnesses it should have called. Otherwise, the House would use that case as a baseline for future impeachments. The House has now done that and then went another step further.
Instead of submitting an insufficient record, it submitted no record at all in a second impeachment of the same president. For Senate institutionalists, that comes across as a virtual taunt. Even one hearing in the House could have supplied some evidence on the intent of Trump for the riots at the Capitol. Witnesses could have addressed whether the National Guard was offered to Congress in advance or whether Trump obstructed any such assistance. Answers could have been demanded from the White House. Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller gave interviews on Oval Office discussions about that issue but was not called to testify.
I have no problem with removing a president on his last day in office, as impeachment plays an important role in condemning illegal actions. But there must be some record and not just a conclusory statement in a snap impeachment. Like the threshold constitutional issue, the prudential issue is a matter for Congress and not the accused. It is not about what Trump did but what the House failed to do in sending a bare article to the Senate, which was effectively asked to carry the burden for both chambers. With an acquittal now likely, those significant prudential concerns will become magnified for Senate institutionalists down the road.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law with George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as an expert for the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Follow him with Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Trump may form a new party. He should call it The D. T. Klan
Don’t quit the day job you don’t have.
Your inclination to post insults reflects on you.
There is no need for hearings, it all happened on national TV. You either stand for our democracy and thus you vote to convict, or you are just peachy with coups, then you vote to acquit. It is not complicated.
“I saw that black man look strangely at my white teenage daughter. Everyone that saw it knows they ain’t no need for a trial. Hang him now.”
Its is all on TV. President Trump urging rally attendees to peacefully walk to the capital to petition there servants to do the right thing.
Watch how the crowd heard it –
https://www.justsecurity.org/74335/fight-for-trump-video-evidence-of-incitement-at-the-capitol/
There’s too much unknown about what happened and who was behind it, let alone trying to hang all this around Trump’s neck. For example, which individuals and/or groups were planning this Capitol breach in advance of January 6th? Who within government and law enforcement knew about the threat and why wasn’t an armed National Guard and more Capitol police brought onsite to deal with this credible threat that was known in advance? Why weren’t Congressional members warned? Why wasn’t Trump warned so he could have encouraged protestors to disburse?
So much of this smells like a total set up to me.
Why do you assume Trump wasn’t warned?
In the trial, they should seek to question Trump about what he knew ahead of time.
“For example, which individuals and/or groups were planning this Capitol breach in advance of January 6th?”
Such as the fact that the two pipe bombs were planted the night before.
“The FBI has developed new information regarding the pipe bombs discovered in Washington, D.C.
“Between the hours of 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on January 5, 2021, an unknown individual placed two pipe bombs in Washington, D.C. One pipe bomb was placed at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee (RNC), located at 310 First Street Southeast, and the other was placed at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), located at 430 South Capitol Street Southeast #3.”
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/suspected-pipe-bombs-in-washington-dc
Trump began inciting this riot BEFORE Election Day–he started telling his disciples that the election would be stolen, encouraged them to be poll watchers, whined about mail voting being illegal (which was necessitated due to his incompetence and lying about the pandemic, but because more Democrats would vote by mail, he was against it), lied by saying mail voting could easily be manipulated (based on his rank stupidity, but both he and Pence voted by mail) and lied about it being unconstitutional (The PA Supreme Court said it was constitutional, but the disciples still believe otherwise). This was because he was losing in the polls. He knew he was going to lose (even Fox’s polls predicted he would lose), but his delicate ego couldn’t stand it, so he started using the only tool he had left. Since most Americans didn’t vote for him in 2016, did not approve of him during his tenure in office, and were predicted to reject him in favor of Biden, he was desperate. The tool to which I am referring is the strength of devotion of his disciples. After all, facts don’t faze them. They didn’t care that he trashed the economy, that he lied about the pandemic, that his trade war with China backfired…nothing shook their devotion. He got them riled up to reject the results even before Election Day. The night after Election Day, he made a total fool of himself by declaring victory. He raised holy hell when Fox called Arizona for Biden, got that reporter fired for telling the truth, whined and complained when early leads were reversed–which is exactly what was predicted to happen–in-person voting would favor Trump, but as absentee and early voting ballots were tabulated, the tide would turn. He knew this in advance. And then, he started the “stop the steal rallies”, lawsuits, baseless claims of fraud, demanded recounts, re-recounts, signature match validations, watchers over the vote counters, tried to pressure and bully secretaries of state to void validly-cast votes and declare him the victor, threatened criminal prosecution, and, as a last-ditch effort, tried to get Pence to refuse to accept the certified results. He knew Pence wouldn’t do this because he had no power to do so, but he did get certain GOP losers like Hawley and Cruz to try to invalidate Biden’s victory. They did this even after the riot, before the bodies had assumed rigor mortis, and with absolutely no evidence of fraud, and despite all evidence to the contrary.
So Trump exhorted his disciples to march on the Capitol, egging them on. Does anyone really believe that all he intended was for them to march around with Trump flags and “peacefully protest”? Even after the rioting started, Trump watched on TV, enthralled with tangible proof of his power and how much he was loved. Did he try to stop them when they erected the gallows, shouting “hang Pence”, when were bludgeoning to death the Capitol police officer, or gouging the eye of another, or fracturing bones of other officers? No. He did not. Why would he? Here was proof of loving devotion and his power. A narcissist’s dream! He wallowed in it.
There’s not much “unknown” about this–his disciples all say they were carrying out Trump’s commands. Trump’s lies about election fraud, started even BEFORE Election Day, and the lies he told at the “stop the steal” vainglory rallies, are a matter of record. How dumb or deceitful do you have to be to believe that Trump needed warning about the riot he planned and fomented because he knew in advance he would lose, and thought he could get his racist deplorables to someone take over Congress and stop his defeat? Did Trump counter Giuliani when he was speaking to the disciples, telling them to go into “combat”? That’s a matter of record, too. How about his pathetic namesake, who encouraged them to fight? How about Hawley stating, in an interview, that we wouldn’t know whether Biden won until after January 6th–what else could he have been referring to other than the insurrection? How about all of the times Trump said his disciples should fight to save their country? It’s all on record. It’s all Trump’s fault, too.
We have Mitt Romney going around saying Republicans must publicly say that Joe Biden is the legitmate president who won the election fair and square.
Word of advice for you Mitt: Shut your pie hole.
Word of advice for you, Anonymous, your fat hero IS A LOSER. Always has been. Always will be.
We could say the same about your stumpy little hero, Hillary. She lost. She will always be a loser thanks to our great President Donald Trump. If there is one thing Donald Trump did that will go down in history as a most heroic deed it was that he ran for president and won, sparing us the horror of having Hillary and Bill back in the White House with Hillary in charge this time around. Oh the horrors from which Donald Trump saved the world. For this alone, President Trump, we are so grateful. 🙂
OMG. More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump. There was no heroism involved in his running for office–he EXPECTED to lose, but saw his bullshi* “candidacy” as a means of free publicity to bolster his brand, as some insiders and former friends have disclosed. There’s no “we’ here, pal. Most Americans: 1. did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020; and 2. never approved of Trump (which is a record in the history of presidential polling; and, BTW, Biden already has a higher approval rating than Trump ever had after 4 years in office.
Your post is merely a regurgitation of the misogynistic drivel you absorbed from Fox News. Have you noticed that most of the targets of their rage against Democrats are women–Pelosi, AOC, Hillary Clinton, Ilhan Omar, etc.? And yet, do they criticize the psychiatrically-impaired gun toting bottle blondie from GA (whom Trump is egging on, so she says) who posted a “like” to a comment that Pelosi should receive a bullet to her head? How about chasing a Parkland school shooting victim down the street, accusing him of a “false flag”? And, then, my personal favorite, is the Jewish satellite laser beam causing the California forest fires. What do Tucker, Ingraham and Hannity have to say about these things? Your mistake is in assuming that most Americans agree with you. We don’t.
President Biden’s poll numbers are upside down at this point. He has broken nearly every campaign promise he made and it’s only been a couple of weeks since his ‘installation.’ There is almost noone in their right mind who believes Joe Biden…Joe Biden!!! got more than 80 million votes….more than any other president in the history of the world!! It’s laughable when you catch a glimpse of Joe in the Oval Office, looking old and tired, coughing into his hand, tripping over his scripted words, not even knowing what he is signing.
Cry me a river about ‘misogynistic drivel.’ Hillary was an awful unlikeable person and she lost. Kamala has this in common with Hillary — both are unlikeable. And oh how awful for all those Democrat women who are being ‘attacked’ and singled out by Fox News. It’s called ‘politics’ and everyone is fair game according to how the Dems play the game. So just spare us all the ‘women-as-victims-of-Fox News’ whining. There is a nonstop stream of outrageous “hate speech” against Republican women coming from all over the media. The targets of Democrat/media rage are men, women AND even children of Republicans. Nothing is off-limits from the hateful leftists that populate the media airwaves.
A Trump supporter in PA posted a story on Face Book that they were stopped at the airport and taken aside to a room to be interrogated by TSA over ‘facial recognition match’ that showed them attending the Trump protest rally in DC on Jan. 6. This person was profiled by ‘facial recognition’ as a potential ‘domestic terrorist.’ This person was no where near the events at the Capitol, but was part of the nearly million Trump “peaceful” protesters gathered in DC on that day.
This is what the FBI and the intelligence agencies are now doing to Trump supporters.
Is this America?
There weren’t nearly 1 million protesters in DC that weekend.
Now, Turley’s concerned about a “radical departure” from tradition. Just how far up your rectum is your head shoved, Turley or is the GOP pay so rich that it colors everything you say? You keep trying to normalize the absurdly abnormal–trying to create the illusion that Trump is a REAL POTUS, deserving of the power, benefits and respect that come with the office. Trump has always been a cheat and liar; he has always been viewed as fundamentally dishonest, beginning with cheating on his SAT exams (so says his older sister), cheating to get out of military service (so say the daughters of the podiatrist who gave him the phony deferral); he brags about assaulting women; he is a deadbeat–refuses to pay his bills–and Turley wants to treat this creature like he’s Abraham Lincoln, FDR or JFK? There has never before been a (fake) POTUS who incited a riot that left 5 people dead based on his massive ego that cannot handle rejection, so he lied, lied, lied about the election being “stolen”, knowing that his pathetic disciples would believe it. There has never before been a (fake) POTUS who accepted the help of a hostile foreign government to manipulate the vote via social media posts containing lies about his opponent. Our Capitol was attacked by disciples of this snake oil salesman. They tore down Old Glory and replaced it with the Confederate flag and flags with Trump’s name on them. This was after he whipped them into a frenzy by lying about the election being stolen, exhorting them to fight, and his repulsive lawyer, Giuliani, telling them to go into “combat”. Josh Hawley publicly stated that it wouldn’t be known whether Biden would be elevated to POTUS until after January 6th. Does Turley have anything to say about this? Even after the rioting started, while Capitol Police were being beaten–one fatally–one losing an eye–others getting bones broken–did he call them off? No. Their attack of the Capitol proved he was loved–proved he was powerful. Those present said he took great pleasure in observing the chaos he started, proof of his power and devotion of his disciples which included erection of a gallows and shouts to “hang Pence”. Feces and urine were deposited in our Capitol. Congressman John Lewis’s monument was defaced. Desks were rifled, laptops were stolen, disciples invaded Speaker Pelosi’s office and put their feet up on her desk, rifled through her papers and stole her laptop. Has Trump condemned those who did this, or ever admitted that he lied to them about the election being stolen and that Congress couldn’t take away validly-cast votes and award him the presidency? Hell No. Yet, the only “radical departure” that concerns Turley is the process for this phony’s second impeachment, complete with advice on how to prevent conviction and a vote to prevent him from ever holding office again? Turley wants to use whatever credibility or credentials he has to help this misfit get another shot at destroying America. Shame on you.
This is pitifully stupid. Whoever is paying you is not getting his money’s worth.
Somewhere there’s a long-suffering psychotherapist paid to listen to these rants in meatspace.
That’s the best retort you can come up with?
I’m relieved that you don’t know where your Return key is.
Voters rejected 8 years of Obama’s destrictive, unpopular policies and sent Trump to the White House. Now that a “thoughtful, empathetic, oh-so-truthful” Joe Biden has been installed by way of Democrat chicanery, voters are watching Obama 3.0 wasting no time ramming through a radical agenda by way of EOs the senile Biden dutifully signs with no idea what he’s even signing. The Dems count on a friendly media to keep voters in the dark, lied to and distracted in order to hold onto the power they ruthlessly seized. But this time you can be sure the people are paying attention and there will be massive political blowback in 2022.
What’s happening now is akin to what the Obama admin did to destroy the Tea Party movement. The same deceitful, ruthless Obama re-treads are now back in power and at it again, as if nothing ever happened. The people are watching. The revolt is coming.
You need to check your facts. Obama legally WON 2 terms, and Hillary WON the popular vote in 2016. What “chicanery” are you talking about–Russia helping Trump cheat by spreading lies about Hillary on social media? 2020 was the most-secure, most-monitored election in US history, so says Chris Krebs, who was appointed by Trump and fired for telling this truth. Trump never even got a 50% approval rating, was predicted to lose, and did lose, so it strains credulity to believe that he could win in the “landslide” he claims. There was no fraud involved, either, so said AG Barr, who was fired for telling this truth. Where did you get the lie that Biden is either senile or doesn’t know what he’s signing? Wait. I know–this lie about nonexistent Biden incompetence is a Tucker specialty.
The Big Lie being propagated by the media is that Joe Biden won the election with over 80 million votes and that Joe Biden is fully and cognitively capable of doing the job.
Wanna take a guess who is ‘running the show’ at the Biden White House? Hint number one: it ain’t Joe.
Set aside your discipleship for just a moment and consider how many people would need to be in on the “fix” in order to believe that Trump won the election. You’d have to have the Secretaries of State of all 50 states in on the fix, all of the poll workers, all county clerks and precinct representatives from both parties, Republican and Democrat poll workers, poll watchers, etc.. Every single state counted, and upon request, recounted votes, and even re-recounted them and did a signature match validation before they certified their results, including Republican ones. Every vote that was cast had proof of signature of the voter–both mail and in-person ballots had to go through signature matching to be counted. Barr said there was no fraud. Krebs said the election was secure. Multiple courts held that the minor discrepancies and glitches which Giuliani produced “proof of”, were were very minor, and were not sufficient to overturn an 11 million vote advantage. The PA Supreme Court held that expanding mail balloting was NOT unconstitutional, something Trumpsters keep lying about. Biden’s victory was consistent with polls, even those by Fox. Dominion did not have the capacity to invalidate, cancel or change votes, and Giuliani is being sued for lying about this. When these measures didn’t work, Republican Secretaries of State were wheedled and cajoled, and then threatened by Trump to cancel validly-cast votes. Trump tried to get Pence and Republican Senators to set aside certified vote totals and award him the presidency, which cannot be done. Pence refused. Many Republican Senators went along with it, even after 5 people were killed in the Trump Insurrection, his last-ditch pathetic effort to retain power. Never forget that Trump claimed he would be cheated out of his “victory” even before Election Day, and that he made a total fool of himself by declaring victory in the early morning hours after Election Day.
Then, consider the likelihood that Trump could have won over the American people who disapproved of him in historic numbers for 4 straight years. Trump has been the most-unpopular POTUS in recent history. The economy went to hell during his tenure, he botched the pandemic and lied to the American people about it, his trade war with China backfired. He engaged in racist and divisive rhetoric. The media did not create these facts–they just reported on them.
The lie about Joe Biden not “running the show” is just that–a big, fat lie. Where is the proof? For the sake of your own mental health, you need to grow a brain and stop listening to Fox and other ultra right wing media. The garbage they feed you is not only refuted by the facts, but defies logic.
In 2016 the people elected Hillary. The EC elected Trump.
In fact, the Democratic candidate was elected by the people in 7 of the last 8 elections.
The ones “destroying America” are both the deceiful MSM, and the deceitful Biden administration that is now illegitimately occupying the White House.
Professor, the only reason any of the impeachment attempts and Mueller investigation occurred was to satiate the HATE of the left. You and your readers are dancing around the truth, HATRED of what DT would do
to the games both parties play. That could not stand.
End of trumpism is here. If the repubs wish to nominate him again it will cause the Dems to win.
You’re quite wrong, I believe. A large majority in this country wants this impeachment and harassment of Trump to stop, and for Congress to get on with the business of helping heal our nation and get a sane relief package, an honest and safe election system (the Europeans, Democrats’ models, would never THINK of handling elections by mail), and to guarantee free speech while reigning in Big Tech. The longer this circus continues, the better the chance for 2022 Republican landslide that even Philadelphia and Detroit and Atlanta can’t fudge in the middle of the night. Trump is just fine, folks, and Trumpism is gearing up bigger than before.
Exactly. We the People (including Progressive Democrats) are asking Biden and Pelosi: where are our promised $2,000 checks?
Answer: Joe Biden is a career politician. As is Nancy Pelosi. Liars one and all.
If what you posted is true (nobody knows, just saying) then why on earth is Nancy trying to stop him from running again?
What was it, 17 minutes into Trump’s presidency that Democrats began efforts to impeach the president. They’ve apparently devolved on their standards for impeachment. Instead of wasting taxpayer’s money and the Mueller investigation, they could have just voted to impeach him January 21st 2017.
this cadaver synod is not worthy of extensive comment.
not until it is dismissed will Congress regain even so much as its veneer of legitimacy
that and the 26,ooo troops are sent home, another infamy against the people
sal sar
It is meaningless to call witnesses to establish a “record” when the eye witnesses and victims are the jurors.
They’re not eyewitnesses to anything Trump said or did. (Though some of them may have seen that cop execute Ashli Babbitt).
The actual proof of intent to incite in this case is absent which is why the democrats sent it to the senate with no record and no due process given to former President Trump.
Big lie
A big lie (German: große Lüge; often the big lie) is a propaganda technique used for political purpose, defined as, “a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the facts, especially when used as a propaganda device by a politician or official body”.[1]
The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.
– Wikipedia
“The” President, omitting and, thereby, excluding any and all past and future Presidents.
_____________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 4
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.
“The” President, omitting and, thereby, excluding any and all past and future Presidents.
_____________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 4
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.
Big lie
A big lie (German: große Lüge; often the big lie) is a propaganda technique used for political purpose, defined as, “a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the facts, especially when used as a propaganda device by a politician or official body”.[1]
The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.
– Wikipedia
to describe the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.
This sums up Pelosi’s Democrat Party and their media and big tech allies: all brazenly biased, shameless liars.
The issue is whether the Senate wants to legitimize this radical departure from the traditions of both chambers.
Now that’s funny.
President Trump DID NOT incite an armed mob, go listen to it because you obviously haven’t. The FBI has said that they were aware of “chatter” days before January 6th that there were plans to disrupt the counting of the electoral college vote, which I’m sure you would like to abolish also! Until you have all the facts don’t slit your throat.. Wait until you have them, then do it.
My comment was for “Justice Holmes”.
It makes sense that Nadler and Pelosi did NOT want to investigate motive, as it was amply clear in every Trump speech to his “base” that what was at stake was a 1-party takeover of federal government, intent on changing electoral rules to lock in a permanent monopoly on political control. The “Save America” Rally at the Ellipse — the name of the Rally is quite transparent about motive, as is the thinking in the speech.
Don’t forget that in the wee hours of Jan 6th, the two GA Senate races were called for the Democrat candidates. This elevated the paranoia (or is it rational fear) of a 1-party takeover of government with the Inauguration of Biden & Harris.
The question of Trump’s rationale requires willingness to confront the question: Will Dems be attempting a coup geared to shut the opposition party out of power for the long run?
Do you see why motive is not broached? House Managers could be called upon to elucidate motive, and be forced to say whether Trump’s fears were irrational or rational. This could happen regardless of whether House Managers bring it up.
Professor, I’m not sure which Senate you are looking at but none of the Republicans in the Senate care about procedure or the Constituion. They don’t even care that Trump incited an armed mob to attack the Congress. They won’t vote to convict. They’ve already said so but the Country needs a trial. The people need to see and hear what Trump did. Hey, a trial might even convince some Republicans to put the country before party. Nevertheless a trial should be held.
Even your veritable CCN is following a story that the capital attack was pre-planned/premeditated. (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics/capitol-riot-investigation/index.html). If it proves that it was (and no trial should be held until such time as that’s ascertained) then there can be no argument that Trump incited the riot (unless you weakly argue that announcing the rally constitutes “incitement.” With no witnesses, a partisan impeachment of “Orange Man Bad,” deserves no trial without evidence or the fruits of an investigation. To imply otherwise is not even a thinly veiled, partisan argument that SHOULD NOT be heard.
Then we need the House to do their job and have witnesses. And Trump needs to have the right to respond. Right? Or are we doing the guilty until innocent thing?