This is a TINO (Trial In Name Only). It has no teeth. NONE.
Forget the "trumped up" charges of the Articles of Impeachment. Forget that the House did not even bother to have an investigation, listen to witnesses, or do anything resembling due process.
Forget what Trump did or didn't say, or did or didn't do. Forget what the fake members of Congress and the fake media want to pretend that Trump did or didn't say, or did or didn't do.
Forget ALL of it.
Let's just look at the "trial."
The Senate is authorized by the Constitution to hold a trial for all cases of impeachment. It is the ONLY authority Congress has to hold ANY trial of ANY kind.
A basic princple of American law is that there can be no conflict of interest by a judge. In this TINO, there is no judge. Chief Justice Roberts decided not to preside. No judge, whether SCOTUS or otherwise, is presiding over the TINO.
Instead, Patrick Leahy, a member of the JURY is presiding over the TINO. Clearly, that is a conflict a interest. A "judge" cannot also be a member of the jury.
Furthermore, even if there is a "conviction" in this TINO, there is no punishment that the Senate can inflict. None.
The constiutional provision for the authority for impeachment is Article 2, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Removal from office. Period. That is the ONLY remedy. Of course, there are fake constitutional scholars and fake media pundits and fake members of Congress who claim a conviction means the person can never hold public office again.
False.
The Constitution does NOT say that. Removal from office is the ONLY remedy. There could ALSO be a prosecution for any crime committed, but that is not up to Congress to prosecute. That is up to the Department of Justice.
The ONLY provision of the Constitution that states that someone can never hold public office is the 14th Amendment, Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Congress has ZERO authority to issue this penalty on someone. This could ONLY occur in a court of law, subject to full due process (unlike this TINO). That would be a very big hurdle to get over if the DOJ wanted to prosecute Trump and hold him accountable under the 14th Amendment.
But ...
There are many members of Congress, many federal officials, many state officials, along with their private sector co-conspirators who DID engage in an insurrection against the United States of America when they committed election fraud for the purpose of overthrowing a duly elected President.
So, which is it? Is this TINO claiming that Trump lost the election? If so, then there is NO authority to do anything, because they can't remove someone from office who is not in office.
Alternatively, are they claiming he won the election, is the duly elected President, and they want to remove him from office? If that is the case, then those voting to proceed with this TINO have committed treason, and they can be prosecuted.
Either way, this TINO has no authority. The emperor has no clothes.
There have been 20 previous federal impeachments, and in most of those cases, there was no outside judge — a senator presided over the Senate trial. The Chief Justice of SCOTUS only presides when then trial is of a sitting president. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm
The Constitution does explicitly state that the penalties for officials convicted after impeachment include both “removal from office” and (optionally) “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” This second penalty is specified in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. Section 3 describes the powers of the Senate and the impeachment process in greater detail. https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1
The Senate has imposed this second penalty of disqualification from future office in two prior impeachment cases: Judge West Hughes Humphreys (1862) and Judge Robert Archibald (1913).
Thanks for that. I'll have to review it when I'm not so tired.
That is certainly a viable interpretation. The Senate has on at leaat one occasion proceeded to try an official who had already resigned, but there was the same controversy at the time over whether that was constitutionally appropriate. In the end, the trial proceeded, but the (definitely guilty) official was acquitted because many senators shared that interpretation. The best argument I’ve seen the other way is that the Disqualification penalty could always be evaded (and therefore become meanigless in practice) if an obviously guilty official could just resign & halt the trial.
A lot of people are talking like it’s crystal clear that the Constitution does or doesn’t allow trials of ex-officials, and only a fool or a liar could see it the other way, but looking at what conservative scholars wrote about the question before this current controversy, it seems like there are reasonable arguments both ways, and it’s genuinely a close call.