Originally Posted by
fountainpenkid
I truly don't understand this "he can't convict after leaving office" thing. I think Rep. Raskin's argument is as logical as it gets--if we can't convict a president after they've left office, then they could *never* be held accountable for any actions taken in their final days in office, because they will have left the office. And there is precedent for doing it.
Impeachment is a political process to remove an office holder. In the case of the President, it's specifically laid out in the Constitution. It's important for the Constitution to address the President specifically, because the entirety of the executive branch and its powers are derived from that office. Any executive branch official, be it a cabinet secretary or military officer, derives their powers from the office of the President.
Fearing the potential for abuse or some pseudo-monarchy, the framers balanced the executive power against the legislative. The legislature, with 2/3rds majority, can remove the executive (and prevent them from holding office again). That's the sole purpose of impeachment. Not sending someone to jail, not fining them, simply removing them. If the person you want to remove does not hold the office you want to remove them from, what are you doing? In the case of Trump, the Democrats want to prevent him from being eligible to run again. I don't know whether that's petty spite, or fear he could run and win again in 2024. I suspect the latter, although I really hate the thought of him running again (particularly at the age he'll be in 2024).
Your question goes to "being held accountable". What does that mean? Accountable for a crime? There's a process for that too. It involves a prosecutor and court with jurisdiction. Pick a hypothetical crime a President committed on their last day of office, and managed to avoid impeachment. Is it still a committed crime? Has the statute of limitations for that crime run out? Is there a prosecutor to press charges, and a court to hear a case? If so, then that's the appropriate avenue for "holding accountable".
Here's Dershowitz's explanation of impeachment of a private citizen. He's definitely a credible authority, and his integrity and motive is unimpeachable (heh, heh).
Bookmarks