About an hour ago, a statement by Kirsten Gillibrand, recounting yesterday's events, appeared in the New York Times: "Kirsten Gillibrand: 'Yes, We Are Safe,' I Texted From the Capitol." In it, Gillibrand asserts:
These rioters must be held responsible for their criminal actions. So should the president who incited them. Every option available, from invoking the 25th Amendment to impeachment and removal to criminal prosecution, should be on the table. These options will require the vice president, cabinet members and Republican members of the Senate to hold the president accountable in a way they never have before. When they fail to take decisive action, history will judge them as complicit.
Congressman Antonio Delgado, in an email distributed to constituents, made a similar appeal:
Donald Trump's actions and words make it clear that he is unfit for the Office of the President.
I took an oath to protect the Constitution. I've come to the conclusion that in order to protect our democracy, Trump must be removed from office by the Cabinet invoking the 25th Amendments or by this Congress impeaching him.
We must restore the soul of our nation. We must protect our democracy. We must repair the damage that has been done through compassion, love, and facts. We must return America as a beacon of liberty, equality, hope, and opportunity for all.
Trump must be held accountable. After he is removed from office, Trump should either be prosecuted in a court of law, or he should be forced into exile. The rule of law must be upheld.
ReplyDeleteWith two weeks remaining, yet another attempt to remove this POTUS will not assist with the phony "healing" preached by our hypocritical office-holders and their cowardly minions.
ReplyDeleteA greater part of the overall tragedy here may be the requirement that sane people, in order to stay sane - those with common sense who rejected ALL of the violence we've seen in the past year - must now lower their expectations further to accommodate their deficient "leaders" and others who kept silent when violence seemed more fashionable.
It seems we've now lowered our expectations for one another passed the zero point, like some sort of negative interest.
I was puzzled as to what is the point of the Senate holding an impeachment trial after Trump's term of office has expired. The link below provides an explanation. If convicted, in all probability, it makes Trump ineligible to hold federal office again. The article also states that most legal scholars do not think a POTUS has the power to pardon himself, but we may well have that put to the test, since I am sure Trump has that on his mind.
ReplyDeleteWho knew?
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/12/05/can-the-house-impeach-a-former-president/
I love the Volokh website! Longtime reader.
DeleteBut I'm surprised that the author you linked to, Whittington, didn't draw a further inference about previous VICE presidents being impeached, such as VP Biden who was arguaby compromised by the Chinese government while still in office.
If that was indeed the case - and only a special counsel would be able to get to the bottom of it - then it's imperative to remove Trump at once before acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen appoints such a counsel to investigate the Biden family.
This is entirely my own theory, so forgive me if I'm missing something. But with about half the nation having just voted against Biden, and with an astounding percentage of low-information voters now admitting they'd have voted against him too if they'd known about his family's influence peddling (and perhaps "the big man" pedding his own infuence), Biden's allies intend to stuff the whole affair down the memory hole.
How can this latest impeachment effort not be taking all that into account too? Anyone would have to be totally naive to rule it out.
Well, one problem with your theory is that there is really no legal way (the 25th Amendment won't cut it as written in my opinion even if Pence otherwise wanted to go there), for Trump to be removed prior to his term of office expiring. That is the point as to what is at potentially at stake to convict him after he leaves office, and why I linked the article. In reality, I would be shocked and amazed if the Senate holds such a trial after Jan 20th (if done in an appropriate manner, that would among other things be quite time consuming), but hey, we live in interesting times, so I might well be wrong.
DeleteOf course you're right about the Constitution, whereas I was only pondering the motivations of those politicians who aren't very familiar with that document.
DeleteHere's yet another terrific piece by Jonathan Turley, which I have no doubt you've already seen:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/533469-swift-second-impeachment-would-damage-the-constitution
Also, you might want to check out Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi who're doing some amazing work right now. Actually, though, that's typical for them too.
Miraculously, there are still a few people writing who can also think.
Our Kirsten Gillibrand is mentioned here, a good piece. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-trashing-of-the-american-republic.html?fbclid=IwAR33fw8cC6OXzysgCzWB2y8mphQ1t1zHD8GkiqdsBoU4dCO_CC112oWgnM4
ReplyDelete