Citizens For Trump – Second Trump Impeachment Trial, Day 1

Citizens For Trump – Second Trump Impeachment Trial, Day 1

A Senate will be an order the chaplain doctor Barry Black will lead the Senate in prayer. Let us pray. Eternal god author of Liberty. Control of this impeachment trial Lord permit the words of the New England poet James Russell Lowell to provide our Senate jurors with just one perspective wrote wants to every man and nation comes the moment to decide. In the strife of truth with falsehood for the good or evil side mighty God could it really be that simple? Could it really be just truth? striving against falsehood and good striving against evil powerful. Redeemer have mercy on our beloved land we pray pray in magnificent name. Amen. Will you join me in the pledge of allegiance and? And to the repub. Which it stands one nation under God Indivisible with Liberty. Businesses closed. Hear you hear you hear you all persons are commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against Donald John Trump, former president of the United States. I know the presence in the Senate Chamber of the managers on the part of the house representatives and Council for the former president of the United States. Mister President Majority leaders recognize Mister president in a moment I will call up a resolution to govern the structure the second impeachment trial the president of Donald Donald John Trump. it’s been agreed to by the house managers the former President’s council and his co sponsored by the Republican It is bipartisan It’s our solemn constitutional duty to conduct a fair and honest. Impeachment trial of the charges against former President Trump the grave charges ever brought against a president of the United States in American history This resolution provides for a fair trial and I urge the Senate to adopt it mister president. I send a resolution to the desk on my behalf and that of the Republican leader for the organizing of the next phases of this trial Encore report Senate Resolution Forty-seven to provide for related procedures concerning the article of impeachment against Donald John Trump former president of the United States. The question occurs on the adoption of the I ask for the A and Nas is there a sufficient second? There appears to be there. Is a sufficient second to the road this is Baldwin I mister mister uh mister Bennet mister Bennet I missus Blackburn Missus Blackburn I mister Bloom and Bloom and I mister blunt mister Blunt Hi mister Booker mister Booker I mister Bozeman Hi mister Bo. Uh mister Braun Mister Braun i mister Brown mister Brown I mister mister I miss Cantwell Miss Cantwell I missus missus Capito hi mister mister card uh mister Carter mister Carper i mister Casey mister KC hi mister Cassie. Miss Collins Miss Collins Hi mister Coons Mister Coon I mister mister corn I miss Cortez Masto Miss Cortez Masto I mister cotton mister cotton i mister Kramer mister Kramer I mister creo mister uh mister Cruz mister Cruz no mister Dan mister Dane. I miss Duckworth Miss Duckworth. I’m mister Durbin mister Durbin I miss Ernst Miss Ernst uh missus Feinstein missus Feinstein i missus Fisher Missus Fisher. I’m missus missus i mister Graham mister Graham Hi mister Grassley mister Grassley uh mister Hagerty mister Hager. I miss. Miss has I mister Holly Mister Holly No mister Hendrick Mister Hendrick uh mister mister Hickenlooper mister Hickenlooper. Roanoke Miss Roo i mister hoven mister Hon. I’m missus Hyde-smith missus hyde-smith I mister and mister uh mister Johnson mister. Johnson no mister Kane mister Kane I mister Kelly Mister Kelly i mister Kennedy mister Kennedy i mister King mister King I miss. Miss I’m mister Langford. I’m mister le hi mister uh mister Lee Mister Lee no mister Wuhan mister Wuhan I miss Miss Hi mister Mansion mister mansion uh mister Mark Mister Mark uh mister Marshall mister Marsh. No mister McConnell Mister McConnell uh mister Menendez Mister Menendez Hi mister Merkley Mister Merkley I mister Moran Mister Moran I miss Murkowski Miss Murkowski Hi mister Murphy Mister Murphy I missus Murray Missus Murray I mister mister. Uh mister mister I mister Paul Mister Paul No mister Peters mister Peters I mister Portman. Mister Portman Hi mister Reed Mister Reed Hi mister Mister I mister Romney Mister Romney I miss Rosen Miss Rosen I mister mister uh mister Rubio mister Rubio no mister Sanders mister Sanders uh mister Sass. Mister Sass Hi mister mister shots uh mister Schumer mister Schumer uh mister Scott of Florida Mister Scott of Florida. No Mister Scott of South Carolina. Mister Scott of South Carolina. No mister missus uh mister Shelby Mister Shelby I miss Cinema Miss Cinema I miss. Hi, mister Miss Mister Sullivan Mister Sullivan I mister tester mister tester I mister mister. I’m mister I mister mister toy I mister tubberville mister tubberville no mister van Holland mister van Holland I Mister Warner Sister war. Uh mister warnock mister Warnock I miss Warren Miss Warren Hi mister White House. Mister White House uh mister wicker mister wicker I mister mister I mister young mister young I mister Cassidy mister Cassidy. Mister Hagerty No. This the eighty-nine, the nays are eleven the resolution is agreed to and pursuing to the provisions of Senate resolution Forty-seven They should not be 4 hours of argument by the parties equally divided on the question of whether Donald Trump is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of impeachment for our president of the United States and not withstanding the expiration of. His term in that office mister managers are you a proponent or opponent of this question. Thank you mister caster. Are you a proponent or a of this question an opponent in order to thank you the mister manager of Ras and your party may proceed first, we will be able to reserve a time if you wish the and your’re recognized. Thank you very much mister President distinguished members of the Senate Good afternoon My name is Jamie Raskin. It’s people people Maryland’s eight Congressional district in the house and also to serve as the lead house manager and uh mister president We will indeed reserve time for rebuttal. Thank you because I’ve been a professor of constitutional law for three decades. I know there are a lot of people who are are dreading endless lectures about the federalist papers here, Please breathe easy. Okay, I remember well autumn’s line that a professor is someone who speaks well. other people are sleeping. You will not be hearing extended lectures for me because our case on cold hard facts it’s all about the facts. President Trump has sent his lawyers here today to try to stop the Senate from hearing the facts of this case they wanna call the trial over before any evidence is even introduced. Their argument is that if you commit an impeachable offense in your last few weeks in office, you do it with constitutional impunity you get away with it. In other words, contact that would be a high crime and misdemeanor in your first year as president and your second year as president and your third year as president and for the vast majority of your fourth year as president you can suddenly do in your last few weeks in office without facing any constitutional accountability at all this would create a brand new January exception to the Constitution. Of the United States of America. A January exception. And everyone can see immediately why this is so dangerous. it’s an invitation to the president to take his best shot at anything he may wanna do on his way out the door, including using violent means to lock that door to hang on to the Oval Office at all costs and to block the peaceful transfer of power in other words the January exception is an. To our founders worst nightmare. And if we buy this radical argument that President Trump’s lawyers events we risk allowing January 6th to become our future. And what will that mean for America? Think about it? What will the January exception mean to future generations? if you grant it? I’ll show you. We will stop the steal. Today, I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won by a landslide. This was not a close election and after this, we’re gonna walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re gonna walk down We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol. Capital The we are going to the Capitol where our problems are. It’s that direction. Everybody else at this way this way and it just thousands of folks that came in and match where the hell did they come from. Madam Speaker, the vice president and the United States Senate. Off the side get up, we are in the morning. Coming. The Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our constitution and you can’t vote on fraud and fraud breaks up. To do what he has to do. And we fight we fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore. Going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give a Republicans the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help. We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. Later, we’re debating a step. That has never been taken in American history. President Trump claims the election was stolen the assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to conspiracy theories. But my colleagues nothing before us illegality anywhere near the massive scale. The massive scale that would have kept the entire election. Right Second floor. My challenge today is not about the good people of Arizona. And it will stand in recess until the call of the chairs are in thank you. Now uh mister speaker can I have order in the chamber? The house will be in order. Those will be in order okay. The fucking it’s out there and we are just need to trust your boss. The fight to defend the constitution. Oh, Where the fuck all that? This guy is so what the fuck. That’s what we fucking need to have 30000 guns. That’s true. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us for me from you from our country This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people We have to have peace so go home. We love you. You’re very special You’ve seen what happens you see the way. Others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you. But go home and go home at peace. In your own cities counties, let’s go on your. That motherfucker. Senators the president was impeached by the US House of Representatives on January 13th for doing that. Ask for a high crime and misdemeanor is under our constitution. That’s high crime and misdemeanor if that’s not an impeachable offense. Then there is no such thing and if the president’s arguments for a January exception or uphill, then even if everyone agrees that he’s capable for these events even if the evidence proves as we think it definitively does that the president incited a violent insurrection on the day, Congress met. To finalize the presidential election, he would have you believe there is absolutely nothing the Senate can do about it. No trial, No facts he wants you to decide that the Senate is powerless at that point that can’t be right. The transition of power is always the the most moment for democracy every historian will tell you that we just sought in the most astonishing way we live through it and you know what the framers of our constitution knew it. That’s why they created a constitution with an oath written into it that binds the president from his very first day in office until his very last day in office and day in between under that. And under that oath the the president of the United States is forbidden to commit high crimes and misdemeanors against the people at any point that he’s in office. Indeed, that’s one specific reason the the impeachment and disqualification powers exist to protect us against presidents who try to overrun the power of the people in their elections and replace the rule. Law with the rule of mobs. These powers must apply even if the president commits his offenses in his final weeks in office In fact, that’s precisely when we need them the most because that’s when elections get attacked everything that we know about the language of the constitution the Framers original understanding and intent prior Senate practice in common sense confirms this rule, but With the text of the Constitution, which an article one section two gives the house the soul power of impeachment when the president misdemeanors we exercise that power on January 13th, the president, it is undisputed committed his offense while he was and it is undisputed that we impeached him while he was president, There can be no doubt that this is a valid and legitimate. Impeachment and there can be no doubt that the Senate has the to try this impeachment impeachment, We know this because Article one section three gives the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments. The Senate has the power the soul power to try all impeachments all means all and there are no exceptions to the rule because the Senate’s jurisdiction to try all impeachments it most certainly has jurisdiction to try this one. It’s really that simple the vast majority of constitutional scholars who studied the question question waiting on the proposition being advanced by the president this January exception here to for unknown agree with us. And that that includes the nation’s most prominent conservative legal scholars, including former ten Michael Mcconnell, the co-founder of the federalist Society Step Calabrese, Ronald Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried luminary Washington lawyer Charles Cooper among hundreds of other lawyers and professors I commend the people I named their their recent writing. To you in the newspapers over the last several days and also constitutional history and textural analysis appear in the trial brief we filed last week and the reply brief that we filed very early this morning. I’ll spare you a replay, but I wanna highlight a few key points from constitutional history that strike me as compelling in for closing President Trump’s argument that there’s a secret January exception hidden away in the constitution. The first point comes from English. Which matters because as Hamilton wrote, provided the model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed and it would have been immediately obvious to anyone familiar with that history that former officials could be held accountable for their abuses while in office every single impeachment of a Kramer’s lifetime concerned, a former official, a former official. Indeed, the most famous of these impeachments occurred while the faint Framers gathered in Philadelphia to write the constitution. It was the impeachment of Warren Hastings, the former governor general of the British colony of and the corrupt guy The Framers knew all about it and they strongly supported the impeachment in fact the Hastings case was invoked by name at the convention. It It only specific impeachment case that they discussed at the It played a key role. In their adoption of the high crimes and misdemeanor standard and even though everyone there surely knew that Hastings had left office 2 years before his impeachment trial began not a single framer Not one raised a concern when Virginian George Mason held up the Hastings impeachment as a model for us in the writing of our Constitution, the early state constitutions supported the idea too every single state constitution in the 1780s either specifically said that former officials could be impeached. Where we’re entirely consistent with the idea in contrast, not a a single state prohibited trials or officials. As a result, there was an overwhelming presumption in favor of allowing legislatures to hold former officials accountable in this way any departure from that norm would have been a big deal and yet there’s no sign anywhere that ever happened some states, including Delaware. Even confined impeachment only to officials who had already left office this confirms that removal was never seen as the exclusive purpose of impeachment in America. The goal is about accountability projecting society and deterring official corruption, Delaware matters for another reason, Writing about impeachment and the federalist papers Hamilton explained that the President of America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of new. Ground then the governors of Maryland and Delaware. He does emphasize that the president is even more accountable than whereas I noted the constitution clearly allowed impeachment of former officials and nobody involved in the convention ever said that the Framers meant to reject this widely accepted deeply rooted. understand the convention debates instead confirm this interpretation there while discussing impeachment the Framers repeatedly returned to the threat of presidential corruption aimed directly to elections the heart. Of self-government of North Carolina explained impeachment was for a president who quote no effort or means whatever to get himself, Reelected Hamilton and Federalist one, said the greatest danger to repubs in the liberties of the people comes from political opportunist who begins demagogues and endless tyrants and the people who are encouraged. Follow them. President Trump may not know a lot about the Framers but they certainly knew a lot about him. Given the Framers and tender to elections and the peaceful transfer of of it is inconceivable that they design impeachment to be a dead letter in the president’s final days in office when opportunities to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power would be most tempting and most dangerous as we just saw this is a matter of history and original understanding. there is no merit to the President. Trump’s claim that he can insight an interaction and then insist weeks later that the Senate lacks the power to even hear evidence. Trial to even hold a trial the true rule was stated by former President John Quincy Adams when he categorically declared. I hold myself so long as I have the breath of life in my body. amenable to impeachment by the house for everything I did during the time I held any public office when he comes up in a minute my colleague mister of Colorado will further pursue the relevant Senate president and explain why this body’s practice has been supported by the text of the Constitution and mister si Rhode Island will then respond to the. Is presented by the President’s council and after these gentlemen speak, I will return to discuss the importance the fundamental importance of the Senate rejecting President Trump’s argument for the preservation of Democratic Self-government and the rule of law in the United States of America. Now, we’ll turn it over to my colleague mister of Colorado. I have to recognize him no. Mister distinguished senators My name is Jonah Goose and I represent Colorado’s second Congressional district in the United States Congress, like many of you, I’m an attorney. I practice law before I came to Congress tried a lot of different cases. some more unique than others certainly never a case as important as this one nor a case with for you all to decide thankfully as lead managers so thoroughly explained. The Framers have answered that question for you for us. And you don’t need to be a constitutional scholar to know that the argument President Trump asks you to adopt is not just wrong. It’s dangerous, and you don’t have to take my word for it. This body the world’s greatest deliberative body in the United States, Senate has reached that same conclusion in one form or another over the past 200 years in multiple occasions that will go through over 150 constitutional scholars Experts judges conservative liberal you name it they overwhelmingly have reached the same conclusion that of course you can. Convict and disqualify a former president and that makes sense because the text of the Constitution makes clear there is no January exception to the impeachment power. That presidents can’t commit grave offenses in their final days and any congressional response. That’s not how our constitution works. Let’s start with the president with what has happened in this very chamber. I’d like to focus on just two cases. I’ll go through them quickly. One of them is the the nation’s very first impeachment case, which actually was of a former official in 1797 about a decade after our country had ratified our constitution. There was a senator from Tennessee by the name of William Blunt, who was caught. With the British to try to sell, Florida and Louisiana. Ultimately, President Adams caught him he turned over the evidence to Congress 4 days later the House of Representatives impeached him a day after that this body the United States Senate expelled him from office, so he was very much a former official despite that the house went forward with its impeachment proceeding order to disqualify him from ever again, holding federal office and so the Senate proceed. With the tribe with none other than Thomas Jefferson presiding now blunt argue that the Senate couldn’t proceed because he had already been expelled. but here’s the interesting thing he expressly disavowed any claim that former officials can’t ever be impeached. I mean unlike President Trump, he was very clear that he respected and understood that he could not even try to argue that ridiculous position even impeach. Senator Blunt recognized the inherent absurdity of that view. Here’s what he said. I certainly never shall contend that an officer May 1st commit an offense and afterwards avoid by resigning his office. That’s the point and there was no doubt because the founders were around to confirm that was their intent and the obvious meaning of what is in the constitution. Fast forward 80 years later, arguably the most important president that this body has to consider the trial of former Secretary of War William Bell. I’m not gonna go into all the details, but just in short in 1876 the house discovered that he was involved in a massive kickback scheme. Hours before the House committee that discovered this conduct released its report documenting the scheme be literally rushed to the White House to resign tender his resignation to presidents Grant. To avoid any further inquiry into his misconduct and of course to avoid being disqualified from holding federal office in the future, well later that day aware of the resignation, What did the house do the house move forward and unanimously impeached him making clear its power to impeach a former official and when his case reached the Senate this body. Be made the exact same argument that President Trump is making today that you all lack jurisdiction any power to try him because he’s a former official now many senators at that time when they heard that argument literally, they were sitting in the same chair as you all are sitting in today, they were outraged by that argument outrage You can read their comments in the record. Knew it was a dangerous argument with dangerous implications. it would literally mean that a president could betray their country leave qualification entirely and that’s why in the end. The United States Senate decisively voted that the constitution required them to proceed with the trial. The bet case is clear precedent that the Senate must proceed with this trial since it rejected pretrial dismissal affirmed its jurisdiction and moved to a full consideration of the merits now be ultimately was not convicted, but only after a thorough public inquiry into his misconduct, which created a record of his wrongdoing. it ensured his accountability and deterred anyone else from considering such corruption by making. Clear that it was intolerable the trial served important constitutional purposes now given that president that I’ve described to you even all that president imparts you could imagine my surprise lead managers and surprise when we’re reviewing a trial brief followed by the president in which his council insists that the Senate actually didn’t decide anything in the bell case and not my words, I’ll quote from their child brief it cannot be. Is for closing an argument that they never dealt with. Never dealt with. The Senate didn’t debate this question for 2 hours. The Senate debated this very question for the Senate spent an additional 2 weeks deliberating on the jurisdictional question and and at the of those deliberations, they decisively that that the has jurisdiction and that it could proceed that it must proceed to a full trial and by the way unlike be as we know, President Trump was not impeached for. The corruption He was impeached for inciting a violent insurrection. Direction where people died in this building. An insurrection that desecrated our seat of government and if Congress were just to stand completely aside in the face of such an extraordinary crime against the republic, it would invite future presidents to use their power without any fear of accountability and none of US II know this none of this no matter our party or our politics wants that. Now we’ve gone through the highlights of the president and I think it’s important that you know as managers and mentioned that scholars overwhelmingly who have reviewed the same president have all come to the same conclusion that the Senate must hear this case. let’s go through just a few short examples to start all of us. I know are familiar with the federalist Society. Some of you may know Stephen Calabrese personally the co-founder of the federal society actually was the chairman of the board in. Nineteen he was the first president of the Yale Federal Society chapter for a position that I understand uh Senator Howley later health. Here is what mister Calabrese has to say on January 21st, he issued a public leader. a public letter excuse me stating our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the constitution permits the impeachment conviction and disqualification of former officers including presidents and by the way he’s not the only one as. Lead managers said President Reagan’s former solicitor general among many others, another prominent conservative scholar known to many of you again personally, is former tents Circuit Corp appeals judge My Circuit Judge Michael Mcconnell. He was nominated by President George W Bush. He was confirmed by this body unanimously Senator Hatch, many of you served with he had this to say about Judge Mcconnell that he’s an honest man. He calls it as he sees it and he’s beholden to no one and no group well. What does Judge Mcconnell have to say about the question that you’re debating this afternoon, he said the following given the the impeachment of mister Trump was legitimate, the text makes clear that the Senate has power to try that impeachment. you heard the man Raskin mentioned another lawyer, Chuck Cooper, a prominent conservative lawyer here in Washington, is represented former attorney General Jeff Sessions House Minority leader. Mccarthy he issued an editorial just 2 days days ago, powerful observing that scholarship in this question has matured and that ultimately the arguments that President Trump is championing are beset by serious weaknesses. Finally, I would’ve gone through a lot of scholars. I’ll just I’ll finish on this one. There’s another scholar that I know some of you know and some of you have actually spoken with recently up until just a few weeks. He was a recognized champion of the view that the Constitution authorizes the impeachment of former officials and that is professor Jonathan Turley. Let me show you what I mean. These are his words first in a very detailed study thorough study, He explained that quote the resignation from office does not prevent trial on articles of impeachment. That’s professor t’s words, same piece. He celebrated the bell trial. He described it as a corrective measure that helps the system legitimacy, he wrote Another article. He’s written several on this topic that this one is actually it’s 146 page study very detailed and in that study, he said. Quote decision in Bell was correct in its view that impeachment historically had extended the former officials such as Warren Hastings, so you heard the man described in fact as you can. Press argued that the house could have impeached in the Senate could have tried. Richard Nixon after he resigned his quote on this very telling quote future presidents could not assume that mere resignation would avoid a trial of their conduct in the United States, Senate finally, last quote from Professor Charlie that no man in no circumstance can escape the account, which he owes to the. Of his country. Not my words not lead managers words, Professor Jonathan Turley words. I agree with him because he’s exactly right. Now a question one might reasonably ask after going through all those quotes from such not jurist and scholars is why is there such agreement on this topic? Well? The reason is pretty simple because it’s what the constitution says I wanna walk you through three provisions of the Constitution that make clear that the Senate must try this case. First, let’s start with what the Constitution says about Congress’s power in Article one, you heard lead manager asking make this point It’s worth underscoring Article One section two gives the house so power of impeachment Article One section Three is the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments now based on President Trump’s argument one would think that language includes caveats. Exceptions. But it doesn’t it doesn’t say impeachment of current civil officers It doesn’t say impeachment of those still in office, The Framers didn’t mince words they provided express absolute unqualified rants of jurisdictional power to the house to impeach and to the Senate to try all impeachments. not some. Former Judge Mcconnell judge that we talked about earlier he provides very effective text analysis of this provision. You can see it up here on the slide and I’ll just give you the highlight, he says. And I quote this is Judge given that the impeachment of mister Trump was legitimate, The text makes clear that the Senate has power to try that impeachment. Now again, here is what it’s pretty interesting me, at least when we presented this argument in our child brief, which we filed over a week ago, but we laid it out again, step by step so that you could consider it answer that opposing council can consider it as well We received President Trump’s response yesterday and the trial brief offers no rebuttal to this point. And in fairness, I can’t of any convincing response. I mean that the constitution is just exceptionally clear on this point. Now, perhaps they will have something to say today about it, but they they did not there’s another provision worth mentioning here because there’s been a lot of confusion about it and I’m gonna try to clear this up. It’s the provision on removal and disqualification Now we all know the Senate imposes a judgement only when it convict upon the screen, you’ll see Article one section three clause seven so with that in mind, the language says that the Senate convict the judgement shall not extend further than removal and disqualification. Keisha That’s it the meaning is clear the Senate has the power to impose removal, which only applies to current officials and separately it has the power to impose disqualification, which obviously applies to both current and former officers. But it doesn’t have the power to go any further than that now as I understand uh President Trump’s argument, they believe that this language somehow says that disqualification. Can only follow removal of a current officer, but it doesn’t that interpretation essentially rewrites the constitution, it adds words that aren’t there, I mean after all the constitution does not say removal from office and disqualification it doesn’t say removal from office followed by disqualification it simply says the Senate can’t do more than two possible sentences. And disqualification and this by the way is not the first time that this direct question has been debated in this chamber. A. 146 years ago during the trial, Senator George Edmonds of Vermont. He’s He’s one of most prestigious Republican senators of his time He he sat right where Senator Grassley sits today he zeroed in on this exact point during the be. This is his quote. Prohibition against doing more than two things Cannot be turned into a command to do both or neither. And just imagine the consequences of an absurd interpretation of the constitution, I mean if President Trump were right about that language, then officials could commit the most extraordinary destructive offenses against the American people high crimes and misdemeanors. They have total control over whether they can ever be impeached and if they are whether the Senate can try the case if they want to escape any public inquiry and their misconduct or the risk of. From future office, and it’s pretty simple that you could just just resign 1 before the house impeach or even 1 minute before the Senate trial or they could resign during the Senate trial. It’s not looking so well that would effectively erase disqualification from the constitution it would put wrong doers in charge of whether the Senate try it. Third and final reason why President Trump must a provision of article one of the Constitution. You’ll see here on the screen that the constitution twice describes the accused in an impeachment trial. Here’s what I want you to focus on the interesting thing is notice the words it refers to a person in a party being impeached. Now again, We know that the Framers gave a lot of thought to the words that they chose they even had a style committee during the constitutional convention, they could have written civil officers here, they did that else. In the constitution that would have ultimately limited impeachment trials to current officials, but instead they used broader language to describe who could be tried by the United States Senate. so who could be on put on trial rather for impeachment other than civil officers who else could a person or a party be well, really, there’s only one possible answer former officers and again that actually might explain why during the bell trial. Senator Thomas Baird of Delaware. He later became the Secretary of State of the United States. He sat right where Center of car is sitting down. He found this point so compelling that he felt compelled to speak out on it and during the trial, he concluded that the constitution must allow the impeachment and trial of people and parties who are not civil officers and the only group that could encompass was former officials like be and of course here like President Trump. And just so we’re in full disclosure. This is another argument that was not addressed by President Trump in his and we know why they didn’t because their argument doesn’t square with the plain text of the Constitution. There is one provision. That President Trump relies on almost exclusively article two section four. I’m sure you’ll see it when they present their arguments Their argument is that the language you’ll see in the screen somehow prevents you from holding this trial by making removal from office and absolute requirement, but again where does the language say that where does it say anything in in provision about your jurisdiction? In fact, this provision isn’t even in the part of the constitution that addresses your authority. It’s an article two. not article one and it certainly says nothing about former officials. President Trump’s interpretation doesn’t square with history originalism text. In fact, even Chuck Cooper, the famous conservative lawyer, I mentioned earlier with clients like the the House minority he has concluded that this provision of the constitution that President Trump relies on. Cuts against his position his words and that’s because, as Cooper says Article two section four means just what it says in the first half describes where an official must do to be impeached, namely commit high crimes and misdemeanors and the second half describes what happens when civil officers of the United States, including the sitting president are convicted removal from office. That’s it in Cooper’s words. It’s simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a mandatory. Minimum punishment It says nothing about former officials nothing at all. Given all of that. It is not surprising that in President Trump’s legal trial brief Seventy-five page brief they struggle to find any professors to support their position. They did sight one professor, though Professor cult an expert in this field who they claimed, agreed with them that the only purpose of impeachment is removal. Professor Colts position, which they had to have known because it’s it’s in the article that they sight in the brief is that removal is quote not the soul end of impeachment actually in that same article, he describes the view advocated by President Trump’s lawyers as having deep flaws. And again you do not have to take my word for it You can take professor’s word for it, The professor they cited in their brief filed yesterday because he tweeted about it then on the screen here, this is what he had to say. I’m not gonna read through it in great detail. I’ll just simply give you the highlights President Trump’s brief sites my 2001 article on late impeachment a lot but in several places they misrepresent what I wrote quite badly There are multiple multiple examples of such flat out misrepresentations they didn’t have to. Be disingenuous and misleading like this. This key constitutional scholar relied on by President Trump said it just right. I have explained in great detail, the many reasons why the argument that President Trump advocates for here today is wrong. I just wanna close with a note about why it’s dangerous lead manager Raskin explained that impeachment exists to protect the American people from officials who abuse their power who betrayed them. It exists for a case just like this one. Honestly it is hard to imagine a clear example of how a president can abuse his office inciting violence against the co equal branch of government while seeking to remain in power after losing an election. Sitting back and watching it unfold. We all know the consequences. Like everyone of you, I was in the capital on January 6th. I was on the floor with lead managers. Like everyone of you, I was evacuated as this violent mob stormed the Capitals gates. What you experienced that day? what we experienced that day? what our country experienced that day. Is the Framers worst nightmare come to life? Presidents can’t inflame insurrection in their final weeks and then walk away like nothing happened. And yet, that is the rule that President Trump asks you to adopt. I urge you, we urge you to to decline his to vindicate the constitution to let us try this case. Mister President distinguished Senators My name is David. I’m the honor of the first Congressional District of Rhode Island as I hope is now clear from the arguments of Mister Rask and I’m mister impeachment is not merely about removing someone from office fundamentally impeachment exist to protect our constitutional system to keep each of us safe to uphold our freedom to safeguard. Democracy it achieves that by deterring abuse of the extraordinary power that we entrust to our presidents from the very first day in office to the very last day. It also ensures accountability for presence who harm us or our government. In the aftermath of a tragedy, it allows us an opportunity to come together and to heal by working through what happened and reaffirming our constitutional principles and it authorizes this body and this body alone to disqualify from our political system. Anybody who’s conduct an office proves that they present a danger to the republic. But impeachment would fail to achieve these purposes if you created for the first time ever, despite the words of the Framers and the Constitution a January exception as mister, Raskin explained. Now, I was a former defense lawyer for many years and I can understand why President Trump and his lawyers don’t want you to hear this case. why they don’t want you to see the evidence. Argument that you lack jurisdiction rest on a purely fictional loophole purely fictional designed to allow the former president to escape all accountability for conduct that is truly indefensible under our constitution You saw the consequences of his actions on the video that we played earlier I’d like to emphasize instill greater detail the extraordinary. Institutional offense that the former president thinks you have no power whatsoever to adjudicate. While spreading lies about the election outcome and a brazen attempt to retain power against the will of the American people, he incited an armed angry mob to riot and not just anywhere. but here in the see of our government in the capital during a joint session of Congress when the vice president presided while we carried out the peaceful transfer of power, which was interrupted. The first time in our history, this was a disaster of historic proportion was was an unforgivable betrayal of the oath of office of President Trump, the oath he swore an oath that he solid and dishonored to advance his own personal interest and make no mistake about it as you think about that day,

Source link

Like this article?

Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on Linkdin
Share on pinterest
Share on Pinterest

Leave a comment