Question for legal beagles out there

1/14/21 | President-elect Sidebar Moderator

[Twitmo]

There is another aspect to a post service impeachment: it would extend to ALL former civil servants.

The Clintons. Eric Holder. GW. Colon Powell.

So they aren’t opening this can of worms.

But they want us distressed and distracted. On defense rather than recall petitions and scandal research.

[familyop]

"U.S. Grant’s Attorney General was impeached after resigning, so the precedent is there."

But William W. Belknap resigned for the purpose of evading impeachment, so the precedent isn't there.

[familyop]

"But they want us distressed and distracted. On defense rather than recall petitions and scandal research."

Yes. They're also trying to provoke violence in more impulsive, less thoughtful people, because they're about to try to pass some really nasty gun control bills.

[hank ernade]

“That’s how it was used, but that’s not the definition of attainder. The definition is given above.”

amigo

there are three forms of Attainder-

1.Attainder by Verdict
2.Attainder by Confession
3.Attainder by Process <<prohibited by the US Constitution

Your definition is number 3.
Congress shall pass no Bill of Attainder.
A Bill of Attainder is Attainder by Process.

A verdict of impeachment by the US Senate is a judgement not a BILL.

Therefore ANY impeachment by the senate CAN NOT be a BILL of Attainder.

Been nice talking to you.

[hank ernade]

Thanks

see post #104

[kabar]

The more time that elapses, the more facts will come out. Trump will be the beneficiary. The penetration of the Capitol was planned and organized by BLM and ANTIFA. It wouldn’t surprise me if the DC mayor was involved.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Bingo.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Couldn’t agree more.

[Sidebar Moderator]

There is another aspect to a post service impeachment: it would extend to ALL former civil servants. The Clintons. Eric Holder. GW. Colon Powell.

Exactly! There would be no limiting factor, no checks or balances whatsoever.

[cherry]

maybe they know he’ll be back....

[Twitmo]

I wonder if Eric Holder or Obama or Soros armed Antifa with guns?

Kamala maybe? CCP? Swalwell?

Or maybe the Portland evidence room.

[usnavy_cop_retired]

An interesting take on this: since the “precedents” were all for officials who resigned in order, (apparently), to avoid impeachment the precedent would not apply to PDJT since his impeachment trial is after his constitutional term of office has expired.

In other words, he did not resign to avoid impeachment. He remained in office during which time impeachment could have been voted on, (was in 2019), sent to the Senate and then a trial held. The timing of the trial, (if there was a political desire to have one), was/is totally up to the Senate to determine. It is like a DA holding onto a case, without indicting, until the statute of limitations passes and an indictment can no longer be issued.

[usnavy_cop_retired]

I will, somewhat, disagree with your take on this. As a retired Navy member I agreed, by written contract, to transfer to the Fleet Reserve. I elected to retire, PDJT did not elect to “retire”, that decision is baked into the constitution. The perks of a former president are those created by law and can be revoked by law as long as they are applied to all former presidents evenly, (bill of attainder and 14th amendment will be a problem if applied only to PDJT).

[woodpusher]

The senate plans to try Trump as a private citizen. Is this even legal/Constitutional?

Yes, legal, constitutional. It has been done before. Impeachments are not subject to judicial review. If Congress has the votes, they can do pretty much as they please. Legaly, a Presidential impeachment is no different than that of other officials.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-28.htm

[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[Chapter 27. Impeachment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[...]

The "President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States'' are subject to removal under the impeachment clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 4. A private citizen who has held no public office may not be impeached. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2007, 2315.

[...]

Impeachment proceedings were initiated against a Member of the President's Cabinet in 1876, when impeachment charges were filed against William W. Belknap, who had been Secretary of War. The House and Senate debated the power of impeachment at length and determined that the Secretary remained amenable to impeachment and trial even after his resignation.

[...]

Effect of Resignation

The House and Senate have the power to impeach and try an accused official who has resigned. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 2. It was conceded (in the Belknap impeachment proceeding described above) that a Cabinet Secretary remains amenable to impeachment and trial even after his resignation. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2317, 2318. As a practical matter, however, the resignation of an official about to be impeached generally puts an end to impeachment proceedings because the primary objective--removal from office--has been accomplished. This was the case in the impeachment proceedings begun against President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 and Judge George English in 1926. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.2. President Nixon resigned following the decision of the Committee on the Judiciary to report to the House recommending his impeachment, and further proceedings were discontinued. 93-2, H. Rept. 93-1305, p 29361. Judge English resigned before commencement of trial by the Senate and the proceedings were discontinued at that point. 6 Cannon Sec. 547. Judge Delahay (1873) and Judge Kent (2009) likewise resigned prior to Senate proceedings.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3.pdf

3 Hind's Precedents Sec. 2007; pp. 320-21 (full section spans pp. 310-21)

On May 29 the Presiding Officer announced that the proposition pending was that offered by Mr. Morton on the 16th instant. Thereupon Mr. Morton modified his proposition to read as follows:

Resolved, That the power of impeachment created by the Constitution does not extend to a person who is charged with the commission of a high crime while he was a civil officer of the United States and acting in his official character, but who had ceased to be such officer before the finding of articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Mr. Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, moved to amend the resolution by striking out all after the word ‘‘resolved,'' in the first line, and in lieu thereof inserting:

That the demurrer of the respondent to the replication of the House of Representatives to the plea of the respondent be, and the same is hereby, overruled; and that the plea of the respondent to the jurisdiction of the Senate be, and the same is hereby, overruled; and that the articles of impeachment are sufficient to show that the Senate has jurisdiction of the case, and that the respondent answer to the merits of the accusation contained in the articles of impeachment.

Mr. Isaac P. Christiancy, of Michigan, moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, by striking out all after the word "that'' in the first line thereof, and inserting:

W. W. Belknap, the respondent, is not amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, he having resigned said office before impeachment.

Mr. George G. Wright, of Iowa, moved to lay the resolution of Mr. Morton on the table, and this motion was agreed to, yeas 36, nays 30.

Thereupon Mr. Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, proposed a resolution, which was in this form, after the words "before he was impeached'' had been added on motion of Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of New York:

Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate William W. Belknap, the respondent, is amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.

Mr. Algernon S. Paddock, of Nebraska, moved to amend the said resolution by striking out all after the word "resolved'' and in lieu thereof inserting:

That William W. Belknap, late Secretary of Wax, (as in original, should be "War") having ceased to be a civil officer of the United States by reason of his resignation before proceedings in impeachment were commenced against him by the House of Representatives, the Senate can not take jurisdiction in this case.

This amendment was disagreed to, yeas 29, nays 37.

Then the resolution was agreed to, yeas 37, nays 29.

Mr. Thurman also presented a further resolution, which, after amendment at the suggestion of Mr. Thomas F. Bayard, of Delaware, was agreed to by a vote of 35 yeas, 22 nays:

Resolved, That at the time specified in the foregoing resolution [June 1 was fixed by a separate resolution] the President of the Senate shall pronounce the judgment of the Senate as follows: "It is ordered by the Senate sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment preferred by the House of Representatives against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, that the demurrer of said William W. Belknap to the replication of the House of Representatives to the plea to the jurisdiction filed by said Belknap be, and the same hereby is, overruled; and, it being the opinion of the Senate that said plea is insufficient in law and that said articles of impeachment are sufficient in law, it is therefore further ordered and adjudged that said plea be, and the same hereby is, overruled and held for naught;'' which judgment thus pronounced shall be entered upon the Journal of the Senate sitting as aforesaid.

In the final arguments Messrs. Montgomery Blair and Matthew H. Car­penter also argued this question.