Let’s start out with a philosophical question. You remember the question of the tree that falls on the uninhabited island and if nobody is there to hear it, did it make a sound? And the answer is, it vibrated the air when it fell, but “sound” is when somebody is there to hear it, so the answer is no. Likewise, if Donald Trump screams bloody murder while Twitter and Parler are dark, did he actually say something? Ponder this.

Then ponder the fact that 150 legal scholars from varying places on the political spectrum including those from the conservative Federalist Society are in agreement that Trump can be convicted post presidency. You recall Tom Cotton arguing the contrary, saying in a statement last week. “The Founders designed the impeachment process as a way to remove officeholders from public office—not an inquest against private citizens.” Wrongo. Scholars see the issue very differently. Politico:

“We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation,” wrote the signatories, which include the co-founder and other members of the conservative Federalist Society legal group. “But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.” […]

More than 150 legal scholars signed on to the letter, which was obtained by POLITICO. They include Steven Calabresi, the co-founder of the Federalist Society; Charles Fried, who served as solicitor general under Ronald Reagan and is now an adviser to the Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society; Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute; and Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University and leading scholar on the specific question of whether former officials can be impeached. […]

Trump had signaled before leaving office that he might try to run for president again in 2024, and has reportedly mulled forming his own political party. But if the Senate were to hold an impeachment trial and convict him, he would be barred from holding public office ever again. That provision of the impeachment power, the legal scholars wrote, “is an important deterrent against future misconduct.”

“If an official could only be disqualified while he or she still held office, then an official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate’s final conviction vote,” they noted. “The Framers did not design the Constitution’s checks and balances to be so easily undermined.”

Query: if a final nail is hammered into the coffin but nobody is there at Mar-a-Lago except the Trumps, did it really happen? In this case, oh yeah. Trump can rant in his cone of silence all he wants, nobody cares. But the dagger just went into the heart of his 2024 ambitions.

Just by the by, did anybody notice that Ivanka didn’t go to the Biden-Harris Inauguration to further her political career? This legal analysis by the scholars might just be the rock in the lake, with many ripples going out. Donald’s might not be the only political career to have just died.

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.

8 COMMENTS

  1. Tom Cotton et al seem to miss the real point. the Trompador WAS in power when he was impeached. The fact that the actual trial won’t take place until after he gets away fropm Washington is irrelevant. He already HAS been impeached.

    Now it’s up to Mad Moscow Mitch to actually show some guts and convict him.

    As for Iwanna – it’s more than likely she couldn’t get anyone to actually invite her

  2. My eyes are bugging me but not to much to get back on the computer for a bit so here goes. To say I’m stunned that The Federalist Society is so publicly opposing Trump is an understatement. I think its clear they are signaling their (now) SIX Justices on the Supreme Court that there won’t be blowback for any future rulings against Trump. Thomas is hopeless of course and will back Trump down the line. Alito probably will too although I think there’s a slim possibility of a surprise. Kavanaugh? Wild card as is Barret although I think she probably wants to try and bank some credibility for when she goes nuclear on reproductive rights so while she might side with Trump on some cases they might hear I think she would lean to doing whatever Roberts does. That leaves Roberts and Gorsuch who on Trump stuff at least will side with the three Democratic appointees. That means Trump is screwed 5-4 at best and for reasons I just laid out perhaps 6-3. Brewski Brett has his own credibility issues so he might go with the majority once he sees which way the wind is blowing. Trump of course won’t understand the implications of this – until one of the few people he sort of trusts explains it to him in simple terms.

    Speaking of pounding nails into coffins I have more experience in that area probably than everyone on this site combined. In fact I’ve quite literally been the one to close and seal a casket designed to seal – turning that crank with the pretty little tool that locks that lid down tight. And sealing up a good quality burial vault. Once a good one like a Wilbert is sealed up it’s a helluva task to break one open if circumstances require it. What I’m saying is that I actually know how to do this stuff and would GLADLY be the team leader for our side making sure Trump was boxed up and encased even more! I’m sure you know I truly mean it when I say I’d derive great satisfaction and even joy in the task.

    Finally there’s wannabe princess Ivanka. You don’t think daddy, who she has so expertly kept wrapped around her little finger all these years didn’t blow a gasket when word got out she thought it would be a good thing for her to attend the inauguration? I commented at the time Don Jr. (with Kimberly egging him on) was RIGHT THERE telling Trump “See? All these years SHE has been your favorite and she’s just stabbed you in the back! If only for a short time Trump would surely be on Don Jr.’s side, and Ivanka travelling separately and staying in a condo instead at Mar A Lago this week is a sign that temporarily at least she’s in Trump’s doghouse. Did you see her fighting back tears at the airport? At least part of them were I think because she’d been told she wasn’t going to get that one last ride on THE plane.

    And, “I Don’t Really Care – Do U?”

  3. Congress rushed impeachment to correspond to Trump’s remaining time in office. They literally did not even have time for the Capitol violence victims to be buried, let alone the FBI to establish if there was an insurrection plot headed by the president.

    These Constitutional law scholars seem to have missed another major problem: The wording of the single article of impeachment from Congress is problematic. The charge is that then-President Trump “incited an insurrection”. Historically, what insurrection has been spontaneous? Perhaps what they were alluding to what we more commonly hear after the word “incite” — as in incited a riot. But a riot isn’t enough to convict him in a Senate trail. For a conviction to occur, we would need the basic who/what/when/where/why/how evidence — as in a completed FBI investigation. It was too early for that evidence to be compiled at the date of impeachment, so the charge will be conveyed to the Senate without the requisite evidence (trials are about evidence, not merely outrage).

    The Constitutional scholars who say it is possible to convict Trump in a Senate trial appear to be predicating their entire argument on the idea that his actions meet the definition of insurrection (premeditated plot) vs. a riot (spontaneous mob violence). Why? Because they can only make the case that Trump can be barred from holding future office, if he qualifies under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as a “demagogue”. (Conviction, in this case, isn’t about doing what impeachment is designed to do — remove a sitting president from office — but a gambit intended to prevent him from running for future office.) This is a VERY high bar to set for a Senate trial in which there is A) only one poorly worded (oxymoronic) charge, and B) no investigation-acquired evidence of a broader insurrection plot (if only because the FBI investigation is still in the early stages).

    While it requires only a minimum threshold to make an impeachable accusation against a sitting president, it takes evidence to convict in the Senate. What these “scholars” conveniently leave out is that their argument in favor of the Constitutionality of conviction rests on a presumption of guilt under the conditions laid out under the 14th Amendment — not simply inadvisable, but First Amendment-protected, speech! Conflating Trump’s use of the First Amendment on January 6 as proof that he is a demagogue is a bridge too far — and these scholars should be smart enough to recognize it as such!

    Either these Constitutional scholars take the American people for illiterates who will conflate the Capitol violence with insurrection simply because that is the choice of verbiage banded around by media to describe the violence — or they are hoping we overlook the fact that a conviction must be preceded by a criminal investigation in which the FBI interviews witnesses and documents the leaders of this “plot”, thereby establishing proof that insurrection was, in fact, the former president’s motive!

    If nothing more, these scholars are promoting a false hope that the Senate can convict Trump even though the House-supplied charge on which they are being asked to convict him is inherently self-contradictory. The article of impeachment is an oxymoron: How does one “incite an insurrection” as opposed to a riot?

    Congress did not call witnesses, they did not consult law enforcement — they simply asked the Senate to convict based on an allegation for which they can supply no real evidence because the FBI investigation was only hours old at the point at which they impeached Trump! That these scholars would lend their name and professional credibility to a long-shot Senate conviction tells us everything we need to know about the quality of “Ivy league” education — and death of intellectual honesty in this country.

  4. These people cannot read. Wow. This certainly speaks to how profoundly stupid our society truly is, since Academics cannot comprehend basic aspects of law.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here