Harvard Law Professor Warns Mitch McConnell's Impeachment Strategy Could Backfire

[Sierra89]

Source: Huffington Post-MSNBC

Tribe told MSNBC’s Ari Melber the next day on “The Beat” that it was “disgusting” that McConnell looked like he “is going to conduct this trial as though he’s a member of the defense team.”

“You know, it’s an ancient principle — centuries-old, actually over a millennium old — that you can’t be a judge on your own case, and effectively, to allow Donald Trump to call the shots violates that principle,” said the scholar, who has been advising top House Democrats on the impeachment process.

Tribe continued:

The reason it may backfire is that an exoneration, if that’s what emerges by a Senate that is essentially rigged and fixed so that it’s coordinated in this way with the defense, really doesn’t clear the name of the accused so that the president will go down in history as having been essentially found guilty by the House in a proceeding where he had a chance to defend himself but didn’t take advantage of it, and then in a kind of rubber-stamp sort of toss-off, not really given a meaningful trial so that he will have been adjudicated fundamentally by the House of Representatives to have abused his office, abused his oath, and endangered the national security and then blockaded in the inquiry as though he were a dictator.




Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/laurence-tribe-mitch-mcconnell-backfire_n_5df48f21e4b047e8889d9c99

---

Hope Springs Eternal.

[Loge23]

1. Wake the F up, America

All of this corruption among the republicans could be rectified in short order if Americans would wake up and get involved on the process.
Clearly, I mean those other than who frequent this site - we're already involved.
Where are the demonstrations? Where are the marches? Where are the street corner groups with signs?
Yes. I am aware of Tuesday evenings action and I plan to be at the one on my neck of the woods, but I think the turnout on Tuesday will be telling. Do the American people understand what is at stake? Do they care?

[barbtries]

5. planned for the night before the House vote

and happening near you.
https://front.moveon.org/

[Miigwech]

14. Yes

[vlyons]

2. It will be a "Jim Crow" trial

where all the old white racist jurers find the defendant not-guilty.

[tirebiter]

3. The demonstrations are supposed to be happening Tuesday December 17

Move on.org is the first place to check. That would be tomorrow so look it up make your plans and drop in tune in turn out or sumpn’ like that. I just woke up this morning. That’s what I’ve got.
Indivisible is sponsoring a bunch, too. (Add on)

[TomCADem]

4. Trump/McConnell Are Colluding To Create a Pretext for Prosecuting Biden

Lindsey Graham and other Republicans have publicly stated that they are going to call Joe Biden and use the trial to focus on Biden. Rudy is continuing to try to strong arm Ukraine to fabricate allegations against Biden. Trump/McConnell will then not only claim that they have been vindicated, but then Barr will go to the Grand Jury with the fabricated evidence to try to indict Biden to take him off the table. The Republican have been pretty open about their strategy.

[mzmolly]

6. And with Rudy's cronies in custody

one never knows what might come out. Yes, it could backfire "bigly."

[yaesu]

7. a kind of tRump resignation by proxy only the fascist stays in power. nt

[Sherman A1]

8. Or

It could work....

[azureblue]

9. it is illegal

to violate the oath of office and penalties are removes from office and jail or fine.
Mitch has already violated his oath of office but stating he will support Trump (not the Constitution) no matter what. Why is he still walking around?

http://foavc.org/01page/Articles/Violation%20of%20Oath%20of%20Office%20and%20Walker%20v%20Members%20of%20Congress.htm

Violation of Oath of Office and Walker v Members of Congress



In refusing to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention when required to do so, the members of Congress not only violated federal income tax law but their oath of office as well. The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement.



Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.



The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.



Congress has never altered the Article V Convention clause by constitutional amendment. Hence, the original language written in the law by the Framers and its original intent remains undisturbed and intact. That law specifies a convention call is peremptory on Congress when the states have applied for a convention call and uses the word “shall” to state this. The states have applied. When members of Congress disobey the law of the Constitution and refuse to issue a call for an Article V Convention when peremptorily required to do so by that law, they have asserted a veto power when none exists nor was ever intended to exist in that law. This veto alters the form of our government by removing one of the methods of amendment proposal the law of the Constitution creates. Such alteration without amendment is a criminal violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.



In addition, the members of Congress committed a second criminal violation of their oaths of office regarding an Article V Convention call. 5 U.S.C. 7311 clearly specifies it is a criminal violation for any member of Congress to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. The definition of the word “advocate” is to: “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.”



The single intent of the federal lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress (a public record) was to compel Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as peremptorily required by that law, the original intent of which has never altered by constitutional amendment. The lawsuit was brought because Congress has refused to obey the law of the Constitution. Such refusal obviously establishes the objective of the members of Congress to overthrow our form of government by establishing they (the members of Congress) can disobey the law of the Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government.



The word “peremptory” precludes any objection whatsoever by members of Congress to refuse to call an Article V Convention. This peremptory preclusion certainly includes joining a lawsuit to oppose obeying the law of the Constitution and it may be vetoed by members of Congress. That act not only violates the law of the Constitution but 5 U.S.C. 7311 as well. When the members of Congress joined to oppose Walker v Members of Congress their opposition became part of the court record and therefore a matter of public record. Thus, regardless of whatever arguments for such opposition were presented by their legal counsel to justify their opposition, the criminal violation of the oath of office occurred because the members of Congress joined the lawsuit to publicly declare their opposition to obeying the law of the Constitution.

[Wabbajack_]

18. What the heck are you talking about?

[Seedersandleechers]

10. ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

“The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had — he has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud.”

[Recursion]

11. He doesn't care. He doesn't believe in "going down in history"

It's the same crap we saw back in the Shrub days: nihilists who literally don't believe there will be a world after they're gone.

[CTyankee]

12. If they feel they can comfortably run/be elected because their voters are Trumpers, why should

they care? they have their cushy jobs and their voters are happy.

[Lonestarblue]

13. Agree. Republicans don't care what history says about them.

This Trump age for Republicans is the era of grab all you can, betray the US with foreign governments or wealthy foreign political operatives if they pay you, stonewall and lie about everything as long as you can, leave only when you’re forced, and retire in wealth with all the benefits the federal government provides. To be reelected, they need Trump’s base. Thus, they lie and make a mockery of US justice.

[McCamy Taylor]

15. Does anyone here think the GOP cares about history??? No, they care about money.

[wryter2000]

16. Agreed

Furthermore, the average person doesn't know anything about history and doesn't care. "Go down in history" means nothing to anyone but historians.

[Wabbajack_]

17. Wasn't a good idea to have a political body conduct a trial

A panel of Randomly selected Federal Judges should be doing it instead.

[onenote]

20. The framers of the Constitution considered and expressly rejected the idea of the judiciary

being the decision makers in an impeachment trial. The reasons may have made more sense at that time than they do today, but there is zero chance of the Constitution being changed with respect to how impeachment works.

First, if the Judiciary handled the trial, what role would the Senate have? The framers weren't going to treat the Senate as having no say in the matter.

Second, at the time the Constitution was adopted the only court mandated to exist was a Supreme Court (lower courts were not mandated). So providing for judges other than those on the Supreme Court to decide was inherently problematic. Moreover, because judges themselves could be impeached, there was concern that members of the judiciary wouldn't dispassionately rule on the impeachment of a fellow member of the judiciary.

Third, given that the Constitution expressly allows for someone who is impeached and convicted to be indicted, tried and punished separately from impeachment, the framers were concerned that if the judiciary handled an impeachment, the same folks might then be called upon to preside over a criminal trial arising out of the same conduct.

Fourth, members of the House and Senate are answerable to voters; judges are not. The framers wanted to make sure that the public had a say in impeachment, even if only indirectly.

Like I said, the concerns motivating the framers at the time the nation was founded may not make that much sense more than 200 years later, but changing it (which would require a constitutional amendment) seems an insurmountable hurdle.

[onenote]

19. Tribe seems to be covering all of the bases

On the one hand, he has been saying the House should hold onto the articles of impeachment and not send them to the Senate until McConnell agrees to behave. On the other hand, he says letting the impeachment trial go forward in the Senate with McConnell presiding over a sham process could be good for Democrats and bad for Republicans.