I pose this question, given the failure to convict of the first Trump impeachment trial, and the near-certain failure to convict of the second Trump impeachment trial. Impeachment appears to be a fruitless exercise in such polarized times.
The Founding Fathers did their best to prevent the President from becoming a monarch, and to restrain the President from autocratic rule. Ex-President Donald Trump has created an untenable situation for our democracy. There appear to be only two avenues for restraint.
FIRST is IMPEACHMENT
Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article 1, Section 3 of the US Constitution states: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
A SITTING PRESIDENT’S AMENABILITY TO INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
from the Dept. of Justice Office of Legal Counsel ; Date of Issuance: October 16, 2000
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
Would the current Supreme Court agree to indictment? If indictment were pursued, such a challenge would be certain, in my opinion.
We are sadly in a post-truth, pre-fascist time. I pose this question to generate discussion.