JONATHAN TURLEY: DJT SHOULD PRESENT NO DEFENSE
Jonathan Turley believes it is unconstitutional to vote to remove DJT from office when he isn’t in the office and suggests DJT’s best defense may be no defense.
As Turley said, many condemned the president’s speech [although there was nothing to indicate he wanted anything but a peaceful rally.]
He writes:
“…it is the future of the Constitution, not Donald Trump, that most concern me as the Senate is about to try to remove a president who has already left office.
On its face, the planned impeachment trial is at odds with the language of the Constitution, which expressly states that removal of a president is the primary purpose of such a trial. At the time, Trump will be neither a president nor in office. He will be a citizen and would be best served legally to forgo the trial entirely as extraconstitutional and invalid.
-
Christian Gold Company Defies Industry’s Retirement Fearmongering Through Prayer and Biblical Hope
Turley said Democrats are relying on the one case in which a trial was held. It was the case of Senator Blount in the 1700s. Blount was expelled from Congress before the trial was held and didn’t attend or lend credence to the process. The Senate dismissed his case.
Professor Turley continued:
This is one time when Trump’s natural inclination to be blunt would be better served to be Blount. By declining to appear, the Senate would be faced with the glaring problem of holding a trial of a citizen to decide, under Article I, Section 4, whether he  “shall be removed from office” – after he already left office.
If the Senate proceeds to a trial despite a lack of constitutional authority, Trump can sit in Mar-a-Lago and promise to challenge any effort to disqualify him from future office. Indeed, the political miscalculation may be greater than the constitutional miscalculation.
As I have previously suggested, the Senate could show institutional restraint despite the legitimate anger over Trump’s Jan. 6 speech before the Capitol riot. Trump’s legacy already includes the inglorious distinction of two impeachments. The Senate would not compound, but undermine, that ignoble legacy with an arguably extraconstitutional act.
The desire to add this further condemnation to Trump would come at too high a price for the Constitution and, ultimately, the country.
Turley, a Democrat, doesn’t seem to understand that Democrats want to burn down the rule of law.
WHERE DO WE STAND WITH THE SENATE TRIAL
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sent a note to the soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in an attempt to convince him not to take up a vote on holding a trial to remove Donald Trump from office after he has left office.
Lots of luck with that, Lindsey.
Graham wrote on Sunday, “The impeachment power exists to protect the Nation from the harm that an incumbent president might inflict upon the Nation were he to remain in office, not to vindicate political grievances after a president has left office,” The Hill reports.
Pelosi insists DJT be impeached because he remains a threat to the nation. She is an evil, spiteful woman.
Mitch McConnell might vote to impeach DJT, along with some other Republicans like Rob Portman.
Portman said, “The attack on the U.S. Capitol was an attack on democracy itself, and the president bears some responsibility for what occurred…if the Senate proceeds with an impeachment trial, I will do my duty as a juror and listen to the cases presented by both sides.”
Graham won’t be voting for the removal of the president. He said, “Enough is enough. I tried to be helpful.”
There is no way Schumer will give up an opportunity to rip apart the President and, indirectly, his supporters. He’s evil also.
