Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe was on CNN last night reassuring viewers that the Constitution clearly and unequivocally allows for the trial of a former president. In what has become a signature of Tribe’s commentary, he declared any contrary view as “stupid” while engaging in gratuitous personal insults. I have previously written about Tribe’s past personal attacks on those who hold opposing political or legal views. While such attacks thrill many on social media, it should have no place among academics. What is more notable however is how Tribe’s views have changed since the Clinton impeachment when we testified at the impeachment hearing of constitutional experts. While he once questioned whether Bill Clinton could be impeached for a murder unrelated to his official conduct, Tribe has suggested that Trump could be impeached for a tweet alleging criminal misconduct by Barack Obama.
Tribe has been a leading voice declaring clear criminal or impeachable conduct by Trump for years. Harvard professor Laurence Tribe declared Trump’s dictation of a misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting constituted witness tampering. Tribe previously found compelling evidence of obstruction of justice, criminal election violations, Logan Act violations, extortion and poss
What is striking is Tribe’s recent claim that this is neither a close nor a credible question. As with his past assertions on Trump crimes, Tribe declared that the Constitution is clear and any argument against trying ex-officials is “stupid.” Many scholars who have reached conclusions on the issue, including myself, have stressed that this is indeed a close question for them. There are a variety of opinions but most academics recognize that either interpretation is credible. For example, Professor Cass Sunstein sees strong arguments on both sides and agrees that the answer is not clear. However, he believes that the House cannot impeach a former official but the Senate can probably convict one. Tribe however has been assuring the public that the question is clear and any opposing views can be dismissed as nonsense.
While Tribe raised how my own views have changed from “not long ago” in reference to an article written 21 years ago, they have not changed nearly as much as those of Tribe in that “brief” time. Tribe’s own evolution is rarely discussed beyond conservative legal sites. Tribe previously adopted extremely narrow legal interpretations when asked about the alleged crimes or impeachable offenses of figures like Bill Clinton. However, he has adopted broad interpretations in justifying prosecution or impeachment of Trump from issues like emoluments with the same assurance of clarity and certainty (despite opposing rulings from various courts). He was calling for impeachment from the earliest days of the Trump Administration. That includes impeachable tweets.
In March 2017, Tribe slammed Trump for saying that his campaign and Trump Tower was wiretapped or surveilled by the FBI. It turns out that the FBI in the Obama Administration did in fact conduct surveillance on the campaign after universal refutation by many in the media. Tribe however insisted that Trump could be impeached for the tweet, stating “Using power of WH to falsely accuse [Obama of an] impeachable felony does qualify as an impeachable offense whether via tweet or not.”
So just tweeting an accusation against a political opponent is an impeachable offense since it was done from the White House. Tribe is also quoted in another interview in saying that the campaign finance violation allegations brought against Trump lawyer Michael Cohen are “serious crimes” and, if Trump is not indicted, the Congress can still bring impeachment proceedings against him based on Cohen’s allegations: “The alleged crimes make Trump impeachable. But whether and when the House should proceed to impeach is a complex judgment call.”
That is in sharp contrast to Tribe circa 1998.
Both Tribe and I testified in the Clinton impeachment where Tribe maintained that the Constitution was clear and that Clinton could not be impeached for the felony of perjury. Democrats agreed (as did a later federal judge) that Clinton knowingly committed perjury under oath, but Tribe insisted that impeachment was simply not that broad. In an ironic foreshadowing of Trump’s claim that he could shoot a person on Fifth Avenue, Tribe even questioned whether a president could be impeached for a murder separate from his executive duties. In addition to categorically ruling out the perjury crime as impeachable, Tribe questioned if other crimes like bribery would be impeachable despite its direct reference in the constitutional standard. Tribe said that if Clinton bribed the judge in the Paula Jones case “it would impair, surely, and shed negative light on his integrity, his believability, his virtue, but it would not make [serving as president] impossible” under the Constitution.
Tribe cautioned against unnecessary impeachments and said that Congress should rely on the availability of later criminal prosecutions:
Removing a President, even just impeaching him, paralyzes the country. Removing him decapitates a coordinate branch. And remember that the President’s limited term provides a kind of check, and if the check fails, he can be prosecuted when he leaves. To impeach on the novel basis suggested here when we have impeached only one President in our history, and we have lived to see that action universally condemned; and when we have the wisdom not to impeach Presidents Reagan or Bush over Iran-Contra; and when we have come close to impeaching only one other President for the most wide-ranging abuse of presidential power subversive of the Constitution would lower the bar dramatically, would trivialize a vital check.
Paragraph two of the article. Academics recognize that either interpretation is credible. People come on this forum to bash Professor Turley. It is apparent that they don’t actually read his post or their reading cognizance is highly diminished. I wish to add an exemption for those who have suffered a debilitating head trauma.
Why do worthless idiots like Tribe even get air time? His name is about the only accurate thing about him–he’s tribal in clinging to illogic in order to be on the leftist side.
He’s never been an idiot. He’s just a bad man.
I don’t see the logic of the view that if the penalty for impeachment is “removal from office” it can apply to someone no longer in office. At least Belknap was afforded due process by being presented with evidence and witnesses. At the time of that vote, Belknap conceivably, was still in office given the timing of the vote relative to the timing of the acceptance of his resignation. This seems a pretty thin and lonely precedent to use when compared to the article 2 section 4 of the constitution considering it took another 145 years to be cited.
Turley Lunched With Republicans To Discuss Impeachment Defense
But NPR Notes Turley Has Reversed Himself Since Clinton Impeachment
The forming narrative among those who don’t want a Senate impeachment trial for former President Donald Trump is along the lines of, “He’s out of office. What’s the point?”
Others are going so far as to claim that conducting an impeachment trial for Trump now that he’s out of office is unconstitutional.
It’s not blatantly unconstitutional. And there is already precedent for the Senate trying an official after he has left office. It happened 145 years ago, and the impeachment managers in that 19th-century case believed that by holding that trial no one would again question whether it was allowed.
Republicans are relying, at least in part, on a professor who appears to be at odds with himself — arguing now that it’s unconstitutional, but writing the opposite 22 years ago, after a Democrat had been impeached.
So let’s dive into the constitutionality question, as well as that 1876 case that Democrats have begun citing as evidence that trying a president after he leaves office is well within the bounds of what the Senate can do.
There is certainly some debate about it, as NPR’s Nina Totenberg explored this month. But the prevailing consensus is that it is within the scope of the Senate, especially considering it voted on the very subject in 1876 and said, yes, it did have jurisdiction. That vote wasn’t without controversy, though.
Even the professor whom Republicans lunched with Tuesday, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, who now claims “removal of a president is the primary purpose of such a trial,” was saying something very different 22 years ago, as pointed out by University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck.
Drawing on the 1876 Senate impeachment trial of William Belknap — who was war secretary under President Ulysses S. Grant and who was tried after he resigned — Turley argued that the Senate “was correct in its view that impeachments historically had extended to former officials, such as Warren Hastings.”
He wrote in the Duke Law Journal that a trial of a former officeholder would serve as a “deterrent to the executive branch” and stand up for “core values in a society,” even if the person wasn’t convicted and “even if the only penalty is disqualification from future office.” That was in 1999, the year after Democratic President Bill Clinton was impeached.
Belknap was a former Iowa state legislator who went on to be a Civil War hero and general for the Union Army. Grant made him his secretary of war, a post he held for eight years.
But Belknap became known in Washington for his high-society living and lavish parties. It turned out he was on the take. Someone Belknap installed to run a military trading post in Indian territory delivered kickbacks for the appointment. Belknap was pulling in some $20,000 a quarter from the scheme, 10 times his salary.
When Congress found out about it, articles of impeachment were filed that included “basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”
In an effort to stave off the impeachment, “Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation. It didn’t work. The House impeached Belknap later that day. When the case moved to the Senate, Belknap’s lawyer argued that he couldn’t be tried because he was now a private citizen. The House impeachment managers countered that all the charges stemmed from things Belknap did when he was war secretary.
After three days of hearing arguments about it and two weeks of secret deliberations, the Senate voted 37-29 that Belknap was “amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.”
In the end, a majority of senators voted to convict Belknap, but that was short of the two-thirds necessary. Nearly two dozen senators who voted to acquit cited their belief that the Senate lacked jurisdiction. Just three said their vote was because of the evidence.
In a report after the case, the House impeachment managers said those who voted to acquit because they didn’t think the Senate had the right to try the case showed they “refused to be governed by the deliberate judgment of the majority.” However, they thought going through with the case was important because it would set the precedent that just because someone had left office didn’t mean the person was immune from consequences of Congress.
Edited from: “There Is Precedent For Trying A Former Government Official, Established 145 Years Ago”
NPR, 1/29/21
Editor’s Note: Article had to be trimmed significantly to fit this comment thread. But all references to Turley remain intact
It’s NPR. One presumes they fabricated it.
From which Tribe does his family come from. Certainly not a Cherokee.
Tribe is a classic example of what happen when immigrants with no historical ties to the United States are given positions of authority.
When I see Laurence Tribe’s name, I always think of that episode of Dr. Katz in which Sarah Silverman talks about her sister marrying a man named Abramowitz.
No, he’s a passable example of what happens when forensic talent is unmoored from integrity.
Tribe is a plagiarist. Nothing he says matters to me.
He has become a doddering old fool himself
However, his constitutional law textbook was excellent. I swallowed it up. Decades ago
He should retire his offensive mouth and go gracefully into oblivion
Sal Sar
Robert Bork disagreed. He said the properties of Tribe’s jurisprudence would ordinarily disqualify it from serious consideration bar that Tribe had been so influential.
Bork is a genius whom i highly respect
but Tribe described the trends in law accurately. at the time decades ago. in a very useful way for students trying to learn the system as it is and not just how it was intended to be centuries ago. this was hard for me but I appreciate it in retrospect
nonetheless, he is now a foulmouthed old geezer who should silence his facial orifice permanently
Sal
Tribe has written useful books. Too bad he stole the material for one or more of them. Apparently he has brains with little integrity. I wouldn’t speak to him at a party.
More of Turley trying to make excuses for Trump and trying to dignify the absurdly abnormal, while being paid by the GOP to do so under the guise of a learned law professor. Such a snowflake! Trump verbally abused anyone who crossed him and was such a liar, but Turley doesn’t have much to say about this–instead he whines about Tribe criticizing him for his purchased about-face. Before he went on the GOP payroll, Turley had no qualms about the ability or constitutionality of the Senate to convict Trump and rule that he could never run for office again, but money talks and bull___walks.
Here’s a little bit of logic for you Turley, to maybe help clarify why so many legal experts who aren’t on the GOP payroll have no doubt that Trump can be convicted: if it were the case that an officeholder committed an impeachable offense but couldn’t be impeached or convicted after s/he left office, all that some corrupt official would need to do would be to simply resign before being tried, if no longer being in office foreclosed any action by Congress, including a judgment that they could no longer hold office. Then, s/he would be free to run again. There exists no possibility that the founders of this country could have intended for this to happen, and that logic supports the construction of the Constitution that most scholars, including you, Turley, before you went on the payroll, held.
I really don’t think you can assume the mantle of an intellectual or academician when you are on the payroll of a political party.
Natacha, Professor Turley has stated that the law is unsettled. So now if he says that the law is unsettled you say that he is picking a side. You have some anger management issues that need to be addressed.
You have some anger management issues that need to be addressed.
I’m afraid Natacha is the sum of her issues.
false as ever natch. in general intellectuals and academics are very important to politics and rightly so, in every sector of politics, moreover, very important
otherwise than this important error, your post was full of the usual drivel, insults of turley that he does not deserve. you’re a witch
sal sar
Here’s a little bit of logic for you Turley, to maybe help clarify why so many legal experts who aren’t on the GOP payroll have no doubt that Trump can be convicted: if it were the case that an officeholder committed an impeachable offense but couldn’t be impeached or convicted after s/he left office, all that some corrupt official would need to do would be to simply resign before being tried, if no longer being in office foreclosed any action by Congress, including a judgment that they could no longer hold office.
You’re deranged. All the official would need to do IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT?
A resignation is the same as a removal upon conviction, except it happens SOONER.
William, he could be tried in criminal court, where he has protections as a criminal defendant. If he is convicted but resumes office, at that time he could be impeached and tried in the Senate with a strong criminal conviction to support the Senate’s case. On the other hand If he’s cleared in criminal court, the Senate is very unlikely to try him for returning to office, let alone convict him.
Now imagine the alternative of convicting him in the Senate when he’s out of office and doesn’t have the protections of a president anymore. If he’s convicted and barred from office on the basis of no record (i.e. politics), and he is later exonerated in criminal court, does that mean he can return to office after all? Does that mean he can’t return to office even though he’s been exonerated?
I would take the former approach rather than yours (the second) to preclude abusing the impeachment process.
Oops, sorry William, I was directing my comments to Molly.
Natacha, I mean. I need some rest.
My approach isn’t “the second”. In fact, I don’t have any “approach” at all. I just have an interpretation of the law and a critique of Natacha’s inane argument.
Roger that. Thanks, William. Diogenes out.
Being criminally convicted does not disqualify one from running for POTUS. However, a ruling by the Senate disqualifying a person from ever serving in federal office would be disqualifying. Consistent with Turley’s writing back when Bill Clinton was impeached, the Senate certainly CAN vote to prevent Trump from running again for office. The issue of removal was rendered moot by Trump’s loss to Biden.
I’d like to hear Mr Turley defend himself on that.
Natacha,
+10
Once again, there is no equal justice for the corrupt bureaucrats populating the corrupt FBI: “Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering an email used in preparation for asking the FISA court for the 4th warrant to surveil Carter Page in the Russia investigation, is sentenced to 1 year of probation and 400 hours community service. ”
“Even Papadopoulos went to jail for two weeks, but an FBI lawyer who violated the civil liberties of an innocent citizen, in a way that undermined public confidence in law enforcement and the intelligence services, damaging both national Unity™ and security, gets zero jail time.”
Did you catch that? Zero jail time. When will Clinesmith get his million dollar book deal and paid gig on MSNBC?
Meanwhile the FBI is targeting and head-hunting Trump supporters and prosecuting them for internet ‘memes.’ MEMES!
There is no “justice” in this country. What a farce. What a disgrace.
The people’s revolt is coming.
Even falsifying evidence doesn’t get an FBI lawyer a prison sentence? How about disbarment?
Well, he did perpetrate a fraud on the court. I’m nonplussed by the result here.
Obama’s Spygate scandal, which was far worse than Watergate, comes down to this? A slap on the wrist for one mid level FBI lawyer who intentionally defrauded the FISA court?
The people will not stand for this blatant corruption of justice.
They’ve been standing for it for several years, as they ignored Lois Lerner’s shenanigans and the subsequent cover-up.
On a tangential matter, what has Mr. Big Conscience Jimmy Carter had to say about these scandals? Diddly / squat.
The moustachioed nothing at DOJ that was responsible for this one paltry conviction is a disgrace too. his name is forgotten
sal sar
DOJ recommended Flynn be sentenced jail for 6 months for lying to the FBI, though even FBI agents weren’t confident he lied.
But FBI agent admits they *fabricated an email* to get a FISA warrant and… probation?!
The system is corrupt.
Another big Democrat/media lie: The AG was acting on Trump’s behalf. The usual crock-o-sh*t lying bullsh*t from the pathological sociopathic Democrat Party.
Democrat rah rahs ever fail to understand something important for their own interests
If they can cobble up phony FISA warrants against a major public figure running for president, without real probable cause
then PROBABLE CAUSE MEANS NOTHING FOR ANY OF US EITHER
now, i know a lot of criminal defense lawyers and people in jail already understood that, but the rah rah cheerleaders here need to knock it into their heads
in other words, the FOURTH AMENDMENT IS NOW DEFUNCT
sal sar
If Pelosi and company are so determined to impeach Trump, they are not thinking this through. Joe Biden is on video bragging about withholding a billion dollars in aid unless a Ukranian prosecutor was fired. Trump was impeached over a phone call. If Republicans ever gain control of both houses of Congress who’s to say they wouldn’t retaliate by “post-impeaching” Biden for something that happened when he was Vice President? These Democrats had better be careful what they wish for.
All good points, HM. The Dems are acting quickly with Executive Orders and bills in Congress in an effort to ensure enduring power. We’ll see how the master plan works out.
Tribe is just enhancing his value as a click bait queen. He will sacrifice everything to the source of his income. Say one thing one time you get the money. Say another thing another time you get the money. Another huckster posing as an authority. The CNN crowd lap it up like kittens at the teet.
Left-leaning Washington Post back at it with the outlandish claims about Trump! Now, WaPo is claiming that former President Trump must never be honored with a presidential library as the matter is an “issue of national security.” In an op-ed titled “Trump wants a library. He must never have one,” Philip Kennicott says that Congress must immediately intervene to be sure the 45th president is never honored and his name is scrubbed from the history books.
I would ask you, is this the Contempoary Fort Sumter shot? Possibly/ and can move to probably soon. Selah
To me, This has been the Democrat Socialists agenda (remove DT) since DT became the Repub candidate 2015. Will the coup attempters, allegedly from Obama and Biden on down be prosecuted? Apparently not.
To paraphrase Sethi from the movie “The Ten Commandments”, “Let the name of Trump be stricken from every book and tablet, stricken from all pylons and obelisks, stricken from every monument of America. Let the name of Trump be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of men for all time.”
Trump is a builder. He’s gonna build that library. In fact, Trump will ‘Build Back Better’…certainly better than anything Obama will try to do. Faster too. Under budget and on time.
He didn’t.
He will.
Oh sorry, you meant Obama didn’t build anything yet….it’s only been four years. Fighting with the communities he seeks to disrupt and the public land he intends to sieze for his own personal hideous monument. Obama and his intended monument sickens most normal thinking people.
I hate to see that Professor Tribe go the way of certain Republican experts who relish nothing more than personally attacking those with whom they
disagree. However, there is no question that Republicans trivialized the entire impeachment process when they impeached Clinton but that doesn’t make impeaching a president for inciting a violent attack on Congress meant to interfere with and ultimately overturn the election inappropriate or unconstitutional.
I do not believe Trump incited a violent attack. I do believe, however, that many Democratic congresspeople and Democratic mayors and governors have done far, far worse over the last year, in calling for violence in our cities. Trump called for a peaceful protest. He said you have to fight for what is right. If every Democratic leader who urged fighting were charged, we’d have a very, very different uniparty. I hope you don’t believe your own words. I hope that objecting to the unconstitutional processes carried out in key swing states is not censored now, or ever. I hope raising the issue of Facebook and Twitter censoring voices who maintain that investigation of these issues must proceed is not now called sedition. I hope you don’t agree with the two leaders in Big Tech censorship colluding with Amazon to shut down an alternative web site, Parler. If you are agreeing to censorship because it’s your party, beware. Because they will, in the end, come for you too. Count on it. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Im not afraid of these tyrants. they are physically weak, and numerically few.
with proper inducements, of one sort or another, their mercenaries will desert them
the people will rise
sal sar
The people WILL rise. Form a party and become just as corrupt and evil as the ones we’ve got now. And democratically elected!
I do not think that Trump incited a violent attack either. I think that as the facts come in, it will be clear that the thugs who participated in the breach of the Capitol coordinated it in advance. The Dems have acted quickly to characterize events in a way that is convenient for their narrative and woven them into a “master narrative which enables them to be dismissive of any other perspective. Security at the Capitol was inadequate. Speaker Pelosi was on inquiry notice of the need for additional security and did nothing to prepare.”
InjusticeHolmes, you can continue to repeat your accusation about incitement. You continue to leave out the part where Trump called for protesting peacefully and patriotically. If you wanted to you could find Trumps speech and actually read the words he spoke. Why take the time? It wouldn’t fit the narrative that you have indelibly seared into your brain. Old homes, he thinks that he’s the fairest guy in town.
Justice Holmes said that he hates puppies. Oh, I forgot to say that he hates puppies pooping on the floor. I’ll just repeat the part where he says that he hates puppies.
Bill Clinton lied under oath in an attempt to deprive an American citizen of her day in court.
That is no trivial matter.
Bill Clinton is lying trailer trash.
Would suggest anyone of interest read Stanley Brubaker’s critique of some of Tribe’s work (published in Commentary in late 1988 or early 1989) and Robert Bork’s brief discussion of Tribe’s jurisprudence in The Tempting of America. Bork’s description of Tribe’s conception: “It is protean…”. This guy has never been a square shooter.
My only complaint is that you used Wikipedia as a source. (A more politically corrupt than Pravda)I’m politically illiterate but I vaguely recall the Nazi’s gave credit to President Wilson for first using Propaganda.
wiki is very useful you just have to learn to parse the notes
propaganda has been with us as long as there has been politics. it is part of the whole shebang so to speak
Sal Sar
It appears then Laurence Tribe has given himself to be “stupid” for having for so long ingratiated himself with so monolithic a political party as has become the Democratic Party. He seems to be much more appropriately fitted to the role of a congressional representative than that of a law professor.
It appears then Laurence Tribe has given himself to be “stupid” for having for so long ingratiated himself with so monolithic a political party as has become the Democratic Party. He seems to be much more appropriately fitted to the role of a congressional representative than that of a law professor.
It has become commonplace for Democrats to argue by name calling, and to dismiss their opponents’ views with nothing more than self-righteous contempt. It speaks volumes to the emptiness of their views.
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
Tribe is clearly deteriorating cognitively, and you’ve argued clearly and logically without ad hominem attack which would sink to his level, the absurdity of his arrogant “certainty”, and his CNN hack testimony Trump Derangement Syndrome. A couple of small errors need fixing… 1. I believe that the value of such retroactive trials outweigh the benefits, which support the more narrow textual interpretation. Probably a word or two missing, or I just don’t understand value vs. benefits. 2. In the last paragraph, you say Trump when you mean to say Tribe (appearing on CNN).
Thanks for not letting arrogant bullies get away with their practices.
Vigilance, my friends. Constant vigilance.
2nd to last paragraph…”Appearing on CNN, Trump…” I believe you meant Tribe.
As for Tribe, You can be a Partisan or a Patriot. Tribe is definitely a partisan, and allowing him to retain his law license makes judges like Emmett Sullivan possible.
Personally I believe that our legal system tolerates too much chicanery, bad faith, and ethics are a joke.
We have seen Hitler’s observation much in effect in the past year as society has been crushed over a virus that is real and dangerous for a small number.
but not so much as a common cold for the overwhelming majority
and yet all this carnage due to lockdown
this definite was “große Lüge”
sal sar