People who have been reading my blog for a while know that I’ve been very resistant to using criminal law in the political arena. I’ve often argued that punishment doesn’t gain the desired results and that political problems can’t be solved through the criminal justice system.
But Wednesday crossed a line, particularly given the new information that is emerging. It appears that the storming of the Capitol was coordinated and planned from the White House. One person suggested that they were hoping to pull a Roger-Stone-2000 trick where Stone orchestrated an angry crowd in Florida while the votes were being counted and pressured officials (and the Supreme Court) to stop the vote. It seems that Trump thought if his people applied enough pressure and created enough chaos while Congress was counting the electoral votes, everyone would give in and give the 10-day extension he demanded.
In other words, this time, prosecutors will have sufficient evidence of collusion (a coordinated conspiracy).
We all wondered when it would happen: When Trump’s behavior would become so egregious that the Republican Party would at last split into two pieces: Those who still want to align with Trump and those who want rule of law.
For a quick summary of the kind of evidence coming out, see this video:
Today the House circulated a new draft of the Articles of Impeachment, this time naming Incitement of Insurrection.
This is not a criminal trial, so the standard of proof for a criminal trial does not apply. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt comes into play in a criminal trial because a defendant can lose liberty, property, or even life. This is about losing a job.
It’s much harder to fire a president than a person in a regular job because the job itself was obtained through Constitutional procedure (a nationwide vote) but it makes no sense for it to be as hard to remove a president as it is to get a criminal conviction.
Voting earlier on impeachment will not make another riot less likely.
Impeachment requires a majority vote in the House.
Impeachment is followed by a Senate Trial.
Conviction + Removal requires 2/3 of the Senate.
The best situation is for Trump to resign. Pelosi wants to give Trump the chance to resign, or Pence the chance to evoke the 25th. Why are these options better? They avoid a Senate trial, which I absolutely guarantee will be a painful circus. If you want to know what I mean by circus, check out the speech Matt Gaetz made in the Senate on Wednesday. You see, in a trial, Trump is entitled to a defense, which means passionate grandstanding. Like this:
Waiting has another advantage as well. It allows time for impeachment and removal to build support. More crazy evidence is coming out, more big-name Republicans are signing on.
The drafters of the Constitution deliberately made it hard to actually remove a president. Given the high bar (2/3 of the Senate) removal can’t happen without a groundswell of support.
A day or two allows the support to build.
This is going insanely fast. The only reason the process can move as quickly as it is right now is because (1) the crime was filmed, so an evidence-gathering deposition stage isn’t needed, (2) a groundswell of support is gathering, and of course (3) a shocking crime.
Because of course, Nancy Pelosi has the power to get Trump out of office right now, if only she would use it.
[I typed that in the sarcasm font]
Are men expected to have such superpowers, and then get trashed when they don’t?
There are only two ways to force Trump out quickly: 2/3 of the Senators send him the message that he leaves or gets removed, or Pence threatens the 25th Amendment.
Pelosi doesn’t have a magic wand.
