Just another opinion,
Bob Kasprak=============================
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Russell <ericprussell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Uupretirees Yahoogroups <uupretirees@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, Feb 8, 2021 11:37 am
Subject: [uupretirees] It's a question of whether or not a case is limited by
time remaining in office
#yiv8881298267 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}And whether there should be
consequences for seditious acts. Eric
Breaking With G.O.P., Top Conservative Lawyer Says Trump Can Stand Trial
Charles J. Cooper, a stalwart of the conservative legal establishment, said
that Republicans were wrong to assert that it is unconstitutional for a former
president to be tried for impeachable offenses.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Charles J. Cooper made his argument two days before the Senate was set to
start former President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment trial.Credit...Jim
Wilson/The New York Times By Michael S. Schmidt
- Feb. 7, 2021
One of Washington’s leading conservative constitutional lawyers publicly
broke on Sunday with the main Republican argument against convicting former
President Donald J. Trump in his impeachment trial, asserting that an
ex-president can indeed be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors.In an opinion
piece posted on The Wall Street Journal’s website, the lawyer, Charles J.
Cooper, who is closely allied with top Republicans in Congress, dismissed as
illogical the claim that it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial
for a former president. The piece came two days before the Senate was set to
start the proceeding, in which Mr. Trump is charged with “incitement of
insurrection” in connection with the deadly assault on the Capitol by his
supporters on Jan. 6.Since the rampage, Republicans have made little effort to
excuse Mr. Trump’s conduct, but have coalesced behind the legal argument about
constitutionality as their rationale for why he should not be tried, much less
convicted. Their theory is that because the Constitution’s penalty for an
impeachment conviction is removal from office, it was never intended to apply
to a former president, who is no longer in office.Many legal scholars disagree,
and the Senate has previously held an impeachment trial of a former official —
though never a former president. But 45 Republican senators, including Mitch
McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader who is said to believe that Mr.
Trump committed impeachable offenses, voted last month to dismiss the trial as
unconstitutional on those grounds. ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main
storyMr. Cooper said they were misreading the Constitution.“The provision cuts
against their interpretation,” he wrote. He argued that because the
Constitution allows the Senate to bar officials convicted of impeachable
offenses from holding public office again in the future, “it defies logic to
suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former
officeholders.”Mr. Cooper’s decision to take on the argument was particularly
significant because of his standing in conservative legal circles. He was a
close confidant and adviser to Senate Republicans, like Ted Cruz of Texas when
he ran for president, and represented House Republicans — including the
minority leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California — in a lawsuit
against Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He is also the lawyer for conservative stalwarts
like John R. Bolton and Jeff Sessions, and over his career defended
California’s same-sex marriage ban and had been a top outside lawyer for the
National Rifle Association.But Mr. Cooper, who is said to be dismayed by the
unwillingness of House and Senate Republicans to hold Mr. Trump accountable,
took on the main claim made by his own confidants and clients, offering a
series of scholarly and technical arguments for why the Constitution allows for
a former president to stand trial.It was unclear whether Mr. Cooper’s opinion
would have any influence on the outcome of the trial. It could provide cover to
Republican senators open to convicting Mr. Trump who were caught off guard by
last month’s vote, forced by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, to effectively
dismiss the case as unconstitutional. Some Republicans have since said they did
not necessarily mean to signal that they were opposed to hearing the case, or
had made up their minds about Mr. Trump’s guilt.Seventeen Republicans would
have to join with all 50 Democrats to reach the two-thirds threshold necessary
to convict Mr. Trump — something that appears to be exceedingly unlikely.
Editors’ Picks
‘Saturday Night Live’ Throws a Super Bowl Party With Host Dan Levy
The Working Woman’s Anthem ‘9 to 5’ Needed an Update. But This?
How the Pandemic Is Coming to Prime Time (or Not)
Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main
storyBut Mr. Cooper seemed to be working to change minds. He wrote in his
opinion piece that in the short time since the vote, legal experts’
understanding of the issue had evolved and “exposed the serious weakness of Mr.
Paul’s analysis.”“The senators who supported Mr. Paul’s motion,” he wrote,
“should reconsider their view and judge the former president’s misconduct on
the merits.”The question of constitutionality could come to a head quickly when
the trial opens on Tuesday. Though Senate leaders were still debating the
precise structure of the trial, prosecutors and Mr. Trump’s defense team were
preparing for the possibility that Mr. Paul or another senator could force a
second vote on the question on the opening day, before either side gets into
their full presentations.Mr. Cooper has a deep and long history in the
conservative legal movement. He grew up in Alabama, and despite not attending
an Ivy League law school, landed a clerkship for Justice William H. Rehnquist
in 1978 before he became the chief justice, and at a time when Justice
Rehnquist was considered the most conservative member of the court.Mr. Cooper
went on to become the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel
during the Reagan administration, writing several highly conservative and
controversial interpretations of the law, including one about whether employers
could decline to hire someone who may have AIDS.As a private lawyer, he has
defended issues like school prayer and was an active member in the Federalist
Society. In 2010, when the Republican National Lawyers Association named him
the Republican lawyer of the year, there were three speakers for Mr. Cooper:
Mr. Bolton; the head of the N.R.A., Wayne LaPierre; and Ed Meese, an attorney
general under Ronald Reagan who was considered among the most conservative in
the department’s history.In the early days of the Trump administration, Mr.
Cooper — who is longtime friends with Mr. Sessions — was considered to be the
solicitor general. But Mr. Cooper remained in private practice, becoming the
lawyer for Mr. Sessions as he was enmeshed in controversy related to the Russia
investigation. In the second half of the Trump presidency, Mr. Cooper
represented Mr. Bolton and his deputy, Charles Kupperman, in the first
impeachment trial of Mr. Trump.Mr. Cooper has continued to represent Mr. Bolton
as the Justice Department has sued him to recoup money he made from a damning
book he published about Mr. Trump.Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.
Michael S. Schmidt is a Washington correspondent covering national security and
federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in
2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment and the other for
coverage of President Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia. @NYTMikeA
version of this article appears in print on Feb. 8, 2021, Section A, Page 13 of
the New York edition with the headline: A G.O.P. Legal Ace Rebuts Trump’s Case.
Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
-
-
