Risk
I didn’t realize that former presidents get intelligence briefings.
Adam Schiff says Trump should be the exception, which seems only prudent.
House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff said Sunday that President Donald Trump should be barred from daily intelligence briefings immediately — and remain cut off from briefings once President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in.
…
Schiff’s comments come a day after Susan Gordon, Trump’s former principal deputy director of national intelligence, penned an op-ed in The Washington Post arguing that Trump must not be briefed on intelligence after Jan. 20.
…
Former presidents typically receive routine intelligence briefings and access to classified information after they have left office.
Schiff added that he thinks U.S. allies withheld information from the Trump administration because “they didn’t trust the president” to protect intelligence, which, in turn, “makes us less safe.”
I say cut him off.
DEFINITELY cut him off. He’s already revealed classified information directly to the Russians. He cannot be trusted.
I believe that being denied intellegence briefings, along with ineligibility to hold Federal office ever again, is just one more of the added benefits of being impeached. Another is reduced Secret Service protection.
I’m good with that.
Being impeached or being convicted? I think he has to be convicted to be barred from running again, which is why the Ds and some Rs want to do it even though he’ll be out of office in 21 hours 22 minutes.
I find it peculiar that we continue to give former presidents intelligence briefings. That seems…odd. Why would they need them?
Two reasons for briefing former presidents come to mind: first, to make them aware of potential threats to themselves; and second, because they may be able to provide some context or historical insight to the current president. Clearly the second wouldn’t apply to Trump, and honestly, who cares about the first in his case.
Given how irksome Trump thought those briefings were — and how minimal his poor aides therefore had to make them — he was probably looking forward to their being gone. But now that he’s been made aware of their continued existence by Someone He Dislikes, he’ll probably fight tooth and nail to keep them and even start thinking of ways to exploit them to his advantage.
Thanks, Schiff. Now you made it a problem.
Given that Mitch McConnell has just tipped the full can over him, (I can’t imagine why) I would say revenge would likely be uppermost in what passes for Trump’s mind.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-20/us-politics-updates-live-biden-inauguration-trump-last-day/13070994
A lot of things are getting blurred together here regarding what a former president is entitled to, what is granted as courtesy, and how conviction by the Senate would affect these. Let me try to separate them out:
1) Security briefings. As noted in the article linked in the OP, security briefings to former presidents are a matter of courtesy within the discretion of the current president. Biden can revoke it unilaterally for any former president if he chooses. I don’t know offhand whether or not, in the unlikely event that the Senate convicts Trump but Biden chooses not to terminate his briefings, if he would lose his clearance as a matter of law — it strikes me as unlikely, and it’s too remote a hypothetical to worry about. Incidentally, note that the scope of the briefings is also within Biden’s discretion, so he could choose to have Trump given “security briefings” that are superficial and of no consequence, or that are limited to specific issues (e.g. threats to the Trump family).
2) Pension, office and travel allowance. The Former Presidents Act, 3 U.S.C. 102, provides an annual pension and allowance for office and travel expenses to “former presidents,” which is defined for the purposes of that section as (among other criteria) “whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America.” Which is interesting wording, because while Trump would clearly forfeit these entitlements if he was convicted and removed from office today (the 19th), any post-presidency conviction would not “terminate” his presidency, so I think the better reading is that he would receive these benefits under the statute. Of course, this is just a statute, and Congress could amend it. There is, I suppose, an argument that the Constitution’s provision that a conviction can extend to “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” would apply to these benefits, but I don’t know if these benefits really qualify as an “office.”
3) Secret Service Protection. 18 U.S.C. 3056 lists who is eligible for Secret Service protection, which under (a)(3) includes “former presidents.” But this section contains no clause disqualifying presidents who were removed from office, so Trump would get lifetime protection (as will Melania unless she remarries; children only get it until they turn 16, so Barron still has a year or so) — again, unless Congress amends the statute. (They can decline it if they so choose.) And again, I suppose you could make the constitutional argument here, but that strikes me as really strained.
So conviction by the Senate is significant to whether he can hold future office, and of course has important symbolic value, but it’s debatable whether it would automatically have any other effects. But those other effects can be accomplished through Presidential discretion or an Act of Congress.
Me: “They’re expecting Trump’s farewell address to be broadcast in the next half hour or so.”
Him: “Are the broadcasters fighting over who gets to air it?”
Me: “They’re drawing straws at the moment. The loser gets to broadcast it.”
Cut him off? He never wanted them in the first place. Show him reruns of “The Apprentice”. Let him relive his happy past away form the bothers of the world.
It actually makes sense for at least the immediate past President to get some sort of security briefing for a time, simply because they may have relevant invites or advice to offer. Trump, not so much.
Screechy, would the pension and travel allowance not be considered a ‘profit’?
Probably irrelevant in any case as before determining the punishment phase (simple majority vote), the Senate has to convict (2/3 vote). Trump will have to do something heinous to get that bunch of cowards and arseholes to turn on him.
Looks like YouTube drew the short straw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h5_d3DUdR4
Thank you for the clarification. I think I was faithfully reproducing information from sourceswhich were incorrect. I will try to not do that in future. I would rather not become known as a purveyor of alternative facts!
Rob,
Well, remember that the “profit” part modifies “office.” In other words, the disqualification is from holding an “office” that is either a “office of honor,” an “office of trust,” or an “office of profit.” If you’re suggesting that a disqualified person cannot receive any profit from the United States, i.e. that Trump couldn’t, for example, do any business with the government, I don’t think that’s an accepted interpretation.
Incidentally, in looking for some answer on this, I came across a discussion of whether even the presidency would qualify as an “office of honor, trust, or profit,” though it seems pretty clear to me.
But we’re operating in a realm of very limited precedents here. No president has ever been convicted by the Senate, so you have to look at things like judges or other officers who were removed, or similar provisions in state constitutions, or else historical understandings from British practice, etc. So I’m not about to make any authoritative pronouncements on this, and I would be suspicious of anyone who does, though of course there are scholars who know this area and would be on firmer ground than me.
Oh, something else I came across was an old (1975) law review article arguing that Congress couldn’t amend the statute to deprive a former president of pension benefits that had already vested because it would violate the prohibitions on bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, and/or substantive due process. I didn’t scrutinize it so I have no opinion on how good that argument is, but for the sake of completeness I’ll note that there’s some uncertainty on that point as well.
I thought that conviction didn’t automatically lead to barring from running again, but that it was a condition the Senate could apply in its ruling?
Arcadia,
It would take just a majority vote to bar him from office if the Senate convicts him. If they can scrounge up 67 votes to convict him, they should have no trouble getting at least 50 votes (+Harris as tiebreaker) to bar him from office.
I agree with What a Maroon, except that there’s an interesting question about who actually would break a 50-50 tie in an impeachment trial.
Normally the Vice President can cast the tiebreaking vote when the Senate is evenly divided, in her role as “President of the Senate” under Article I. But Article I also states that when the president is being tried, the Chief Justice “shall preside.” It doesn’t specify that the Chief shall break ties.
So would a tie vote in a presidential impeachment trial (1) be broken by the Chief Justice; (2) be broken by the VP; or (3) be broken by the VP but only if the Chief Justice declines to do so? Hard to say. There is historical precedent here — during the trial of Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Salmon Chase broke ties on some procedural votes, over the objections of some senators who said he lacked the authority to do so. I believe the Senate Rules give the CJ that authority now, but of course the Senate is not free to make rules that violate the Constitution, so it’s still debatable.
This was a potential issue in the first Trump impeachment trial, over questions like whether to subpoena Bolton or other witnesses, but as I recall no such tie votes occurred. It was generally assumed that Roberts would have declined to vote and left the motion at 50-50 and thereby defeated. (Which would moot the question of the VP, since Pence surely wasn’t going to attempt to assert a right to break a tie in favor of the Democrats.)
Isn’t this all fun?
Captain Bonespurs should be given all the credit due to him for that, given that yesterday he could have lobbed a nuke or two on Tehran; or persuaded the North Koreans to do it for him.
.
https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/joe-biden-inauguration-what-donald-trump-doesnt-want-you-to-see/live-coverage/443846c0c34e58818dc7c84b3d5877ad
Ah, good point, Screechy Monkey.
Screechy, doesn’t the Constitution give each House the pretty much unfettered power to make their own governing rules? I’m in no way an expert, but my reading of the clause suggests that the Senate and House rules are pretty much beyond the reach of the Courts.
Rob,
Yes, provided, as I said, that they don’t violate the Constitution.
So the Senate is free to make a rule that you must wear a mask in the Senate Chamber right now, or that speeches are limited to 5 minutes per member, or that it takes a 3/5 majority to invoke cloture, or that voting remains open for 1 hour, etc. But the Senate isn’t free to make a rule that says that you can be a Senator if you’re less than 30 years old, because that’s a constitutional requirement, or that you can expel a Senator on a majority vote (because the Constitution says 2/3).
So if you interpret the Constitution as meaning that the VP casts the tiebreaking vote in all Senate matters, even including presidential impeachment trials, then the Senate can’t make a rule giving that power to the Chief Justice, any more than the Senate could pass a rule saying that Sean Hannity gets to break all ties. Conversely, if you interpret the Constitution as conferring a tiebreaking vote on the Chief, then the rule is superfluous.
If it’s in between — the Constitution neither prohibits giving the CJ the tiebreaker nor requires it — then yes, absolutely the Senate rule matters.
Thanks, Screechy!