Today the Senate saw fit to relitigate the constitutionality of trying the impeachment of a President no longer in office. Chris Cuomo is among those who doesn’t understand why today was necessary since it is so obvious to him that of course it is constitutional for the Senate to proceed. The universal consensus appears to be that the House Managers had their act together and Trump’s defense very much did not. I learned some very interesting constitutional history of which I had previously not been aware. I wanted to share the most powerful moments that bookended the House’s case – first a 13-minute video of the events of January 6th, followed by an emotional plea by Rep. Jamie Raskin. I watched the entire House case, but have only seen the “highlights” of the Trump side. I did not watch the Trump side for the very simple reasons that:
- The earth is round.
- Climate change is real.
- We really did land on the Moon.
- Darwin was right.
- The Holocaust actually happened.
Sometimes listening to “both sides” is a colossal waste of time. The other thought I’ve had is that if as expected this trial ends without penalty for Trump impeachment as a remedy really is irreparably broken. The Constitution is infused throughout with the Framers’ assumption that there will be natural tension between the branches as each jealously guards its prerogatives against the others. By that standard Congress would be quick to keep an overstepping President in line. In the case being tried this week, the Congress was subject to a direct violent attack instigated by the then President. If something this extreme doesn’t provoke both chambers to rise up unanimously and say in no uncertain terms regardless of any other political disagreement, “Mr. President, you DO NOT get to treat us this way!” then nothing will. I think we need to have a conversation about amending the Constitution to provide for a different method for removing or disqualifying a dangerous President. We also need to redouble our efforts to teach how our government works and why a democratic republic is a good thing.
I agree with you that we need to have a conversation about amending the Constitution to somehow provide a more workable way to remove a dangerous president.
The fact that so many Americans still embrace these lies and still support Donald Trump is nauseating to me. I really don’t know what to do about that.
It would have been better if they debated if it could be a secret vote instead.
It was also a curious defense. First they complained that the vote to impeach was rushed, and then they complained that taking the charges to the Senate was too slow. They were really grasping at straws.
Schoen wrapped himself in the cloak of textualism and then took a sledgehammer to it by insisting only trials the Chief Justice presided over are legitimate and that somehow a former federal official cannot be impeached even though there’s clear precedent for that very thing. He insisted Trump had no access to due process when he was literally being paid to provide that very thing. It was incoherent, and a classic example of how the right just invents laws or ignores precedent to suit its partisan purposes.
To Christopher’s second point, I think it remains the best remedy we have, simply since all the others are worse. My objection to the 25th amendment as an option is that the the cabinet is unelected and the actual text and history of the amendment is clearly referring to a physical incapacity.
Mainly the fear from Wilson leading the country after a stroke or a situation where Kennedy survived Dallas, but was effectively brain dead. Amending the 25th to include mental capacity would be sufficient enough to cover Reagan during Alzheimer’s and Trump during the waning days of his presidency when even his aids were worried.
Reforming impeachment is certainly needed. Lowering the threshold to a simple majority would increase partisan impeachments and turn us into a Peru, Brazil, or Bolivia. Though lowering to 60 Senators rather than 67 makes sense, and conforms impeachment to cloture levels on non-impeachment related bills. I’d also be willing to adopt a secret ballot, even though the public should have a right to know, simply since it’s the only way for Senators to avoid partisan reprisals for voting their conscience and the constitution.
It’s also high time to restore the Fairness Doctrine and apply it to the internet and social media. Banning algorithms that recommend extremism and incentivize tribalism. We need to recreate a fact based media universe where someone can have the objectivity of a Walter Cronkite.
I think it makes all the sense in the world that the CJ is not presiding here. When the Constitution was written the VP was assumed to be the actual day-to-day Senate President and to have him chair a presidential impeachment would be a conflict of interest, hence giving the role to someone else for this one purpose. Of course, with a former President this conflict does not exist.
There’s nothing wrong with the text of the 25th amendment. It does not say “physical”; it does not even say “incapacity”. It simply says “unable to discharge the duties”. I suppose this could technically be construed to apply to such an egregious conflict of interest that he has proven himself unable to separate personal from national interest. My problem with the Cabinet is that they are appointed by the President and are very much his people, plus it takes 2/3 of both Houses to keep him out if he disputes the verdict of incapacity.
My thoughts on a different method are either have it tried by a court, or make it clear that he can be prosecuted like anyone else even while President. I would suggest that an indictment for a felony require him to step aside temporarily until a verdict is rendered. If the verdict comes back guilty he is permanently removed and if not guilty and it’s still his term he resumes the office.
Also, the Fairness Doctrine got around first amendment issues because the public owns and licenses the airwaves, but that does not apply to other media. If someone wants to report with the objectivity of Cronkite they are certainly free to do so.
Todays Lesson : Armed White people can violently attack the citadel of democracy and live. Unarmed black people can try to live peacefully in a democracy and die. Malcolm Nance
If Senate Republicans fail to convict Donald Trump, it won’t be because the facts were with him or his lawyers mounted a competent defense. It will be because the jury includes his co-conspirators. Hillary Clinton
If the law isn’t on your side, pound the facts.
If the facts aren’t on your side, pound the law.
If neither is on your side, pound the table as loudly as you can!
I anticipate a lot of table-pounding tomorrow when Trump’s lawyers have their turn.
Funny how jury nullification will suddenly be supported by the GOP after decades of adamant opposition by the same party.
The OJ Simpson standard was that you can only be guilty if the jury witnessed the crime. Well, now we have a jury that witnessed the crime and were the victims, too.
If the GOP can’t convict Trump, after all the cover that the democrats have created to justify their vote, then they are beyond redemption and America will be entering a dark chapter.
We will be like Muslims living with al Qeada and being unable to bring our fellow citizens out of their abyss, but expected to clean up the bodies.
I never knew that a jury of your peers involved having co-conspirators of your crime on the jury.