Stopping Trump from defending himself

As Congress plays its silly (and deadly) impeachment game of trying to remove President Donald John Trump after he leaves the presidency, law professor Jonathan Turley gave very bad legal advice.

In a blog post, he told Donald Trump not to defend himself. This is odd legal advice to just accept a default judgment of guilt.

Hmm.

Turley's post reinforces my call for our beloved president to fight the danged thing with all his might.

If Washington is this afraid of the president defending himself, then they know their case is awful.

And it is.

I have no doubt that a vigorous defense will be met with Republicans saying well, I was going to vote to acquit like last time, but he was rude and demanded a real trial. So what? Republicans senators plan to stab him on the way out anyway.

But he has no choice but to defend himself because he must lead by example. The dark winter begins tomorrow. We must be brave.

If the Light Brigade can ride into the Valley of Death, so can Donald Trump.

   Someone had blundered.

   Theirs not to make reply,

   Theirs not to reason why,

   Theirs but to do and die.

   Into the valley of Death

   Rode the six hundred.

As Navy SEALs say, embrace the suck.

This impeachment is unconstitutional, as was the first. The two elements of an impeachment are a criminal act and a defendant who is holding public office. The first impeachment lacked the former, this impeachment will at high noon tomorrow lack the latter.

Nevertheless, Turley and others believe Congress can damned well do as it pleases.

He wrote, "In fairness, people on both sides are struggling to deal with this novel impeachment."

There is no such thing as a novel impeachment. It is either constitutional or it is not. He is of the opinion that an impeachment, which is the removal of a public official, applies to former officials. If so, the House can impeach George Washington or even Barack Obama. The House can be like Mormons baptizing the dead.

I get that there is precedence for impeaching an official who resigned in the face of impeachment, but that doesn't make it right. The Supreme Court held for 58 years that separate-but-equal treatment of citizens is constitutional.

But this impeachment must be dealt with and Turley gave bad advice.

He wrote, "From a purely strategic perspective, I believe Trump may be wise to skip any trial.

"For a notorious counterpuncher, avoiding a fight might be the most difficult decision of all, particularly because he has obvious defenses. First, he was denied due process when the House held an unprecedented “snap impeachment” without a hearing or inquiry even though a trial likely would not occur immediately. Even a one-day hearing would have allowed evidence to be discussed as well as a formal request for a response.

"Second, the impeachment article is poorly crafted and poorly conceived, built around assertions that Trump’s Jan. 6 speech to supporters was an 'incitement to insurrection.' His speech raised potentially impeachable grounds; I condemned it as he gave it and opposed his challenge of electoral votes from the outset. But as I wrote previously, it would have been far better to censure him for it in a bipartisan, bicameral resolution."

After falsely stating an impeachment needs no crime (the Constitution clearly states impeachments are for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors") Turley then stated, "Despite the strength of such defenses, the president must first decide whether he wants to sit for trial at all. He can legitimately argue that a private citizen cannot be impeached and that the Senate cannot remove a person from office who has already left."

Turley's argument for not defending himself is based on another constitutional ignorance.

He wrote, "If the Senate were to convict, he would have standing to challenge any disqualification from future federal offices. He could well prevail, and the Senate would have created a precedent against itself: history’s first judicial reversal of an impeachment verdict."

Impeachments cannot be appealed.

Like presidential pardons, once the Senate acts, that is it.

Surely a law professor should know that impeachments need a criminal allegation and a current officeholder, and a conviction cannot be appealed.

Turley has sided with The Donald in the past, but, over time, anyone in Washington turns into a swamp critter.

Duty calls. If the Senate takes up this impeachment, the president must offer the most vigorous defense this nation has ever seen because once they do this to him, no one is safe.