Tag: Impeachment

Member Post

 

I will tell you from the outset that I believe impeachment does not work and should be amended out of the constitution. When I say it does not work, I mean that it does not serve the purpose the founders had in mind. It may have been somewhat of an afterthought. From my readings, it […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

What If They Gave an Impeachment and Nobody Cared?

 

This week’s Twitter conversation focused on different stories each day. Monday was mostly Super Bowl reactions and making fun of David Hogg’s pillow start-up. Tuesday, it was Gov. Cuomo’s Covid scandal and the guy who logged into a Zoom court hearing with a cat filter. Wednesday, Joss Whedon was blasted for his cruel treatment of actresses and Disney fired Gina Carano from “The Mandalorian” for being conservative. Thursday, the Lincoln Project self-destructed and people canceled their Disney+ subscriptions. Friday, it was some Justin Timberlake scandal and Biden flack T.J. Ducklo threatening a reporter.

There was another big story this week that only the DC media and paycheck politicos seemed to care about. Apparently, the Senate is presiding over the trial of ex-President Trump. Reviewing the top Google searches of the week, nothing related to the impeachment made it to the top 10. Not “Trump,” not “Senate,” not “Constitution,” not “impeachment.” Here on the western edge of flyover country, no one has mentioned it in real life, not even at a long, robust, 20-person gathering I attended Thursday.

Much like Trump’s previous Senate impeachment trial, the general public could not care less.

TurleyVision 1999: Impeachment as a Madisonian Device

 

My dear spouse occasionally forwards me the legal theories of Jonathan Turley, who currently argues Trump’s impeachment trial is unconstitutional now that Trump is a former official. Curious as to what Turley had to say about impeachment before Trump, I did some digging and struck a mother lode: Turley’s 146-page 1999 Duke Law Journal article, Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment As A Madisonian Device. Turley’s reasons for publishing such a masterwork in 1999 may not have been dispassionate, since he had recently testified at Bill Clinton’s impeachment, but since Trump’s presidency wasn’t even a gleam in the old GOP elephant’s eye back then, Turley’s thoughts on impeachment in 1999 should at least be free of any bias for or against Trump. Those with the patience to read — or at least skim — Impeachment As A Madisonian Device will be rewarded with plenty of information on impeachment’s constitutional function and history that’s interesting in its own right, and a perspective in which the non-juridical, political nature of impeachment transcends mere raw exercise of power.

Impeachment As A Madisonian Device extensively surveys the constitutional history of impeachment. Its thesis is that the impeachment process, declared first in the House, then passed to the Senate for trial, culminates in

The news might be all bad today but we’re still having fun! Join Jim and Greg as they discuss the Virginia Education Association strongly opposing Gov. Ralph Northam’s demand for in-person schooling by mid-March and none of the Democrats running for governor this year having the guts to stand up for the kids or the science against the union. They also cringe in recounting the opening arguments made by the Trump legal team on Tuesday, but will the quality of the lawyers have any impact on the outcome? And they unload on Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who won’t criticize China but is cancelling the national anthem at home games this season.

On this episode of “The Federalist Radio Hour,” Federalist Western Correspondent Tristan Justice joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to break down the second impeachment trial for former President Donald Trump and how it compares to the Democrats’ first attempt to impeach and remove him just one year ago.

Member Post

 

I write to report the final results of my January 14 post, which sought a poll on the opinion of Ricochet members about impeachment and removal of President Trump. The original post is here. 86% opposed impeachment and removal (102 of 119 responses) 10% supported impeachment and removal (12 of 119) 4% had some other […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

The Politics of Impeachment: Watching High Stakes Poker

 

Normal Americans not consumed with politics may understandably be confused about what’s happening with the impeachment of now-former President Donald Trump. Allow me to share with you the political machinations likely driving what is, or is not, transpiring.

First, the January 6th breach of the Capitol by a hundred or so extremists opened a political opportunity for Democrats – not just to blame President Trump for “inciting” violence, but to drive a wedge between establishment Republicans and Trump supporters. They rightly figured that House and Senate Republicans, among others, would recoil at the violence and damage done to the Capitol.

They were correct. And they responded with a hurried, even “emergency” impeachment of President Trump. No hearings, no investigation, no Judiciary Committee vote, no due process of any kind. And it passed on a largely party-line vote, with 10 Republicans joining in. Establishment Republicans, including reputed New York Times “conservative” columnist Bret Stephens, praised House Conference Lynn Cheney and 9 of her colleagues for their “courage.”

The Trial That Should Not Be

 

Last week, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection,” stemming chiefly from his remarks before a large crowd near the White House on January 6. As I have previously written, serious questions still remain as to whether those charges are valid as a matter of fact and law. But assuming they are, the question is what comes next.

Press coverage is mostly limited to tactical and political issues. On the Democratic side, the chief concerns are the timing and form of the expected trial. Should Speaker Nancy Pelosi delay sending the article of impeachment to the Senate to give House leaders more time to gather evidence to strengthen their case? Or will that delay undercut the perceived public urgency of the trial? If there is an impeachment trial, will that slow down the Senate confirmations of top cabinet officials or the passage of Joe Biden’s legislative agenda? On the Republican side, the question arises of whether individual senators should break ranks with Trump and convict him, even if most Republican voters are as strongly opposed to conviction as Democratic voters are in favor of it.

In an important sense, these questions put the cart before the horse. First, we must ask whether the Senate even has the power to try this impeachment once the president is out of office. As a textual matter, the answer is no. There are two relevant provisions in the Constitution: Article I, Section 3, and Article II, Section 4. Article I, Section 3, gives the sole power of impeachment to the Senate. First, a simple declarative sentence provides that “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” The key word is “the” as in “the President.” The word “the” is used instead of the word “a.” “The” has a definite reference to the president now sitting in office, which will be Joe Biden on January 20. Once Donald Trump is out of office, he cannot be tried under this provision.

Impeachment of a Former President is Unconstitutional

 

As pointed out by Senator Tom Cotton, impeachment and conviction of a former President is not allowed by the impeachment provisions of the Constitution which provide in so many words that upon a conviction in the Senate the President shall be removed from office.

That is pretty obvious, which of course means that the Democrats and the DemMedia will either ignore the point or ridicule the argument.

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Federalist Senior Editor Chris Bedford and Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky discuss the Senate’s upcoming impeachment trial and what it means for the future of the GOP.

Join Jim and Greg as they discuss what happens next with a deeply fractured Republican Party. They also fume as Capitol Police officials say they never got the FBI warning of violent threats at the Capitol on January 6. And they have some fun with people mistakenly thinking Chuck Norris was part of last week’s demonstrations in Washington.

 

So Much for Impeachment: McConnell Won’t Reconvene Senate

 

When Nancy Pelosi moved forward on impeachment Monday, I said it was likely all for show rather than for removing President Trump from office. This just in — it was all for show.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) office told Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) staff on Wednesday that the GOP will not agree to reconvene the Senate before Jan. 19 to allow an impeachment trial while President Trump is still in office.

House Dems Introduce Article of Impeachment

 

House Democrats introduced an article of impeachment against Donald Trump on Monday. It charges the President with “incitement of insurrection” for encouraging the crowd at Wednesday’s “Stop the Steal” rally to march to the U.S. Capitol. The ensuing riot temporarily shut down the legislative branch and resulted in deaths. The text follows (click to enlarge):

Join Jim and Greg as they salute Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman for his quick thinking in leading the mob away from the U.S. Senate on Wednesday. They also discuss the growing support for a recall of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, as California fails some of the most basic functions of government. And they point out that for all the alleged urgency towards another impeachment, congressional leaders seem to be pretty patient.

Member Post

 

We know that President Trump has not been guilty of criminal incitement to violence. We know that because we have transcripts of everything he’s said, and we have clear standards for criminal incitement to violence. He hasn’t met those standards. We know that anyone who says there was no fraud is mistaken. Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.