His staff talked him down. This I know.
Posted on 01/13/2021 1:45:28 PM PST by The Pack Knight
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has rejected a plan to reconvene the Senate in an emergency session to hold trial over an impeachment article against President Trump in the House.
McConnell press secretary Doug Andres confirmed a report that the Kentucky Republican would not sanction such a move on Wednesday.
Without the emergency session, the Senate is due back in session on Jan. 19., so McConnell’s decision all but kills a Democrat-led effort to oust Trump from office before his term is up and President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in on Jan. 20. A trial over the impeachment article is unlikely to conclude within such a short time.
Democrats have proposed holding the trial over Trump’s impeachment well-into Biden’s presidency. Michael Luttig, a former judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, slammed the idea on Tuesday, asserting that impeaching and removing a president after he left office is “unconstitutional.”
“It appears that even if the House of Representatives impeaches President Trump this week, the Senate trial on that impeachment will not begin until after Trump has left office and President-Elect Biden has become president on Jan. 20,” Luttig wrote in The Washington Post. “That Senate trial would be unconstitutional.”
Luttig continued:
Once Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him — even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment.Therefore, if the House of Representatives were to impeach the president before he leaves office, the Senate could not thereafter convict the former president and disqualify him under the Constitution from future public office.
The reason for this is found in the Constitution itself. Trump would no longer be incumbent in the Office of the President at the time of the delayed Senate proceeding and would no longer be subject to “impeachment conviction” by the Senate, under the Constitution’s Impeachment Clauses. Which is to say that the Senate’s only power under the Constitution is to convict — or not — an incumbent president.
On Monday, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), a moderate, criticized the ongoing impeachment push and noted that any impeachment article passed in the House will likely not have enough support in the Senate.
“I think, my arithmetic, that means we have 19 Republicans. I don’t see that. And I think the House should know that also. We have been trying to send that message over. They know the votes aren’t there. You would think that they would do that,” Manchin said on Monday.
“I think this is so ill-advised for Joe Biden to be coming in, trying to heal the country, trying to be the president of all the people, when we’re going to be so divided and fighting again. Let the judicial system do its job,” he added. “And then, we’re a country of the rule of law. That’s the bedrock of who we are. Let that take its place. Let the investigations go on. Let the evidence come forth, and then we will go forward from there. There’s no rush to do this impeachment now. We can do it later if they think it’s necessary.”
You are correct.
US Congressman David Valadao
Washington DC office 202-225-4695
Bakersfield CA office 661-864-7736
Hanford CA 559-460-6070
I live in Upton’s district, met the man a few times. He’s always been wishy washy on issues, probably to win over the support of Kalamazoo county, which is extremely Liberal. He should retire. I voted for him in 2018 and 2020 only to keep the house, before then, the last time I voted for him was 2006. He won’t get my vote again.
I am not aware of any, nor do I think there will be. Loeffler and Perdue both conceded.
“did any D’s vote ‘NO’?”
Was Tulsi Gabbard there?
Did she vote ‘present’?
There's no clear legal precedent establishing that someone can be impeached, convicted, and punished after leaving office. It's been attempted, but never completed.
will this contact involve weapons?
The Turtle poked his head out of his shell for 30 seconds and found some common sense. Meanwhile, he’s still looking for his balls.
Good Lord! there’s still someone left in this forum who can add 2+2 and get 4. Reading the post here the past few days is like trying to decipher the scribbling of the Alzheimers ward.
“And yet there are no high crimes or misdemeanors detailed. I’m guessing the Democrats would go nuts if the Republicans took the House in 2022 and impeached whoever is the President.”
It’s funny that you think the RAT party election fraud machine would ever let the Repubs win a House or Senate majority.
Where’s Nancy?
When does Schumer take over?
The people of Wyoming need to immediately begin the work on primarying her by 2022.
Also, while the availability of disqualification means the trial is not moot, there may be other constitutional impediments to trying a former officer.
For example, Article II, Sec. 4 provides, "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."
The Senate has acknowledged that this language limits their jurisdiction to try impeachments to the "President, Vice President," and "civil Officers of the United States": In 1797, Senator William Blount was impeached by the House. He was also expelled by the Senate. He filed two pleas seeking dismissal in the Senate: (1) He pled that the Senate lacked jurisdiction because a senator is not a "civil Officer of the United States;" and (2) he pled that the Senate lacked jurisdiction because he was expelled and thus was no longer a "civil Officer of the United States." The Senate dismissed the case by passing a resolution finding that it lacked jurisdiction, but it did not specify on which grounds it based that finding.
Also, there may be a question whether punishment of a former officer constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder. This is a rather arcane question.
Of course, whether any of this matters depends on whether a conviction is actually reviewable by a court. The Supreme Court held in Nixon v. United States that the question of whether the Senate actually conducted a "trial" is a nonjusticiable political question because, in part, of the Constitution's grant of the "sole power to try impeachments" to the Senate. But the procedural question of whether the Senate conducted a sufficient "trial" might be distinguished from the jurisdictional question of whether the person was actually subject to trial and impeachment, or the substantive question of whether grounds for impeachment have actually been set out in the articles of impeachment or proved at trial.
Ultimately, I doubt we'll get an answer to this question. There will probably be another impeachment trial which will take place after Trump leaves office, but I doubt Trump will be convicted.
I don’t care what this POS mcconnell does or doesn’t do at this point. And that goes for all the gop, except maybe 2 or 3. I will never support any of them, ever. They sold America out, PERIOD!
Bingo. Theres in reality one big theater with roles switched to give the impression of opposition
Could I suggest that all elected politicians be impeached, if the innocent are to be subjected to it, then why not also the guilty?
His staff talked him down. This I know.
Gonzalez (OH)Dammit, now everyone but Rice and Cheney will lose in 2022 to a Democrat. We are really in the Soviet soup.
Rice (SC)
Newhouse (WA)
Meijer (MI)
Kinzinger (IL)
Katko (NY)
Cheney (WY)
Herrera Beutler (WA)
Upton (MI)
Valadao (CA)
Gonzales OH
Rice SC
Newhouse WA
Meijer MI
Kinzinger IL
Katco NY
Cheney WY
Beutler WA
Upton MI
Valadeo CA
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.