Trump Article of Impeachment Delivered to Senate

| January 26, 2021

House impeachment managers formally presented the article of impeachment to the Senate. Mitch McConnel, Roger Marshall, and Mitt Romney were the three Republicans in the Senate chamber during the presentation. Approximately 10 times more Democrats were also present. Senator Leahy will preside over the trial.

From CBS News:

House Democrats brought the impeachment resolution to a vote with unprecedented speed, reflecting the severity of the assault on the Capitol and the limited time left in Mr. Trump’s term. Mr. Biden became president on January 20, so Mr. Trump will be first president to have an impeachment trial after leaving office.

After the article of impeachment is read on Monday, senators will be sworn in as members of the impeachment court on Tuesday, January 26. Then both the impeachment managers and the president’s defense team will draft their briefs for trial.

In a change from Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial, Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, the Senate pro tempore, will preside over the trial instead of Chief Justice John Roberts.

“The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents,” Leahy confirmed in a statement on Monday. “When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously.”

Roberts presided over Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial, as designated by the Constitution. But the Constitution is silent on the question of who presides over the Senate trial of a former president, and a former president has never faced an impeachment trial.

CBS News has the full article, and associated video, here.

Category: "Teh Stoopid", "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Trump!

Comments (48)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ChipNASA says:

    ” Senator Leahy will preside over the trial…”

    Hmmm,I was unaware Eric Cartman was now a member of Congress…

    Oh wait, he says so right here….

    and that § Section 3, Clause 6: Says…”Whatevea’, I DO WHAT I WANT!!
    Oh wait, he said it right here….

    OK Then.


  2. KoB says:

    Another pure waste of Taxpayer monies. Give it a rest you bastards, enough is enough. You have impeded the work that was beneficial to the country as a whole for over four years now. Why can’t they be happy with the facts that they have stolen the last election, gotten rid of the man that was not a part of their swamp, and now have installed a career, grifting, self centered politician who has done NOTHING for 47 years except enrich himself, his family, and his cronies. And his handlers are foreign and domestic enemies of our Republic.

    My memory banks are not hitting on all 8 cylinders, but can someone out there give me some examples of any meaningful legislation passed in the last 4 years that was of benefit to America?

    Larsie Boi showing up with his hate filled, vulgar drivel in 5.4.3.2..screeching; “ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!!!”

  3. penguinman000 says:

    Tulsi Gabbard is now calling out the left and big tech’s shenanigans.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tulsi-gabbard-slams-schiff-brennan-big-tech-more-dangerous-than-capitol-rioters

    And cue them turning on her in 5…4…3…2…

  4. AZRobert says:

    Biden did have a hand in “Gun Free School Zones” “AWB” and soon will have “Freedom Free Zones” all across this once Free land!

    Just remember, he wasn’t alone…

    • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

      The same Moonbats that said “Dissent is Patriotism” during the last four years will now be accusing anyone who dissents with their party and/or dogma as “traitors” and “insurrectionists” just like they labeled us “racists” and “fascists”.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Um, but he’s already out of office… ah, wait, Democrats just want to be dicks.

  6. CCO says:

    A nice long, slow trial would be very beneficial to the country. The more time they spend on this ridiculous and unconstitutional exercise, the less time they can spend passing bad laws.

  7. Mason says:

    Now with this kangaroo court in session we can finally start the healing, right?

    Anyone else really, really disgusted and disturbed that Chief Justice Roberts isn’t presiding. It’s specified in the Constitution. It’s only one sentence, so there’s not a lot of room for confusion. “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”

    • Green Thumb says:

      I think that (Roberts presiding) only applies to a sitting President.

      I am unsure of if the Constitution addresses the impeachment of a former president, and if it does, who in fact presides (my guess would not be Roberts as the “defendant” is not currently in office).

      Could be wrong, though.

      • Mason says:

        That’s exactly what they’re hanging their hat on. It just goes to show how partisan and petty this thing is. Roberts was offended when Trump said there were “Obama judges” and then spent the next few years proving that judges have a partisan bent.

      • rgr769 says:

        There is no provision in the Constitution for Congress impeaching and trying the removal of a former president. It would be like saying you want the sheriff to come and evict your tenant after he has already moved out of your rental. Moreover, impeachment was attempted as to some other appointed former federal officer, which a president isn’t one, in the late 1700’s. That one failed, as will this one, legally. If the Congressrats succeed in getting the votes to “convict” him in the senate, it will be an unlawful, unconstitutional bill of attainder. The Constitution expressly prohibits bills of attainder.

        Roberts has likely declined because he knows what the D-rats are attempting is unlawful, and he doesn’t want that on his resume.

        • Deckie says:

          They already stated the constitution is outdated.. they hide behind it like a corpse in combat to dodge bullets but toss it off the second they see a chance to advance unopposed.

          What it says, or forbids… matters not to them. It’s a corpse to them.

        • Only Army Mom says:

          rgr769- “…former federal officer, which a president isn’t one…”

          Can they argue that as CinC he was, in fact, a Federal Officer? If not, will the next move be to “recall” to active duty and attempt a Court Marital?

          • rgr769 says:

            No, because federal officers are appointed, not elected. CinC is simply one of the duties of the elected President. Federal judges can be impeached by Congress and removed as well, but we know they are appointed, with the Senate’s confirmation.

            Trump is not retired military, so he can’t be recalled to active duty. Now they can file federal criminal charges against him in the DC District Court for inciting a riot, but they know his vague comments are not incitement by the legal standards. But there is nothing to stop them from indicting him and prosecuting him. Judge Sullivan would be happy to hear that case. If the DOJ later decided to dismiss, as it was unprovable and a bad idea, Sullivan would likely appoint his own Orange Man Bad prosecutor, just like he did for General Flynn. After all, the Cucks in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals went along with his misconduct in Flynn’s case.

            • Green Thumb says:

              You can recall an retired AD Officer, EM, SM back to AD for a CM, but I do not thing it applies in this case as the former President was 1) elected and 2) non-military.

              Just an observation.

        • Green Thumb says:

          Once again, I do not know if a sitting SCOTUS can oversee an”impeachment” of an ex0president.

          It is not very clear.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          This is just an attempt to block Trump from running for President again, nothing more.

          The time and money this bunch of hooligans will waste on it should have them sent up on charges of fraudulence and corruption.

          Geezo Pete, can they let it go instead of running it into the ground like the spoiled brats they are?

          • thebesig says:

            Spoiled brats don’t let go. Dare to refuse to give them their way and they would “punish” you. This isn’t just against President Trump, but against all of us.

            They think that with Trump out of the picture, we’d go back to doing what we did before he came into the picture. The Republicans who think that they could throw Trump under the bus, and still get a sizeable support from the conservative base, are in for a rude awakening.

            Then we have the propaganda rags who think that we’re like the Democrats and are susceptible to “cult of personality”.

            The idea that we come to our own conclusions, and that we have been the way we are now before Trump, is well outside of their journalistic and intellectual paradigms.

        • LC says:

          Those presumably ‘liberal cucks’ at the Federalist Society disagree with your notion:

          https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/21/legal-scholars-federalist-society-trump-convict-461089

          He won’t be convicted, but the point they make seems pretty damn reasonable.

          • penguinman000 says:

            “….it must also be extended to former officials who could try to run for reelection.”

            A bunch of Constitutional scholars have decided that an area of the Constitution which is unclear, MUST be extended to include impeachment of former Presidents?

            Since they are scholars I’m going to assume they have chosen their words very carefully. By stating the Constitution must be “extended” they appear to be admitting it does not currently cover the impeachment of Trump.

            How is that reasonable?

            • LC says:

              If you’re focused on the word ‘must’, it’s probably best to read the quoted document, rather than the Politco write-up:

              https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-2646-de27-a5f7-3fe714ac0000

              In essence, they argue that since the impeachment powers in the Constitution have two provisions -the removal from office, and the banning from seeking office in the future- then if the second was one predicated on someone remaining in office, that person could simply resign before that judgement was given, and thus nullify its effect.

              Since nullifying the effect of a constitutional rule seems to render it pointless, the ‘reasonable’ (my word) choice is that for that section to have any merit, it must apply to former officer-holders.

              The only place the Federalist paper says ‘must’ is here: “The impeachment power must be read so as to give full effect to both aspects of this
              power.”

              Again, it ain’t going anywhere in the Senate, but that makes sense to me. To argue it shouldn’t apply is to suggest that the whole second power is toothless, no?

              • thebesig says:

                Key word, “and”:

                “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor,” – Article 1, Section 3, of the US Constitution

                Using “and” is intended for both of those to be at play. Otherwise, they would’ve used “or”. Meaning, if the person that was impeached no longer is President, they can’t consider the first part… Removal from office. The second part, whether they could hold office in the future or not, is predicated on the decision to remove the person from office in the first place.

                They could remove someone from office, but allow them to hold office in the future. Or, they could remove someone from office and deny them the future ability to hold office. They must first decide to remove the person before deciding on whether that person could hold office in the future or not.

                We saw this with Nixon, when he stepped down. Congress dropped the subject and didn’t move this to the Senate for trial and conviction. With his stepping down, the decision to remove him from office became moot. Without that, the decision on whether he could hold office in the future or not also became moot.

                • thebesig says:

                  “But nothing in the provision authorizing impeachment-for-removal limits impeachment to situations where it accomplishes removal from office.” – Constitutional Law Scholars

                  The Founding Fathers were ahead of that, and anticipated that people would make this argument, as the British Constitution was subject to subjective interpretation:

                  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – 10th Amendment

                  In other words, if it is not spelled out in the Constitution as something they could do, and if it is not something specifying them as not being able to do, then they can not do that.

                  • rgr769 says:

                    You should also consider the Constitution’s express prohibition on the Congress passing “Bills of Attainder.” Although LC likely doesn’t know what that is, is suspect you do. Convicting Trump on this fake impeachment would be a bill of attainder, in my humble legal opinion. Law Professor Ken Starr agrees with me on that.

                • LC says:

                  Using “and” is intended for both of those to be at play. Otherwise, they would’ve used “or”. Meaning, if the person that was impeached no longer is President, they can’t consider the first part… Removal from office. The second part, whether they could hold office in the future or not, is predicated on the decision to remove the person from office in the first place.

                  Well, that vast majority of legal wrangling is interpreting the law as-written – you apply an intent to the use of the word ‘and’ that others, reasonably, disagree with. I could also argue that ‘or’ would simply mean one or the other, and preclude both, and thus ‘and’ was the right choice.

                  And as the write-up from the Federalist society indicates, the notion that they could remove someone from office, then deny them the future ability to hold office again could be easily side-stepped by resigning the moment they were convicted, but before they were barred from future office.

                  I imagine, like anything legal of this important, it would quickly find itself before the Supreme Court, and the uncertainty would be resolved. But until then, the position seems reasonable, which is all I think that’s needed to proceed.

                  • thebesig says:

                    LC: Well, that vast majority of legal wrangling is interpreting the law as-written — you apply an intent to the use of the word ‘and’ that others, reasonably, disagree with.

                    The vast majority based on whom? The people you agree with? If they were “right” in their interpreation, your “this could reach the Supreme Court” argument would not apply. But, they aren’t right if they support the argument that the President could be “tried after he left office”. Again, history bears out my argument, see Nixon resignation. Had your so called “majority of legal wrangling” been correct, they would’ve gone after him anyway, after he left office.

                    LC: I could also argue that ‘or’ would simply mean one or the other, and preclude both, and thus ‘and’ was the right choice.

                    You do realize that you just made my argument and rebutted your own argument, do you? Your argument started on the right tract, arguing that one predicated the other. Then you made a subjective argument, not supported by the wording in the Constitution, applying this situation to former office holders.

                    What is contained in the Constitution? “And”. This means, both go hand in hand. The Constitution addresses how people will get into their federal positions, it also addresses how they would be removed. This is the scope of the Constitution. Former office holders are no longer holding office. The provisions from the Constitution, for removal, become moot.

                    “And” is used, keeping this consistent with the Constitution’s intent with spelling out how people would be placed in their positions, and how they could be removed prior to completion of acts that would justify impeachment and conviction and removal.

                    LC: And as the write-up from the Federalist society indicates, the notion that they could remove someone from office, then deny them the future ability to hold office again could be easily side-stepped by resigning the moment they were convicted, but before they were barred from future office.

                    This nulls and voids your argument that this could apply to former office holders. Your scenario addresses someone who is still in office, up to the point of conviction. It doesn’t address someone who has left office. The fact that they were already out of office by the time they get to conviction, or in your scenario by the time they consider qualifications for future office, the resulting scenario is similar as the one you listed. In the situation that you brought up, and the one that Trump is in, the person no longer holds office… Making the part about what happens after they leave moot. There would be no point in carrying out the follow on actions.

                    LC: I imagine, like anything legal of this important, it would quickly find itself before the Supreme Court, and the uncertainty would be resolved.

                    The House has sole power of impeachment, the Senate has sole power of trial and conviction, and the aftermath. Sole. The Supreme Court would pretty much stay out of this fray.

                    LC: But until then, the position seems reasonable, which is all I think that’s needed to proceed.

                    No, your position is not reasonable. The Constitution details how the President is inaugurated into office, and how that president should be removed should he commit certain acts specified in the Constitution and be convicted of such acts. The Constitution focuses on current office holders, not former office holders.

                    Donald Trump is no longer president, had the reason for impeachment had merit, the proper course of action to take would be through the regular court system. Based on how the Constitution is written, what the Senate is planning to do is outside what the Constitution allows them to do.

              • penguinman000 says:

                I thought the Politico article was authored by them. Thanks for the clarification LC.

              • penguinman000 says:

                Just read the actual document they authored. Much different take away than the article for me.

                I’m no lawyer or Constitutional scholar.

                Their position seems to be the Constitution provides authority for impeachment of former officials. And does not take a stance on Trump’s guilt or innocence. That’s not an unreasonable position take as a disinterested 3rd party (so to speak).

                My main issue is this effort at impeachment is clearly and explicitly about preventing Trump from running (and potentially winning) again. It’s not about him actually committing any high crimes or misdemeanors. The dems leadership have explicitly admitted such.

                What does stick out to me in that article is the authors base part of their argument around the intent of the framers.

                They didn’t intend to allow an official to resign and subvert the Constitution.

                Pretty sure the framers didn’t intend to allow a political party to banish the opposition by abuse of Constitutional powers either.

                • LC says:

                  I’m less convinced the impeachment is clearly and explicitly about preventing Trump from running again – that implies a complete lack of faith in their own party’s chances, and doesn’t earn any points with independents.

                  Personally, they put themselves in a tough situation – for their angry base, which they need to win elections, they had to do something. If they got a bipartisan conviction, that’d have been a big win. But without that, the endgame is either banning him from future office, which takes only a majority vote, I believe, or failing to do so. Both of those are losses.

                  If they ban him from office, it makes it look like they’re afraid of him, and even as much as I loathe Trump, I think it’s bad, for the reasons you state and others. I’d take great joy in seeing him run again, and lose again, which I think is even more likely the next time, given a multitude of factors.

                  And if they don’t have the votes to ban him, how did that happen? If it fails with a lot of holdouts, they look pathetic for doing the impeachment to begin with. If it fails by a vote or two, that’s less bad, but still seems to indicate disarray, especially given the votes to proceed.

                  Basically, there’s some good intent (accountability), some playing to the base, and some ‘be done with him’ attitude, given the rhetoric about irreparable harm Trump has caused, but altogether there’s no plan. Which is pretty much Democrats 101, in my opinion.

  8. Only Army Mom says:

    Doesn’t CBS have editors?

    “reflecting the severity of the assault on the Capitol and the limited time left in Mr. Trump’s term”
    Two things wrong with this sentence.
    “reflecting the severity of the desperation of the Democrats and their unlimited terror Mr. Trump will return for a second term”.

    There. Fixed it.

  9. Sapper3307 says:

    And now he is in the hospital,,,, term limits from above?

  10. Commie-Tsar says:

    ORANGE. MAN. BAD.
    ORANGE. MAN. BAD.
    ORANGE. MAN. BAD.

  11. Stacy0311 says:

    Articles of impeachment were delivered by Swalwell (D-EABOD).
    I wonder if they were written in Mandarin?

  12. 5JC says:

    This ain’t happening. All but 44 R Senators said no dice. Since there isn’t any evidence to speak of other than the supposed incitement tweets this one is DOA.

    • 5JC says:

      Correction all but 5 of the R senators….

      • rgr769 says:

        Glad you caught that. The five RINO’s are Romney, Murkowski, Sasse, Collins, and Toomey,(mepbut) may eternal peace be upon them .
        (See I’m giving them respect they deserve and one gives the Prophet.)