Commencement of Donald J Trump’s Late Impeachment
Congratulations Donald and YES “late impeachment” is a thing and boy do I have receipts
INSURRECTION has CONSEQUENCES
As with my standard practice (primarily on Twitter and Blogs), I will endeavor to provide original/root documents. I want my readers/followers to have the same access to the various public documents. Naturally I will continue to sprinkle in snarky Spicy Files and File411 commentary and abbreviated summaries. I know that I have a propensity of going deep and often provide a significant amount of data/facts. I genuinely believe that you, as a reader deserve access to original/root documents. And this information allows you to formulate an informed opinion sans the media filter and bias.
Relevant Impeachment Documents and reference materials;
United States Constitution, Annotated by Congress, found here
14th Amendment, Section 3 to the Constitution, which prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against’ the United States from ‘hold[ing] any office…under the United States”, found here
January 12, 2021, Speaker Pelosi Announces House Impeachment Managers, found here
January 15, 2021 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, found here
Introduce Article of Impeachment Charging Trump with Incitement of Insurrection, found here
January 22, Speaker Pelosi Announces House Will Deliver Article of Impeachment to Senate on January 25, found here
February 4, 2021 House Impeachment Manager Letter to Trump requesting his testimony, found here
U.S. House’s Trial Memorandum and Statement of Material Facts in the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump, found here
Donald Trump’s Reply Brief Answers, found here
February 8, 2021 Trump Impeachment Defense Memo, found here
February 8, 2021 Replication to the Response to the Summons of former President Donald J. Trump to the Article of Impeachment, found here
New Senate resolution found here, which is expected to pass the Senate early this week
IMPEACHMENT(s) of Former Government Official
Brian C. Kalt, The Constitutional Case for the Impeachability of Former Federal Officials: An Analysis of the Law, History, and Practice of Late Impeachment, 6 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 13 (2001-2002).
Oh I see Trump invoked “void ab inito” (translates to “legally void from the start”) most definitely caught my attention. Throughout Trump’s responsive pleading and trial briefs, his “legal eagle-strike-force” uses this as a blanket argument. Which is both pedestrian and banal. Do better. Because it’s an intellectually lazy argument. But then again Trump’s attorneys are defending the indefensible.
With Trump’s second impeachment, he becomes the only president of the United States of America to be impeached twice. Notwithstanding the current factual (administrative) record reflects that House impeachment occurred while he was still in office.
“We know that the President of the United States incited this insurrection, this armed rebellion against our common country…He must go. He is a clear and present danger to the nation that we all love." Speaker Pelosi
Trump’s Reply Brief Answers
I see that Trump’s second tier Impeachment team is carrying on the tradition of beclowning themselves by including a typo on the very first page. But then again given Trump’s original impeachment attorneys, five (5) in total “resigned en masse” just a few days prior to Trump filing his impeachment response brief - that may have impacted his second tier impeachment attorneys from proofreading their response. <snort>
In Trump’s response, Answer # 1 his new attorneys invoked void ab initio, in legalese this literally translates to:
legally invalid from the very beginning
Trump relies on void ab initio at least nine times in his answers and eighteen plus times in his brief. If he had used sine die, I might have stopped reading. The crux of Trump’s primary argument is (in non legalese) and I’m clearly paraphrasing:
I’m no longer president, therefore Congress is precluded from impeaching me, and the Senate lacks jurisdiction. I never incited an insurrection. My halo is super shiny and I am a law abiding (private) citizen.
After reading both Trump’s Answer/Reply and Brief, I find it striking that his current legal team is painting an incredibly specious narrative that Trump was/is a Boy Scout. His arguments strain both credibility and credulity. In short Trump’s attorneys are defending the indefensible and their attempt to put forth this “narrative” that Trump is a good, decent and God fearing man, just falls flat. For Example: See page 9 of Trump’s answers
performed admirably in his role as president, at all times doing what he thought was in the best interests of the American people.
-Summary: House Manager’s Response, point by point the House dismantled Trump’s argument/answers.
-January Exemption: this nonsensical and flawed argument was quickly dispatched by the House Managers. In short there is no January Exemption, Trump took an oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution”, like his entire presidency, he failed to uphold his oath.
-First Amendment argument, remarkably Trump argues that his January 6, 2021 “rally” speech is “protected speech” which is unavailing. The Supreme Court has been clear. In non-legalese speech that incites violence is not “protected speech” 2 Additionally in the Landmark ruling of 19193 - SCOTUS applied the “applied the "clear and present danger" test. In sum Trump’s First Amendment argument largely fails. (see footnotes)
Like all Americans, the 45th President is protected by the First Amendment. … If the First Amendment protected only speech the government deemed popular in current American culture, it would be no protection at all.”
and then Trump quadrupled down on his First Amendment Argument:
It is admitted that President Trump addressed a crowd at the Capitol ellipse on January 6, 2021, as is his right under the First Amendment to the Constitution and expressed his opinion that the election results were suspect.”
Multiplicity, Trump objected to the (singular) Article of Impeachment “[c]harges multiple instances of allegedly impeachable conduct in a single article.” Again you can’t object on the grounds of multiplicity when you are facing a singular article of impeachment. Trump surly knows that is just a silly and nonsensical argument
Article of Impeachment violates the 45th President’s right to free speech and thought guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
And lastly you’ll note that I refrained from diving into the House Impeachment Managers brief, primarily because it’s well written and “Res ipsa loquitur“ thus my opinion would likely only detract from the brief, itself. And I have too much respect for how the House Impeachment Managers constructed their arguments.
If the Senate-GOP was smart, they would convict Trump, but the jury is out…
If the Senate Republicans were smart, they (or at least seventeen) would vote to convict Trump. If they did - they would finally and with absolutely zero ambiguity divorce Trump from the GOP. The reality is the GOP is now the party of Trump-QANON-MAGA. They support a demigod who spent months trying to undermine and overtly attacking our Democracy. If you expect Senate Republicans to finally display profile(s) in courage, I regret to inform you that there are no “profile in courage”. Senate Republicans have created and enabled this godless and lawless Frankenstein and until they expel Trump from the GOP. Their party is now the party of insurrectionist sympathizers.
To wit I say - “f__ck around and find out” - the moment Trump rolled down that escalator, most sane Americans knew exactly who Donald Trump was. A thrice married, father of four anchor babies, credibly accused sexual predator and a unhinged con man that saw the presidency of the United States of America, as a massive grift. Where Trump and his family could unjustly enrich themselves. The Republican Party owns Trump and Trump owns them. And they both own the deadly insurrection, which injured dozens of local & federal law enforcement officers. Convict him or spare me your feigned outrage. Yes it is that simple and binary choice.
IMPEACHMENT BRIEFS Highlighted and Annotated
February 2, 2021 Donald Trump’s Reply Brief Answers, here
February 8, 2021 Replication to the Response to the Summons of former President Donald J. Trump to the Article of Impeachment, here.
Now Ladies and Gentlemen - get your popcorn ready. I took the liberty of embedding the CSpan-YouTube live streaming channel for the Senate Impeachment Trial. I think you have most (if not all) the prerequisite documents. The purpose of this article was to provide you with a guide and actual reference material(s)
LIVE STREAM of Trump’s Second Impeachment
January 13, 2021 at 4:36PM, the House of Representatives
Roll Call Vote No 17 | Bill Number: H. Res. 24. On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 232 - 197. The following ten (10) House Republicans voted with House Democrats:
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) Rep. John Katko (R-NY), Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA), Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA), Rep. Peter Meijer (R-MI), Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH) Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC), Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), in the landmark decision SCOTUS applied a two prong test evaluating speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), which was also a landmark ruling. Applying for the first time the: “clear and present danger test,” - this is colloquially known as the “you can’t scream fire in a crowded movie theater, if there isn’t a fire” Arguably Brandenburg was a progeny of Schenck