Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)(WAPO) Laurence Tribe: Impeach Trump. But don't necessarily try him in the Senate. [View all]
This opinion piece from Prof. Tribe is getting a lot of positive attention. Worth reading and considering. Since WAPO is behind a paywall, I'll include as much as I can, but perhaps others with access can fill in what is missing:Laurence H. Tribe is the University Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard and the coauthor, most recently, of To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/impeach-trump-but-dont-necessarily-try-him-in-the-senate/2019/06/05/22d83672-87bc-11e9-a870-b9c411dc4312_story.html?utm_term=.cb1ddd556bed
--snip--
But to think of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided. The Constitutions design suggests a quite different allocation of functions: The Senate, unlike any petit (or trial) jury, is legally free to engage in politics in arriving at its verdict. And the House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict and not just a referral to the Senate for trial an inquiry in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense.
Take, for instance, the 1974 investigation of President Richard M. Nixon when the House gave the president the opportunity to refute the charges against him either personally or through counsel and with additional fact witnesses. (Nixon chose to appear only through his attorney, James D. St. Clair.) Following its impeachment proceedings, the House Judiciary Committee drafted particularized findings less in the nature of accusations to be assessed by the Senate which of course never weighed in, given Nixons resignation than in the nature of determinations of fact and law and verdicts of guilt to be delivered by the House itself, expressly stating that the president was indeed guilty as charged.
It seems fair to surmise, then, that an impeachment inquiry conducted with ample opportunity for the accused to defend himself before a vote by the full House would be at least substantially protected, even if not entirely bullet-proofed, against a Senate whitewash.
The House, assuming an impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trumps guilt, could choose between presenting articles of impeachment even to a Senate pre-committed to burying them and dispensing with impeachment as such while embodying its conclusions of criminality or other grave wrongdoing in a condemnatory Sense of the House resolution far stronger than a mere censure. The resolution, expressly and formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senates corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication. (A House resolution finding the president impeachable but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitutions ban on Bills of Attainder, despite its deliberately stigmatizing character as a Scarlet I? that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.)
But to think of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided. The Constitutions design suggests a quite different allocation of functions: The Senate, unlike any petit (or trial) jury, is legally free to engage in politics in arriving at its verdict. And the House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict and not just a referral to the Senate for trial an inquiry in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense.
Take, for instance, the 1974 investigation of President Richard M. Nixon when the House gave the president the opportunity to refute the charges against him either personally or through counsel and with additional fact witnesses. (Nixon chose to appear only through his attorney, James D. St. Clair.) Following its impeachment proceedings, the House Judiciary Committee drafted particularized findings less in the nature of accusations to be assessed by the Senate which of course never weighed in, given Nixons resignation than in the nature of determinations of fact and law and verdicts of guilt to be delivered by the House itself, expressly stating that the president was indeed guilty as charged.
It seems fair to surmise, then, that an impeachment inquiry conducted with ample opportunity for the accused to defend himself before a vote by the full House would be at least substantially protected, even if not entirely bullet-proofed, against a Senate whitewash.
The House, assuming an impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trumps guilt, could choose between presenting articles of impeachment even to a Senate pre-committed to burying them and dispensing with impeachment as such while embodying its conclusions of criminality or other grave wrongdoing in a condemnatory Sense of the House resolution far stronger than a mere censure. The resolution, expressly and formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senates corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication. (A House resolution finding the president impeachable but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitutions ban on Bills of Attainder, despite its deliberately stigmatizing character as a Scarlet I? that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.)
Some of the twitter comments on this editorial/proposal:
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
more at the link above.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
44 replies, 5221 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (72)
ReplyReply to this post
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
(WAPO) Laurence Tribe: Impeach Trump. But don't necessarily try him in the Senate. [View all]
hlthe2b
Jun 2019
OP
The House could find guilt or censure, Senate referral if removal is sought
bigbrother05
Jun 2019
#1
Wow. Laurence Tribe, he is really something! He has definitely given us food for thought....
FM123
Jun 2019
#2
Really? You say that? While the House is led by the UNPRECEDENTED Nancy Pelosi, first woman?
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 2019
#16
Unprecedented proceedings. Has nothing to do with the genitals of any House member.
Nevilledog
Jun 2019
#17
I think that eventually impeachment will occur after Dem's get those financial documents. Fall is
UniteFightBack
Jun 2019
#6
Sounds like a good strategy. I suspect Nancy Pelosi is edging towards this decision.
Princetonian
Jun 2019
#13
I thought this was the plan all along as there was no way the fascists would ever help. nt
yaesu
Jun 2019
#24
Walter Dellinger & Claire McCaskell discussing Tribe's piece with Chris Hayes (MSNBC) now
hlthe2b
Jun 2019
#36
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Read the actual piece. This might well be the approach that could break through
hlthe2b
Jun 2019
#38
If I'm reading this correctly, a House verdict is "for show," it has no actual legal consequence.
CaptainTruth
Jun 2019
#40