Johnathan Turley lives in a milieu where the stances he has taken make him a pariah. I bow to his guts.
But even Hadrian was a paragon in comparison with his successors. Charlemagne’s empire was gone, dissolved among the ever-bickering members of his family; without it the popes were left defenseless against the local Roman aristocracy—principally the Crescentii and the Tusculani—who established complete control over the Church and made the Papacy their plaything. Hadrian’s successor, John VIII (872–882), was at least energetic, but he also had the dubious distinction of being the first pope to be assassinated—and, worse still, by priests from his own entourage. According to the Annals of the Abbey of Fulda, they first gave him poison; then, when this failed to act quickly enough, they hammered in his skull. The enthronement of his successor, Marinus I, in 882 is said to have been marked by the murder of a high Roman dignitary, that of Hadrian III two years later by the victim’s widow being whipped naked through the streets. On Hadrian’s death on his way to Germany in 885 foul play was also suspected. The next two popes, Stephen V and Formosus, died in their beds, but on the orders of his successor, Stephen VI,3 the body of Formosus was exhumed in March 896, eight months after his death, clothed in pontifical vestments, propped up on a throne, and subjected to a mock trial on charges of perjury and of coveting the Papacy: he was said to have accepted the see of Rome while still bishop of another diocese (no crime today). Not unpredictably, he was found guilty: all his acts, including his ordinations, were declared null and void, a judgment which caused indescribable confusion; finally his body—minus the three fingers of his right hand that he had used to give blessings—was flung into the Tiber.4
Go here to read the rest.
But the Senate can’t convict someone who isn’t in office and remove them from the office….
Next they’ll be telling us men can be women and women can be men….
Reality doesn’t mean the same for them as it does for most of us.
So now, my question from last week of whether or not John Roberts will preside at the trial of someone who isn’t in office, is even more relevant.
For the Senate to try and convict anyone not holding office at the time of trial and impose any penalty whatsoever is a Bill of Attainder expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Haven’t seen this raised. Am I off base?
I would agree with you, but the courts have not definitively ruled on this issue.
I would not be surprised if the next time a Trump like figure runs for office, the democrats try to impeach him before the election.
Ah the Formosus Rule: Nothing is over until a Cardinal is thrown into the Tiber. Most recently invoked by the Brave Knight Tschugguel who threw the false god pachamama into the Tiber!
It’s not clear that an impeachment of someone out of office would invalid. The very presence in the Constitution of a punishment besides simple removal from office–disqualification from holding any other office in the future–suggests this to be a real possibility.
This cuts both ways, as well. There are calls for Biden to be impeached immediately, based on his conduct while Vice President. That obviously won’t go anywhere, based on the composition of the House and Senate, but it wouldn’t even be possible if post-term impeachments were banned, because Biden no longer holds the office where he committed his offenses–under that theory, Republicans would have to wait for him to do something deserving impeachment as President, first.
By all appearances, Prof. Turley is a fairly conventional academic of a sort common 30-odd years ago. You seen this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFBCHQJBkB8
Mr. Turley proceeds as if academe and the legal profession have a culture similar to what they had when he was admitted to the bar in 1987. His writing is always temperate if on occasion twee.
LV, you may be right, but as to your last point, recall that Dems started introducing impeachment resolutions against Trump immediately upon his inauguration, based on things they alleged he had done prior to the election.
Neither that nor what is now being done makes any sense to me. But I’m not as smart as Nancy and Chuck.
The precedent for impeachments, as I understand it, is that the impeachable offense must be committed while the defendant is in office. Theoretically, you might be able to extend that to offenses committed while campaigning for that office–the theory Democrats were floating, though they never made a serious effort act on it–but even that is a major stretch.