Trump 2nd Impeachment- 2 opposing views

[n david]

Unfortunately with the Dem majority in the Senate, any attempt to throw out this ridiculous impeachment charge will likely come up short. Especially with the Never Trumpers in the Senate who will vote with the Dems against Trump.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Trump’s Defense team Pretrial brief filed today can be read here:

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-cont...feb-8-2021.pdf

This is what I was looking to see them discuss:

4. Historical Precedents
(a) The Failed Attempts to Impeach Senator William Blount and
Secretary of War William Belknap

The House Managers suggests there is “congressional precedent” for impeaching a former President in the impeachment cases of Senator William Blount and Secretary of War William Belknap. These two cases are actually inapposite and do not provide any binding precedential authority for impeaching a former President.

In 1797, United States Senator William Blount of Tennessee faced allegations of conspiring to help Great Britain seize Spanish-controlled areas in Florida and what is now Louisiana as part of a scheme to pay off debts incurred from land speculation. Blount was expelled by the Senate prior to his impeachment proceedings in 1798, he therefore argued that he was not subject to trial and refused to appear. Specifically, Blount argued that Senators or members of Congress could not be impeached, but only expelled by their respective chamber, and, even if Senators could be impeached, ex-Senators could not.
“In a close vote, the Senate defeated a resolution asserting Blount was an impeachable civil officer. But the debate around this vote, and the text of the resolution, do not make clear whether the resolution was rejected because it was felt that a senator was not “a civil officer” or whether, having been expelled, Blount ceased to be impeachable.”62 Therefore the case has little or no precedential value supporting a late impeachment.

In 1876, Belknap, Secretary of War under President Ulysses S. Grant, was investigated by the House for corruption. Belknap had accepted over $20,000 in kickbacks for the appointment of an associate to a lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill.63 However, on March 2, 1876, after the House had taken up the issue but before the House voted on his impeachment, Grant accepted Belknap’s resignation 64 – apparently just minutes before the House was set to vote.65 Despite Belknap’s resignation, the House voted to impeach him anyway. The issue of whether an officer who had resigned could be impeached was heavily debated from May15 to May 29th, but ultimately the Senate voted 37-29 that it had the power to hold an impeachment trial for a former officeholder and proceeded to have a trial.66

On August 1, 1876, Belknap was acquitted because less than 2/3 of the Senate voted for impeachment.67 While historical accounts suggest that few senators believed Belknap was innocent, the majority of those voting to acquit him did so because they did not think the Senate had jurisdiction to convict someone who was no longer in office.68 Significantly, neither Belknap nor Blount received the required two-thirds majority of the Senate and were acquitted so their proceedings provide no binding precedent establishing the Senate’s jurisdiction to convict former officials of impeachment. “These cases cannot be read as foreclosing an argument that they never dealt with.”69 This is critically important because the burden of proof applies to both jurisdictional and substantive elements: “[T]he substantive elements of a federal statute describe the evil Congress seeks to prevent; the jurisdictional element connects the law to one of Congress’s enumerated powers, thus establishing legislative authority. Both kinds of elements must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and because that is so, both may play a real role in a criminal case.”70 With impeachments, jurisdiction and guilt must be found by a two-thirds majority. Neither case established jurisdiction by the required two-thirds’ majority. These two instances present, at best, an example of hypothetical jurisdiction.71 It is also worth noting that neither of those cases dealt with a President, with his unique status in the Constitution, and with the clear definitional limits that apply to him and not to others.

[Pressing-On]

(b) More Recent Impeachment Proceedings
In the past, Congress has acknowledged and exercised its duty to not impeach when an official is no longer in office. In the case involving the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon, Congress decided not to impeach because he resigned from office. “[A]s a practical matter… the resignation of an official about to be impeached generally puts an end to impeachment proceedings because the primary objective—removal from office—has been accomplished.” 72

[Pressing-On]

B. Congress’ Power To Impose Penalties Upon Conviction Of Impeachment Is
Limited to Removal, And (Not Or) Disqualification.

The Constitution grants Congress only the power to remove a person’s right to run foroffice when it is part of the process of removal from office. Article II, Section 4, of the Constitutionstates that the only purpose of an impeachment is whether “the President, Vice president and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office.” The only purpose of impeachment is to remove the President, Vice-President, and civil officers from office. When a President is no longer in office, the objective of an impeachment ceases.79


This impeachment trial is being pursued solely to preclude Mr. Trump, a private citizen, from holding any future office. However, the Constitution does not provide for the impeachment of a private citizen who is not in office. Further, the Constitution only grants the Senate the additional power to remove a person’s right to run for office as part of the process of removal from office.80 When a person ceases to hold an office, he immediately becomes a private citizen, impervious to removal, and therefore to impeachment and trial by the Senate.

As Professor Harold Krent has noted, “although the Impeachment Clause in Article I states that the penalty for impeachment shall not extend beyond removal and disqualification from office, that clause reads as a limit on what type of punishment can be meted rather than addressing “when.” The Framers presumably were signaling the change from the British practice under which additional penalties were possible. There is no language in the Constitution suggesting that the impeachment authority is continuous.”81

[Pressing-On]

Page 39 - . It is almost laughable that the House Managers, who spent four years pretending that Mr. Trump was completely ineffective and illegitimate, are now so worried that he might win again that they seek to illegally impair him.

[Pressing-On]

Page 41

1. The Senate Cannot Disregard the First Amendment and the Supreme
Court’s Long-Established Free Speech Jurisprudence

The House Managers’ Trial Memorandum expressly advocates for the Senate to disregard First Amendment principles, stating “the First Amendment does not apply at all to an impeachment proceeding.”95
In doing so, the House Managers shockingly invite Senators to violate their own oaths to uphold the Constitution and the bedrock principle—established over two hundred years ago—that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of whether Congressional acts are consistent with the Constitution.96
There is no actual precedent for this confounding precept offered in the House Managers’ Brief—the Managers astonishingly cite to a few recent internet blogs.
97

The First Amendment is widely understood as prohibiting Congress from “abridging the freedom of speech; or the right of people peaceably to assemble” in all aspects of state action in all three branches of government.98
Congress may not take action that would “abridge the freedom of speech.” Indeed, Senators take an Oath of Office, which includes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . .” 99

The Constitution, of course, includes the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. This means, inevitably, that Senators cannot do what the
House Managers urge: the Senate cannot blithely cast aside the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s long-established Free Speech jurisprudence when passing judgment on articles of impeachment.

[Pressing-On]

Due Process is starting to be a thing with the Democrats - they don't want it unless it applies to them.

D. The House Afforded President Trump No Due Process of Law
On January 12th, Speaker Pelosi announced the nine representatives who would serve as the impeachment managers. On January 13, 2021, mere days after the press conference purportedly launching the inquiry, House Democrats completed the fastest presidential impeachment inquiry in history and adopted the Article of Impeachment over strong opposition and with zero due process of law afforded to the President, against Constitutional requirements and centuries of practice.

[Pressing-On]

Very good. They stayed on Constitutional grounds throughout the Memorandum.

IV. CONCLUSION
The Article of Impeachment presented by the House is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, any of which alone would be grounds for immediate dismissal. Taken together, they demonstrate conclusively that indulging House Democrats hunger for this political theater is a danger to our Republic democracy and the rights that we hold dear. Reasons for dismissal include:

1. The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President because he holds no public office from which he can be removed, and the Constitution limits the authority of the Senate in cases of impeachment to removal from office as the prerequisite active remedy allowed
the Senate under our Constitution.
2. The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President because he holds no public office from which he can be removed rendering the Article of Impeachment moot and a non-justiciable question.
3. Should the Senate act on the Article of Impeachment initiated in the House of Representatives, it will have passed a Bill of Attainder in violation of Article 1, Sec. 9. Cl. 3 of the United States Constitution.
4. The allegations in the Article of Impeachment are self-evidently wrong, as demonstrated by the evidence including the transcript of the President’s actual speech, and the allegations fail to meet the constitutional standard for any crime, let alone an impeachable offense.
5. The House of Representatives deprived the 45th President of due process of law in rushing to issue the Article of Impeachment and by ignoring its own procedures and precedents going back to the mid-19th century. The lack of due process included, but was not limited to, its failure to conduct any meaningful committee review or other investigation, engage in any full and fair consideration of evidence in support of the Article, as well as the failure to conduct any full and fair discussion by allowing the 45th President’s positions to be heard in the House Chamber. No exigent circumstances under the law were present excusing the House of Representatives’ rush to judgment, as evidenced by the fact that they then held the Article for another 12 days.
6. The Article of Impeachment violates the 45th President’s right to free speech and thought guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
7. The Article is constitutionally flawed in that it charges multiple instances of allegedly impeachable conduct in a single article. The Senate should dismiss these charges and acquit the President because this is clearly not what the Framers wanted or what the Constitution allows.

[Michael The Disciple]

The current administration has no regard for Constitutional law. They will do to it what Pelosi did to Trumps speech. If they can peel off a few more Republican Senators and impeach a private citizen the next step is to charge him with criminal behavior. After a show trial he would be imprisoned.

After that the full scale persecution of Christians and Conservatives.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The current administration has no regard for Constitutional law. They will do to it what Pelosi did to Trumps speech. If they can peel off a few more Republican Senators and impeach a private citizen the next step is to charge him with criminal behavior. After a show trial he would be imprisoned.

After that the full scale persecution of Christians and Conservatives.

Today, we will know where the Republicans stand. As of now it stands at 45 against. After the 4 hour hearing, we will see if that vote changes.

It feels like we are really barreling toward destruction. Of course, we know it is and has always been in God’s hands.