Trump's Impeachment Lawyers Try To Deconstruct the Link Between What He Said and What His Followers Did
No amount of parsing can obscure his responsibility for the deadly attack on the Capitol.
No amount of parsing can obscure his responsibility for the deadly attack on the Capitol.
The former President's attorneys repeatedly (mis)cite the work of Professor Brian Kalt on late impeachments.
He is on firmer ground in arguing that the Senate does not have the authority to try a former president, although that issue is highly contested.
The letter was signed by some 170 legal scholars across the political spectrum, including several VC bloggers.
The op ed, published today, explains why the First Amendment doesn't protect Trump against impeachment and conviction for his role in the attack on the Capitol.
Alas, the precedent for partisan votes on impeachment was set before Donald Trump.
Why Republican Senators can vote on the merits of Trump's impeachment even if they believe the Seante has no power to impeach ex-officers.
The Georgia representative has embraced nearly every crazy conspiracy theory that is popular on the right.
There are plausible arguments on both sides of the debate.
They also argue that the Senate has no authority to try a former president.
The House brief does a solid job of laying out the case against Trump. The defense brief is far less impressive.
While many prominent constitutional scholars think trying a former president is perfectly legal, the dissenters make some points that are worth considering.
On the validity of an impeachment trial for a former president.
The signers include a wide range of constitutional scholars across the political spectrum, including Federalist Society co-founder Steve Calabresi.
That punishment for reinforcing the delusions that drove the Capitol riot is highly unlikely, and it would set a troubling precedent.
The Senate minority leader sees a grave political risk in failing to repudiate the former president.
The First Amendment should not be a viable defense in an impeachment trial
A further rejoinder to Josh Blackman and Seth Tillman.
The Constitution's words, history, and structure suggest the best answer is no. He can't plead, "I beg my pardon."
The House and Senate are making unforced errors in laying the groundwork for an impeachment trial
Judge Michael Luttig thinks a former president cannot be tried in the Senate. The argument is flawed.
Trump has been impeached, but there is still time to put a stronger case before the Senate.
Conflicting signals from the Belknap impeachment
A rejoinder to Josh Blackman and Seth Tillman.
Something like Wednesday evening's soothing remarks could have made a real difference on the day of the Capitol riot.
Several House Republicans joined their colleagues across the aisle in the ultimate condemnation of Trump's role on Jan. 6.
Impeachment can only succeed if it has substantial bipartisan support. Here are some ways to help make that happen.
Here is how Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, Liz Cheney, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley responded to the president's election delusions.
History and precedent both support impeachment trials for former federal officials.
The Senate should bifurcate its impeachment inquiry: Remove from office now, Disqualify from Office-holding later
As Mitch McConnell and Liz Cheney break for impeachment, the freshman GOP congressman who succeeded Justin Amash says that Republicans who are "going to vote our conscience tomorrow" expect to be assaulted.
Among many other things, it cites recent writings by VC bloggers Jonathan Adler, Keith Whittington and myself.
GOP leaders who raise this objection to impeachment can help solve the problem through the simple expedient of supporting impeachment themselves.
The impeachment article against the president cites a little-discussed section of the 14th Amendment.
The precedents are clear, and Senate could bar Trump from holding future office.
Impeachment, 25th Amendment, or censure? Deplatforming, Section 230, or inclusion? The Reason Roundtable debates.
"The question of whether incitement to riot is an impeachable offense is pretty easy," says the Cato Institute's Gene Healy. "Clearly, yes."
The Constitution does not bar such proceedings. And the impeachment process could still serve the valuable purposes of deterring wrongdoing by future presidents and barring Trump from ever holding federal office again.
Prominent legal scholars who rarely agree on anything else make the case for a swift impeachment process.
High government officials don't have a First Amendment right to be protected from firing based on their political views. That applies to presidents facing impeachment no less than other officials.
A response to Joshua Blackman and Seth Tillman
In a Thursday afternoon announcement, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) said Trump committed "an act of sedition" by inciting a riot on Wednesday afternoon.
Both can be pursued simultaneously. And there is potentially good reason to do so.
I supported the previous impeachment of Trump, and would be happy to see him impeached and convicted now. But before proceeding, we should carefully consider how effective a new impeachment effort is likely to be.
This is one of several cases that could become moot within weeks.
The reason is Trump's recent tweet calling for postponement of the election.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10