House Manager @RepJerryNadler is brilliantly explaining why Abuse of Power warrants removal from office.
A Senator who says "Abuse of Power is not impeachable" is saying that the Constitution grants the president the power to use his office for corrupt purposes.
1/
A Senator who says "Abuse of Power is not impeachable" is saying that the Constitution grants the president the power to use his office for corrupt purposes.
1/
@RepJerryNadler Yesterday Schiff defined "corrupt" as using the office for self-enrichment and putting the President's personal needs ahead of the nation's.
(The Constitution includes the emoluments clause for a reason)
2/
(The Constitution includes the emoluments clause for a reason)
2/
@RepJerryNadler Looking to the federal criminal code trivializes the process, and overlooks the fact that the president, by virtue of his office, can cheat and steal in a manner unavailable to ordinary citizens.
The federal criminal code applies to ordinary citizens.
3/
The federal criminal code applies to ordinary citizens.
3/
@RepJerryNadler It would make no sense enact criminal statutes that can only apply to one person: The person in the oval office.
The House was smart to stay away from the federal criminal code, which also confuses people into thinking that this is a criminal trial. It is not.
4/
The House was smart to stay away from the federal criminal code, which also confuses people into thinking that this is a criminal trial. It is not.
4/
@RepJerryNadler In a criminal trial, a defendant risks losing liberty, property and (in capital cases) life.
That's why criminal trials have such a high standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt)
The Constitution makes clear that no criminal punishments apply in this trial.
5/
That's why criminal trials have such a high standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt)
The Constitution makes clear that no criminal punishments apply in this trial.
5/
@RepJerryNadler In this trial, Trump risks losing the privilege to be president.
This is not life, liberty, or property.
Trump's defense wants you to think this is like a criminal trial. It is not. The only thing Trump risks losing is the privilege of being President of the United States.
This is not life, liberty, or property.
Trump's defense wants you to think this is like a criminal trial. It is not. The only thing Trump risks losing is the privilege of being President of the United States.
@RepJerryNadler Adding two things to this thread:
Nadler pointed out another reason looking to the federal criminal code for impeachable offenses is nonsensical: This requires anticipating, in advance, how a president might abuse his office, and passing a law against it . . .
Nadler pointed out another reason looking to the federal criminal code for impeachable offenses is nonsensical: This requires anticipating, in advance, how a president might abuse his office, and passing a law against it . . .
@RepJerryNadler . . . presidents are faced with unlimited ways of abusing their power.
Also punishment can extend to inability to ever hold office or trust again.
(This is as far as the punishment can go, but doesn't have to go this far)
Also punishment can extend to inability to ever hold office or trust again.
(This is as far as the punishment can go, but doesn't have to go this far)
@RepJerryNadler Also explains why the burden of proof is lower. It should be easier to remove a corrupt president from office than put someone into the electric chair.
Expect the defense to argue that the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Nope, sorry.
Expect the defense to argue that the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Nope, sorry.
