January 23, 2021

"The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office."

Wrote James Madison in The Federalist Papers, Number 39.

279 comments:

1 – 200 of 279   Newer›   Newest»
alanc709 said...

Depends on what your definition of "is" is, right? During the continuance of his office? Can we impeach Bill Clinton, then?

n.n said...

Twilight Amendment in the evolving.... mutating Constitution. We've come a long way, baby.

The Drill SGT said...

Seems a clear statement of intent, but not likely to sway Schumer.

n.n said...

Depends on what your definition of "is" is, right?

Yes, semantic games, conceptual corruption, and conflation of logical domains in a quasi-religious fervor. We live in interesting times.

Gahrie said...

Who pays attention to The Federalist anymore?

It was written by a bunch of dead White Europeans to justify the oppression of the peoples of the world by the White Patriarchy.

n.n said...

not likely to sway Schumer

Schumer who stands up for witch hunts, warlock trials, JournoListic braying, protests, and wicked solutions? Probably not.

Bobber Fleck said...

con•tin•u•ance kən-tĭn′yoo͞-əns►

n.
The act or fact of continuing.
n.
The time during which something exists or lasts; duration.
n.
A continuation or sequel.

tim in vermont said...

Schemer has already debunked this by assertion.

JK Brown said...

What if that continuance is only in the heads of his enemies? For many, it seems, Donald Trump will be "in office" for a long time, if only in they Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Mikey NTH said...

Impeachment is one thing, trial and conviction is something else.

tim in vermont said...

Imagine spending one’s career teaching the constitution only to find that every line falls under the “politcal question” doctrine. It reminds me of what Hillary Clinton said to Vince Foster in a WH meeting a week before he killed himself.

“You are just a hick lawyer and you are never gonna get it!” - HRC

gspencer said...

Seems axiomatic.

rhhardin said...

It doesn't sound very restrictive. "and other times too" might well be implied. He'd have to restrict it out.

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Iman said...

Blogger The Drill SGT said...
Seems a clear statement of intent, but not likely to sway Schumer.


No, not when he has a minor erection on his hands. Best news he’s had in at least 20 years.

gspencer said...


“You are just a hick lawyer and you are never gonna get it!” - HRC

Actually, he did get it. Clinton style.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELslxmdWoAIuuKm.jpg

Breezy said...

We’ll need a SCOTUS ruling before the trial even starts.
Is a trial constitutional against a person who is no longer president? Or is it simply a moot exercise?
Does congress have the ability to ban someone from running for office if they’ve been convicted of articles of impeachment?

mccullough said...

The Constitution restricted it. Removal and prohibition from future office.

Can’t remove someone who is no longer there.

Big Mike said...

Waxing sarcastic, I beg to point out that the Federalist Papers were a long time ago, like pre-digital Dude! And Jemmy Madison was a white slave-owner.

But the way I read it, the only way they can impeach and convict Trump is for Joe and Kamala to admit their election was bogus and step aside for Trump and Pence to resume their positions as President and Vice President. Only then can Trump be impeached and convicted.

Yeah, I’m being sarcastic.

Browndog said...

The democrats are going to do whatever the hell they want.

Everyone knows it. Debating the "legality" of anything makes everyone feel better, giving themselves a false sense of security by pretending we still live in a country of laws.

mccullough said...

We don’t need a Supreme Court opinion.

It’s up to the voters in primaries and the Electors to determine if a candidate is disqualified. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.

tim in vermont said...

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.

This new interpretation reminds me of when the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 found that “shall” actually meant “shall not.”

But let the heearings on the bill of attainder against Donald John Trump commence!

mccullough said...

The Federalist Papers were written to influence New York to ratify the Constitution.

We may as well look at what the Oklahoma Territory newspapers had to say on what The Constitution means as what Madison, Hamilton, and Jay thought.

Mr. D said...

So we can impeach any president who is no longer president? Cool; let's start with Woodrow Wilson.

MadTownGuy said...

"The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office."

So if Trump runs and wins in 2024 (not likely, but weirder things have happened), game on?

DavidUW said...

Again, these are all very interesting questions that demand the full Senate's time for the next 22-46 months.

tim in vermont said...

"Removal and prohibition from future office.”

It depends on the meaning of “and” doesn’t it? In this case “and” means “or,” despite what Americans have believed for 230 years.

From the impeachment: "There, he reiterated false claims that ‘‘we won this election"

Sounds like he should have a chance to examine whether he was lying, doesn’t it?

I kid, I kid. This will be a show trial and no actual evidence will be allowed in Trump’s defense! This will bring “unity.”

Bob Boyd said...

This is more like canceling than impeaching.

Breezy said...

There is debate about the ability to ban part. I agree it’s up to the voters only. Congress can’t vote to ban someone. Congress now seems to think they can. They know removal has already been accomplished thru the steal.

This is such a mess.

Tregonsee said...

Up until about the time of Lincoln, observing constitutionality was something that all 3 branches of government gave at least some thought. Presidents usually vetoed legislation on those grounds. In an alternate reality where the Republicans had backbones, not a single one would attend the trial as unconstitutional. Maybe a few moderate Democrats, should you be able to find one.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff Brokaw said...

Democrats really should stop pursuing this to avoid setting a precedent that could bite them in the future, when they lose control of ... wait a second, this is *exactly* what they would pursue if they had foreknowledge of every future election result going their way.

Hmmm.

Gahrie said...

We may as well look at what the Oklahoma Territory newspapers had to say on what The Constitution means as what Madison, Hamilton, and Jay thought.

Yeah, it's not like those three Deplorables had anything to do with writing the Constitution, and weren't members of the first government set up under it.

Yancey Ward said...

At this point, I want the Republicans in the Senate to give the Democrats the votes to convict. We need a real opposition to the Democrats in D.C., and the present Republican Party isn't that any longer. I want the 2022 election to be a bloodbath for any Republican that votes to convict, and the more of them, the better it is.

tim in vermont said...

"The Federalist Papers were written to influence New York to ratify the Constitution.”

It was inevitable that the Federalist Papers had to be delegitimized in all this. That’s a feature, not a bug. The Constitution is a living document and every line of it is a political question. Otherwise what is Sotomayor doing on the court? Why was RBG there?

tim in vermont said...

"I want the 2022 election to be a bloodbath for any Republican that votes to convict, and the more of them, the better it is.”

Lincoln Project the Lincoln Project. I’m in.

D.D. Driver said...

Is today's theme "taking things out of context."

Breezy said...

The fact that the election in several swing counties was fraudulent and reversed the outcome of the election is the primary source of the mob descending on the capital. That Trump wouldn’t go along with being victimized by this fraud and speaking out about it somehow makes the mob event his fault. He was the primary victim here, joined by his supporters who have been disenfranchised.

Jim said...

Yes. The impeachment has already occurred, while Trump was in office.

tim in vermont said...

"Is today's theme "taking things out of context.”

Please provide the missing context, that’s what the comments are for, after all.

"The fact that the election in several swing counties was fraudulent and reversed the outcome of the election is the primary source of the mob descending on the capital.”

If speaking the truth is “incitement” then we are in a totalitarian state. Let them prove with evidence that Trump was lying.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! I kid, I kid, no evidence allowed in a show trial!

Drago said...

D.D. Driver: "Is today's theme "taking things out of context."

Not exactly, as you lefties have been doing that intensely for about 5 years now.

As I recall you have been a big purveyor of the collusion and charlottesville hoaxes.

Are you now pondering whether or not that was wise?

A little late, wouldnt you say?

tim in vermont said...

"The impeachment has already occurred, while Trump was in office.”

I am all for a trial, now. show with a thorough examination of the evidence that Trump was actually making false claims. Evidence that has never been looked at since all of his cases were thrown out on technicalities.

Lem said...

A tweet by @rockprincess818

“Chief Justice John Roberts said he refuses to take part in overseeing the impeachment proceedings. And the Constitution makes no provision for a replacement...”

Chuck said...

Althouse, I apologize if my comments don't mention shooting people, or other people being shot, or anything about a "bloodbath." You also won't see me claiming that the last national election was "stolen."

As other of your "moderated" comments do.

I post certain comments repeatedly, to make the point that many of my comments, which simply go to basic political/legal/procedural issues related to your blog posts, are being removed for no reason other than that I am the author. My reapeated posting is so that more of your readers can see what is being removed.

Chuck said...

Althouse are you arguing (or perhaps just observing an argument) that a trial of Trump now, after the completion of his term, is unconstitutional? It would be nice if you said so one way or another.

Wasn't Trump impeached "during his continuance in office"? I say he was. Although there might be an argument about the delivery of the Article of Impeachment to the Senate. Impeachment is impeachment. Trial is later.

And while "The Federalist" is interesting and informative and persuasive, it is not the Constitution.

Here, Althouse, is the argument for a trial:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-2646-de27-a5f7-3fe714ac0000

(The link is to the .pdf of the letter memorandum signed by more than 150 lawprofs, all agreeing very strongly that the Constitution very much allows the impeachment trial of someone who has left office. That to deny that result would make the clause about barring future federal office meaningless, since an officer could avoid it by simply resigning minutes before any impeachment. We have such an example, Secretary of War Belknap in 1876.)

tim in vermont said...

Why are the Democrats so afraid that Trump will win the next election, anyway, that they would create this huge distraction from Biden’s brand new war in Syria?

Mr Wibble said...

They'll cut down every law in England to get at the Devil.

Drago said...

Lem: "A tweet by @rockprincess818

“Chief Justice John Roberts said he refuses to take part in overseeing the impeachment proceedings. And the Constitution makes no provision for a replacement...”

Thats only because Roberts has not yet received a "cordial visit" from a couple of Christopher Wray's "Headquarters Special" Corps......

Drago said...

Mr Wibble: "They'll cut down every law in England to get at the Devil."

But you see, its different now than it was hundreds of years ago.

Now our Soviet lefties believe they have in place a structure where their violation of every law and norm CAN NEVER be turned against them.

Ever.

Thats why all the masks are off and its full steam ahead.

tim in vermont said...

"signed by more than 150 lawprofs, “

I am sure you could easily get “150 lawprofs” to sign a letter saying that the president can unilaterally commit the United States to treaties like the Paris Accords without running it by the Senate too. You could get that many lawprofs to sign any letter suggesting that any Democrat President has dictatorial powers.

The most important thing seems to be to keep this out of the hands of the voters at all costs, I guess.

Since our government as envisioned by the Republicans as well as the Democrats is a farce, may as well let the more qualified asshats run it, the Democrats.

Drago said...

Certain LLR-lefties from Michigan who have long supported the "canceling" of actual conservatives and have long supported the deplatforming and banning of conservatives and republicans everywhere, including academics at universities, and anyone who stands in the way of permanent democratical control of government at all levels, seems to have difficulty understanding the implications of his own banning from a blog.

A blog where he has threatened women with violence, attacked children and openly defended lefty-billionaire funded child sex groomers.

daskol said...

Among the innovations our modern world pioneers is a new prophylactic form of impeachment. This is progress, and anyone who disagrees may well be a insurrectionist domestic terrorist, or whatever our illegitimate demented dolt of a president is told to say about them.

Lurker21 said...

The Supreme Court doesn't rule on hypotheticals. Perhaps some clever lawyer could form a case that got around that, but even then they probably wouldn't hear the case. Nixon v. U.S. (no, not that Nixon) decided that the Court could not overturn an impeachment.

John Roberts represents the Court's unwillingness to get involved in tricky federal issues. They have no trouble overturning state laws, especially when other states' laws reflect the view they favor, but they don't want to go head to head with Congress or the national electorate, especially now, when talk of court packing is already in the air. So I can't see Roberts as the dread villain that he is in some people's eyes.

I don't know whether the Framers would have had trouble allowing an official to escape the impeachment and disqualification by resigning. Presumably, they did leave some things up to the people (as they understood the people in their day) to decide. Presumably too, the possibility of trying, convicting, and imprisoning such officials in criminal cases would remove them from eligibility for some time. Convicted felons are ineligible to vote or to hold office in many states, but not barred from serving in Congress or as President (an oversight by the Founders?). Still, trials by courts do deal with cases of wrongdoing by private citizens, even ex-Presidents, and doesn't the voters' independent judgment count for anything?

Alcee Hastings was a federal judge who was impeached and convicted by Congress. The Senate did not vote to exclude him from office in the future, and he represents Florida in the House now. If his conduct was bad enough to warrant impeachment, why wasn't he excluded? It would have saved the country a lot of money, given the scrapes he's gotten into as a Congressman. Hastings voted to impeach Trump.

tim in vermont said...

"since an officer could avoid it by simply resigning minutes before any impeachment.”

If he can then get elected, I would say that that amounts to taking his case to a higher court. Alcee Hastings is ‘serving’ in Congress right now.

Earnest Prole said...

Trump was impeached while in office -- twice. It's the Senate trial arising out of the second impeachment that's at issue.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Trump is not in office right now.

Breezy said...

I’ve come to ignore what the lawprofs state en masse via pdf or the like. We can all read the constitution and understand it without them. We can even do background research on the topic if we like.

tim in vermont said...

I say again, I look forward to the trial centering on the facts of the accusation.

Ha ha ha ah JKLOL! There will be no examination of the underlying facts. We don’t need no steenking evidence! The accusation is all the evidence that we need!

Rosalyn C. said...

“... government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. ...”
Did the founders intend to create a ruling elite and an entrenched establishment class? No of course not IMO.

Drago said...

Lurker21: "Alcee Hastings was a federal judge who was impeached and convicted by Congress."

I would caution you to be very careful here.

We have a certain banned commenter, who is a far left loon, but poses as a "principled LLR conservative", that has a very long history of launching into spittle-flecked rage storms and threatening women and children at the slightest criticism of any democratical anywhere for any reason.

He is also a very long time booster of a very well known child sex groomer (I've heard that is common at The Lincoln Project).

If you have small children I urge you to keep them close by and not let them wander too far on their own. At least until our LLR-lefty falls asleep after his inevitable 7th pitcher of gin and tonics.

D.D. Driver said...

Is today's theme "taking things out of context"?

Here is the full passage:

"The President is to continue in office for the period of four years; as in New York and Delaware, the chief magistrate is elected for three years, and in South Carolina for two years. In the other States the election is annual. In several of the States, however, no constitutional provision is made for the impeachment of the chief magistrate. And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office."

Madison is just saying unlike Delaware and Virginia (where you could not impeach the "chief magistrate" until after leaving office) the President can be impeached while he is still in office. But that doesn't mean that he cannot be impeached after he leaves office.

This is a "Cf." cite at best.

Drago said...

Earnest Prole: "Trump was impeached while in office -- twice. It's the Senate trial arising out of the second impeachment that's at issue."

Other timely "revelations" expected out of Johnny On The Spot Prole today:

Water is wet.

Gravity is, like, a real thing.

There is more than 1 political party in the US.

Lots of people enjoy sweet and sour pork.

Gahrie said...

If he can then get elected, I would say that that amounts to taking his case to a higher court. Alcee Hastings is ‘serving’ in Congress right now.

People are ignoring something I have brought up several times, and other people have too. After the House impeaches a person, the Senate then holds a trial to convict. Conviction requires a 2/3rds vote, and removes the person from office. If the Senate wishes to bar the person from further office, they must hold a second vote. This vote only requires a simple majority. They cannot hold the second voter without succeeding with the first vote. The Senate never held the second vote after Hastings was convicted, so he was never barred from office. (IIRC, the second vote was only held three times, and that involved former Confederates)

My position is that the president cannot be convicted in the Senate because the case is moot. This would not allow the Senate to hold the second vote barring Trump from office.

tim in vermont said...

Basically the pro trial and conviction people here are anti-democratic. Not to put to fine a point on it. What must happen at all costs is to deprive the voters of any opportunity to vote him back in. So let’s have a quick show trial and pass our bill of attainder against one Donald John Trump!

pacwest said...

This will be a show trial

Classic misdirection. "Watch my left hand closely. We will use it to magically disappear the plague that is Trump from our country. Watch closely. Fix all your attention on it."

Has Nancy taken down the razor wire around the Capitol yet? I mean just in case the rubes don't fall for the prestidigitation.

Breezy said...

“Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

This phrase refers to appointed offices, not elected ones, according to other law professors, FYI. This opinion makes the most sense, as this leaves elections up to the voters, ie We the People.

Gahrie said...

"The President is to continue in office for the period of four years; as in New York and Delaware, the chief magistrate is elected for three years, and in South Carolina for two years. In the other States the election is annual. In several of the States, however, no constitutional provision is made for the impeachment of the chief magistrate. And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office."

Madison is just saying unlike Delaware and Virginia (where you could not impeach the "chief magistrate" until after leaving office) the President can be impeached while he is still in office. But that doesn't mean that he cannot be impeached after he leaves office.


You're misreading the quote. The sentence: "The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office." is as much limitation as it is permission. He may be impeached while he is president, not before, not after. During indicates a period of time that has a beginning and that will end. In this case, it ends when he is no longer in office.

iowan2 said...

DD Driver
You have yet to find affirmative basis for a conviction in the Senate.
In fact I have yet seen any affirmative basis from any person.
At best scholars on both sides always conclude, "it's complicated"

Bob said...

Someone said, "Althouse are you arguing (or perhaps just observing an argument) that a trial of Trump now, after the completion of his term, is unconstitutional? It would be nice if you said so one way or another."

Oh, brother...

Althouse posted an "opinion" from Founding Father James Madison.

Althouse is undoubtedly aware 150 law professors signed on to a contrary opinion. And she is surely aware Ilya Somin blogged on the subject at The Volokh Conspiracy. She probably also read what Alan Dershowitz had to say.

You might also be aware that Althouse is a retired teacher who probably used various techniques to encourage students to think.

"It would be nice" if you took notice of all this. Discuss!

Gahrie said...

“Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

This phrase refers to appointed offices, not elected ones, according to other law professors, FYI. This opinion makes the most sense, as this leaves elections up to the voters, ie We the People.


The issue has ever been resolved. It's never been much of an issue before because the disbarment has happened so rarely. Given the decisions this Court and previous Courts have made, I wouldn't feel comfortable making a prediction.

Breezy said...

The argument against term limits is that the voters have the right to decide, so term limits can not be imposed.... There is some recognition of this overarching right in other topics.

Roughcoat said...

Wasn't Chuck asked to leave? Why is he here?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

They are finally unmoored from the Constitution, as they always wished. Does anyone think anyone with actual power in DC cares about the Federalist papers?

Roughcoat said...

Leave, Chuck. There's a good lad.

Gahrie said...

Basically the pro trial and conviction people here are anti-democratic.

I'm strongly anti-trial and conviction, and strongly anti-democratic. (And Democratic for that matter)

We live in a republic, and things have become more and more fucked up the more and more democratic we become. The Progressives did a great deal to fuck it up the first time, and now they are fucking it up again.

Chuck said...


Blogger tim in vermont said...
"signed by more than 150 lawprofs, “

I am sure you could easily get “150 lawprofs” to sign a letter saying that the president can unilaterally commit the United States to treaties like the Paris Accords without running it by the Senate too. You could get that many lawprofs to sign any letter suggesting that any Democrat President has dictatorial powers.

The most important thing seems to be to keep this out of the hands of the voters at all costs, I guess.

Since our government as envisioned by the Republicans as well as the Democrats is a farce, may as well let the more qualified asshats run it, the Democrats.


I was expecting this sort of assinine comment. That it was you, is no surprise.

Did you read the listing of signatories? Do you know any of them? For instance, did you see the name of Steve Calabresi? Former Luttig law clerk. Former Scalia law clerk. Opponent of the Mueller Investigation. High priest of American conservatism.

That’s who you are accusing of being a lefty tool. You idiot.

Gahrie said...

The argument against term limits is that the voters have the right to decide, so term limits can not be imposed...

If we're discussing the president, the Constitution was explicitly amended to allow them. (And I think they're a good idea)

If we're discussing Congress, the best argument against them is that they'll make things even worse. Right now the people we elect at least pretend to be in charge and accountable. If we pass term limits the unaccountable (and union protected) continuing bureaucracy will simply run things completely.

Roughcoat said...

I detect a powerful odour of mendacity.

Drago said...

iowan2: "DD Driver
You have yet to find affirmative basis for a conviction in the Senate."

There's gotta be an emanation from a penumbra out there somewhere just begging to be pulled into service.

Leland said...

Trump was impeached while in office -- twice

You think so. When have the second articles of impeachment been delivered to the Senate? Did that occur while Trump was in office?

I think the President has an expert witness that says you are wrong, indeed a hostile witness.

When is a bill signed into law? When it is passed by the House and the Senate? Or when it is delivered to the President, after passing the House and the Senate, to be signed?

Can the Senate conduct a trial without articles of impeachment being delivered?

Drago said...

Roughcoat: "I detect a powerful odour of mendacity."

That happens when Big Democratical LLR Daddy pops by.

Skippy Tisdale said...

Yesterday Chuck Schumer said that a president can't evade a Senate trial by resigning the presidency. Hey Senator Moobs, what about Nixon?

Ken B said...

“ And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office. ”

Of course, this quote refers to impeachments not trials of impeachments, and Trump was impeached whilst in office.

I suggest this is a strong argument for the trial now being constitutional. He could be impeached seconds before his period of office ends. Any trial would perforce be held after he left office.

Gahrie said...

I suggest this is a strong argument for the trial now being constitutional. He could be impeached seconds before his period of office ends. Any trial would perforce be held after he left office.

The only punishment upon conviction is removal from office. Trump is no longer in office, so the case is moot.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

It's Pelosi jerk-off theater for the soviet power grifters and their Trump-hate cultists.

Gahrie said...

Yesterday Chuck Schumer said that a president can't evade a Senate trial by resigning the presidency. Hey Senator Moobs, what about Nixon?

Nixon was pardoned by Ford.

Freeman Hunt said...

Do we need to bring back ostracism from antiquity?

BothSidesNow said...

The fuller quote is as follows: "And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office." Madison is arguing that the US Constitution is better than the constitutions of Delaware and Virginia, because under the US Constitution, the President can be impeached while in office, which is a greater safeguard against an unfaithful president. In other words, if the Constitution were to forbid impeachment while the president is in office, as in Delaware and Virginia, that would be a bad rule.

This language does not in any way support the reciprocal view, that a president can only be impeached (for our purposes, convicted) while in office. Madison was not discussing that point. In short, in the context of this letter, saying that the president can be impeached while in office says nothing about whether he can be impeached (again, for our purposes, convicted) after leaving office.

Leaving aside the letter, how absurd would it be that the President could avoid being convicted by the simple remedy of resigning. Reminds me of the repeated scenes in the Pirates of the Caribbean where, when the pirates are just about to win, their opponents shout "parley" and the whole fight comes to a screeching halt.

Amadeus 48 said...

If the Demmies go forward with this farce, they will rue the day.

There is lots of evidence now that the riot was planned by various kooks before people gathered and Trump spoke. If the focus is on incitement, Team Donkey is going to look very bad. If they focus on Trump's post-election antics as opposed to what he said at the rally, they give the GOP a way to vote against impeachment with a clear rationale--Trump was impeached for incitement, not for contesting a highly contestable outcome.

So, the Demmies are going to have the words of the HR's impeachment article read back to them together with their failed "proofs". They get 53 votes for impeachment max (goodbye Mitt and Lisa--and one or two others. Hi Sen. Manchin--like your job?)

Also, I think the GOP now believes they have one free impeachment of a future Demmie president to even the score.

This is really stupid by Team Donkey, but it takes the public's gaze away from SuperSloJoe, the executive order machine. Look at what SuperSloJoe is working on:

Limiting fracking
Blocking oil and gas pipelines
Preliminaries for opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions
Cutting U.S. military spending
Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran.

Yes, folks, it is Walter Russell Mead's 2017 list of things that Trump would have done if he were in Putin's pocket.


tim in vermont said...

"That’s who you are accusing of being a lefty tool.”

You are a lefty tool too. Tools are called tools because they are useful to the person using them.

Skippy Tisdale said...

I post certain comments repeatedly, to make the point that many of my comments, which simply go to basic political/legal/procedural issues related to your blog posts, are being removed for no reason other than that I am the author. My reapeated posting is so that more of your readers can see what is being removed.

If Chuck achieved an erection in the woods and no one was there to laugh at it, would it still be turgid?

Skippy Tisdale said...

(The link is to the .pdf of the letter memorandum signed by more than 150 lawprofs, all agreeing very strongly that the Constitution very much allows the impeachment trial of someone who has left office.

In Logic, this is known as an appeal to authority.

narciso said...


Meanwhile


https://mobile.twitter.com/joshdcaplan/status/1352979586083155973

Gahrie said...

This language does not in any way support the reciprocal view, that a president can only be impeached (for our purposes, convicted) while in office.

I suggest you look up the words "during" and "continuance" in a dictionary.

I'm Full of Soup said...

My periodic report on deaths per 100,000 due to Wuhan Flu:

National average = 125
Wisconsin = 105

States over national average:
AL 130
AR 151
AZ 162
CT 191
IA 142
IL 161
IN 143
LA 182
MA 201
MI 150
MS 192
ND 187
NJ 235 [#1 worst]
NV 128
NY 215
PA 158 [so its Health Secy gets promoted to Biden Admin! what a great country]
RI 197
SD 190
TN 128

I continue to think most states will end up around the same death rate. Which suggests the variety of lockdowns had no real substantive effect.

Aggie said...

The President was impeached the first time on a whim that failed to conform to the traditional rules of evidence or an entitled defense that were seen and commonly acknowledged in past governments.

The President was impeached for the second time on an even thinner and more fickle whim that didn't even debate any facts. In addition to being wholly insufficient, the facts are irrelevant. In other words, no facts are required in service to the political objectives.

Anybody who doesn't think there will be a 'trial', and who doesn't think that a 'conviction' can be gamed in votes from retiring senators and supported by deliberate absences, is dreaming.

Even if completely illegitimate, even if un-Constitutional, even if illegal, the results will be crowed from the rooftops by the press, for the next 4 years. They own the apparatus. They think they can craft reality for you. They are not completely wrong. But I happen to think they are wrong enough to fail miserably.

Gahrie said...

Leaving aside the letter, how absurd would it be that the President could avoid being convicted by the simple remedy of resigning.

Why? Exactly the same result is achieved.

tim in vermont said...

The kangaroo court is gonna convene. ChiCom Mitch wants it, Schemer wants it, it’s gonna happen. Like I said, I am all for it. Let’s present the farce.

Oh yeah, and lets shut down all of Trump’s avenues of mass communication and every statement he makes in his defense, let’s tag with “This is disputed”

Disputed by whom? During the election we were constantly told that there were “strong protections” against mail in voter fraud such as observers at ballot opening and signature verifcation. And yet there are hundreds of sworn affidavits that these protections in fact were not in place and still they gaslight us.

Have the show trial, consolidation of the power of the one party state depends on vanquishing their only electorally viable foe!

Narayanan said...

The Constitution is a living document and every line of it is a political question.

-------------===============
I would not deny this ever unless one is a fool > or else what need for checks and balances?

Q: what breathes life into that piece of parchment and the words on it?

not the dead and long gone /Founding Fathers/

it is the current citizenry and who they elect to implement those words.

Gahrie said...

Do we need to bring back ostracism from antiquity?

The Left are well on their way, although I think they plan on using the term shunning.

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
iowan2 said...

Get over it. President Trump is not impeached until the article of impeachment is executed. ie
delivered to the Senate.

tim in vermont said...

Biden sends large convoy of US troops into Syria on first day, and now this:

“Taiwan reports large incursion by Chinese Air Force"
https://mobile.twitter.com/joshdcaplan/status/1352979586083155973

China gets their puppet in the White House and grabs for the brass ring!

stephen cooper said...

Long ago, a poet was taking a seaside vacation in England, and one morning visited the small local museum, with its exhibits of treasures of the past. Outside it starts to rain heavily, and a young pair of lovers, soaked by the rain, come in the entrance to the exhibit room .... and the poet describes the scene thus:

They stood, Rain pelting at Window, shrouded Sea,
Tenderly Hand in Hand, too happy to talk ...
And there, its [curious] eye fixed on me,
Plautus impennis, the [ancient] Great Auk.

(W. de la Mare)

tim in vermont said...

I eagerly await the New York Times editorials explaining to us that the Taiwanese had it coming.

Meanwhile BIden shuts down KeystoneXL and begins the property acquisition phase for a different pipeline.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1352753059873611777

Achilles said...

mccullough said...

We don’t need a Supreme Court opinion.

It’s up to the voters in primaries and the Electors to determine if a candidate is disqualified. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.


That is a pretty silly thing to say.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Earnest Prole said...

Water is wet.

Speaking of which, say hi to your mother for me.

To discuss this issue with any seriousness, you need to distinguish between Impeachment (the sole prerogative of the House) and Disqualification (the sole prerogative of the Senate). Trump was impeached by the House during his continuance in office. Now the matter moves to the Senate.

Temujin said...

If the Democrats want to impeach President Trump after he has left office, they're going to also need to 'impeach' 74 million other people (at least that number), by finding ways to censor, refuse entry, and abolish them from all regular privileges of citizenship. Of course they'd love to do just that. Many of them have come out and said so.

Which is why the clock is ticking and they have two years to complete their tasks of eliminating half the country, and replacing them with low wage illegal immigrants. In two years the Democrats are done.

Meanwhile, they'll need to have a trial. And it's doubtful, though not out of the realm of possible, that they'll get enough Republicans to vote to do this. And yes, they would need 2/3 of the Senate to impeach him. Every person taking part in that trial to further abuse the man who has already left office, will be noted. Every stinkin one of them.

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
narciso said...

That is qatar cashing out its chips.

Leland said...

Trump was impeached by the House during his continuance in office.

Not according to a witness for the House during the first impeachment. We can believe you or the expert testimony given to the House by a witness they called.

Yancey Ward said...

"This is really stupid by Team Donkey"

Only if the Republicans in the Senate don't play along by taking it seriously and convicting Trump. Right now, by all accounts, they are taking it seriously and many plan to vote for conviction. These are the Republicans that need to be ousted from office in 2022.

alfromchgo said...

"What Constitution?" asks Nan as she tears up her copy...

Bob Smith said...

You really think this makes any difference to the grifters like Schumer? Silly Rabbit.

tim in vermont said...

Chinese bomber buzzing Taiwan.

https://twitter.com/FRANCE24/status/1352980038514221056

I am sure that Biden will be pressed about his at his next press conference. I can give his answer now: “Come on man!"

Achilles said...

If they had actually defeated Trump in a legitimate election they would not have to keep him from running in 2024.

narciso said...


Back on your heads


https://mobile.twitter.com/DevlinBarrett/status/1353046139059097600

Achilles said...

Yancey Ward said...

"This is really stupid by Team Donkey"

Only if the Republicans in the Senate don't play along by taking it seriously and convicting Trump. Right now, by all accounts, they are taking it seriously and many plan to vote for conviction. These are the Republicans that need to be ousted from office in 2022.

Congress has an approval rate of 15% and a re-election rate of 95%.

It is pretty clear they are not afraid of making voters angry for a reason.

They do not plan on having legitimate elections ever again.

Michael K said...

Blogger Gahrie said...
Yesterday Chuck Schumer said that a president can't evade a Senate trial by resigning the presidency. Hey Senator Moobs, what about Nixon?

Nixon was pardoned by Ford.


Nixon was long gone from the presidency when Ford pardoned him. That was to avoid a criminal trial as a private citizen. No doubt the left plans something similar for Trump and, given the spinelessness of judges these days, they might be able to pull it off. Nixon was liable to criminal law since the FBI had done such a good job on the coup without him suspecting. Trump will not be convicted by any honest jury, which is why he needs to stay away from DC.

Michael K said...

They do not plan on having legitimate elections ever again.

This is why 2022 will be important. They could steal a single national election by vote fraud in a few (5) key states. Can they do this in 555 elections? If so, it is all over.

Breezy said...

What if Roberts declines to oversee the trial, and Trump declines to show up due to the moot result argument? “What difference does it make at this point?”

Whiskeybum said...

someone called BothSidesNow who doesn't think very well said...

...how absurd would it be that the President could avoid being convicted by the simple remedy of resigning.


The end result of the (successful) impeachment/trial process is removal from office. The end result of resigning is removal from office. The result is the same. And that is absurd?

D: "We're putting you on trial, and if we find you guilty, then you have to pay us $100!"
R: "Here's your $100"
D: "Hey - you can't do that! Take this $100 back! We've got a serious show trial to run here!"

Pathetic

tim in vermont said...

Biden pays off big pharma for delaying approval of the vaccine

https://twitter.com/rising_serpent/status/1352767135303528448

Carol said...

I'm sorry, I am late to this. But what is the issue?

Trump was impeachedtwice while in office.

I don't get it.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Chuck said...

Here, Althouse, is the argument for a trial:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-2646-de27-a5f7-3fe714ac0000
*****************
Pathetic. Not a single case footnote to support its assertions. (at least none capable of being linked to in the .pdf file)

Not a single word in it about why such a conviction would NOT amount to an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.

The letter then prejudges Trump by claiming in a roundabout way that he was attempting an insurrection on his final days in office, something no court has charged him with to this day. (and thanks to the FBI's exoneration, won't). It concludes that Congress might want to keep such a "demagogue" seeking to subvert our democracy from returning to office.

Funny, I'm not aware that the Constitution sets limits on what a candidate for office must believe, or not believe, to be eligible for federal elective office. Under our system it for "the people" to decide who they chose to lead them, not Congress--or so I thought.

Using the letter's "logic" Congress might have decided to impeach and remove Trump for being a demagogue during the three-month period from November 2016 to January 20, 2017, BEFORE he took office. Why not?

Or, it could hold a President hostage to its notion of what a "demagogue" is, threatening to impeach and remove him/her for not toeing a certain political line, during his entire term Why not?


Further, its example of Secretary Belknap slides over the fact that Belknap, though impeached after leaving office, was not tried, convicted and removed. So that was a case of "impeachment interruptus." Congress may have "decided" it had the power to remove Belknap from office after he resigned, but since it didn't act on that belief, it is pure speculation to claim they had that power in the first place, and ludicrous to refer to it as a "rule".

Let's also remember that Richard Nixon resigned before the House could act on articles of impeachment it had already drawn up. Gerald Ford promptly pardoned him for any offenses he "might" have committed, for the good of the country, and that was good enough for Congress, which did not challenge Ford's action, even though it short-circuited impeachment and removal.

In any case I think Lynn Cheney will serve as a example to GOP Senators who consider impeaching Trump, as they will face great wrath from their constituents if they choose to convict.

But such a trial in itself will set a horrible precedent.

Readering said...

Big difference between this impeachment and last. GoP ensured no trial last time. This time Dems will have a trial and it will be ugly for Trump. What will he put on in defense? Basically stubs from his pension checks.

Narayanan said...

BothSidesNow said...
The fuller quote is as follows: "And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office." Madison is arguing that the US Constitution is better than the constitutions of Delaware and Virginia, because under the US Constitution, the President can be impeached while in office, which is a greater safeguard against an unfaithful president. In other words, if the Constitution were to forbid impeachment while the president is in office, as in Delaware and Virginia, that would be a bad rule.
-----------============
why not then "A President" rather than /The President/

Q: so then Pantheon of Presidents who get occasionally taken down and dusted and put back or dropped into dustbin of history? which also allows for refurbishment

tim in vermont said...

"What will he put on in defense?”

That’s my question. What will he be allowed to present as evidence in his defense? My guess is that he will not be allowed to present any evidence that might suggest that he wasn’t lying since looking into the last election is strictly verbotten.

mccullough said...

His defense is “fuck off, you’re irrelevant.”

Browndog said...

Trump was impeachedtwice while in office.

Impeached once and acquitted.

wild chicken said...

Trump is not in office right now.

1/23/21, 12:01 PM

But he was in office when he was impeached..already...

Mark said...

The purpose of impeachment is removal from office.

The language "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of" and "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office" explicitly require that the person still actually be capable of removal, that is, still in the office of president, at the time that conviction is considered.

This really is pre-kindergarten stuff.

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dr Weevil said...

Just a reminder that things are not as awful as they might be. The other banned troll who shall not be named by me (initials M.E.G.), who used to ignore her banning and post up to 20 times per thread on half a dozen threads in a day, hasn't been around for weeks, maybe months. Maybe she finally got the message. Or did A.A. finally get a court order? When she did post, 9 out of 10 comments were unexceptionable, but she always included one really nasty, vicious one to remind us of why she was banned.

Anyway, we can count our blessings today, having only one banned troll to annoy us with his ephemeral comments . . . unless M.E.G. and C. are tag-teaming us, and she'll be back when he tires out? A horrible thought!

Browndog said...

That’s my question. What will he be allowed to present as evidence in his defense? My guess is that he will not be allowed to present any evidence that might suggest that he wasn’t lying since looking into the last election is strictly verbotten.

You will be reminded a thousand times "This is not a criminal trial. It's a political process"

They can, and will, do whatever the fuck they want.

mccullough said...

It’s Dr. Lynne Cheney.

But she can’t scribble prescriptions.

Browndog said...

But he was in office when he was impeached..already...

When did Nancy Pelosi deliver the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate?

I missed it-

Mark said...

Note that the Constitution itself does NOT require a separate vote on disqualification.

Fritz said...

It would be amusing if Justice Roberts refused to participate based on the Senate's lack of standing to try a non-President.

Iman said...

Roughcoat: "I detect a powerful odour of mendacity."


Heh... and I’d just thought it was bullshit.

tim in vermont said...

Face it, we are a banana republic now, for those of you who said that “it can’t happen here,” I give you Obama who said “Yes it can!” We all wondered what he meant.

Leland said...

For those that may be unclear; it is one thing to debate what is or isn't allowed by the Constitution or intended by the writers of it. It is another to debate what the Democrats would do and may get away with it.

For example, I think Trump was impeached a second time, but using Democrats own witness and rules, he was not since they didn't deliver the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate while Trump was in office. I also think that the Senate will attempt to convict Trump (I think it is a coin flip on whether they can get to 67 votes), and it will permanently lower the bar for impeachments in the future.

I think John Roberts will follow whatever rules Schumer and Senate Democrats provide him, and I wouldn't be surprised if he gave a speech deriding Trump, if he is to be sentenced. And if that happens, I think the bar will be lowered for trying political dissidents.

I think what Pelosi did was stupid, and if there is intended to be any unity in the coming months; the Senate will reject the articles as invalid. Biden no longer has a say. He never had authority, but his chance to right this wrong was at inauguration. I think Trump's best defense is to push the trial to the courts by questioning the validity of the Impeachment.

I think all of this is a clown show to entertain donors and milk them of money.

narciso said...

Just take the pill



https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pharma-and-life-sciences/bidens-hhs-freezes-trump-insulin-epinephrine-rule-until-march

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
D.D. Driver said...

That’s my question. What will he be allowed to present as evidence in his defense? My guess is that he will not be allowed to present any evidence that might suggest that he wasn’t lying since looking into the last election is strictly verbotten.

Just a periodic reminder that this is a lie. Most of you will believe the lie because you cannot handle the truth, but there it is anyway. Courts were willing to hear all the "evidence," Trumps lawyers didn't want to put on his case. These are dangerous lies that have already lead to violence.

But my greatest hope is that, yes, this really is Trump's defense. I want to see the evidence. I would so love to see these idiots and crackpots on the stand to get cross examined. And, then maybe, just maybe the light bulb will go on for some of you and we can move on.


Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
robother said...

From Wikipedia: "In 1329 [i.e., 8 years after Dante died], Bertrand du Pouget, Cardinal and nephew of Pope John XXII, named Dante's Monarchia heretical and sought to have his bones burned at the stake."

Democrats are getting medieval on Trump, and they're just getting started. Next up: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson facing impeachment.

Looking on the bright side, it is comforting to know that the USA foreign and domestic affairs are in such great shape that the US Congress can devote all its time to the modern equivalent of determining the exact number of angels on the head of a pin.

narciso said...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.swfinstitute.org/news/83900/pharma-biden-freezes-trumps-lower-cost-insulin-and-epinephrine-rule/amp

Lucid-Ideas said...

Maybe every president should be impeached. Maybe that's the future. I don't mind that so much maybe every president should be impeached...they wouldn't be doing their job otherwise.

tim in vermont said...

The first impeachment was a coverup for Democrat corruption in Ukraine and this impeachment will be a coverup for the theft of the election.

Liz Cheney and Mitch McConnell have gone full Chuck. In other words, they are tools of the left. I am sure they would deny it, that’s why the left refers to people like this as “useful idiots."

BUMBLE BEE said...

YAY! Dumbocrats NOT lowering the price of Insulin! CNN will be crowing about that victory in 5...4...3...

Inga said...

IMO,
It’s going to turn out that Trump was impeached while in Office and can be tried by the Senate while out of Office. All the maneuvering and manipulations will mean nothing, according to the Constitution. He will be tried by the Senate and most likely found guilty and be stopped from running for Office ever again.

Hallelujah.

Ken B said...

Gahrie : “ The only punishment upon conviction is removal from office.”

I understand why you say this Gahrie. You know most here are too ignorant to know this us false and too lazy to check. Nonetheless it’s is false and it’s falsity is proven in comments by non idiots on this very thread.

But good on you for seeing how hopeless the Althouse Trumpkins are.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Constitution? who cares about the Constitution It's all so 18th Century! Its written in CURSIVE! quotes Inga Spicoli

Dr Weevil said...

'Rising Serpent', one of the few effective Trumpsters not yet banned from Twitter for excessive persuasiveness, has a good explanation of why Biden is raising drug prices:

"At the most basic level it is payback for the ginormous campaign finance contributions by big pharma.

A little below the surface, it enables the same Democrats to push for socialized medicine by complaining that drug prices are too damn high.
Starting where Obamacare left off."

tim in vermont said...

"Courts were willing to hear all the "evidence,”

In one single case, the weakest of all of them, the Dominion stuff. I think that the Dominion stuff is likely way overstated myself. I think the fact that they had no serious audit logs though made their software unfit for purpose beyond a jr high student council election.

But my greatest hope is that, yes, this really is Trump's defense. I want to see the evidence. I would so love to see these idiots and crackpots on the stand to get cross examined. And, then maybe, just maybe the light bulb will go on for some of you and we can move on.

Wouldn’t that be great? Lets do a signature audit for all of the states in question. Let’s look at the evidence that almost half the Republicans who were called in PA and said that they voted by absentee were never counted as having voted. Let’s look at the fact that huge numbers of votes were counted in these states while election observers were barred. Let’s look at all of it. And if it turns out that all of these people who swore to this stuff under oath were lying? Fine, let’s move on.

They will rule out any examination of this evidence as “irrelevant” though, just like they never allowed Trump to present the copius evidnce that Biden was in fact corrupt and acted corruptly in Ukrraine, as his laptop, which was in possession of the FBI and DoJ at the time shows.

tim in vermont said...

"Senate and most likely found guilty and be stopped from running for Office ever again. “

Democrats always want to take it out of the hands of voters. I thought you guys just soundly thrashed him. What’s your worry? Won’t have COVID to cover for fraud friendly election rules next time?

tim in vermont said...

PA elections are so clean that the mobbed up brother of a PA Supreme Court judge has just been convicted of ballot stuffing and getting three other judges (They won’t tell us who) elected. Those same judges who ruled that observers need no be present iin Philly while the ballots were opened and counted.

Chris Lopes said...

"That’s who you are accusing of being a lefty tool. You idiot."

He's not the one making an argument from authority (a logical fallacy), you are.

tim in vermont said...

Schemer is way smarter than McConnell. This impeachment is a turtle trap and his nibs is walking right into it. This will be the end of the Republican Party and good riddance to bad rubbish.

Readering said...

Trying to take it out of the hands of voters is what he is being impeached for. Look forward to the trial.

Howard said...

Maybe they are waiting for Merrick Garland's confirmation. Then, just hand the impeachment case to the AG and go after Jabba der Drumpf criminally before a jury of his DC peers. Is treason and/or insurrection capital crimes? He can beg Sotomayor for clemency.

Earnest Prole said...

I will make a bold prediction: Whatever the Senate decides, the Supreme Court will give it the broadest possible deference.

Francisco D said...

Yancey Ward said... Only if the Republicans in the Senate don't play along by taking it seriously and convicting Trump. Right now, by all accounts, they are taking it seriously and many plan to vote for conviction. These are the Republicans that need to be ousted from office in 2022.

I would not take those accounts seriously. It is misinformation for the show that both sides are putting on.

Republicans know that they will become the permanent minority if they vote to convict Trump in a Soviet-style proceeding.

Both sides may want a trial simply for the theatrics. Think of the grand speeches that Mitch and others will give to criticize the lack of evidence and transparency which has caused him to vote "no" on conviction.

alfromchgo said...

There you go again, quoting old dead white guys...

Inga said...

“Constitution? who cares about the Constitution It's all so 18th Century! Its written in CURSIVE!”

“Our shared conclusion is supported by the text and structure of the Constitution, the history of its drafting, and relevant precedent. The Constitution allocates the “sole Power of Impeachment” to the House of Representatives, and the “sole Power to try all Impeachments” to the Senate. It provides that 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.” It further specifies that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment 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.”

In other words, the Constitution’s impeachment power has two aspects. The first is removal from office, which occurs automatically upon the conviction of a current officer. The second is disqualification from holding future office, which occurs in those cases where the Senate deems disqualification appropriate in light of the conduct for which the impeached person was convicted. The impeachment power must be read so as to give full effect to both aspects of this power.”

The 150 law profs say you are wrong, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

Heads up Gahrie, to the bolded area.

Spiros said...

Are we supposed to care about the framers' intentions? Delegates to the state ratifying conventions could not (or did not) read many of the Federalist Papers. James Madison even argued that future interpretation should not rest on the Framers' intentions but rather on intentions of the people who, through their state representatives, ratified the Constitution. I don't think this stuff matters. And, anyways, Trump is a worthless turd.

Michael K said...

I don't think this stuff matters. And, anyways, Trump is a worthless turd.

Another product of the teachers' union.

Drago said...

Stalin Apologist readering: "Big difference between this impeachment and last. GoP ensured no trial last time."

I distinctly recall a trial last time with Roberts sitting as the Judge.

So, to summarize some basic readering positions:

- The first impeachment trial that we all watched never happened at all

- 9 months of antifa/BLM riots which insurance companies reported caused over $2Billion damages, 60 deaths, continuous attacks on federal bldgs and the burning out of hundreds of small businesses which we all watched live on tv never happened at all

- antifa, the people to whom Kamala and biden staffers contibuted thousands of dollars to bail them out of jail dont exist

- Trump colluded with russia and laundered russian mobster/oligarch cash and secretly communicated with Putin via server pinging between Trump tower and Alpha Bank and paid hookers to pee on beds in Moscow

This is just a smattering of readerings "interesting" beliefs.

Drago said...

Note to self: Inga, as with everything else, does not understand conjunctions.

Not even School House Rock can save our self-designated mind-reading svengali!

Michael K said...

Then, just hand the impeachment case to the AG and go after Jabba der Drumpf criminally before a jury of his DC peers. Is treason and/or insurrection capital crimes? He can beg Sotomayor for clemency.

Howard is all ready for the show trial. Maybe you could dig up Andrei Vyshinsky for prosecutor.

Readering said...

Drago has no answer on the subject so he reverts to his file of 3 by 5 cards marked readering.

Yancey Ward said...

It is hilarious that it is assumed there must be two votes- one for removal and one for barring the holding of offices in the future. I just read the part in question- it says nothing, literally nothing about holding two votes. That seems to be a custom, not a rule.

Inga said...

“...does not understand conjunctions...”

Neither do the 150 law profs, eh? But Drago knows best!

Balfegor said...

Technically, was he impeached while still in office? Or does "impeachment" only take place when the articles of impeachment get transmitted to the senate?

Lurker21 said...

Looking at relevant excerpts from the debate at the Constitutional Convention, it doesn't look like anybody seriously brought up impeaching former presidents. Gouverneur Morris brought up demagoguery, but in an unexpected context:

This is a dangerous part of the plan. It will hold [the president] in such dependence that he will be no check on the Legislature, will not be a firm guardian of the people and of the public interest. He will be the tool of a faction, of some leading demagogue in the Legislature.

Madison, in his "Observations on Jefferson's Draft of a Constitution for Virginia (1788) favors a "temporary incapacitation" rather than "perpetual incapacity." The Founders were aware that if impeachment became a common practice it would put presidents under the thumb of the legislature, with little room for individual initiative. That was one reason why the question of impeaching former presidents didn't come up at the convention.

It seems like a lot depends on whether institutions have the nerve or chutzpah or balls to throw their weight around. Living Constitution indeed. You can see that with Gerald Ford's "an impeachable offense is whatever the House says it is." There's also a question with Belknap. The House and a majority of the Senate agreed that they had the power to impeach and try Belknap, but they didn't have a 2/3rds majority of the Senate to convict, because over 1/3 of the Senators believed the procedure was unconstitutional. So whose authority prevails? Maybe nobody's. Maybe it's just a matter of who has the bigger, brassier balls.

Yancey Ward said...

And if someone else finds 150 law profs saying the opposite of the previous 150, what then? Do we up it to 500?

Rabel said...

It's confusing. Madison, in this "explainer" on the new Constitution, seems to be using "impeachment" as meaning removal from office until he drops in as an example, "And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office", which moves towards impeachment as denunciation.

Is there a Constitutional scholar in the house?

Yancey Ward said...

In the end, the Senate still needs 2/3s to convict. Let's just wait and see what actually happens, shall we?

Yancey Ward said...

If you read the relevant clause in the consitution, it does imply that conviction brings with it the penalty of removal from office and the bar against further right to hold other offices under the US government. I would like to know where, exactly, this custom of holding two votes, a 2/3s vote for conviction and majority vote for the additional penalty comes from- what source?

Yancey Ward said...

I find it difficult to believe they NeverTrumpers will find more than 5 Republicans in the Senate for conviction, but they aren't called the Stupid Party for no reason at all.

Big Mike said...

The Left are well on their way, although I think they plan on using the term shunning.

The left has been using ostracism as a punishment for years already. But they don’t call it ostracism and they don’t call it shunning. Their preferred term is cancellation.

Spiros said...

Article 1, Section 2 makes no mention of the "term of office." How reasonable is it infer that the Framers meant to prevent impeachment after the President ceases to hold that office?

Spiros said...

And also Article 2, Section 4...

Drago said...

Russia Collusion Dead Ender Truther Inga: "Neither do the 150 law profs, eh? But Drago knows best!"

The law professors understand perfectly well. They are just lying in the same way you have lied non-stop for 5 years about everything.

It is only you who doesnt understand.

And that's what the radical Soviet-ized law professors are counting on.

BTW, in just the first 72 hours of ChiCom & Putin cuckholster Joes corrupt installed regime, he has gifted Putin with:

- a reduction in US fracking production (directly increasing the value of russian assets)
- rescinded a clause which allowed increased rail transport of LNG by rail
- simultaneously killed the XL Pipeline
- gifted Putin a 5 year extension on the fake nuke arms agreement which locks the US into current tech and levels while the russkis cheat like hell, as they did for all 8 years of the obambi/biden admin
- signaled to NATO that no one has to live up to the 2% of National GDP to be spent on military preparedness
- signaled to Poland/Hungary that no effort will be made to provide the weapons necessary to keep the russkis at bay (yes, its the obama Ukraine scenario all over again)
- told the baltic nations they are on their own
- removed any and all complaints about Putins Nordstream II pipeline directly into the heart of Europe giving Putin incredible energy leverage

On the ChiCom front, Biden literally signed an order allowing ChiCom technology into our critical energy grid infrastructure.

Of course, Inga will most enjoy the executive order which allows federal funding of abortion on demand up to the moment of birth.

Well I guess those baby parts were'nt going to just harvest themselves for lefty fun and profit, were they?

Note: this was the last necessary step to setting up post-birth abortion.

Again, that was all in just 72 hours.

And it appears Hunter is looking forward to a bonus of several million dollars this year from his ChiCom generals funded "investment" firm position.

Ken B said...

Yancey Ward asks, in bad faith, what licenses two votes. The answer, as he knows, is the text of the constitution. The text says that conviction takes 2/3. The text also puts a limit on how far punishment might extend. That has no 2/3 stipulation, and so logically defaults to the normal rule, simple majority.

Look for yourself (and ask why Ward didn’t suggest that) https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text

Drago said...

Meanwhile:

“The HHS Thursday froze the former Trump administration’s December drug policy that requires community health centers to pass on all their insulin and epinephrine discount savings to patients,” Bloomberg Law reported Thursday. “Centers that don’t pass on the savings wouldn’t qualify for federal grants.”

Yep. Can't have those deplorables paying less for critical medicines just when the democraticals are about to amnesty 30 million illegals.

And did you hear the latest from ICE?

Biden has ordered all illegal aliens in custody to be released into the country.

That includes thousands of convicted criminals.

But then again, when you have the Inga's of the world calling MS13 machete murderers of hugh school girls "spark of divinity" killers, is it any mystery why Biden would release them?

Lurker21 said...

A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly or inimical, to the accused. In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will inlist all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side, or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparitive strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust, which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders, or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction; and on this account can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those, whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny
.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 65

Inga said...

“The law professors understand perfectly well. They are just lying in the same you have lied non-stop for 5 years about everything.”

Because Q told you so, eh?

Leland said...

Technically, was he impeached while still in office? Or does "impeachment" only take place when the articles of impeachment get transmitted to the senate?

According to Noah Feldman, no and yes. The House thought he was important to call as a witness for the first articles of impeachment. Of course, they were to busy to go on recess to call any witnesses for the second. Then again, the second article of impeachment is only a minor rewrite of the resolution demanding Pence move using the 25th Amendment (a resolution that is by its argument versus the rewrite for impeachment, is a call for the VP to cause insurrection against the sitting President).

Chris Lopes said...

"Neither do the 150 law profs, eh? But Drago knows best!"

Again the argument from authority. Do yourself a favor and Google "logical fallacies".

Lurker21 said...

The bar is lower on that second vote, with only a majority of senators needed to succeed. Then again, because it’s never happened before in the case of a president, a court challenge could follow. Frank Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and author of “A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump,” said it’s his view the lower number of votes makes sense, but it’s not crazy to think that it might be challenged if things got to that point.

...

In an opinion piece published in The Washington Post on Monday, Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman and Indiana University law professor Gerard Magliocca argued that members of Congress have another, perhaps easier, path to barring Trump from office.

They pointed to the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, aimed at preventing people from holding federal office if they are deemed to have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the Constitution.

The professors write that if a majority vote of both houses agree that Trump engaged in an act of “insurrection or rebellion,” then he would be barred from running for the White House again. Only a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress in the future could undo that result.


Source

I guess with impeachment there's at least going to be a trial.

Drago said...

Inga: "Because Q told you so, eh?"

No one forced you or these soviet-ized law professors to lie for 5 years straight about russia collusion or hookers in moscow or kavanaugh.

You all did completely on your own.

The worst part for you?

Many of those law professors, realizing how stupid it makes them look to continue pushing all those debunked conspiracy theories, have stopped.

But you, being much dumber, have doubled down on every single on of them.

Carter Page: russian spy or no?

LOL

Not even your far left ally and bosom buddy LLR-lefty Chuck can save you on this one.

Michael K said...

Yep. Can't have those deplorables paying less for critical medicines just when the democraticals are about to amnesty 30 million illegals.

My son uses an insulin pump but was a Trump voter, so no problem there.

And, of course Joe Manchin's daughter is CEO of the Epipen maker, so there is that.

Inga is really on a thing about "Q." Practical nurse IQ.

Drago said...

Inga: "Neither do the 150 law profs, eh? But Drago knows best!"

Chris Lopes: "Again the argument from authority. Do yourself a favor and Google "logical fallacies"."

This is so very typically Inga.

The "argument from authority" logical fallacy point was made upthread from where Inga posted her comment. But Inga is so very dense that she did not understand that point when it was pointed out so she, in standard Inga voice-actuated automaton fashion, just repeats the same fallacy and then thinks she "owned" someone with it!

So perfectly "Inga".

Inga said...

And Q told Drago that the FBI had absolutely NO reason to look into the Trump campaign’s dealings with the Russians, absolutely no reason, eh Drago? Your conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories one on top of another.

Drago said...

Michael K: "Inga is really on a thing about "Q."'

This "Q" thing is tailored made for our Soviet lefties.

No one knows who they are. No one knows where to find them. No one can point them out. No one has ever seen them.

But somehow they are everywhere and requires the left to establish a Soviet/Maoist system to "protect" everyone from them.

Meanwhile, almost a year full of antifa/BLM riots no longer exist. At all.

It was all a myth....that we watched live for months while the lefties praised them.

You know, I think I am seeing a pattern here....

Inga said...

And Q told Drago that General Michael Flynn who is a Q adherent is a hero.

Francisco D said...

What is the Resident Idiot bleating about now/

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 279   Newer› Newest»