The constitution bars President Biden from interfering in the trial of ex-president Trump.

[justabubba]

Trump quickly rejects impeachment managers' request for testimony at impeachment trial

The House impeachment managers on Thursday requested Donald Trump testify at his upcoming Senate impeachment trial, in a dramatic move to try to get the former President on the record about his conduct surrounding the January 6 riots at the Capitol.

www.cnn.com

"Trump rejects request to testify at Senate impeachment trial"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/04/joe-biden-live-updates/

 

[Ren]

The constitution gave that power only to the Legislative branch. The founders never intended that a president should escape trial for crimes committed while in office by simply having his term in office expire.

Then they should stop calling it an impeachment. It looks and feels more like a police action.

 

[mrjurrs]

Then they should stop calling it an impeachment. It looks and feels more like a police action.

The impeachment already happened. It's done. In what universe does this look like a police action?

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

First there has to be a crime. The impeachment violates the US Constitution if the Articles of Impeachment does not include an alleged violation of the law.
Second, a constitutional impeachment and conviction can only lead to the removal from office. Since Trump has already left office any vote by the Senate now is moot and completely meaningless.

Neither of those statements are correct.

1. Impeachmemt does require a violation of statutory law. That's not what "high crimes" means.

2. In addition to removal from office, impeachment can also lead to disqualification from future office.

 

[justabubba]

Neither of those statements are correct.

1. Impeachmemt does require a violation of statutory law. That's not what "high crimes" means.

2. In addition to removal from office, impeachment can also lead to disqualification from future office.

not certain #1 has been established. here is an excerpt that argues otherwise:
" ... The Republican Party has long advocated for constitutional interpretation that relies on the original intent of the framers. So what did the framers mean by this lofty phrase, and what did they reject as impeachable offenses?

During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason moved that the impeachment clause follow the term “bribery” with “or maladministration.”

But James Madison objected on grounds that it was too broad and would subject a president to tenure only at the pleasure of the Senate. So the phrase was replaced by “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The framers intended the phrase to convey a more serious connotation than simple incompetence or poor administration. In Federalist Paper No. 65, Hamilton made clear that impeachable acts must involve “the abuse or violation of some public trust” and “relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

Hamilton made no mention of the requirement that actual crimes be committed, nor as far as I know did any other framer suggest that actual crimes were mandatory for impeachment.

Examples of impeachable offenses cited by the framers provide further context. In response to concerns that the president could use his pardon powers to protect his own bad acts from detection, Madison responded: “if the president be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him.”

Madison makes no reference to any crime. His concern here is the potential for the use of presidential power for personal or other inappropriate purposes.

Fellow framer James Iredell concluded that presidential acts to obscure or withhold information from Congress could also constitute a violation of the impeachment clause if Congress was induced to act based on the deception. ..."

Does impeachment need a crime? Not according to framers of the Constitution

Trump’s backers say he is shielded from removal as no criminal offense took place. But this view may be at odds with the original intent of the impeachment clause.

theconversation.com

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

not certain #1 has been established. here is an excerpt that argues otherwise:

Well, it has - in the sense that impeachments are not reviewable by the courts anyway, so "high crimes" are whatever Congress says they are.

But the common law definition of the term is well understood. "High crimes" means abuses of authority - "crimes" that can only be committed by those in power.

 

[upsideguy]

First there has to be a crime. The impeachment violates the US Constitution if the Articles of Impeachment does not include an alleged violation of the law.
Second, a constitutional impeachment and conviction can only lead to the removal from office. Since Trump has already left office any vote by the Senate now is moot and completely meaningless.

1. Not true. Presidents are usually impeached for abuse of power or other acts of mal-administration, which inciting a riot to block the validation of the election certainly fits.... as does his failure to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which he swore to do.

Historical Background | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

2. No, the other remedy of impeachment is barring the impeached from ever holding office again. That is particularly relevant. Moreover, there is the matter of the historic record.

Remember, he was impeached as a sitting president. We are only dealing with the trial.

 

[Fishking]

The constitution gave that power only to the Legislative branch. The founders never intended that a president should escape trial for crimes committed while in office by simply having his term in office expire.

I don't know why people keep saying this. There is no escaping from crimes by leaving the office. We still have the court system to try people for crimes, Congress doesn't.

 

[craig]

Then they should stop calling it an impeachment. It looks and feels more like a police action.

Somebody should be arrested. Maybe the one that instigated the mob?

 

[craig]

I don't know why people keep saying this. There is no escaping from crimes by leaving the office. We still have the court system to try people for crimes, Congress doesn't.

Will you serve as a jurist? Do you know anyone that would?

 

[Fishking]

Will you serve as a jurist? Do you know anyone that would?

Anybody should serve as a jurist, if they are called. It's one of the most important duties that exists.

 

[craig]

Anybody should serve as a jurist, if they are called. It's one of the most important duties that exists.

I know you see that is not practical. Even Senators are afraid of him.

 

[craig]

Biden may be barred from interfering in the impeachment or the trail but he is not barred from expressing an opinion, we call that "free speech". His public opinion could possibly carry weight in any decisions made and of course the final word would lie with the President since he has the ultimate power to pardon.

The big question right now is going to be can you try the former President in the impeachment trial if he is not in office?

So you do respect Biden's opinion?

 

[Glitch]

1. Not true. Presidents are usually impeached for abuse of power or other acts of mal-administration, which inciting a riot to block the validation of the election certainly fits.... as does his failure to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which he swore to do.

Historical Background | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

2. No, the other remedy of impeachment is barring the impeached from ever holding office again. That is particularly relevant. Moreover, there is the matter of the historic record.

Remember, he was impeached as a sitting president. We are only dealing with the trial.

No President has ever been impeached for abuse of power, because it is not a crime. Nor is it a crime to obstruct a co-equal branch of government. The first impeachment is null and void because there was never any crime alleged.

The second impeachment at least alleged a crime. However, the impeachment process ends when the individual being impeached leaves office. Congress is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution from exacting any form of punishment. Only the courts are allowed to enact punishments.

Congress' authority ends when the accused leaves office. That is when the accused is either indited with an actual crime and given their individual due process rights in a court of law, or walks away free.

 

[post]

No President has ever been impeached for abuse of power, because it is not a crime. Nor is it a crime to obstruct a co-equal branch of government. The first impeachment is null and void because there was never any crime alleged.

The second impeachment at least alleged a crime. However, the impeachment process ends when the individual being impeached leaves office. Congress is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution from exacting any form of punishment. Only the courts are allowed to enact punishments.

Congress' authority ends when the accused leaves office. That is when the accused is either indited with an actual crime and given their individual due process rights in a court of law, or walks away free.

By your logic, any public official can escape the sanction of disqualification from holding future office simply by resigning or by committing impeachable offenses near term expiry..

fivethirtyeight.com › features › trump-is-leaving-office...
Jan 20, 2021 — "Three people — all federal judges — have been disqualified from holding future federal office after being impeached and convicted. and convicted. And in several cases, including one in 1797, just ten years after the Constitution was written, the Senate conducted an impeachment trial after the defendant was no longer in office. In the late nineteenth century, while contemplating a Senate trial for William Belknap, a former Grant administration official mired in a corruption scandal, the Senate voted on whether they actually had jurisdiction to try a former federal officer — and a majority concluded that they did. .."

"..I'll admit I was never wrong
I could never make up my mind
I made it up as I went along.."
- MIKE RUTHERFORD,

Edwin Stanton: War secretary barricaded himself in his office
during an impeachment trial
...
www.washingtonpost.com › history › 2021/01/26 › ed...
Jan 26, 2021 — Meanwhile, Stanton camped out in his War Department office and ... plan to focus impeachment trial on how rioters reacted to Trump's remarks.
Belknap and Blount impeachments: Precedent for Trump's ...
www.washingtonpost.com › history › 2021/01/13 › im...
Jan 13, 2021 — "The war secretary and the senator who were impeached after ... for the second impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump, Sen. ... But there is some historical precedent: The impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 both occurred after the men were no longer in office. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) specifically cited Belknap’s case in his defense of the trial. .."

Editorial: The 1876 case that complicates Trump's ...
roanoke.com › opinion › editorial › editorial-the-1876-ca...
Jan 26, 2021 — On the morning of March 2, 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap ... The coming impeachment trial of Trump may or may not be wise, but it ...

Is Trump's Senate Trial Constitutional? There Is Precedent ...
www.npr.org › 2021/01/29 › there-is-precedent-for-tryin...
Jan 29, 2021 — That was argued before — and rejected narrowly — in 1876. ... An engraved portrait of William Belknap, a secretary of war who was impeached ... who don't want a Senate impeachment trial for former President Trump ...

Alcee Hastings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

".. The Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. United States that procedures for trying an impeached individual cannot be subject to review by the judiciary, ...[9] "

 

[Glitch]

By your logic, any public official can escape the sanction of disqualification from holding future office simply by resigning or by committing impeachable offenses near term expiry...

Correct, because Congress is specifically prohibited from punishing civilians and once the subject of an impeachment leaves office they are civilians. As civilians they are subject to the laws and may be indicted, tried, and punished if found guilty in a court of law.

Which is why the impeachment process ends the instant the subject of an impeachment leaves office. Just like Nixon in 1974.

Belknap's impeachment also violated the US Constitution. There can also be no Senate trial without a presiding Chief Justice. Since the Chief Justice flat out refuses to participate in this insane farce, that should at least given you a clue this lunacy was unconstitutional.

I understand that Democrats are completely mentally-deranged and chomping at the bit for revenge for imaginary slights, but you are not dealing with reality here. Like AOC accusing Sen. Cruz of trying to have her assassinated. Democrats are truly mentally unhinged.

The Democratic Party is the greatest threat this nation ever faced, and even more so today given they are completely insane.

 

[justabubba]

... ".. The Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. United States that procedures for trying an impeached individual cannot be subject to review by the judiciary, ...[9] "

that should be the legal nail in the coffin of the defense argument right there

 

[Fishking]

I know you see that is not practical. Even Senators are afraid of him.

A Senator wouldn't be on jury duty as they'd get removed in the vetting process.

 

[craig]

A Senator wouldn't be on jury duty as they'd get removed in the vetting process.

My point is that if Senators are afraid of Trump and his rabid supporters, imagine private citizens serving on a jury without any protection.

 

[rahl]

No President has ever been impeached for abuse of power, because it is not a crime. Nor is it a crime to obstruct a co-equal branch of government. The first impeachment is null and void because there was never any crime alleged.

The second impeachment at least alleged a crime. However, the impeachment process ends when the individual being impeached leaves office. Congress is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution from exacting any form of punishment. Only the courts are allowed to enact punishments.

Congress' authority ends when the accused leaves office. That is when the accused is either indited with an actual crime and given their individual due process rights in a court of law, or walks away free.

You’ve had this argument refuted repeatedly.

 

[rahl]

Correct, because Congress is specifically prohibited from punishing civilians and once the subject of an impeachment leaves office they are civilians. As civilians they are subject to the laws and may be indicted, tried, and punished if found guilty in a court of law.

Which is why the impeachment process ends the instant the subject of an impeachment leaves office. Just like Nixon in 1974.

Belknap's impeachment also violated the US Constitution. There can also be no Senate trial without a presiding Chief Justice. Since the Chief Justice flat out refuses to participate in this insane farce, that should at least given you a clue this lunacy was unconstitutional.

I understand that Democrats are completely mentally-deranged and chomping at the bit for revenge for imaginary slights, but you are not dealing with reality here. Like AOC accusing Sen. Cruz of trying to have her assassinated. Democrats are truly mentally unhinged.

The Democratic Party is the greatest threat this nation ever faced, and even more so today given they are completely insane.

you’ve had this argument refuted, repeatedly. You can not support a single claim you’ve made with any court ruling or legal precedent. Everyone refuting your claims, can and has.

 

[mrjurrs]

not certain #1 has been established. here is an excerpt that argues otherwise:
" ... The Republican Party has long advocated for constitutional interpretation that relies on the original intent of the framers. So what did the framers mean by this lofty phrase, and what did they reject as impeachable offenses?

During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason moved that the impeachment clause follow the term “bribery” with “or maladministration.”

But James Madison objected on grounds that it was too broad and would subject a president to tenure only at the pleasure of the Senate. So the phrase was replaced by “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The framers intended the phrase to convey a more serious connotation than simple incompetence or poor administration. In Federalist Paper No. 65, Hamilton made clear that impeachable acts must involve “the abuse or violation of some public trust” and “relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

Hamilton made no mention of the requirement that actual crimes be committed, nor as far as I know did any other framer suggest that actual crimes were mandatory for impeachment.

Examples of impeachable offenses cited by the framers provide further context. In response to concerns that the president could use his pardon powers to protect his own bad acts from detection, Madison responded: “if the president be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him.”

Madison makes no reference to any crime. His concern here is the potential for the use of presidential power for personal or other inappropriate purposes.

Fellow framer James Iredell concluded that presidential acts to obscure or withhold information from Congress could also constitute a violation of the impeachment clause if Congress was induced to act based on the deception. ..."

Does impeachment need a crime? Not according to framers of the Constitution

Trump’s backers say he is shielded from removal as no criminal offense took place. But this view may be at odds with the original intent of the impeachment clause.

theconversation.com

The Federalist Papers, parts of which have been used in some Article 3 rulings, is not a blanket endorsement of constitutionality.

 

[Rich2018]

My point is that if Senators are afraid of Trump and his rabid supporters, imagine private citizens serving on a jury without any protection.

Would Trump have been convicted had the verdict in his impeachment trial, been determined by a secret ballot - like in criminal trials ?