January 26, 2021

"My Democratic colleagues would have rightfully objected to Republicans – when they controlled Congress – using the impeachment power to disqualify former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016 because of her email controversy."

Said Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), voting against tabling a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment. 

Here's the full statement — a press release, which I received as email:
On January 6, I said voting to reject the states’ electors was a dangerous precedent we should not set. Likewise, impeaching a former President who is now a private citizen would be equally unwise. The impeachment power can be turned into a political weapon, especially if it is primarily used to disqualify an individual citizen from running for public office. My Democratic colleagues would have rightfully objected to Republicans – when they controlled Congress – using the impeachment power to disqualify former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016 because of her email controversy. The great hallmark of our Democratic Republic is self-government, and I have faith in the American people to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates and make an informed decision themselves, just as they have done every four years since George Washington was elected as our first president. Congress should not dictate to the American people who they can and cannot vote for.

In support of that argument, it's extremely important to remember that there is a "fundamental principle of our representative democracy . . . 'that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.'" I'm quoting the Supreme Court case rejecting term limits for members of Congress, which was quoting a case about Congress's power to exclude someone the people have elected. The internal quote — "the people should choose whom they please to govern them" — comes from Alexander Hamilton, arguing in favor of ratifying the Constitution:

After all, sir, we must submit to this idea, that the true principle of a republic is, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Representation is imperfect in proportion as the current of popular favor is checked. This great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed. 

I think the presumption should always be against a constitutional interpretation that would restrict the power of the people to choose whom they please. The Senate would need to strain the other way to disqualify Private Citizen Trump from running for office again, and that betrays a lack of respect for the people, for the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy." Enough fretting that the people can't be trusted evaluating Trump as one of our options. Let the members of Congress get on with proving that they deserved the trust we the people put in them.

103 comments:

Breezy said...

Red flags are everywhere for the Dems to see. Let’s see what happens!

Churchy LaFemme: said...

What the hey. Let some R in the House offer a resolution to impeach Sec Of State Clinton.

I mean, why not?

rhhardin said...

Let the members of Congress get on with proving that they deserved the trust we the people put in them.

That's got to be a teenaged girl sentiment, pulled from various cliche libraries as adult-sounding.

Threatening to withhold trust! Implying it had been given!

It exhibits having no clue what game is being played and with whom and for what audience.

An important move in the game is that you'll forget this the next time it's time to vote, and you'll vote soap opera again, because feelings will reign again, and the republican isn't sufficiently nice.

The whole game is Trump is bad beyond words and this ceremony will prove it or else prove that republicans are on the side of evil itsself. It's about the continuing narrative, so comfortable to the news audience that loves to live in it. A continuing entertainment choice.

walter said...

Is it really helpful to equate Hil's secret server violation with some interpretive dance of turning Trump's election integrity resistance as ordering an "insurrection"?

traditionalguy said...

Election ? What elections. The CCP paid for stolen elections and as highest bidder they got their candidate declared elected.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Leahy to the hospital?
https://politicrossing.com/breaking-vermont-senator-leahy-taken-to-the-hospital/
Balance?

rhhardin said...

Just to be clear: the dems know it's a farce trial. It doesn't matter, they win either way.

rhhardin said...

This isn't the Big Lie technique. It's the suck them in with entertainment technique. The entertainment happens to be a soap opera narrative. People flock to it like a hit show.

Anything not in the narrative doesn't exist, as in a novel.

Rabel said...

An astute commenter noted when Leahy was named as presiding:

"If you've watched Leahy recently you might wonder if he's physically capable of presiding. He could barely walk to the front of the Senate chamber for his most recent swearing-in."

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Committing multiple federal felonies = “email controversy”

CWJ said...

Lazy CWJ only cut to the chase and read Althouse's last paragraph. All I can say is Brava wow! This is as strong a statement as I've seen her make in months.

rhhardin said...

I'm in favor of the trial, just to see how it turns out. It's a clumsy suitor (republicans) and the suave sensitive suitor (dems) after the heart of the audience.

Romance favors the dems. Republicans are too structural to win a wench.

Joe Smith said...

The insistence of impeaching and 'removing' Trump shows just how terrified of him they are.

Joe Smith said...

"It doesn't matter, they win either way."

The saying 'Let sleeping dogs lie' exists for a reason.

rhhardin said...

The dems aren't terrified of Trump. They're solidifying their support in the entertainment-seeking base.

Rabel said...

If Leahy kicks the bucket and bites the dust then the Governor of Vermont gets to appoint a replacement until a special election can be held.

The Governor of Vermont is a Republican. A squishy one, but still. It would be simply magical if the Senate suddenly became 51-49 Republican.

rhhardin said...

What's funny about Romney etc is that they wind up in the plot to suck in entertainment-seeking women, unaware that that's what's going on. Romney is no woman's idea of a trophy, and he's doing it for weird moral-revenge reasons. That will fail for him either way, unlike the dems, who win either way.

h said...

rhardin says: "Just to be clear: the dems know it's a farce trial. It doesn't matter, they win either way."

But Breezy says: "Red flags are everywhere for the Dems to see. Let’s see what happens!"

In my opinion, if we look back at this after 30 years, Breezy wins the day.

But in 2 years? or 4 years? It may well be that Dems win either way.

rhhardin said...

The governor of Vermont will appoint a democrat, as part of what used to be a tradition. After all, we have to make a good example for the democrats so that they will like us.

rhhardin said...

The important truth: what narrative entertains you enough to want to live in it.

The right lives in the narrative where everything the left does is somewhere along the line from stupid to evil, as shown in any right-wing click-seeking website. They go there every day to see what's up.

The left lives in the narrative of trying to help the poor and oppressed against the rich and tyrannical, amusingly with plans that have the opposite effect. The right points this out but that's a structural argument and therefore not entertaining to the left.

Smaller government would be nice but the entertainment for both sides would disappear.

Joe Smith said...

"After all, we have to make a good example for the democrats so that they will like us."

That, and because Republicans don't have any balls.

Mark said...

Once again confusion reigns and things are made much more confusing than necessary because of the failure to bother to simply look at the law/Constitution.

Is the presidency an "office of honor, trust or profit" under the United States? Is any elected office an "office of honor, trust or profit"?

Mark said...

If Leahy kicks the bucket and bites the dust

Well, if he does either one, then the Senate will be 50-49 and the Senate can simply vote to dismiss immediately.

Joe Smith said...

"Well, if he does either one, then the Senate will be 50-49 and the Senate can simply vote to dismiss immediately."

You forgot about the 5 traitors...

BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...

Teh GOP should make a loop of all the hate-filled violence inciting words of prominent democrats over the last 4 years. play the looped video on the huge screen.

nancy wondering why people aren't rioting
Maxine Waters openly yelling at her supporters to harass people.
and on and on... and on... Because there are countless examples of democrats say much much much worse that anything Trump ever said.

n.n said...

along the line from stupid to evil

Along the line from moron to wicked.

Michael K said...

My advice to Trump, as if he would take it, is to ignore the whole impeachment farce.

As Andrew Jackson said, "“Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Let Leahy and Schumer enforce it.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, Thom Tillis is using logic, and you are stuck in the wrong century. Sorry, Professor, but Democrats don’t do stuff like facts and logic in the 21st century and they haven’t got years.

Enough fretting that the people can't be trusted evaluating Trump as one of our options.

Well, the way the Democrats see it they not only voted for him in 2016, but they gave him 74 million votes last November. They don’t feel like taking the risk.

n.n said...

hate-filled violence inciting words of prominent democrats over the last 4 years

16 trimesters of braying, spinning, and diversity, and don't spare the child... uh, "burden".

Lurker21 said...

If Leahy dies, is it all Trump's fault again? Or Biden's? Or Pelosi and Schumer's?

Phil Scott hates Trump. He may be the only really well-known Republican politician in the state. Whoever he appoints isn't likely to be very Trump-friendly.

Sebastian said...

"that betrays a lack of respect for the people, for the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy.""

Then again, we are dealing with Democrats. Respect is to laugh, the people are a tool, and principles are for suckers.

Calm normality, prog style.

Mikey NTH said...

If the people cannot be trusted with electing the president should Donald Trump run again, why should they be trusted in electing representatives and senators? That knife cuts both ways.

Yancey Ward said...

I think it is an open question whether the Constitution did mean for conviction to prevent the defendant from running for federal office in the future. I can find no definitive support for the argument that a convicted Trump can't run for president in 2024.

In any case, I want to see a trial for this shampeachment, just like I wanted to see the one last year. Let's get on with the circus.

Lurker21 said...

Said Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), voting against tabling a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment.

So confusing. Something like a triple negative.

In parliamentary procedure, the verb to table has the opposite meaning in different countries:

In the United States, to "table" usually means to postpone or suspend consideration of a pending motion.

In the rest of the English-speaking world, to "table" means to begin consideration (or reconsideration) of a proposal.

Browndog said...

Are we just going to keep ignoring the fact Trump did nothing wrong? Again.

Mikey NTH said...

Browndog said...
Are we just going to keep ignoring the fact Trump did nothing wrong? Again.

1/26/21, 7:25 PM

---

This has nothing to do with right or wrong, it is political. (And emotional, because reason seems to have no part in the calculations of the Democrats - at least no rational reasons that I can see.)

donald said...

Leary’s a pretty big piece of shit. I ain’t praying for the cocksucker, that’s for sure.

stevew said...

If Congress can pick and choose whom we may vote for to lead our government then we no longer have a democratic republic. We would have established a form of autocracy or dictatorship.

stevew said...

Should the Senate vote to convict private citizen Trump of impeachment and, arguably, bar him from running for national office, POTUS or otherwise, who will enforce that dictat?

Breezy said...

Does anyone believe that a Democrat would not run due to a vote of congress barring him/her from doing so? Neither do I.

Bob Boyd said...

Progressive-ism is not compatible with our Constitutional system of government.

Mary Beth said...

It is nice to have a list of politicians who think the voters are too stupid to be trusted.

Collins
Murkowski
Romney
Sasse
Toomey
And all of the Democrats

Big Mike said...

After all, we have to make an example of the democrats so that they will never try anything like this again.

@rhhardin, FIFY.

Roughcoat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Smith said...

You know what is really interesting? All those media mooks noses turning dark brown right after the inauguration.

Roughcoat said...

The Dems aren't terrified of Trump or anyone else. They're drunk on power, and what they're doing now is the raw exercise of power -- and hate, and vengeance. This is the Dems stomping our faces with their boots.

They don't have the self-awareness to be terrified. Blinded by their power, they haven't and inkling of the forces they are unleashing.

Readering said...

I voted for Hillary Clinton, but I would have been okay if two-thirds of the Senators present had concluded that she had committed an impeacheable offense. Of course the Republicans would never have the votes (just as they never had the votes for President Clinton), and instead used committee investigations as a political weapon to undermine her presidential ambition.

Trump did terrible things and an impeachment trial is an appropriate vehicle to hold him to account, even if he has left office. It's not to bar him from running again. The first trial did not seem to have any effect on his reelection campaign. I don't believe he will run in 2024 for numerous reasons unrelated to having this trial. But interesting that Hawley has already concluded that running in 2024 not a good idea for him, and announced as much, presumably to take some of the heat off himself.

stevew said...

What terrible things did Trump do? Produce a list or shut up.

BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...

"Trump did terrible things"

Like what?

I'm Not Sure said...

"What terrible things did Trump do?"

Aside from mean tweets? Isn't that enough?

Roughcoat said...

The Dems, in unleashing the forces that will destroy them, are as clueless as the Mayan warriors in Apocalypto, filing past that strange little oracle girl standing in the ruins of her plague-ravaged village to curse them and prophesize their doom:

You fear me? So you should. All you who are vile. Would you like to know how you will die? The sacred time is near. Beware the blackness of day. Beware the man who brings the jaguar. Behold him reborn from mud and earth. For the one he takes you to will cancel the sky, and scratch out the earth. Scratch you out. And end your world. He's with us now. Day will be like night. And the man jaguar will lead you to your end.

Yancey Ward said...

"You know what is really interesting? All those media mooks noses turning dark brown right after the inauguration."

It ain't just the nose- the brown has reached down to neck level.

"President Biden, will your presidency be successful or the most successful?"

gilbar said...

i just keep thinking about the socialist Eugene Debs
President Wilson called Debs a "traitor to his country"; and Debs was charged with 10 counts of sedition

He was Found Guilty, imprisoned for TEN YEARS and Disfranchised, FOR LIFE
WHILE in PRISON, in 1920 He RAN FOR PRESIDENT.... WHILE IN PRISON FOR SEDITION
he got nearly a million votes (3.4% of the total popular vote)

You Got That RIGHT, he ran AGAINST the democratic way of life
he ran WHILE in PRISON, for SEDITION against America
he ran while Disfranchised for Life. (The man couldn't Even VOTE, but he could RUN)
That, OF COURSE, was COMPLETELY CONSTITUTIONAL

But President Donald Trump! he should not be allowed to run for President???
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I'm Not Sure said...

"But President Donald Trump! he should not be allowed to run for President???"

You're forgetting all the mean tweets. Shouldn't that be enough to disqualify him?

h said...

For over a year -- back to the first "impeachment" -- I've supported the view that the way to remove Trump from office is to vote him out. Now he's voted out. (I accept that. I know not everyone does.) So...??? I just don't understand the craziness to try to find a way to punish the "voted out Trump".

rcocean said...

trust the people? And you a law professor.

Anyway, this is pure power politics. The D's will do what they want, when they want it, the constitution be damned. And the people be damned.

The R's have the votes to stop them. This time.

People don't seem to understand what's been happening, the D's are 50-0 for removing Trump. If you count the last trial and this one and include the House its like 98-0 for removing Trump, and 500-5 for impeaching him. And its like that on every bill. In the SCOTUS the D Judges vote 3-0 (or when Ruthie Ginsberg was alive 4-0). There are no "reasonable" Democrats. ZERO or close to ZERO.

The election was stolen by vote fraud. Number of high level D's who cares? ZERO. Biden is issuing unconstitutional executive orders, 36 so far. Number of high level D's who care? ZERO. The D's used the FBI/CIA to spy on Trump. then they cooked up trump-russia-mueller to destroy him. You keep thinking "Oh, that's just Trump. He's a weirdo". No, that's going to happen to ANY Republican who strays too far from what the D party wants.

The era of the UNITED states of America is over. The D's will rule or else.

rcocean said...

The only question is do the R's have the guts/brains to stop them. I'm not hopeful.

Leland said...

Let the members of Congress get on with proving that they deserved the trust we the people put in them.

I think Althouse wants to get back to her boring.

David Begley said...

The Dems don’t care about the constitution, the law or the facts. They just want power.

Narayanan said...

rhhardin said...
I'm in favor of the trial, just to see how it turns out. It's a clumsy suitor (republicans) and the suave sensitive suitor (dems) after the heart of the audience.

Romance favors the dems. Republicans are too structural to win a wench
------------================
Republicans get stuck with child care regardless

Left Bank of the Charles said...

If Trump is not convicted in the impeachment trial, there is still the question of disqualification under section 3 of the 14th amendment. Trump could run, his electors could be certified, but an objection could still be made when the electoral votes are counted in Congress. An acquittal on the grounds of the Senate lacking jurisdiction doesn’t foreclose disqualification.

I'm Not Sure said...

"I just don't understand the craziness to try to find a way to punish the "voted out Trump"."

He took Hillary's prize. It was Her Turn, stealing elections is what Democrats do, and Trump spoiled it. No punishment will ever be enough for that.

BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...

We should be impeaching Joe Biden - for actual REAL reasons. Like Biden, Inc.

LakeLevel said...

If there is one defining characteristic of today's Democratic Party, it is that they are profoundly un-democratic. Super-delegates and trunks full of ballots and restricting freedom of speech all paint a picture of a party that really doesn't want the people to decide for themselves.

pacwest said...

that betrays a lack of respect for the people

We already understand that. Pelosi has made that perfectly clear. Was there some tipping point invloved in that statement? I say if they reach impeachment #15 they've definitely crossed the line.

-----

But Trump did do mean things. He scared the women and children don't you see. Or something anyway. Something. CNN said so. Didn't you hear about it? It's been in all the papers.

-----

I look forward to the day the Dems nominate somebody besides a grifter. It's been awhile.

NCMoss said...

Why do some policitians even swear to uphold the Constitution? It's like they're never accountable when mission creep sets in.

BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...

Now THIS is a photoshop

BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...

Tulsi for president.

the most frightening pile of totalitarian crap out there? CNN paid pile of shit - John Brennan(D-totalitarian asshole)

The Godfather said...

OK, here's the deal: If Tulsi runs for the Republican nominaton in 2024, I'll support her. I'll support her against Trump (in the unlikely event he were running). I have only one condition: She's got to cut her hair; it's not Presidential.

Tom said...

"My Democratic colleagues would have rightfully objected to Republicans – when they controlled Congress – using the impeachment power to disqualify former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016 because of her email controversy."

That's a different issue. That would have been impeaching after she left office. That's not allowed under the Constitution. But President Trump was impeached while in office. It's not much of a stretch, if any, to conclude that the Constitution allows trial and conviction after the officer leaves office. It's also consonant with the purposes of impeachment. The arguments can be found with a simple Google search, and they're pretty good if you read with an open mind.

Trump's conduct was eminently impeachable (dereliction of duty during the riot is enough; the tweet about Pence lacking courage while a mob was intent on murdering him helps make the case; his lying about winning in a landslide for months also gets you there). It's a prudential question as to whether it is a good thing to continue with the proceeding, but it's not unconstitutional.

mxgreen said...

No "civility bullshit" tag?

Rt41Rebel said...

Tom said....

The gaslighting will continue until morale improves.

Original Mike said...

"Trump did terrible things …"

Bullcrap.

Lurker21 said...

If Leahy doesn't make it, being the guy who died when he was supposed to preside over an impeachment becomes the one thing he's famous for (if he's remembered at all). Not so terrible maybe, since his name hasn't been linked to any great achievements in his 45 long years in the Senate. "Patrick Leahy, you mean that guy in Congress who died when he was supposed to oversee that thing that time?"

The minority leader in the Vermont Senate is African-American. He could become Leahy's replacement if one is necessary. Strange for one of the whitest states in the union to have a Black Senator, but it's the kind of first that governors and the media can't resist and Vermont did have the first Black state representative back in 1836.

Clark said...

@Mark 9x at 7:02 "Is the presidency an "office of honor, trust or profit" under the United States? Is any elected office an "office of honor, trust or profit"?"

I have been wondering why nobody seems interested in this. The presidency is not an "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" within the meaning of the disqualification clause of Art. I, Sec. 3. The scholarship on this is really interesting. A great way into it is the very short article Constitutional Officers: a Very Close Reading.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Thank you Clark.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment blocks traitors and insurrectionists from running for any office where they simply need to win the votes of people in one State.

It doesn't block anyone from running for President.

There is no Constitutional way to block a natural born American Citizen over the age of 35 from running for President, until that person has served 2 terms as President.

So, when you see someone supporting this impeachment as a way doing anything to Trump, know you are looking at an ignoramus, a liar, and / or a petulant child

Greg The Class Traitor said...

The amusing thing is that VA has a GOP Governor, who gets to appoint Leahy's replacement if one is necessary. They have to have a special election within 5 months of the vacancy, but for that time, the Senate could be 51 - 49, GOP

:-)

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Tom said...
But President Trump was impeached while in office

The House served the Impeachment on the Senate after Trump left office.

So no, he was not impeached while in office. Because he's not impeached until the papers are served on the Senate.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
If Trump is not convicted in the impeachment trial, there is still the question of disqualification under section 3 of the 14th amendment.

Nope, dope.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment can prevent one from being a Presidential Elector.

It does not block one from running for, or becoming, President.

Learn how to read

narciso said...

While you have a whole faction which not only encouraged mass violence but provided financial incentives for same.

narciso said...


Oh

https://mobile.twitter.com/GeorgKennan/status/1354263593185902592

Readering said...

Folks asking me questions are gonna wanna tune into the trial. Gonna be lit. (If Leahy ok).

tim maguire said...

Readering said...Folks asking me questions are gonna wanna tune into the trial. Gonna be lit. (If Leahy ok).

So you got nuthin. To the surprise of no one.

Ironic that the party that calls itself Democrat is holding a fake trial for the sole purpose of limiting the American people’s ability to choose their leader in 2024. I’m only half joking when I say truth in advertising laws should be used to force the Democrats to change their name.

stlcdr said...

Mikey NTH said...
Browndog said...
Are we just going to keep ignoring the fact Trump did nothing wrong? Again.

1/26/21, 7:25 PM

---

This has nothing to do with right or wrong, it is political. (And emotional, because reason seems to have no part in the calculations of the Democrats - at least no rational reasons that I can see.)

1/26/21, 7:32 PM


While you are correct, Mickey, that this is political, it’s important to keep focused on the fact that Trump did nothing in the first place that would deserve impeachment. By making that clear, it goes beyond simple politics - the democrats are using political power for persecution. We may as well devolve back into making political decisions based on the color of ones skin (oh the irony).

Rusty said...

Churchy LaFemme: said...
"What the hey. Let some R in the House offer a resolution to impeach Sec Of State Clinton.

I mean, why not?"
I say we dig up Millard Fillmore and impeach that bastard! Readering said...

"Folks asking me questions are gonna wanna tune into the trial. Gonna be lit. (If Leahy ok)."
First off, if they're asking you questions they gotta be desperate unless they want to sue a monopoly. Secondly, it's a dog and pony show. Only the true believers are going to watch it.
A colleague at work is convinced Trump is guilty-of what he cannot specify-and that the constitution says he can be impeached. I pointed out the relevant section is one sentence long and very specific about who can be impeached and when. I was accused of lying. Congratulations Readering. You have the moron class on your side. You're invincible.

Curious George said...

"This great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure"

Too late.

iowan2 said...

" stevew said...
Should the Senate vote to convict private citizen Trump of impeachment and, arguably, bar him from running for national office, POTUS or otherwise, who will enforce that dictat?"

LBC
"If Trump is not convicted in the impeachment trial, there is still the question of disqualification under section 3 of the 14th amendment. Trump could run, his electors could be certified, but an objection could still be made when the electoral votes are counted in Congress. An acquittal on the grounds of the Senate lacking jurisdiction doesn’t foreclose disqualification."

tom
"That's a different issue. That would have been impeaching after she left office. That's not allowed under the Constitution. But President Trump was impeached while in office."
>>>>>>>>>++++++++========
Stevew; I was wondering too, how the enforcement mechanism would work. There is no such thing as a federal election. States elect the President. States would have to refuse to allow a candidate on the ballot. Failing that, Congress would have to refuse the slate of electors, something President Trump advocated for and got himself impeached(not really impeached, impeached.)

LBC; The 14 amendment does not apply to elected office. Then, what is the mechanics? You have now moved out impeachment, it is not under the jurisdiction of congress What is the mechanics of applying the 14th amendment. In my mind you need a criminal conviction. Democrats don't even believe they could prove a legal case.

Tom: President Trump was not impeached. The single article of impeachment was not perfected until delivered to the Senate, 5 days after the term of President Donald J Trump expired.

exhelodrvr1 said...

This is definitely a farce, but there is one advantage in that it will (presumably) allow Pres Trump to bring in further evidence/discussion about the suspected fraud in the election.

Gusty Winds said...

On January 6, I said voting to reject the states’ electors was a dangerous precedent we should not set.

Yep. Just accept WI, GA, PA, NV, MI, and AZ electors sent to Washington via voter fraud.

This is why the GOP is gonna be hurting in 2022. As far as I'm concerned if Senator Elephant is such a coward as to not take of voter fraud to protect his constituents and and country, then screw his too.

Everything else he said beyond his opening was worthless.

Matt Sablan said...

"But President Trump was impeached while in office.""

-- I mean, that's like saying we should have trials for people who die. Sure, we do in rare occasions, but they are usually along the lines of letting *appeals* run their course to exonerate people.

Either way, the correct legal remedy, if we think a crime has been committed, which is what everyone who wants impeachment is declaring (bribery, treason or a high crime or misdemeanor, in fact.) Congress is not the place to settle matters of guilt for those who don't fall into one of the offices.

The other problem with this argument... could articles of impeachment be drawn up now for EVERY MEMBER OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, and only have them acted on if Republicans regain the House/Senate in 2/4/6 years? Would the "the process started while they were in power" argument hold then?

Matt Sablan said...

"I think it is an open question whether the Constitution did mean for conviction to prevent the defendant from running for federal office in the future. I can find no definitive support for the argument that a convicted Trump can't run for president in 2024."

-- I'd say Alcee Hastings being a current Representative states that impeachment doesn't prevent someone from having Federal Office.

Leland said...

Congress is not the place to settle matters of guilt for those who don't fall into one of the offices.

It is not like Congress doesn’t know how to refer cases to the DOJ. If a crime has been committed, then it is not abnormal to have hearings and collect data to hand over to the Executive Branch. And that would suck for Trump too, but it wouldn’t provide the instant and more certain gratification of a convicted Trump at the hands of Congress. It would take hard work to convince a fair jury that Trump was a party of this crime.

Lurker21 said...

The Senate voted not to exclude Hastings from holding office in the future.

He was a Democrat after all, and the Democrats controlled Congress then.

RMc said...

The D's will do what they want, when they want it, the constitution be damned. And the people be damned.

They're dissolving the people and electing another.

Sam L. said...

Democrats are just SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO special.

Todd said...

BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...

Teh GOP should make a loop of all the hate-filled violence inciting words of prominent democrats over the last 4 years. play the looped video on the huge screen.

1/26/21, 7:12 PM


In a "fair" world, yes this. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where Republicans spend their days rolling over and showing their bellies to Democrats, cause they can.

Todd said...

Mikey NTH said...

This has nothing to do with right or wrong, it is political. (And emotional, because reason seems to have no part in the calculations of the Democrats - at least no rational reasons that I can see.)

1/26/21, 7:32 PM


And the majority of Democrat voters (excluding the dead ones of coarse) prefer it that way. We know this because they continue to vote Democrat.

Todd said...

stlcdr said...

...the democrats are using political power for persecution. We may as well devolve back into making political decisions based on the color of ones skin (oh the irony).

1/27/21, 5:30 AM


Nothing would please Democrats more, than to be free come back out of the racist closet they had to run into. They should be "out and proud". It is who they are.

Gcraw said...

How about an impeachment of President Obama. Talkabout entertainment power.

Biff said...

"My Democratic colleagues would have rightfully objected to Republicans – when they controlled Congress – using the impeachment power to disqualify former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016 because of her email controversy."

The "rightfully" drives me absolutely bananas. Tech security is a big part of my day job. Setting up a personal email server in your own house, on your own initiative, with your own domain name, managed by your own tech contractor, and then using it instead of your employer's systems to perform your job would be a fireable offense (with possible referral to law enforcement) at every employer I've encountered in the last twenty years, especially if you are in a role with access to sensitive information. Does Secretary of State count?

Somehow, since Hillary did it, supposedly it's no big deal at all, quit making a fuss, move along now...and if you suggest that any foreign intelligence agency may have compromised her server, you're obviously a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Just another example of how the standards that apply to you and me don't apply to everyone.

Skippy Tisdale said...

Progressives spell justice, just us.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Amendment 14, Section 3:
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, ...

So, what's missing from here? That's right! "President" and "Vice President" are missing from here.

Important rule fo legal interpretation: all the words there mean something.

So, what does it mean to "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States"? Well, it means to hold a non-elective office.

Because if elective offices were included, then they wouldn't need to specify that you can't be a "Senator or Representative in Congress".

What's the Constitution say about the penalties that can be levied via impeachment?

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

What is an "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"? Well, by normal rules of text and grammar, any such "office" is an "office, civil or military under the United States".

And those offices are not elective offices.

So, neither by impeachment, nor by Amendment 14, can Congress do anything to prevent Trump from running for President in 2024.

I think I'm going to write this up in Blogger, so I can refer to it more often

daskol said...

If we're going to dig up dead American political figures to try for their sins, let's do the great ones.