A question I'd like constitutional scholars to address is whether a senator sitting as a juror in an impeachment trial can decide that the standard of proof for conviction is different from that for disqualification from future candidacy and vote for the latter but not the former
As I read Article I, Section 3, the utmost punishment the United States Senate can impose following an impeachment trial is either or both of removal from office and disqualification from future candidacy. It's not clear in the text itself that the two punishments are conjoined.
Of course constitutional scholars will have done substantial research on this subject, and will know the case law on the question—particularly how the Supreme Court has interpreted the punctuation here, which makes it unclear if the possible punishments are conjoined or discrete.
The fact that the votes are separate makes it seem the deliberations are separate, and the fact that senators are permitted to develop their own standard of proof in deliberations would suggest they can set that standard anywhere they like for either potential penalty. @tribelaw
The voice I most want to hear from on this is Prof. Tribe—the most learned constitutional scholar of our time. I think the question matters because it could give Republicans who don't want to find that Trump incited insurrection but believe he must be banned from politics an out.
James offers us some help on this. Perhaps @neal_katyal, another great attorney, will confirm.
The reason this is a key question here is that the distinction for senators won't be between "conviction and removal" and "disbarment," but "conviction" and "disbarment."
On the facts before us, conviction is in the nature of a criminal finding, and disbarment a *civil* finding.
As I know the facts before us are confusing, let me clarify:
(1) A Senate trial will take place—alas—post-1/20. (2) Democrats will be in charge. (3) "Removal" will be moot. (4) The question is if a GOP senator can vote to "disbar" but not "convict." (5) This is a novel scenario.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(1 of 2) Paul Manafort—a longtime associate of Howard Liebengood Sr.—is an exec at Event Strategies, which planned the 1/6 rally that ended with a breach of security at the Capitol, where Howard Liebengood Jr. worked security (USCP). 2 days later Liebengood Jr. committed suicide.
(2 of 2) I believe this is a coincidence. That said, because I don't think Manafort aiding and abetting a rally that ended in insurrection is coincidence, I have to assume that—out of an abundance of caution—law enforcement will investigate any possible Manafort-Liebengood link.
(PS) It is vital that no one presume connections where there may be none. My point is that as a criminal investigative matter, Manafort will be investigated for any role he had in the Save America March, and Liebengood's suicide would naturally be investigated due to its context.
January 6 was an insurrection ensconced in a traveling circus. Many at the Capitol were criminally trespassing, looting, desecrating and shoving, which makes it harder to focus on the far more dangerous, armed core of intruders—still large—which had treasonous mission objectives.
Most arrests so far have involved members of the traveling circus. They committed serious crimes, and will be punished. But I'm far more focused on those who planned to burn ballots, take hostages, steal sensitive equipment, and possibly kill the Vice President and House Speaker.
Media is focusing on the silliest figures in the insurrection—like a guy in a Viking helmet and the guy with Pelosi's lectern. My focus is on the men in tactical gear working with military precision who were armed and carrying zip ties and knew how to get where they needed to go.
Take the 7 *most-used words* in Trump's 1/6 incitement-to-insurrection speech—a speech in which he said he wanted all the people present to go to the Capitol because the country needed to be saved from fraudulent ballots—and you get:
WANT ALL PEOPLE GOING BECAUSE BALLOTS COUNTRY
(PS) The word cloud above includes *only* the words Trump used a dozen times or more in his January 6 speech, and excludes (as word clouds always do) articles and conjunctions.
(PS2) I just think it's interesting to consider the words the Trumpists would've had ringing in their ears the most pre-insurrection. We also see, of course, FIGHT, HELL, ELECTION, FRAUD, NEVER and other words that both focus the attention and are intended to produce raw emotion.
I've now watched almost all of the "Save America March" rally. A number of the speeches I've watched more than once. The number of times Team Trump yells at the mob of Trump fanatics, white supremacists, far-right militiamen and other insurrectionists to "FIGHT!" is *staggering*.
(PS) Many Americans haven't processed yet how strange it is for "FIGHT!" to be the key—clearly *coordinated*—theme of what pretends to be a protest. There was almost *no* talk at the Save America March rally about "making your voice heard." The refrain was, "FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!"
(PS2) Trump—only one of many January 6 speakers—used the term 20 times, along with violent rhetoric throughout his speech. The crowd repeatedly started chants that used (echoed) the word. Other speakers repeatedly used it. Don's mid-rally livestream featured the word prominently.
Without a doubt, one of the darker days in our history.
If it's revealed that the insurrection was not only plotted by Trump allies Biggs, Gosar, and Brooks, but that these men were in league with Trump and his team, it will be the darkest day *domestically* since the Civil War.
(PS) Ali Alexander, who's been photographed with Trump, says he worked with Gosar, Biggs and Brooks on the Capitol march as a means to dramatically delay certification of Biden's win—exactly what Trump lawyer Giuliani called Brooks' Alabama peer Tuberville to do mid-insurrection.
(PS2) There have been *five* major-media reports on Trump's reaction during the insurrection, which achieved the aim (delay) both he and his lawyer had sought to advance in phone calls during the assault: "pleased," "excited," "delighted," "giddy," and "borderline enthusiastic."
BREAKING NEWS: Official U.S. State Department Website Inexplicably Says Donald Trump's Presidency "Ended" at 7:49 PM Tonight (January 11); No Explanation Yet for Bizarre Website Edit
(PS) FWIW, I accessed the site at 3:02 PM ET, so the time in the screenshot above (7:49 PM) is not—as some are saying—UTC time. There may well be a computer glitch here, I don't know. Other screenshots have shown other times. But all are today, and State has not explained it yet.
(PS2) Regardless of time-stamp, it's not clear why the State Department would edit this presidency's official biography in *any* way that would say it ended on January 11—let alone do so on a day the House tried to get the Vice President to become Acting President. It is bizarre.