Impeach Trump. But don't necessarily try him in the Senate.

[sinkingfeeling]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/impeach-trump-but-dont-necessarily-try-him-in-the-senate/2019/06/05/22d83672-87bc-11e9-a870-b9c411dc4312_story.html?utm_term=.cb7548105ead

Last 3 paragraphs of Tribe's OP ed.


The House, assuming an impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trump’s guilt, could choose between presenting articles of impeachment even to a Senate pre-committed to bury them and dispensing with impeachment as such while embodying its conclusions of criminality or other grave wrongdoing in a condemnatory “Sense of the House” resolution far stronger than a mere censure. The resolution, expressly and formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senate’s corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication. (A House resolution finding the president “impeachable” but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitution’s ban on Bills of Attainder, despite its deliberately stigmatizing character as a “Scarlet ‘I’ ” that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.)

The point would not be to take old-school, House impeachment leading to possible Senate removal off the table at the outset. Instead, the idea would be to build into the very design of this particular inquiry an offramp that would make bypassing the Senate an option while also nourishing the hope that a public fully educated about what this president did would make even a Senate beholden to this president and manifestly lacking in political courage willing to bite the bullet and remove him.

By resolving now to pursue such a path, always keeping open the possibility that its inquiry would unexpectedly lead to the president’s exoneration, the House would be doing the right thing as a constitutional matter. It would be acting consistent with its overriding obligation to establish that no president is above the law, all the while keeping an eye on the balance of political considerations without setting the dangerous precedent that there are no limits to what a corrupt president can get away with as long as he has a compliant Senate to back him. And pursuing this course would preserve for all time the tale of this uniquely troubled presidency.

[Nevermypresident]

1. K & R

[BigmanPigman]

2. That never occurred to me, but it IS an interesting idea

that seems worth investigating and seriously considering as a path to defeat tRump AND the GOP Senate. Tribe has made a damn good argument to educate the public through an Impeachment Inquiry yet not going as far as the actual impeachment which the GOP would love to claim, "See, we told you we were innocent you damn liberals". This is an inspired and legal path to pursue and I like it!

[Hortensis]

4. Agree. We can be sure it occurred to Nancy and team

long ago if doable. And if doable, it's in their pocket as an option.

There is no constitutionally mandated process for each chamber, the chambers design their own, but would the house be required to refer to the senate for trial if the vote is for impeachment?

Once the process is begun, investigations, etc., there is no duty to impeach -- all evidence could be presented and then the procedure stopped before the final vote. But if the vote is taken, I don't find anything that definitively says the vote to impeach MUST be presented to the senate, only that it then is the next step. The house investigation could also prepare the case for prosecution after he left office, with evidence public and that threat hanging over his head.

Article II, Section IV says: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article II, Section I says: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

That's it in the constitution, but there may be something very pertinent in a previous decision. I wonder if the senate could proceed with a mock trial without the formal impeachment referral and publicly declare him innocent, but that's something else.

[Hortensis]

3. Hmmm. So, impeach. Then proceed to trial only if new info

and public opinion forced the senate to agree to do its duty. If not, take the "offramp" after impeaching and don't allow the corrupt senate a chance to find him not guilty.

Looks like Tribe's backing off his previous recommendation to charge into the Valley of Death to a less suicidal option that might put us in a better position. Wonder if the courts would support this?

And after all, what could the senate do if the house refused to refer the impeachment to the senate so they could kill it?

[Mme. Defarge]

5. This, I believe, is the right path.

[bluecollar2]

7. +1....n/t

[EffieBlack]

6. Very interesting

[yonder]

8. K&R