House Democrats are expected to send the indictment to the Senate soon, but the timing remains unclear. Sources told CNN it could be as early as Friday.
Following the recent indictment of Trump in the House, former U.S. Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote a number of constitutional questions in the Washington Post on January 12: “Congress is losing its constitutional authority to continue the indictment process against Trump to sit after leaving office because “the Senate’s sole power under the Constitution is to condemn a current president – whether or not -.”
Since then, several Republican senators, including Tom Cotton, Joni Ernst and Roger Marshall, said they did not think it would be constitutional to condemn Trump in the Senate after he left office.
Senate Democrat Richard Blumenthal has questioned arguments questioning constitutionality as a false say that “[T]here is nothing in the Constitution that prevents federal officers from being tried after they are removed from office. ‘
Facts first: Given the limited language in the Constitution on indictment, legal experts disagree as to whether the Senate can convict a former president. However, since the Democrats have slim control over the Senate, there is no reason to think that the trial will not proceed.
Under the Constitution, the House can indict a president for ‘treason, bribery or other major crimes and offenses’. Then the Senate holds a hearing and needs a two-thirds majority to condemn and remove the president from office. Another vote would be needed to dissuade the then former president from taking office, but this vote would require only a simple majority.
The Constitution does not specifically deal with the condemnation of a former president, but simply says’ The president, ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” Van Van ” van ” van ” ” “”
Legal experts and precedents
A January 15 report by the Congressional Research Service notes that although the Constitution “does not address the issue directly”, most scholars have concluded that Congress does have the power to accuse and condemn a former president .
In advice to the Washington Post and the New York Times, respectively, Professor Harvard Law School, Laurence Tribe, and Steve Vladeck, CNN legal expert, argue that such a trial is partly constitutional because the role of the Senate in an indictment by two separate countries are defined. judgments: one to remove and then one to disqualify.
Tribe noted that although a former officer like the president can no longer be removed from office, it ‘has no bearing on whether such a former officer may be permanently banned from office after being convicted. ‘.
And according to Vladeck, the Senate’s power to disqualify an individual from future office is ‘the primary proof’ that the trial of a former officer is constitutional.
“Were it otherwise, an officer facing an accusation, or an officer who has already been charged and is about to be removed, would also avoid disqualification by simply resigning,” Vladeck wrote .
Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale University, agreed, and CNN’s Joan Biskupic said: “It would be absurd if you could escape by resigning one step before the hammer.”
Biskupic also reports that Ross Garber, a professor at Tulane Law School who claims that the Senate can only hear a sitting president, nonetheless said that the 1993 precedent, in which Mississippi federal judge Walter Nixon reviewed the Senate’s trial procedures would successfully challenge his indictment. difficult for Trump to find a court that will hear his appeal.
“I think the reasoning of Nixon (case) could be a problem for any Trump process,” Garber told CNN, adding that “it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will stop the Senate in its tracks in a direct Trump.” challenge against its jurisdiction. . “
In addition to the Nixon case, a November 2019 report of the Congressional Research Service – as a precedent – cites the 1876 indictment of War Secretary William W. Belknap, who was tried and acquitted even after resigning. The Senate ultimately maintains its authority to try Belknap, even after his abrupt resignation – although some senators who have given votes to acquit have indicated that they do so because they feel the Senate has no jurisdiction over Belknap once he was no longer in office.
CNN’s Joan Biskupic contributed to this article.