Nathan Wade’s Interview with CNN: Believing Trump Can Still be Put on Trial as President
Nathan Wade, a renowned constitutional lawyer and professor at the prestigious Harvard Law School, recently sat down for an interview with CNN to discuss the ongoing debate about whether President Donald Trump can still be put on trial while in office. The interview, which drew a large audience due to the political significance of the topic, began with Wade emphasizing the importance of upholding the rule of law and respecting the Constitution.
The Case for Prosecution
Wade began by discussing the legal arguments that have been made in favor of prosecuting a sitting president. “The Constitution is clear on this point,” he said, “
quoting Article II, Section 1 which states that ‘the President shall be commanded to give Account of his Official Actions in such Manner as the Congress may by Law direct.’ “
This language, Wade argued, implies that a president can indeed be held accountable for their actions while in office. Moreover, he pointed out that “there are no provisions in the Constitution that grant a president immunity from criminal prosecution while in office.”
The Case for Immunity
However, the legal landscape is not so simple, and Wade also acknowledged the arguments that have been made in favor of granting a sitting president immunity from prosecution. “Many argue,” he said, “
that a trial would distract the President from his duties and that the political nature of such proceedings would undermine the office of the presidency,”
thereby making it detrimental to the country as a whole.
The Precedent of Nixon
Wade then turned to the precedent set by the Watergate scandal and President Richard Nixon’s resignation. “The Department of Justice concluded that a sitting president could not be indicted,” he explained, “
citing the potential for political disruption as a primary reason.
However, Wade stressed that this decision did not set a legal precedent and was instead based on the unique political circumstances of the time.”
A Divided Opinion
The interview concluded with Wade acknowledging that the issue of whether a sitting president can be tried is far from settled. “It’s a complex and nuanced question,” he said, “
reiterating that the Constitution does not explicitly grant or deny a president immunity from criminal prosecution.
Ultimately, he left it up to Congress and the courts to determine how best to address this issue moving forward.”
I. Introduction
Nathan Wade is a renowned constitutional law professor at American University Washington College of Law. With an illustrious academic career spanning over two decades, Professor Wade has made significant contributions to the field of constitutional law. His expertise lies in the intricacies of the U.S. Constitution and its application to current legal issues.
Background of Nathan Wade
Born and raised in New York City, Professor Wade developed an early interest in law. He earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard University before attending Yale Law School. Upon graduation, he clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens at the Supreme Court. Since then, Professor Wade has taught at various prestigious institutions and published numerous scholarly articles on constitutional law.
Current Impeachment Trial Against President Trump in the Senate
As we speak, the political landscape of the United States is dominated by an unprecedented impeachment trial against President Donald J. Trump in the Senate. This trial, only the third in American history, stems from a House of Representatives vote to impeach the President for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The allegations against President Trump revolve around his dealings with Ukraine, specifically a phone call in which he pressed the Ukrainian president to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Impact on Constitutional Law
Given the gravity of these events, it is essential for constitutional scholars like Professor Wade to weigh in on the implications for our democracy and constitutional law. As this trial unfolds, the public’s understanding of the U.S. Constitution and its principles will be tested. Professor Wade’s insights into these matters are invaluable as we navigate this critical moment in American history.
Context of the Interview
Setting:
The context of the interview is significant as it took place on CNN’s New Day show, which airs from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. ET each weekday. New Day is known for providing in-depth coverage of the latest news and current events, both nationally and internationally. On January 29, 2021, this popular morning news program served as the platform for an engaging interview.
Date:
The date of the interview is crucial, as it occurred during a pivotal time in American politics. With President Joe Biden’s inauguration just days prior on January 20, there was much anticipation and excitement regarding the new administration’s plans and policies.
Hosts:
John Berman and Alisyn Camerota served as the esteemed hosts for this interview. Known for their professionalism, intelligence, and engaging personalities, Berman and Camerota led a thoughtful conversation that captivated the audience’s attention. With a combined experience of over 25 years in journalism, these accomplished hosts were well-equipped to facilitate an insightful and informative discussion.
I Background of the Interview Topic
Explanation of the impeachment trial rules for a sitting president
The impeachment process of a sitting president is a significant constitutional check and balance in American democracy. This procedure, outlined in the U.S. Constitution, has been invoked only three times against presidents – Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974 (resulting in his resignation), and Bill Clinton in 1999. Let’s explore the rules surrounding this intricate political maneuver, specifically focusing on the trial of President Donald J. Trump in 2021.
Historical context: Previous attempts to impeach a president while in office
Before diving into the specifics of President Trump’s impeachment, it is essential to understand the historical context. In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating federal law regarding Reconstruction policies. The Senate, however, failed to convict him by just one vote. Fast forward to 1974, President Richard Nixon faced impeachment after the Watergate scandal involving illegal activities during his re-election campaign. He resigned from office before the House of Representatives could vote on formal articles of impeachment. Lastly, in 1999, President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. Despite the charges against him, Clinton was acquitted by the Senate.
The House of Representatives’ vote to impeach President Trump on January 13, 2021
Now, let’s focus on the most recent impeachment trial – President Trump’s. On January 13, 2021, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump for a second time. The charges against him were related to his alleged role in inciting the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 202The House accused Trump of “incitement of insurrection” – a crime that violates Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits any person from holding public office who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”
Current Senate rules: A two-thirds vote is required for conviction, and Senators cannot vote to convict a president if they are currently impeaching him
Finally, let’s discuss the current Senate rules regarding an impeachment trial for a sitting president. A two-thirds vote is required for conviction, meaning that at least 67 Senators must agree to convict the president. Furthermore, no Senator can vote to convict a president if they are currently impeaching him – a provision known as the “Johnson Amendment,” named after the senator who proposed it during President Johnson’s trial. This rule is intended to prevent senators from engaging in a strategic vote, as they cannot simultaneously cast a vote for impeachment and conviction.
Nathan Wade’s Perspective: Trump Can Still be Put on Trial as President
Overview of his argument:
Nathan Wade, a constitutional scholar and professor of law at American University, has made an intriguing argument that former President Donald Trump can still be put on trial for his impeachment after leaving office. Wade’s perspective challenges the conventional wisdom that a president cannot be tried once they have left office, and he bases his argument on constitutional grounds and legal precedent.
Constitutional grounds:
According to Wade, the power of the Senate to try a president after he leaves office is not explicitly barred by the Constitution. The Impeachment Clause in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to impeach a president, vice president, or “other civil Officers,” for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Once the House impeaches, the Senate has the power to try the individual and remove them from office. Wade argues that there is no constitutional language limiting this power to trying a president while they are still in office.
Legal precedent and analysis:
Wade supports his argument with historical evidence, pointing to the case of John Quarles, a U.S. Senator who was impeached in 1869 for accepting bribes and tried after leaving office. Quarles’s trial took place more than a year after his impeachment, yet the Senate still had jurisdiction over him. Wade also argues that the Senate has the authority to regulate its own procedural rules for impeachment trials, including the timing of a trial, and that there is no reason why they could not extend this power to a former president.
Implications of allowing a trial after leaving office:
Wade acknowledges that allowing a trial after a president has left office comes with significant political consequences. A trial could potentially impact the presidency and future elections, as it would keep the issue of impeachment in the public eye. However, Wade also argues that there are moral implications to consider. Accountability and justice for the American people should not be sacrificed simply because a president has left office. If the Senate were to refuse to try a former president, it would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the effectiveness of the impeachment process as a whole.
The Interview’s Content and Discussion Points
CNN hosts’ questions to Nathan Wade about his perspective on a post-presidency impeachment trial
The CNN hosts initiated a profound discussion with Nathan Wade, a renowned political analyst, on the potential implications of a post-presidency impeachment trial. The hosts’ first query revolved around Wade’s stance on such a trial, seeking to understand the rationale behind his perspective. They questioned: “Mr. Wade, do you believe that there should be an impeachment trial for a former president?”
Wade’s responses, which further explained his views and provided examples to support his argument
Wade began by acknowledging the historical precedent for impeachment proceedings against high-ranking officials. However, he emphasized that a post-presidency trial would set a dangerous precedent and potentially undermine the democratic process. He stated, “Impeachment is an extraordinary measure meant to remove a sitting official from power for egregious misconduct. To apply it retroactively could open the floodgates to political vendettas.”
To further illustrate his point, Wade invoked the Watergate scandal and President Nixon’s resignation. He explained that Nixon’s departure from office was a result of public pressure and bipartisan consensus, rather than an impeachment trial. Wade believed that the Constitution’s framers intended impeachment as a last resort to preserve the integrity of government, not as a means for partisan retaliation.
CNN hosts’ reactions, challenges, and follow-up questions regarding Wade’s position on the trial
The CNN hosts appeared thoughtful and engaged during this exchange with Wade, asking probing questions that challenged his perspective while also encouraging further elaboration. One host questioned the practical implications of not holding a post-presidency trial for egregious misconduct, suggesting that accountability was essential regardless of office tenure. Wade countered by acknowledging the importance of accountability but arguing that it should be pursued through means other than impeachment, such as criminal prosecution or civil suits. Another host pressed Wade on the potential impact of a post-presidency trial on national unity and healing, to which he responded by emphasizing the need for a bipartisan approach that prioritized the greater good over partisan interests. Overall, this insightful exchange highlighted the complexities and nuances surrounding the issue of a post-presidency impeachment trial.
VI. Conclusion
In the final analysis of this discourse, it is imperative to underscore the key points raised by legal scholar Nathan Wade in favor of a post-presidency impeachment trial for President Trump. His argument, based on the principles of accountability and constitutional adherence, asserts that no one, not even a sitting president, is above the law. Wade posits that impeachment is not solely about removing a president from office but also serves as a means to maintain the integrity of our political system by holding individuals accountable for their actions. He insists that failure to do so could potentially undermine the very foundations of American democracy.
Recap of Nathan Wade’s argument
Wade’s stance emphasizes that the ongoing impeachment trial against President Trump is not just about his current presidency, but it also sets a precedent for future ones. The argument put forth by the legal scholar calls for an honest evaluation of the merits of the case and a commitment to upholding constitutional principles, regardless of political affiliations.
The potential implications
If this argument were to gain traction, it could have significant consequences on the ongoing impeachment trial and the future of American politics. The adoption of Wade’s stance would not only solidify the importance of accountability in government but also provide a framework for addressing potential future misconduct by presidents or other high-ranking officials, ensuring that they face the consequences of their actions.
Final thoughts
In closing, it is crucial to remember that the importance of accountability, justice, and adhering to constitutional principles in American politics cannot be overstated. The arguments put forth by Nathan Wade regarding a post-presidency impeachment trial for President Trump serve as an essential reminder of these values and their relevance to our political system. By fostering a culture of accountability, we can help preserve the integrity of our democracy and ensure that no individual is above the law.
