lawyer who said don't send impeachment

Do you have to hold office to be impeached?

"The constitutional provision requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached.

Can trump be impeached if he is no longer president?

Those provisions do not apply to Trump, "since he is no longer 'President,'" his lawyers say. "The constitutional provision requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached.

Which branch of the government has the power of impeachment?

The Constitution gives the House the "sole Power of Impeachment" and the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments," while limiting the penalties to "removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."

Was Trump's speech incitement to riot or free speech?

The House managers suggest that Trump's speech, during which he also warned that "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore," legally qualified as incitement to riot and exceeded the bounds of free speech as described by the Supreme Court in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Which amendment does Trump have to be removed?

Another of the whistleblower's attorneys, Andrew Bakaj, tweeted in August 2017 that Trump should be removed under the 25th Amendment, which applies to incapacitated presidents.

What did Zaid say about Trump?

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president." Also that month, Zaid tweeted, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters."

Did the whistleblower advise a candidate?

Zaid and the other whistleblower attorneys did assert that the whistleblower "has never worked for or advised a political candidate, campaign or party" -- leaving open the possibility that the whistleblower did advise a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate prior to his or her run for office.

Did Zaid contact the candidates?

Zaid acknowledged in a statement in October that his client "has come into contact with presidential candidates from both parties" -- but insisted that the contact involved the politicians' roles as "elected officials – not as candidates."

Did Bill Taylor say Trump wanted to use military aid?

diplomat Bill Taylor in which he claimed to have a “clear understanding” that Trump wanted to leverage military aid to Ukraine in return for investigations that could benefit him politically -- while acknowledging he didn't have firsthand knowledge of "what was in the president's mind."

Who is Gregg Re?

Gregg Re is producer of "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on the Fox News Channel. He has an A.B. from Georgetown University and a J.D. from New York University School of Law, where he edited the Law Review. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re or email him at gregory.re@fox.com.

Did Zaid call for whistleblowers?

Zaid also had something of an open casting call for whistleblowers on Twitter as Trump took office, writing that CIA employees should "come to" his law firm "to lawfully challenge" the new president.

Who voted to impeach Trump?

Here is how Rep. Liz Cheney (R–Wyo.), the third-ranking Republican in the House and one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, interpreted the events of that day: "The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution." Sen. Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), then the Senate majority leader, agreed that "the mob was fed lies" and "provoked by the president."

Why can't Trump be tried in the Senate?

Responding to Donald Trump's impeachment in a 14-page brief filed today, his lawyers argue that he cannot be tried by the Senate because he is no longer president and that his promotion of the baseless claim that Joe Biden stole the presidential election, which inspired hundreds of his followers to launch a deadly attack on the Capitol last month, was protected by the First Amendment. And by the way, they say, there is "insufficient evidence" to conclusively determine that Trump's wild claims of massive election fraud were false.

Did Trump challenge Biden's election?

While Trump indisputably had a right to challenge the election results in court, the House managers note, the scores of lawsuits he and his allies filed were almost uniformly unsuccessful and never came close to changing the outcome. Instead of accepting the result, Trump continued to insist for months that he had actually won by a landslide, a fact he said would be apparent but for an elaborate criminal conspiracy that involved tricky election software and massive paper-ballot fraud.

Did Trump say his pre-riot speech was appropriate?

Trump nevertheless told reporters his pre-riot speech was "totally appropriate." According to his lawyers' brief, he simply "expressed his opinion that the election results were suspect." To the extent that the impeachment "alleges his opinion is factually in error," they say, Trump "denies this allegation." More generally, the brief says, Trump after the election "exercised his First Amendment right" to "express his belief that the election results were suspect, since with very few exceptions, under the convenient guise of Covid-19 pandemic 'safeguards,' states' election laws and procedures were changed by local politicians or judges without the necessary approvals from state legislatures."

Does the impeachment clause apply to Trump?

Those provisions do not apply to Trump, "since he is no longer 'President,'" his lawyers say. "The constitutional provision requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached. Since the 45th President is no longer 'President,' the clause 'shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for…' is impossible for the Senate to accomplish, and thus the current proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio as a legal nullity that runs patently contrary to the plain language of the Constitution." They also argue that "removal from office by the Senate of the President is a condition precedent which must occur before, and jointly with, 'disqualification' to hold future office," meaning that a Senate trial cannot be justified by the possibility of disqualifying Trump from future federal office.

Is Trump's acquittal a foregone conclusion?

Since Trump's acquittal seems to be a foregone conclusion, I'm not sure how clear a message the trial will send on that score. But there is value in laying out the details of this shameful and horrifying episode. Even if only a handful of Republicans favor conviction, a bipartisan vote will signal that Trump did much more, and much worse, than express an opinion.

Is the Senate authorized to try Trump?

Trump's argument that the Senate is not authorized to try him focuses on the constitutional text, which says the president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The Constitution gives the House the "sole Power of Impeachment" and the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments," while limiting the penalties to "removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."