Category Archives: Impeachment

Trump Impeachment and 2024

Despite hopes for better from the Republican Party, Donald Trump again escaped being held politically liable for his misconduct.  Of course, President Trump is the only U.S. president in which members of his own party voted for conviction, but seven Republican senators out of fifty.

There were some surprises in the final vote.  Of the four Republicans who will be retiring in 2022, two voted to convict.  The only Senator currently running for re-election in 2022 that voted to convict was Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.  Given that Alaska has done away with party primaries and will be using a top four primary with ranked choice voting in the general, Donald Trump’s threats against Senator Murkowski do not carry much weight.  Of the other four votes, two come from long-time Trump critics — Mitt Romney of Utah and Ben Sasse of Nebraska — whom Trump would go after regardless of their vote and one came from Susan Collins of Maine who has always faced the need to triangulate between being a loyal Republican and the Democratic majority in her state.  The only Senator to vote to convict who is probably running again and was not considered to be  a member of the moderate/conservative wing of the Republican Party was Bill Cassidy of Louisiana (who like Collins was just re-elected and can hope that six years is long enough for this madness to pass).  And like Murkowski, Senator Cassidy is from a state that does not have partisan primaries.  He just needs to keep enough Republican support to finish in the top two and then win the run-off.

But the bigger question is what this means for the 2024 election.  Not being convicted means that Donald Trump is technically eligible to run in 2024.  And he will continue to make noise about running.  While the odds are that he will not run, his omnipresence will alter the trajectory of the run-up to that race.  While some would-be candidates (like Nikki Haley) are apparently going ahead with making initial plans, others are going to have to wait for Trump to  yield the field.  Candidates will certainly not be able to raise money from Trump supporters until he announces that he is not running. Continue Reading...

Also posted in GOP, Republicans | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Impeachment and 2024

Impeachment vs. 14th Amendment vs. 25th Amendment

Up until his very last minute in office (and beyond it), Donald Trump is making history in ways that his descendants will not like.  In fifty years, instead of saying that a person’s name is Mud(d), we might be saying that his name is Trump.

Right now, there are three possibilities being discussed in D.C. and on op-ed pages.  Each have some legal questions associated with it.

The first option — which seems dead in the water as the Cabinet and Vice-Coward Mike Pence seem to be reluctant to take responsibility for suspending Trump’s presidency is the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.  Many constitutional amendments are simple establishing one basic rule.  E.g.  authorizing or repealing prohibition, giving women the right to vote).  Others, like about half of the bill of rights, have multiple related but separate concepts (e.g. First Amendment covering freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly).  The Twenty-fifth Amendment is one of those multi-part amendments addressing several aspects of presidential succession. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Donald Trump | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Impeachment vs. 14th Amendment vs. 25th Amendment

October Term 2020 — Supreme Court Preview (Part Two)

As we saw in Part One, COVID-19 has caused a rather unique set-up for the first two argument sessions of the upcoming term.  October are the cases that would have been argued last term but for COVID-19 requiring the postponement of arguments.  As such, as the more politically significant cases were heard in May, October features very few “political” cases.   On the other hand, highlighted by the on-going attempt of the Republicans to use the courts to undo the Affordable Care Act, November has several very significant cases.

There are two big cases on December’s docket.  First, there is the on-going disputes related to President Trump’s legal troubles.  In particular, Trump’s taxpayer-funded law firm (the Department of Justice) is trying to block the House Judiciary Committee from obtaining grand jury transcripts from the Mueller investigation that might be demonstrate that Trump committed impeachable offenses.  The technical issue is whether the House Judiciary Committee when doing a preliminary investigation into impeachment fits within the limited group authorized by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to access grand jury testimony.

Second, there is a case-involving the Federal Housing Finance Agency (one of the agencies created after the Bush financial market crash of 2008) and whether it is legally-structured.  We saw a similar case this past term involving the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.  So, even if the Republicans do not manage to get another conservative judicial activist onto the Court before this argument, the odds of a ruling upholding the validity of the restrictions on removal are slim and none. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Judicial | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on October Term 2020 — Supreme Court Preview (Part Two)

Trump, Mueller, and the Supreme Court

Earlier today, the Supreme Court issued an order list covering several cases.  For political junkies, the big news from the list concerned Department of [Obstructing] Justice vs. House Committee on the Judiciary.  The issue in this case is whether the House can get access to the grand jury proceedings from the Mueller investigation.  Technically, the issue is whether the House’s investigation of whether Trump committed potential impeachable offenses is a “judicial proceeding” for the purposes of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure’s exception to the general rule of grand jury secrecy.

The big impact of today’s order is that it extends the hold on the release of those proceedings.  And, given the other cases already on the docket for the Fall, it is likely that the Supreme Court will not hear arguments on this matter until December.  In short, this decision means that those records will not become public until after the election.

Now how this reflects on the Supreme Court depends upon what happens in the election.  If Trump loses, arguably, the case would be moot as any opinion would not come until after Trump leaves office and could no longer be impeached.  It is possible that the Supreme Court could reach this issue on the theory that, given the time that it takes for the grand jury to investigate followed by the time that it takes for impeachment, the issue is capable of recurring yet escaping review (as the delay all but guarantees that any president’s term will expire before any future case with similar issues could be resolved).  This exception to mootness probably better applies to the claim that the House and Senate are no longer conducting impeachment proceedings. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Donald Trump, House of Representatives, Judicial | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Trump, Mueller, and the Supreme Court

Impeachment History 101 (Part 4)

Now we get to the icky, wash your hands after reading, impeachment.  While President Clinton was, for the most part, a very good president, his personal life has always been questionable.  When he came into office, we were just at the start of what has become a strong right wing propaganda-litigation machine.

When Clinton came into office, there were two scandals — one related to alleged sexual harassment and one related to a business development that failed (Whitewater).  The investigation into Whitewater resulted in the appointment of an independent counsel under the post-Watergate independent counsel law in which the independent counsel answered to the courts (the way that a lot of special prosecutors do in state court) rather than the Attorney General.  Ultimately, the investigation into Whitewater did not find any evidence warranting any action against President Clinton.  The independent counsel claimed that President Clinton committed perjury during that investigation and referred that issue for possible impeachment to the House, but that referral went nowhere.

Meanwhile, the United Supreme Court allowed the sexual harassment case to proceed (at least with the pre-trial discovery phase).  During that discovery, President Clinton was deposed (i.e. sworn testimony taken by the attorneys in the case out-of-court).  During that deposition process, questions were asked about his sexual activities with other women including an intern working in the White House.  The independent counsel (who had already gotten his investigation expanded to include other controversies that arose during Clinton’s first five years in office) received the authority from the court to investigate whether Clinton and his attorneys were planning to suborn perjury in the civil case.   (It is unclear whether the potential false statements would have been perjury because it is unclear if those statements were relevant or material to the issue of whether President Clinton had sexually harassed the plaintiff in the case.)  Kenneth Starr (the independent counsel) asked President Clinton to give grand jury testimony.  Unlike the current president, President Clinton agreed (rather than fighting the subpoena) and gave testimony about his relationship with the intern that was misleading at best. Continue Reading...

Tagged , | Comments Off on Impeachment History 101 (Part 4)

Impeachment History 101 (Part 3)

Today’s flash back is on the impeachment that never was — Richard Nixon and Watergate.  While President Nixon held on until the writing on the wall was crystal clear, he ultimately did the honorable thing and resigned.  While that was a good thing for the country, it was a bad thing in the sense that it deprived us of an example of how an impeachment that had actual merit should work.

Watergate was a complex scandal in which the original issues morphed during the process.  And there were other issues about how Nixon had governed during his first term.  But at the heart of Watergate were the operations of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (which eventually got the appropriate nickname of CREEP).  Among the numerous ethically questionable attempts at disinformation and disruption related to the potential Democratic candidates, operatives of CREEP burglarized the offices of the Democratic National Committee (then located in the Watergate Office Building) in an effort to obtain documents and wiretap the office.  The operatives were a little sloppy and some of them were caught.  That led to the President (and his staff) engaging in an effort to cover-up the campaign’s connection to the burglary.  The cover-up initially worked, and Nixon easily won the 1972 election.

After the 1972 election, the House and the Senate began to hold hearings into the matter.  By April, a special prosecutor had been appointed.  The hearings led to the revelation that Nixon had a taping system for the Oval Office.  When the special prosecutor attempted to subpoena the tapes, Nixon fired the special prosecutor.  (Because the special prosecutor answered to the Attorney General, Nixon actually ordered the Attorney General to fire the special prosecutor.  Both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General resigned instead of complying with the order.  That left the Solicitor General (Robert Bork) as the acting Attorney General, and he complied with Nixon’s order.)  In the aftermath of this blatant interference in the investigation, the Judiciary Committee opened a staff inquiry into possible impeachment in October 1973.  In February 1974, the House formally authorized an impeachment inquiry. Continue Reading...

Tagged , | Comments Off on Impeachment History 101 (Part 3)

Impeachment History 101 (Part 2)

During this week, we frequently heard from Republicans that the impeachment of Donald Trump was historical because it was partisan and all about politics.  Whether the Republicans knew that this was not true or are living in an alternate reality is impossible to tell (but I assume that at least some of them have some familiarity with history).  But if you want to discuss an impeachment that was all about politics, you need to turn back to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.

The events that culminated in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson began in the spring of 1864.  While today, the Union victory over the rebel governments in the South during the Civil War is seen by many as inevitable.  But in 1864, that was not the case.  And the uncertain state of the war bled over into the politics.  Facing potential challenges from the left (with the Radical Republicans considering running their own candidate) and the right (from Anti-war Democrats), Lincoln joined the moderate Republicans and Pro-war Democrats into a National Union Party with Andrew Johnson as the Vice-Presidential candidate.  Of course, by November, the fortunes in the war had changed and the National Union Party won easily.  But after the assassination of Lincoln, Johnson became President and was faced with a Republican majority that had a different vision of reconstruction than Lincoln and Johnson had run on.  If Lincoln had lived, perhaps he would have been able to keep everybody together on the same page or would have supported a more vigorous program of Reconstruction when the former Confederate states tried to get by with the least change possible.  Johnson, however, wasn’t Lincoln, and his refusal to budge led to a bitter 1866 mid-term election in which the terms of Reconstruction was the main issue in the campaign.

After the Radical Republicans won the election of 1866, they decided to force their ideas through (and they had the votes in Congress to do so).  However, Johnson as commander-in-chief was technically the boss of the military that would have the duty of carrying out the Congressional agenda.  So to keep Johnson from interfering, Congress made certain the chain of command went through the Secretary of War and also passed the Tenure in Office Act.  The key provision of the Tenure of Office Act required the Senate to ratify the removal of any cabinet officer before the removal became permanent.  (If the Senate was not in session, the officer was temporarily “suspended” until the Senate made its decision on whether to approve the removal.) Continue Reading...

Also posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Impeachment History 101 (Part 2)

Impeachment History 101 (Part 1)

With impeachment seeming likely to proceed this week, it’s time for a journey in the wayback machine to impeachments past.  We start, not with presidential impeachments but with the second impeachment of a federal judge.

In 1800, the Democratic-Republicans won the presidency (along with the House and Senate).  By that time, most (if not all) sitting judges were Federalists.  In fact, just before John Adams left the White House, the lame duck Federalists created several new judicial positions and quickly filled them (which in part led to the case establishing judicial review of unconstitutional laws — Marbury vs. Madison. 

Now, customs and the procedural rules governing trial were very different back then.  Supreme Court justices also had responsibilities for the federal circuits (the forerunner of today’s Court of Appeals) including presiding over trials when the Supreme Court was not in session.   And, in instructing the juries at the end of a trial, it was normal for judges to discuss all types of issues (including political issues) rather than limiting themselves to the law that applied to the case.  Needless to say, that meant that there were a lot of federal judges who frequently made disparaging comments about the President and Congress to juries (as well as making legal rulings that the Democratic-Republicans did not like).  As federal judges generally have life-time tenure unless they resign or are impeached, some members of Congress thought that the best solution was to start impeaching judges.  After successfully removing one district court judge who was probably no longer fit to serve for health reasons, Congress turned their attention to Associate Justice Samuel Chase. Continue Reading...

Tagged , | Comments Off on Impeachment History 101 (Part 1)

Impeachment and the 2020 Primary

We are entering into an unprecedented situation in American history.  Three times before, the House has given serious consideration to adopting articles of impeachment against a sitting president.  The last two times — Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton — the House Judiciary Committee took up potential articles of impeachment during the mid-term election year of the president’s second term.  While there would be lingering impacts of the impeachment process in the succeeding presidential election, the sitting president was not a prospective candidate and the process was over before the primary campaign really got started (with the Nixon process ending with his resignation in August of 1974 before the mid-term election and the Clinton process ending with the conclusion of the Senate trial in February 1999 as potential candidates for 2000 were just starting their run).

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson is the closest precedent to the current situation.  While Johnson’s impeachment trial extended into May of 1868 (a presidential election year), there are some major differences that preclude that situation from being a true precedent.  The biggest, of course, is that the nomination process was entirely different back then.  There were no primaries and the state parties had strong control over their delegations which tended to follow the now-abolished block vote tactic.  While Johnson had some support to get a chance to run in 1868, that support was almost entirely from the readmitted former rebel states and he never really had a path to the nomination.  Additionally, in the days before radio and television, the primary coverage was through partisan newspapers.  While partisan television and radio networks may try to slant coverage today, it is possible for voters to view the impeachment hearings and trials in their entirety (either live or by retrieving the video later).

Now, of course, candidates wanting to be President have to run in primary elections that run from February to June and the votes in those primaries bind (to various degrees) the delegates to the national convention.   Also, because primaries are public elections, candidates have a deadline to file for running and have to campaign for votes. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Primary Elections | Tagged , | Comments Off on Impeachment and the 2020 Primary

A Letter to my Deceased Mom on the Impeachment Hearings

…but first, if you don’t know me personally, you don’t know my personal political leanings as “So far left that if the world were flat, I’d fall off the West Coast”. Thank mom. However, in her later years, she was afflicted with a brain tumor. We are not sure if she turned on Fox News one day and that caused the tumor, or if the tumor made her right wing…. but it’s important to understanding the letter.

Dear Mom —

If you were still with us, I know you’d be glued to the hearings every day. And I know we’d talk every night about them. I can hear your voice, and I’m sure you’d say “Why can’t you be more like that Elise Stefanik? She’s so smart, and I’m sure you’d share her opinions if you hadn’t been brainwashed by the Democratic Party.” Continue Reading...

Also posted in Rant | Comments Off on A Letter to my Deceased Mom on the Impeachment Hearings