Why Impeachment Won't Work
/Never to be outdone, former President Trump has been impeached twice. Can he be acquitted twice? It seems likely, since the Senate is split evenly in power, and a guilty verdict would require two-thirds.
The impeachment charge now is “incitement of insurrection.” Is it worth impeaching Trump, and is it justifiable?
Can you impeach/have a trial for a president no longer in office?
Senator Ted Cruz, who is an excellent constitutional mind himself, admitted legal minds fall on both sides of the issue. On his podcast Verdict, he told Michael Knowles of The Daily Wire that it could be argued either way. It’s meant to remove someone from office (which makes it unnecessary), but there is a precedent for the Senate trying a federal official after leaving office.
In 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap resigned to avoid being impeached over corruption charges, yet the House impeached him anyway. He was acquitted by the Senate, as many believed they lacked proper jurisdiction (despite Belknap’s guilt). But one could argue since there was an acquittal, the precedent isn’t truly that strong.
Professor Alan Dershowitz predicted on his podcast, the first move should be a motion to dismiss, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. He also notes the article itself calls for the removal of “The President of the United States” as a remedy, and Trump is no longer in office.
Dershowitz predicted the trial will go forward (because they have the votes), but the former president will be acquitted on the grounds of no jurisdiction. Dershowitz wrote further in The Wall Street Journal regarding impeachment.
Chief Justice John Roberts opted not to participate, as the constitution lays out. Vice President Kamala Harris wisely ducked, as it would have been a major conflict of interest. Senator Patrick Leahy will preside over the proceedings, which is also unfair to the former president. Leahy voted for impeachment last year.
Did Trump Engage in Incitement?
“Incitement of Insurrection” may be hard to prove when President Trump specifically told his supporters to be peaceful. “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” After the riot broke out, Trump should have made a stronger statement, but he did tell them to be peaceful and go home.
Critics point out other statements in his speech:
“Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”
“Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.”
“You’ll never take back our country with weakness,” is a strong statement, but it’s not a command to act violently. Politicians and activists often use language like “fight to take back our nation” and so on. If you look into the context of the moment, I can see why some make the argument this incited the crowd. But if you look into the context of Trump’s normal rhetoric, including back to his days of a simple TV host, talking about being tough and fighting “like hell” is his normal vernacular. It was also wildly stupid and damaging to Trump’s legacy for any protestors to breach the capitol, so I’m gonna say that cuts away from any intent argument.
Did Trump inadvertently cause it? If there was no rally and Trump conceded earlier, the riot probably wouldn’t have happened, but is the Senate going to convict Trump for practicing his first amendment right to peacefully assemble and speak? Everyone who engaged in unlawful activity should be prosecuted. People are being charged and arrested at this moment. Peaceful and patriotic protests are not unlawful—even if you disagree or if they’re based on falsehoods—and that’s what he called for.
Did President Trump incite his supporters by misleading them for months? I think you can argue Trump sincerely believes there’s a conspiracy against him. Since he was a victim of Russia Collusion, an impeachment over a “perfect phone call,” was spied on by the former administration, and is a foe of media and Big Tech, he probably feels justified. Listen to his conversation with the Georgia secretary of state. Do you believe Trump is pushing a deception or do you believe he’s bought-in? William Barr allegedly told Trump his lawyers were lying to him. He obviously didn’t listen. Now, he gets to put his beliefs on display.
Should Trump be held legally accountable for the actions of his supporters?
Should politicians be judged based on the actions of their supporters, even if they did not specifically call for violence? Sen. Rand Paul noted in an Op-Ed for The Hill, “If we are to blame politicians for the most violent acts of their craziest supporters, then many of my colleagues would face some pretty harsh charges themselves.
“I was there at the ballfield when a deranged Bernie Sanders supporter almost killed Steve Scalise and seriously wounded several others. At the time, Democrats were arguing that the GOP plan for health care was ‘you get sick, then they let you die.’ Is it any wonder an insane left-wing gunman took that rhetoric to heart and concluded, ‘If the GOP is going to let me die, then maybe I’ll just kill them first’?”
Paul goes on to note Republicans didn’t call for Sanders to be impeached or held responsible “for the attempted assassination of more than 20 congressmen.”
When the summer riots happened, Vice President Harris encouraged bailing out protestors she kept insisting were peaceful. She promoted the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which indiscriminately posts bail, regardless of the alleged crime (including rape and murder). Rioters burned down homes and businesses, assaulted officers and citizens, more than 30 people died, and federal property was destroyed. Trump was escorted to the White House bunker and was mocked on Twitter with a top trend of #BunkerBoy. How should Harris be held accountable?
I’m not trying to engage in whataboutism, but rulings set precedents. Trump does not exist solely within his own universe, no matter how unique he is.
Will Impeaching Trump Bring Unity?
Only a fool would believe that. Sen. Mitt Romney said: "If we're going to have unity in our country, I think it's important to recognize the need for accountability, for truth and justice." Will he feel that way after Trump is acquitted?
What sort of truth is Romney seeking? The article was drafted by the House far before a thorough investigation could take place. Fast results aren’t always factual, which CNN found out after giving airtime to an agitator of the riot. Zip-tie guy didn’t come prepared to kidnap Senators like many originally thought. How much of it was preplanned? How many who entered the capitol were there for Trump? We’re still investigating.
Is the endgame to forbid Trump from ever running again? Everyone honest should know that’s unlikely anyway, and it’s not an automatic sentence if found guilty. It comes off as highly political, and it doesn’t help that President Biden gave his support for the trial. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley got some online flack for saying to give Trump a “break” after nonstop harassment, but she’s not wrong. Trump came into office with Obama-Biden coming after him and his people. Remember when Biden suggested using the Logan Act? Or when former FBI Director James Comey set up General Michael Flynn?
Trump certainly isn’t blameless, but is he guilty? Not of this crime.
If politicians and pundits wanted to put the former president behind them, they should have scolded Trump and let him depart the White House in shame. Pushing an impeachment trial with constitutional ambiguity gives him another opportunity to go down as a martyr. It also gives his lawyers a chance to make a fraud case. If they are wise, they’ll present arguments similar to the lawsuit filed by Texas: election laws were not followed.
Relitigating the election isn’t going to cause unity, and neither will Democrats screaming: “You’re a liar, you’re a liar!”
Republicans are also protective of Trump because they see him as a shield. If a former president—now, private citizen—can be tried for insurrection over political rhetoric with no specific calls to violence (with evidence of the opposite), what would happen to someone else? I’m old enough to remember when leftists blamed Ben Shapiro for a Quebec Mosque shooter. Brian Stelter of CNN listed the conservative host as being part of the “web of delusion” that led to the riots. Shapiro is far from QAnon, yet they conflate.
We’ve already heard about “reprogramming,” making “lists,” and calls for censorship. Trump supporters will continue to fight for him as long as they believe the left is coming for them next.
Impeachment won’t remove him. It won’t necessarily strip him of the ability to run again. If they want Trump to lose his power, stop invoking his name.
