“The First Amendment does not apply in impeachment proceedings.” If there is a single line that sums up the sense of legal impunity in the second Trump impeachment, it is that line from a letter sent by law professors this week... jonathanturley.org/2021/02/08/the…
...The scholars start by stating the obvious: that there is no First Amendment “defense” that bars the impeachment or conviction a president. They go to great length to contest an argument not in dispute...
...Constitutional rights and values are always relevant to an impeachment. Some of these scholars have emphasized that this is a purely political process where senators have free range on the basis for conviction...
...Notably, the scholar admit that they are divided on the question of whether this is criminal incitement. Thus some of these scholars (like some senators) believe that Trump’s speech might indeed be protected under Brandenburg.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
More heat than light from the defense so far. The team needs to focus on the constitutional claims and history. David Schoen is tearing into the Democrats when the Senate needs argument on the constitutional issues.
...The defense has eaten roughly half of its time without landing a glove on the constitutional questions. Schoen was said to be the one who would present an "erudite" analysis of the constitutional issue.
...It is interesting that the defense team is focusing more on the prudential concerns not the constitutional issues related to retroactive trials. jonathanturley.org/2021/01/29/a-q… Certainly, such prudential arguments might be able to pick up a couple votes.
Raskin just argued that the Senate can clearly try the impeachment because the House properly impeached the president before the end of his term...jonathanturley.org/2021/01/22/the…
...However, that ignores the possibility that you can have a constitutional impeachment but an unconstitutional trial. Raskin cited the British Hasting case. However, the legendary Justice Joseph Story noted that not only is the trial of former officials unconstitutional but...
he expressly noted that this is a point of distinction between American and British impeachments. Story is widely cited as the gold standard on the meaning of the Constitution.
A former law professor, Raskin declared that the decision of Trump not to testify could be cited or used by House managers as an inference of his guilt — a statement that contradicts not just our constitutional principles but centuries of legal writing... jonathanturley.org/2021/02/05/ras…
...The statement was a conflicts with one of the most precious and revered principles in American law that such a refusal to testify cannot be used against an accused party...
...There appears no price too great to pay to impeach or prosecute Trump. If everything is now politics, this trial is little more than a raw partisanship cloaked in constitutional pretense.
The House focuses on how Trump’s speech was interpreted rather than intended. The House seems to prefer to keep the trial on the level of speculation. Indeed, while the article refers to incitement to insurrection, it reads like impeachment for negligence. thehill.com/opinion/judici…
Trump’s view of election fraud is germane, since it is referenced in the impeachment article. However, it is the worst possible defense to advance in the Senate. It doesn’t matter if Trump was right about fraud; it only matters whether he sought a rebellion rather than a recount.
...Many will not accept any contrary conclusions on both sides but I believe the majority would do so. Otherwise, this conversation on Newsmax will be repeated endlessly for years.
There is now a call to not only disqualify dozens of Republicans under the 14th amendment but to put the entire Republican Party on the Domestic Terror List. prospect.org/blogs/tap/put-… With the help of legal experts, rage again triumphs over reason... thehill.com/opinion/judici…
...Legal experts are again insisting that the 14th Amendment can clearly be used in this way. In truth, Trump and these members would have a strong challenge to such disqualification by a simple majority vote. If you believe this was incitement to insurrection, prosecute them...
...There can then be a real trial on real charges with a real verdict. What concerns me is the absence of discussion of the obvious dangers in allowing such votes in Congress to disqualify politicians under the 14th Amendment...
I fail to see how having a "community-approach" to censure is so much better than a corporate approach. foxnews.com/politics/twitt… Majoritarian limits on free speech are nothing new. Indeed, that is the point of free speech protections. You do not need to protect popular speech.
My main concern is still Twitter's expanding censorship of material deemed misleading. The use of community input will be part of this broader effort to identify material deemed misinformation and remove it.