Tag: Trump

Trump Wins!…by beating the Constitution.

That’s not really something to celebrate, but that’s the short summary as Trump’s second trial ends in an acquittal. The question of whether or not it was even constitutional to try him after he has left office is only addressed in a handful of statements within the Constitution:

If it’s constitutional, say this: 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. (Article 1, Section 3)

If it’s unconstitutional , say this: 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 2, Section 4)

There are some who are concerned that impeaching a private citizen would set a dangerous precedent, but it would seem to me that allowing an individual who was elected or appointed to office to escape judgement by leaving office is supremely more dangerous. Why? Pardons are not permitted in the case of impeachment, but they are, of course, allowed for federal crimes. Those intending to subvert the will and purpose of the Constitution need only to resign to ensure no legislative punishment and, even more insidiously, receive a pardon from the executive branch for offenses committed and get off scot-free (see Richard Nixon).

I find it hard to imagine that the framers intended this to be possible, but those defending the trial as unconstitutional, are leading the country right down that path. Obviously, I am not an expert on constitutional matters, so I nerded out and looked up the last relevant example of the impeachment of an individual no longer in office: William Belknap, former Secretary of War, who had been impeached by the House after he had resigned.

Many of the arguments I read (and I didn’t read all 1,166 pages…I’m not that much of a nerd) would be convincing even today. Here’s how the house managers and lawyers of 1876 answered the questions asked in 2021:

If Trump is no longer President, is this trial unconstitutional?

We claim that the limitation of the Constitution is not as to time, it simply relates to a class of persons and the word ‘officer’ is used as descriptive…an officer in one sense never loses his office. He gets his title and he wears it forever and an officer is under this liability for life; if he once takes office under the United States, if while in office and as an officer he commits acts which demand impeachment, he may be impeached. (excerpted)

Can a private citizen be impeached?

It is obvious that the only persons liable to impeachment are those who are or have been in public office. All executive and judicial officers from the President downward, from the judges of the Supreme Court to those of the most inferior tribunals, are included in this description.

The Constitution requires removal from office upon conviction. If the Senate cannot remove him (since his term expired), how is this trial not a sham?

It is argued if the court cannot inflict the whole punishment prescribed by law, it has no jurisdiction and cannot inflict any portion of it. Such a statement in the ordinary courts of justice would meet with little favor. In larceny, the judgment usually prescribed is that the goods be returned with fine and imprisonment. If the criminal was likely to be prosecuted, he could go back and restore the goods, and, if this principle should hold, plead that the whole sentence which he had the lawful right to receive could not be inflicted and therefore he would not submit to any trial or punishment.

Like Trump, a majority of Senators present voted for Belknap’s conviction, and also like Trump, he was acquitted.

Shall any man be above justice? Above all, shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?

Was the Election Stolen? (the Michigan Edition)

I had been researching this article for some time with plans to post today. The events in DC make this entry in my blog feel more necessary. The integrity of our country’s presidential election has never been more scrutinized as it has been in recent weeks. Much has been made of the many losses that Trump’s team has suffered in the courts, but what can be said of the evidence which they touted publicly. One of those first pieces of evidence was a 234-page collection of affidavits from approximately 100 Michigan residents, many of whom volunteered to be poll watchers/election challengers. Inserted below are clippings from a handful of the statements:

The first thing I noticed was that repeated appearance of similar phrases in some of the statements, specifically: Throughout the day, I witnessed a pattern of chaos, intimidation, secrecy, and hostility by poll workers. You’ll see the phrase repeat three times in the images, (and a few more times in the entire document). The likelihood that multiple people would use the exact same words is slim to none. It suggests use of a template which, given the gravity of what’s being signed, strikes me as inappropriate.

Secondly, most of the affidavits offer opinions and observations, rather than facts. Many spoke on their personal difficulties during the poll watching process rather than observed fraud. A little over a dozen simply attested to the fact that they didn’t get to poll watch at all. Generally, comments went under two categories: 1) I thought what happened was strange and 2) what happened was not what I expected and I thought that was strange. This likely has to do with a lack of understanding regarding the vote counting process. For example, I’m asked to watch an electrician repair a light socket to make sure he doesn’t do anything sketchy. The first thing I should know is… how to repair a light socket. Unfortunately, many of these well meaning and passionate individuals didn’t understand what they were observing, but most importantly, quite a few didn’t understand their role.

Poll watchers are not the same as election challengers. Poll watchers are strictly allowed to observe, not challenge. Guidance from Michigan’s Secretary of State makes it clear that only election challengers can issue challenges. The types of challenges are specific as well, but perhaps the one most applicable is absent voter challenge which states: If an absent voter ballot is challenged, prepare the ballot as a challenged ballot and make a notation on the Challenged Voters page in the Pollbook. Proceed with routine processing and tabulation of the ballot.

Many of the affiants suspected fraud since ballots that were challenged were processed anyway, but the steps as described above, show that nothing was out of order. As a novice to the intricacies of vote counting, my thoughts on this are not definitive. I don’t assume that there were no errors, but the entirety of the document makes a poor case for elevation to the level of fraud.

As it turns out, the case made by the 100 affiants was so poor that none were chosen by Giuliani to be a star witness when he spoke before a panel of Michigan lawmakers. No, that distinction went to the now infamous Melissa Carone, whose appearance before Michigan representatives went viral.

In her affidavit, she states that, ‘I witnessed countless workers rescanning the batches without discarding them first, which resulted in ballots being counted 4-5 times’ and that she, ‘witnessed nothing but fraudulent actions take place.’ She attributes much of the fraud claim to ballots being counted over and over. The issue is that once a hand recount is done with the actual ballots, an error of this magnitude would be revealed because counters would only account for the one ballot. Again, the issue is that someone whose expertise is in another area (Ms. Carone served as an IT contractor during the election) is judging whether or not a process unfamiliar to them is accurate or not.

The reality is her testimony doesn’t add up…but the ballots do.

Traitors in the White House: What the NY Times Op-Ed Really Means

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

This oath was taken by the author of the editorial written in the New York Times, two weeks ago (yes, I know I’m late to the party). So what does it mean when the same person who spoke allegiance to the Constitution chooses to undermine a democratically elected President whose administration s/he serves in? What should we think about a person: who anonymously (along with others) has ‘vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses’? Who praises the unsung, unknown heroes of the West Wing who work to isolate the rest of us from the commander in chief’s poor, erratic decisions? I have a word: coward.

We don’t know who this person is, but if accounts by Bob Woodruff and Michael Wolff are to be believed, backstabbing is a pastime in the White House. Perhaps this individual is jockeying for a more favorable position and, knowing the President’s anxieties, reached out to the Times and offered an op-ed in an attempt to give confirmation and false comfort to the general public, but primarily, to push the President to cut off competitors from within his inner circle.

I am not assuaged by self congratulatory statements about the ‘steady state’ and ‘adults being in the room’. This individual described a sitting President as being amoral, anti-democratic, and as having a leadership style that is petty, adversarial and ineffective, but to Trump’s face, likely says otherwise. What would we call someone in the real world who does that?

The author describes early talk of invoking the 25th Amendment, but claims ‘no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.’ And I get it, specifically, if by ‘constitutional crisis’, they mean precipitating certain career suicide. Who wants to risk self when you can maintain the status quo (with all its horrors) and double talk the President and the public into thinking you’re on their side?

It’s clear to me that this person is quite clever and manipulative. They might think that after enough time, they will be able to reveal themselves and be considered a hero of sorts, a truth teller in a time of alternative facts, but they are not deserving of such a title. True heroism requires sacrifice, something not embodied by taking papers off a desk. Furthermore, if you have to go that far and still choose to be a silent witness, then it’s not about sticking around to preserve the democratic institutions you claim to love or the Constitution you are sworn to uphold, it’s about self preservation and maintaining party dominance.

Removing Trump from office through impeachment or the 25th Amendment requires those ‘resisting’ in the shadows to make their truth publicly known. There will be backlash and shouts of ‘traitor,’ but I believe deeply that those voices will be silenced when they see a unified front of members of both parties and houses of Congress agree that their leader is incapable. The only way to get the Never Trumpers and the MAGA crowd to wake up from their blind allegiance/hatred toward the President is through an act of courage. Courage is truth in action and people respond to truth and that’s undeniable, no matter which way you lean.

(random thought: it’s not the 25th amendment or the Mueller investigation that’s going to end Trump’s presidency, it’s the emoluments clause of the Constitution.)