02-02-2021, 09:55 PM
When President Trump was repeatedly calling for his followers to not accept the results of the election using blatant lies to rally them to his cause, was he acting as a private citizen or as President?
As a private citizen, he would have had to be indicted and would/should be exclusively held to the standards of legal definitions and practices of crimes involving incitement.
But the House isn't charging him as a private citizen, they are charging as President. A president that took an oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The House and the Senate were following the Constitution by having the votes required by the Constitution on January 6. What Constitutional purpose was Trump performing in having a rabble go to the Capital? He clearly sent them there to disrupt a Constitutional process. And not just any process, but the Constitutional process that would lead to the peaceful transfer of power. That is an absolutely necessary thing for our democracy to continue. Trump broke his oath of office in a fundamentally unconstitutional way by sending that mob to the Capital and that is why he should be convicted.
Never-the-less, Trump's lawyers will try to make it the case that in an impeachment, the charges should only be framed in the same definitions and legal practices as if he were an indicted private citizen.
Most Republican Senators just want to put it behind them without saying something ridiculous or ticking off the base so they were totally primed to take the "it's not constitutional" off ramp. Leadership got a famous lawyer to meet with the caucus and tell them that, "oh yeah, it's totally unconstitutional" and then they could hardly wait to jump on the Rand Paul bandwagon and ride it to the off ramp.
As a private citizen, he would have had to be indicted and would/should be exclusively held to the standards of legal definitions and practices of crimes involving incitement.
But the House isn't charging him as a private citizen, they are charging as President. A president that took an oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The House and the Senate were following the Constitution by having the votes required by the Constitution on January 6. What Constitutional purpose was Trump performing in having a rabble go to the Capital? He clearly sent them there to disrupt a Constitutional process. And not just any process, but the Constitutional process that would lead to the peaceful transfer of power. That is an absolutely necessary thing for our democracy to continue. Trump broke his oath of office in a fundamentally unconstitutional way by sending that mob to the Capital and that is why he should be convicted.
Never-the-less, Trump's lawyers will try to make it the case that in an impeachment, the charges should only be framed in the same definitions and legal practices as if he were an indicted private citizen.
Most Republican Senators just want to put it behind them without saying something ridiculous or ticking off the base so they were totally primed to take the "it's not constitutional" off ramp. Leadership got a famous lawyer to meet with the caucus and tell them that, "oh yeah, it's totally unconstitutional" and then they could hardly wait to jump on the Rand Paul bandwagon and ride it to the off ramp.