Impeachment

Legal Scholars' Letter on Impeachment of Former Officials Makes Appearance in Trump's Senate Trial

The letter was signed by some 170 legal scholars across the political spectrum, including several VC bloggers.

|

A letter on the constitutionality of impeachment of former officials signed by some 170 legal scholars made an appearance in today's Senate impeachment trial presentation the House managers making the case against Trump. A TV image of the slide the managers used is reproduced above.

The letter was signed by a wide range of constitutional law scholars across the political spectrum, including VC bloggers Jonathan Adler, Sasha Volokh, and myself. Other prominent conservative or libertarian signers include include Steve Calabresi (co-founder of the Federalist Society, and leading academic expert on executive power) and Michael Stokes Paulsen (a prominent academic expert on impeachment and executive power). It was also signed by Prof. Brian Kalt, author of the leading academic article on the subject of impeaching former officials.

Another VC co-blogger, Prof. Keith Whittington of Princeton University, did not sign the letter, but has written an excellent article on Lawfare reaching the same conclusion. Keith is one of the nation's leading right-of-center originalist legal scholars. I myself previously wrote about the issue here. I previously blogged about the letter and its significance here.

 

NEXT: Podcast on New Hampshire v. Massachusetts

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I remember the first time a friend appeared on C-SPAN. It was a very fun moment. Appropriately, he looked almost exactly like the blue-haired lawyer character on The Simpsons (minus the blue hair, of course).

  2. Where are the snarky comments from the libs here?

    Like in Blackman’s posts? You al can’t wait to make them then.

    1. Nothing here to be snarky about.

      1. Its a brag, just like Blackman’s last post.

        1. Professor Somin isn’t desperate, which makes a difference. Also his pride here falls well short of self-promotion as an obsessive compulsive tic.

        2. It’s the substance of the brag, Bob

    2. How could liberals be snarky today after watching Bruce Castor, of Trump Litigation Elite Strike Force, present Pres. Trump’s defense today?

      As an acknowledged master — legend, even — of the opening statement, I enjoyed Mr. Castor’s performance, which was precisely as expected.

      Poor Prof. Blackman had a bad day, relegated to watching from the sidelines as Mr. Castor flailed comically on behalf of the hero Trump, weeping because ‘that could have been me.’

      Carry on, clingers . . . while we watch movement conservatism continue to get stomped in the culture war, this time on the Senate floor.

      1. Rev,
        I think you’ve been a bit over-the-top recently. But not here. Watching Trump’s defense today was actually painful to watch. I think there are some non-stupid arguments that can be made in Trump’s defense. But today was cringeworthy.

        1. “Rev,
          I think you’ve been a bit over-the-top recently.”

          I may have been out of order. But this entire blog — this White, male, right-wing, ankle-nipping, clinger blog — is out of order.

          The only thing missing from this blog is Ted Kramer, that talentless hack.

    3. What’s kind of wired is Blackman’s arguments are clearly the winning argument, while Ilya’s arguments seem to be falling flat with the Senate.

      I don’t think there is any doubt Trump will be aquitted by Senate.

      1. What would a Trump acquittal have to do with anyone’s arguments?

        1. If the arguments on either side were good enough, they’d actually change minds, right? If you actually had an argument for his guilt that was good enough to persuade people who didn’t start out hating him already, it would be politically viable for Republicans to vote to convict.

          And if he’d clearly had NOTHING to do with the riot, even Democrats would be leery about impeaching him.

          But here we are, at the same place we’ve been since he was elected, before he was elected, really: Support for impeachment and disqualification is a rounding error away from the percentage of the public who disapproved of his performance as President, and voted against him. And has been for years.

          Public opinion about impeachment isn’t about either side’s arguments persuading people. It’s just people saying that they support or oppose him, it’s just another election.

          That’s not how things happen when there are persuasive arguments circulating.

          1. If the arguments on either side were good enough, they’d actually change minds, right?

            This blog is an incredible counterexample to that silly postulate.

            And we don’t have Congressional seats on the line.

          2. Like seriously, your argument is ‘My own unreasonableness is proof your argument is not strong enough.’

  3. Middle America understands this for the show trial that it is.

    A capitol surrounded by troops while the current administration tries the head of the prior administration — that’s something one would expect to see in a Banana Republic, not America….

    1. 1. It’s Congress, acting in accordance with the Constitution, not the Administration.

      2. I’ll tell you something I wouldn’t expect to see in America – a mob provoked by the President’s lies attacking the Capitol to try to keep the Electoral votes from being certified. And lots of idiots like you defending it, and Trump.

      1. Bernard,
        It was a gross mistake to have a voting member of the Senate preside. The VP could have presided as she has no vote in these proceedings. In one sense it does not matter, but the optics are poor.

    2. So, in other words, you’re complaining that, after the US Capitol was attacked by 900 or so people, many of them armed, while chanting about killing the Vice President, resulting in over 150 police officers being injured, with one officer who confronted the mob dead and two more committing suicide within the following week – after all of that, you’re complaining that the US Capitol is now better defended?

      Are you going to complain that the mob wasn’t given accurate coordinates to locate Speaker Pelosi next?

      1. You do know that the guy arrested for planning it was on the FBI payroll, Grade 12…

        1. You should give cites for claims like that. This guy?

          Man charged in US Capitol riot worked for FBI, lawyer says

          “WASHINGTON (AP) — A man who authorities say is a leader of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group and helped to organize a ring of other extremists and led them in the attack last month at the U.S. Capitol has held a top-secret security clearance for decades and previously worked for the FBI, his attorney said Monday.”

          1. I will grant you this: If he kept his security clearance for that long after “leaving” the FBI, there’s a good chance he didn’t really leave.

            But you’d have to establish that, not just assert it.

      2. the US Capitol was attacked by 900 or so people, many of them armed, while chanting about killing the Vice President, resulting in over 150 police officers being injured, with one officer who confronted the mob dead and two more committing suicide within the following week

        Obama might call this a “composite event.” One of the smoothest effort I’ve seen thus far.

        But points off for “900 or so” (wherever you came up with that — let’s just say that ~30 arrests out of 900 “insurrectionists” sounds a bit… light) — even if true, that just reinforces the fact that the actual rowdies were a very small percentage of those attending the protest, just as a number of us have said from the beginning.

        1. What percentage of the protestors marched to the Capitol and cheered the ones who broke in?

          And I’d say that the ones who did break in re worse than “rowdies.” They were out to overturn the election and to hurt people, and they did hurt and even kill people.

          And I’d also say a violent effort to prevent Congress from formally counting the EV’s qualifies as an insurrection.

          1. they were out to overturn the election

            Oh, stop it. You and so many others have just taken to throwing around this sort of lazy, inflammatory rhetoric without even thinking about what you’re saying. Overturn the election? How exactly does that work? Can’t wait.

            1. Would you prefer “Stop the steal”?

              1. How exactly does that work? Can’t wait.

          2. Bernard, who got “killed”?

            The only homicide, based on current evidence, was Ashley Babbitt, shot by a Capital Hill police officer.

        2. “let’s just say that ~30 arrests out of 900 “insurrectionists” sounds a bit… light)”

          The mainstream media reports hundreds of arrests, Life of Brian. Are you still relying on Q, do you have some other source, or is this just another case in which you are lying or grossly ignorant?

          1. Arrested on-premises, at the time. Artie. You know, the sort of thing you would expect the 2500-strong Capitol police to be doing if they were really in imminent danger.

            Sorta like they typically do even when they’re not really in imminent danger. Like this. Ya know?

            1. The government — controlled by Republicans — let the white bigots and superstitious clingers walk. The investigations of that conduct have barely begun.

              Keep trying, clinger. You’re bound to . . . well, be replaced by your betters. But maybe you’ll come up with something sensible before then, one time.

      3. Are you seriously blaming the suicides on Jan.6?
        C’mon.

    3. Dr. Ed 2 : “something one would expect to see in a Banana Republic, not America”

      1. Two months of Big Lie propaganda trying to sabotage an election is something I’d expect to see in a Banana Republic.

      2. Pressuring local election officials to change their vote counts is corruption I’d expect to find in a Banana Republic.

      3. A former national security advisor calling for martial law and an election redo by military force? That’s something right out of a Banana Republic

      4. Plots & backstabbing at DOJ as petty underlings vie for Trump’s favor with fake charges of election fraud? It’s just normal behavior in a Banana Republic.

      5. The idea an official in power like Pence can simply overturn election results? That’s the kind of thinking common to Banana Republics.

      6. That the president would then sic a howling mob on his (faithful & loyal) vice president? Something that bizarre could only happen in a Banana Republic.

      7. A president gleefully watches riot mayhem while refusing to take calls from congressmen trapped inside the building? It’s a scene straight out of a Banana Republic.

      8. A tin-horn ruler would destroy the foundations of the government he rules rather than peacefully hand over power? That’s pretty much the definition of a Banana Republic.

      1. You insult the people of Banana Republics. And as we all know the Hispanic and MesoAmerican ethnicity of people in your Banana Republics, your persistent use of that phrase is an ethnic slur requiring an apology.

    4. Anyone who tries to speak for middle America isn’t.

      1. Were you speaking for the coasts when you said that?

        1. Do you dislike the coasts, Mr. Hansberry? Is it just resentment about your betters having the money, the smarts, the credentials, the achievements, the decent future, and victory in the culture war?

          1. People on the havr more dollars. Yet they live like animals. Life is better on $100000 than on $billion in San Fran. No poop map in Iowa City.

        2. What? You don’t think people on the coasts are Americans?

        3. Mike Hansberry : Were you speaking for the coasts when you said that?

          The WaPo used to have an op-ed columnist who spoke for the heartland, Gary Abernathy. His editorials were so cliched they became fun to read. A typical one went like this : “We in the heartland” …. (excuse for Trump) …. (sneer at the west coast entertainment industry) …. (excuse for Trump) …. “Thus the heartland”.

          Later I googled the gent and discovered he was a mid-level Republican operative / Elvis impersonator. Well, that sort of thing is common in the heartland, right?

  4. As did the proto-Ballad of the Green Berets, “Gallant Men.” Which, incidentally, Dirksen didn’t write. Charles Osgood and his songwriting partner came up with it.

    These advocates are doing to the common law what the former president is alleged to have done to the Constitution.

    Mr. D.

  5. I think it clear Trump can be tried, given that he was still in office when impeached. Had they impeached him after his term was up the case against it being constitutional would be much stronger.

    And I wish the defense had been content to argue actual innocence.

    But these sorts of ‘letters’ have never impressed me. If you’re going to argue on the basis of numbers rather than reasoning, show me you polled a representative sample.

    1. “4 out of 5 law professors say Purina is what cats love!”

      Oops, wrong sampling.

      1. Or – contrariwise – Trump tells his cult cats love to eat raw gravel!

        (millions of poor kitties then go hungry)

    2. Brett Bellmore : And I wish the defense had been content to argue actual innocence.

      Ah, but which “innocence” defense would you chose?

      (a) Trump only accidently tried to subvert an election he lost, with some inadvertent pressure on state election officials here, some careless incendiary lies there, a slip-of-the-tongue in asking Pence to preform an unconstitutional act, and a rioting mob much more effective that anticipated. It was only an accident!

      (b) Trump did intend to unleash hell on the country, but it was warranted because – evidence notwithstanding – he really did win by millions of votes. (This defense would probably also include proof Bigfoot exists)

      (c) Insanity. Finding a doctor to testify wouldn’t be hard & you’d have all the evidence in your corner.

      1. I’m going with D: He incited nothing, and merely pursued his legal options past the point where doing so was really sensible.

        After all, Democrats have challenged EC voted in three prior elections on worse grounds, and never been sanctioned, so it surely must be legal.

        1. “After all, Democrats have challenged EC voted in three prior elections on worse grounds, and never been sanctioned, so it surely must be legal.”

          As usual, you demonstrate your problem of being unable to properly characterize the truth.

          Trump’s behavior was in no way just ‘challenging EC votes.’

          1. No, he did other things that he was legally entitled to do, too.

            1. Interesting question. Is it legal to call up a state governor and tell him how many “new” votes you want him to produce beyond the certified results? Do threats affect the legal status of this request or merely acerbate it? What do you think, Brett?

              For thoroughness sake, provide three separate answers:

              1. If Trump is the one demanding election fraud.
              2. If a normal Republican is the one demanding election fraud.
              3. If it’s a Democrat demanding election fraud.

              Please, don’t be embarrassed if you respond with a 1-2 or 2-1 split. No one here expects anything different from you.

    3. Belknap was impeached (unanimously) after the House was informed of his resignation, I believe by a few minutes. However some Senators did use the resignation as an excuse for acquittal.

      William Blount was expelled from the Senate in 1797 (or at least his seat was sequestered, whatever that meant; he was replaced by Joseph Anderson the same year, which implies he was expelled), but he was impeached the next year and tried. He wasn’t convicted on the grounds Senate has the sole power to determine its membership.

      I’m puzzled it took so long to bring Blount to trial. I guess they hadn’t gotten the hang of impeachment yet.

      1. I believe the House’s position on Belknap’s resignation was that day’s were ‘unitary’, and it was enough that they impeached him on a day he was in office. Sounds a bit dodgy to me; If it mattered that he resigned before he was impeached, a minute is as “before” as a month.

  6. This impeachment raises a fascinating issue about Amendment 14, Section 3 – an issue which wasn’t debated AFAIK since Victor Berger’s case a century ago – so you’d think it was time for all those Section 3 scholars to come forth and shine!

    You know what I think? I think that Section 3 is an under-covered area of the law – not having come up in a century, after all.

    Too bad, I would have been interested in a discussion.

  7. Many in the Trump cult are beginning to wish that the defense had at least been competent. And can there possibly be anyone who watched the House managers’ video — also known as evidence — who still believes in “actual innocence?”

    1. Still only going to be 55 votes to convict. Sorry. Better luck next time.

      1. 56 judging by this afternoon’s vote.

        1. Judging by the fact that in the entire history of the US, the US Senate has never convicted on a Presidential impeachment.

          1. Slyfield, Trump is the case which will demonstrate impeachment is a dead letter. If Trump’s conduct cannot command 60% in the Senate, then nothing ever will. Every future presidential impeachment trial will feature a President saying through his lawyers, “Sure what he did may have been wrong, but it wasn’t near as bad as what Trump did—and even Trump didn’t get convicted.”

            There will follow a torrent of gobbledygook arguing that impeachment itself was a mismatch for American democracy, and should have been left out of the Constitution. With Trump acquitted, what persuasive counter-argument could there be?

            Before Trump fans conclude that is a good thing, consider what will happen next. The norm that ex-presidents don’t get prosecuted for crimes in office—or even prior to office—is a very good norm. It protects the nation from even higher-stakes tit-for-tat contests than impeachment invites. It protects the nation from criminal prosecution becoming an extension of politics by other means. But when there is a need to impose accountability—and there is always a need for accountability—if impeachment is not an option, prosecution will become one, and it will be the only one.

            Ours is not a parliamentary system, where failure in office can end with a vote of no confidence. A president who can expect to rule for his full term, no matter what he does, is a political danger sufficient to destabilize the Constitution itself. Trump himself is the model for that.

            Do you suppose Trump is not vulnerable to criminal prosecution?

            1. Not 60%, 67% of course.

            2. Impeachment fails, because, as Nixon demonstrated, if you really have a strong case to impeach, the President resigns, and saves you the trouble. But how is this different from criminal law? Most trials end in plea deals, right?

              You can’t successfully impeach a President for being who the voters knew them to be when they elected them. Clinton was already known to be a scandal ridden sleaze when he entered the Oval office, half or more of his “presidential” scandals were just events in Arkansas following him to Washington. Trump was known to be less than Presidential in his manner and hated by Democrats and the Republican establishment.

              To successfully impeach, you’d need a President who proved to be much worse than he was known to be on election day, AND who was stubborn enough to not admit he faced a real possibility of conviction. I’ll grant you that Trump is stubborn enough, but you never proved he wasn’t the guy people thought they were voting for, so why would they have changed their minds about supporting him?

  8. Same logic as the 97% consensus on climate change?

    1. Yeah, at least when the warmists make appeals to numbers, they bother establishing the numbers.

  9. A comment from Steve McIntyre on the prior impeachment
    – ” only previous out-of-office impeachment (Belknap 1876) was of Grant’s Secretary of War, who administered Reconstruction that was bitterly opposed by Southern Democrats. Fallout was 1877 revival of Jim Crow by faction that voted for impeachment. The precedent that you’re proud of.”

    1. And this has what to do with whether the impeachment was constitutional?

      Not a damn thing, it seems to me.

      1. It does go to the heart of what the progressives are really trying to accomplish. A hard turn away from personal liberties

  10. James Madison disagreed with the 170.

    From Federalist 39:
    “In several of the States, however, no constitutional provision is made for the impeachment of the chief magistrate. And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office. The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior. The tenure of the ministerial offices generally, will be a subject of legal regulation, conformably to the reason of the case and the example of the State constitutions.”

    1. Trump was impeached “during his continuance in office.”

      Try to pay attention.

      1. bernard,
        You will recall the discussion of when impeachment occurs: a) on the vote in the House , b) when charges are presented to the Senate.

  11. Congrats VC dudes. That’s a cool deal.

  12. I am calling BULLSHIT on any one (I am looking at you Ilya for starters) who makes the absurd claim that the trial is constitutional.

    One of the three things required by the Constitution is the CJ preside (or at least the senior SC member). So how the hell does a shit eating dem like Leahy get to preside?

    Not to mention why are all the shit eating bloggers on VC ignore this obvious issue that any 1YL would notice. This is not nuanced legal analysis it is black letter law that the CJ preside. I can buy into the idea that the senior SC member could preside in special circumstances but to let an obvious political hack preside is obviously not what the constitution requires.

    1. Look, I’ve pointed this out to you before: Trump stopped being President on January 20th. That’s why Roberts isn’t presiding. It’s as simple as that.

      1. Which opens a whole different can of worms. All the other examples of post office impeachment trials had the CJ presiding.

        Are you calling bullshit on them, or just ignoring the fact that that an obviously biased pol is presiding; or both?

        1. Which opens a whole different can of worms. All the other examples of post office impeachment trials had the CJ presiding.

          Completely and utterly false. The CJ does not preside over impeachments except of the president. The other example — Belknap — did not involve the president.

        2. This would be the first post office impeachment trial of a President. The CJ only presides over presidential impeachments. So no, the CJ would not have presided over past post office impeachment trials as those weren’t impeachments of the president.

        3. I believe, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, that we’re calling bullshit on you.

          Because you’re a liar. You’ve been corrected numerous times, and you persist in expressing the same debunked lie repeatedly.

          So, you know: bullshit.

      2. Still not buying your argument.

        First off there is the question of if a prez is out of office the Senate can try him. You seem to think that not only can an out of office prez be tried but the Senate can make up any rules it wants to govern the trial.

        The Senate obviously can not remove a former prez from office since by definition he is no longer in office. Which raises the issue of if he can’t be removed from office can he be prevented from running again.

        There have been lots of peeps who say the answer to these questions are not clear one way of the other and truth be told I am not sure which side I come down on.

        What I am convinced of is if a prez really did something worthy of being convicted in an impeachment trial it could happen in a New York minute. As an example say Biden gave the Chi Coms military secrets on how our Navy would react to an attack in the South China Sea and the Chi Coms gave Biden’s son a hundred billion dollars in return; and did this in his last two weeks in office after losing the 2024 election. I have no doubt he would be impeached by the House before noon and convicted by the Senate before COB; all with the CJ presiding over the Senate trial. If however the Senate trial was after Biden left office I also have no doubt the CJ would be presiding.

        Your blatant assertion that since the Senate trial is happening after Trump left office means the CJ should not preside is just plain silly and there is no way to sugar coat. As all my former math profs use to say ‘Show your work’.

        1. You seem to think that not only can an out of office prez be tried but the Senate can make up any rules it wants to govern the trial.

          Not only do I think that the Senate can make up any rules it wants to govern the trial, but the Senate thinks so, the constitution thinks so, and the Supreme Court thinks so.

    2. I believe the classic response is “FRAUD” not “BULLSHIT”.

      Are you new here?

      1. Actually I was posting in the old cyberia usenet group and on WaPo when Volokh was hosted there; are you new here?

    3. I thought ot blowed up when Lex Luthor blew up the Senate hearings on Superman.

    4. One of the three things required by the Constitution is the CJ preside

      False. Have you ever read the Constitution?

      1. Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

        The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

        You are faced with treating the Trump impeachment like Trump is prez or with the Senate trying to impeach a private citizen. Which one is it?

        1. You’re as ignorant as they come around here:

          1) Trump is not THE President anymore.

          2) The Senate is not impeaching anyone.

        2. You are faced with treating the Trump impeachment like Trump is prez or with the Senate trying to impeach a private citizen. Which one is it?

          Neither. The Senate doesn’t impeach. The House does. That’s done. It was done while Trump was in fact president.

          The Senate is indeed trying to convict a private citizen, but one who was not a private citizen when he was impeached.

    5. News Flash! The entire U.S. Senate and the Chief Justice of the United States breath a collective sigh of relief when Mr. Ragebot points out that they’ve been doing this impeachment trial thing all wrong. “I must have been asleep at the wheel,” said Chief Justice Roberts. “How did I fail to realize that I should have been over at the Capitol presiding over the trial? Tell them I just packed my briefcase and I’m on the way!” In a joint statement, Democratic Leader Schumer and Republican Leader McConnell said, “Thanks to Mr. Ragebot, we realize now how stupid we’ve been. First, we invite him to join us immediately as Chief Congressional Legal Advisor and Parliamentarian and, second, we will soon be awarding him our first-ever Congressional Medal of Smartness.”

  13. Just stopping by to repeat what I’ve said in every other article from the VC bloggers about this topic:

    Hey, it’s a (mostly) free country, so of course you can (mostly) do what you want.

    But if your fine, legal scholarship gets hoisted as a battle flag waved by political partisans, you should probably ask yourselves whether this really was a good use of your time.

    1. Dave,
      I seriously question whether this is a good use of the Senate’s time when the Acting US Attorney for DC could file criminal charges. Then we’d see a serious trial without preordained consequences.

      1. There has been a lot of discussion about why what Trump did on 6 Jan did not rise to the level of a criminal charge; or at least it would be a big stretch. Truth be told there has been lots of discussion about how many times Trump was suppose to be facing criminal charges from way back when and yet I am not aware of him actually being charged with any crime.

        Bottom line a criminal charge has a much higher bar to cross than a civil trial and a civil trial has a higher bar than a trial for impeachment.

        1. You wrote that you’re not “aware of him actually being charged with any crime.” Be patient — it’s only been a couple of weeks. You won’t have to wait much longer.

      2. Try getting a fair trial if you are a hates conservative in DC. Think about the likely jury pool.

        1. Please explain the appeal process to me based on a claim the jury was biased.

      3. The best shot at a legitimate conviction of Trump would be over his attempts to pressure state governors/elections officials in the key battle ground states to change certifications post-hoc.

        1. I am not a election law expert but would be interested in just what the charge would be.

        2. If they had a strong case there, they wouldn’t need to misrepresent what he said on that phone call to Georgia, for instance. (Claiming he ordered Raffensperger to to find votes, rather than demanding the chance to find them himself.)

  14. Generally, how should courts interpret Congressional grants of jurisdiction: narrowly or broadly? What is the principled conservative or libertarian position on this question? (Emphasis on “principled”).

    Should a court begin with a presumption of jurisdiction, unless it is clearly denied? Or should it begin with a presumption against jurisdiction, unless it is clearly granted?

    I’m thinking of a case like, for example, Marbury vs. Madison.

    1. Just my opinion but the court should it begin with a presumption against jurisdiction, unless it is clearly granted.

      I am not sure how this relates to this post however. The Constitution is fairly clear that the House can impeach and the Senate can hold a trial with the CJ presiding. These are the three things the Constitution spells out fairly clearly.

      There is however some wiggle room about the time line and if removal from office and prohibiting running from office are connected or can be severed.

      The second biggest issue for me is can one session of Congress bind a later session of congress to something. As a rule this is a no no. The biggest issue is black letter law; the CJ is to preside. It is also not clear if impeachment begins when the House votes or when the House transmits the articles to the Senate.

      Historically impeachments have had an underlying crime; and even then no prez has ever been convicted. Impeachments have also never spanned two sessions of congress.

      Bottom line is there is a lot of uncharted waters in this impeachment with no clear cut answers in many cases.

      1. How many times does this have to be explained to you? The Chief Justice shall preside when the president of the United States is tried. As much as the clingers and cultists would wish it were otherwise, Trump is not the president.

        1. You are a moron.

          Trump was the prez when he was impeached. The Senate has no power to remove Trump from office when he is no longer prez or to stop a private citizen from running for office.

          The problem with those with TDS is they don’t care about anything but bashing Trump and they will go to any lengths to do it.

          Either the Senate must try him as a prez and follow the black letter law of the Constitution or not try him since he is no longer prez.

          1. Try reading the black letter law of the Constitution and get back to us. Let us know if you need help with any of the big words.

        2. Didn’t you hear? Trump’s still secretly running the Government from Florida, and will be sworn back in as President sometime in March.

          That’s the new Dipshit’s Anonymous theory – sorry, I meant QAnon – sorry, I actually meant both.

          1. This QAnon stuff has been so stupid from the start, that I’ve suspected it was part of the disinformation campaign being run by the left.

            1. That must be why they support Trump, and numerous GOP members support and refuse to denounce it?

Please to post comments