executive power

Professor William C. Banks Discusses Trump’s Second Impeachment with China Daily

Senators OK trial to impeach Trump

(China Daily | Feb. 11, 2021) Opening arguments in the historic second impeachment trial of former US president Donald Trump will start Wednesday after the Senate voted to approve its constitutionality, but a conviction will be “highly unlikely”, experts say.

Six Republicans joined all the Democrats in the Senate to vote in favor of allowing the first trial of a former president to take place …

… A Senate conviction requires a two-thirds majority, but it is highly unlikely that 67 senators will line up against the former president, according to William Banks, distinguished professor emeritus at the Syracuse University College of Law in New York.

“The main explanation for Republican senators’ support is their belief or fear that Trump continues to control the national party and that many Republican voters do (believe that), too,” Banks told China Daily …

Read the full article.

WSJ Speaks to Professor William C. Banks About Second Impeachment Trial

Jamie Raskin Leads Democrats in Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial

(The Wall Street Journal | Feb. 7, 2021) Rep. Jamie Raskin faces an immediate challenge as the top prosecutor in the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump : Many of the senators acting as jurors don’t think there should be one.

The Maryland Democrat was picked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) to serve as the lead impeachment manager in the Senate trial that starts Tuesday. The 58-year-old former constitutional-law professor will lead eight other Democrats in seeking to persuade the Senate to convict Mr. Trump of inciting an insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

In a legal brief last week, Mr. Raskin alleged that Mr. Trump “created a powder keg” in which hundreds of people “were prepared for violence at his direction.” Mr. Trump’s lawyers have argued that Mr. Trump didn’t engage in insurrection, saying that he had “exercised his First Amendment right under the Constitution to express his belief that the election results were suspect” and that he hadn’t incited violence …

… Actions can be impeachable without being criminal offenses, and lawmakers have wide latitude in determining what rises to a “high crime or misdemeanor.” Under the criminal code, a 1969 Supreme Court ruling holds that the government can punish inflammatory speech only if it is both intended to incite and likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”

In a criminal case, a prosecutor would have to prove that Mr. Trump “could have reasonably foreseen that his incitement was likely to lead to all hell happening at the Capitol,” said William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University …

Read the full article.

 

No Conviction? Professor William C. Banks Comments on Trump’s Second Impeachment

House impeaches Trump once more

(China Daily | Jan. 14, 2020) With the US Capitol secured by armed National Guard troops inside and out, the House of Representatives voted Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump for a historic second time, indicting him for “incitement of insurrection” in the storming of Congress a week ago.

“I predict no conviction in an eventual Senate trial.”

As impeachment heads to the Senate, President-elect Joe Biden said he hoped the Senate can balance a second impeachment trial of Trump with “other urgent business” of the nation, which remains gripped by the raging COVID-19 pandemic.

In a statement released hours after the bipartisan House vote, Biden did not take a position on whether the Senate should convict Trump, but again condemned the violent attack on Capitol Hill …

… William Banks, distinguished professor emeritus at the Syracuse University College of Law in New York, said the House vote on impeachment was not surprising.

“It underscores that he is the ONLY President in US history to be impeached two times. It is clearly a stain on his record and should underscore the view that his presidency was an aberration in the US,” Banks told China Daily.

Some Republicans joined because Trump lost the election, he can’t impact them directly in the future, and in addition, Trump’s actions were far more grave and harmful this time around, Banks said.

“I predict no conviction in an eventual Senate trial, and with luck the Senate will relegate the trial to off hours so they can begin working on the Biden agenda,” Banks said. “It should have little impact on the Biden administration” …

Read the full article.

 

Professor William C. Banks Discusses Presidential Transition on Lawyer 2 Lawyer

On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by William C. Banks, professor and former interim dean from the Syracuse University College of Law and professor Leslie Gielow Jacobs, director of the McGeorge School of Law Capital Center for Law & Policy, as they explore the practical impacts of a delayed transfer of power from an uncooperative incumbent administration, both for the incoming administration and the American people. They’ll discuss what lessons we can learn from the past, and what options the Biden administration may have going forward.

The transition of presidential power is the process during which the president-elect of the United States prepares to take over the administration of the federal government of the United States from the incumbent president. The peaceful transition of government has long been a hallmark of American democracy.

In what has become an unfortunately common refrain, 2020 has proven different. For weeks following the election being called for Joe Biden, the Trump administration refused to begin the transition process. It was in these circumstances that this episode was recorded. However, since then, the General Services Administration has decided to release funds to the incoming Biden administration to facilitate a transition, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a smooth transition is here.

The possible impact of the delays, continuing refusals to concede defeat, and ongoing litigation disputing the results in multiple swing states give rise to concerns regarding national security, the economy, and the government’s ability to properly address the effects of the Coronavirus.

Transition of Power

 

Professor William C. Banks Optimistic About Successful Transition for Biden Despite Delays

(WAER | Nov. 24, 2020) A Syracuse University Law School Professor says President Elect Joe Biden won’t have a problem catching up three weeks after the election because his team has been preparing all along. William Banks says Biden’s planning began when he clinched the democratic nomination last summer. He thinks the delay by the Trump Administration to share information to Biden will be “negligible to none.” However, he feels it comes with other costs.

“I feel a great deal has been lost symbolically and I believe our democratic institutions have been severely beat up by the bruising battles that have been fought for no good reason.”

Biden’s team can now engage in daily national security updates and classified briefings with the Trump Administration. Banks says Biden’s cabinet is filled with diversity and experience.

“Some of them are from the Obama administration, so of them much further back, like John Kerry who will be a cabinet-level official responsible for climate change. It’s Kerry’s deep passion,” Banks said …

Read the full story.

Professor Robert Murrett Voices Concerns About Pentagon “Exodus” in Government Executive

Pressure Continues to Mount for GSA to Ascertain Biden as Presidential Election Winner

(Government Executive | Nov. 12, 2020) It’s been five days since media organizations determined Democratic candidate Joe Biden secured enough electoral votes to become president-elect, but the General Services Administration has yet to give the go-ahead for the formal transition process to begin and more voices are calling on the agency to do so.

Despite the progress the Biden transition team has been making, GSA Administrator Emily Murphy, a political appointee, needs to “ascertain” a winner before the Biden team can send personnel into the agencies, obtain briefing books prepared mainly by career civil servants and access millions in funds …

… Syracuse University Professor Robert Murrett, who is a former career intelligence officer in the Navy, told Government Executive on Thursday he “would be more concerned” if the president-elect was someone other than Biden since he “is so familiar with the national security arena” from his tenure as vice president and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and it’s “also very helpful” that Harris is on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

However, Murrett said he is very concerned about the “exodus” of top officials at the Pentagon this week along with “the number of non-Senate confirmed acting officials we have across government” during this notably vulnerable time period …

Read the full article.

Professor Mark Nevitt Weighs In on Invoking the Insurrection Act

As President Donald J. Trump threatens to invoke the Insurrection Act as a response to protests, riots, and acts of civil disobedience in the aftermath of the death in policy custody of Minneapolis resident George Floyd, the media in the US and abroad has turned to national security expert Professor Mark Nevitt to explain what the law is and what the Trump Administration can and can’t do to quell civil unrest …

The Insurrection Act, the 1807 law Trump could use to deploy troops to curb protests, explained

(Vox) | June 2, 2020

… By far the most important of those authorizations—and the one most likely to come into play in this situation—is the Insurrection Act.

“This is the legal key that unlocks the door to use federal military forces … to quell civil unrest,” Mark Nevitt, a military law expert at the US Naval Academy, wrote for the Just Security website last Friday.

Nevitt noted two main ways the Insurrection Act could be invoked for the protests …

Trump threatens to invoke Insurrection Act 

(Politico) | June 2, 2020

The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was to quell riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after a request by then-Gov. Pete Wilson.

But retired Navy Cmdr. Mark Nevitt outlined in an analysis on Monday those provisions in the law that Trump could use without the consent of governors …

Can Donald Trump really invoke the Insurrection Act to send troops into states?

(PolitiFact) | June 2, 2020

… “In requesting federal troops to patrol Los Angeles, (California Gov. Pete) Wilson specified that the California National Guard lacked the ability to quell the domestic disturbance,” wrote Mark P. Nevitt, a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy. President George H.W. Bush then issued an executive order that authorized the defense secretary to federalize the California National Guard and deploy active-duty Army and Marine personnel.

However, such decisions have not been made lightly, Nevitt wrote, even in the direst of emergencies …

Five things to know about Trump’s legal power under the Insurrection Act

(The Hill) | June 2, 2020

… if a U.S. military member were to adhere literally to Trump’s controversial invocation of the phrase “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” Nevitt wrote, it would mark a clear violation of the rules …

George Floyd protests: Trump threatens to deploy ‘heavily armed’ US military

(The Independent) | June 2, 2020

“Can Trump use the Military to respond to Minneapolis? Yes, but this is subject to certain, critical legal restrictions under both the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act,” Mark Nevitt, a law professor at the US Naval Academy wrote for Just Security.

“The Insurrection Act is, by far, the Posse Comitatus Act’s most important exception,” Mr Nevitt added. “This is the legal key that unlocks the door to use federal military forces – whether through federalising the National Guard or calling in “’title 10 forces’ to quell civil unrest” …

Can the President Do Whatever He Wants? William C. Banks Clarifies for The Washington Post

While bemoaning Mueller probe, Trump falsely says the Constitution gives him ‘the right to do whatever I want’

(The Washington Post | July 24, 2019) President Trump believes the Constitution gives him a wide breadth of power. That’s the message he delivered―not for the first time—on Tuesday while addressing a crowd of teenagers and young adults at the Turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit in Washington.

There are numerous viral video clips from Trump’s 80-minute speech at the conference, but one of the most controversial moments came as he discussed Article II of the Constitution, which describes the powers of the president. Trump lamented the duration and cost of the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which he has repeatedly said found “no collusion, no obstruction” …

… William C. Banks, a professor of law at Syracuse University, told The Washington Post on Tuesday that Trump’s comments are an affront to “basic points that every schoolchild learns in civics.” Trump took an oath to support and defend the Constitution when he became president, Banks noted, meaning he can only do what the Constitution permits him to.

“It’s certainly not a grant of unlimited power,” Banks said. “He’s not a monarch, he’s the chief executive … and he’s bound to uphold the rule of law.” The lawsuits Trump faces in federal courts serve as a reminder of that notion, Banks said. The professor cited various delays to Trump’s border wall, as well as the challenges the president has faced while implementing immigration reform …

Read the full article.

 

William C. Banks Reviews the Mueller Report with KPCC

AirTalk special: DOJ releases redacted Mueller report to the public

(KPCC (Los Angeles) | April 18, 2019) Two years and countless subpoenas and indictments later, the Department of Justice has released a redacted version of the Mueller report to the public.

In a press conference, Attorney General William Barr on Thursday laid out in advance what he said was the “bottom line:” No collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government hackers.

Barr said at a news conference that the president did not exert executive privilege to withhold anything in the 400 page-plus report. And he said the president’s personal attorney had requested and gotten a chance to review the report before its public release.

Barr said that no one outside the Justice Department has seen the unredacted Mueller report. And he added that no redactions were either made or proposed outside of the small group of Justice staffers that pored over Mueller’s report.

https://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2019/04/18/64401/airtalk-special-doj-releases-redacted-mueller-repo/

GUESTS:

Nick Akerman, partner at the New York City office of Dorsey & Whitney LLP; he is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York and served as Assistant Special Watergate Prosecutor with the Watergate Special Prosecution Force

  • Miriam Baer, professor of law at Brooklyn Law School where she specializes in corporate and white-collar crime and criminal law and procedure
  • William C. Banks, professor emeritus of law, public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University
  • Christian Berthelsen, legal reporter at Bloomberg
  • John Eastman, professor law and community service and director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at Chapman University
  • Robert G. Kaufman, public policy professor at Pepperdine where he focuses on U.S. foreign policy, national security and international relations; author of “Dangerous Doctrine: How Obama’s Grand Strategy Weakened America” (University Press of Kentucky, 2016)
  • Laurie L. Levenson, professor of law at Loyola Law School and former federal prosecutor
  • Justin Levitt, professor of law at Loyola Law School and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department under President Obama; he tweets @_justinlevitt_
  • Amanda Renteria, chair of Emerge America, a national organization that works to identify and train Democratic women who want to run for political office; she is the former national political director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign; she tweets @AmandaRenteria
  • Sean T. Walsh, Republican political analyst and partner at Wilson Walsh Consulting in San Francisco; he is a former adviser to California Governors Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger and a former White House staffer for Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush

As Trump Turns to a National Emergency, the Media Turns to William C. Banks

President Donald J. Trump has made it known that he would declare a “national emergency” at the US/Mexico border in order to secure funds to build a southern border wall, an effort to augment funds that Congress has appropriated for border security in a bill that the president is expected to sign.

It turns out it’s going to be quite the tricky fight for Trump should he decide to actually declare a national emergency solely to get the border wall built.

The national emergency declaration would be unusual in this case, as the southern border crisis lacks the immediacy of a catastrophe such as Sept. 11, 2001. The declaration also may be unconstitutional, and it probably will be challenged in the courts. National security expert Professor Emeritus William C. Banks has been in demand by top media outlets to explain the what, why, when, and how of declaring a national emergency.

Trump wants the military to build the border wall. It might not be legal.

(Vox | Feb. 14, 2019) After months of back-and-forth with Congress, President Donald Trump is expected to soon declare a national emergency in order for the US military to construct the southern border wall he’s promised for years.

But there’s a pretty big problem with that, according to experts — namely, that he has a very weak legal case, and there’s strong political opposition to making that happen.

Set aside the fact that Trump’s own administration doesn’t assess that there is a massive national security problem at the US-Mexico border. Trump believes there is, and he plans to take extraordinary measures to keep asylum seekers out of the country.

William Banks, a national security law expert at Syracuse University, helped me understand what to expect in the days ahead.

It turns out it’s going to be quite the tricky fight for Trump should he decide to actually declare a national emergency solely to get the border wall built.

The key law in question is the appropriately named “Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency.” Here’s what it says:

In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated …

Read the full article.

SEE ALSO …

Trump’s ‘authoritarian’ streak stirs backlash at home and abroad (The Washington Post | Feb. 19, 2019)

Trump’s national emergency and GOP senators (CNN | Feb. 19, 2019)

State of Chaos: What Comes Next for Mueller and for Trump’s “Emergency”? (On Topic with Renato Mariotti | Feb. 16, 2019)

Prof. Bill Banks interviewed by KCBS Radio (Feb. 16, 2019)

Trump declares U.S.-Mexico border emergency; Democrats protest (Reuters | Feb. 15, 2019)

Trump’s national emergency to contend with lawsuits (China Daily | Feb. 18, 2019)

Trump’s Face-Saving Way Out of Crisis Raises Fears Over Rule of Law (The New York Times | Feb. 14, 2019)

National Emergency Powers and Trump’s Border Wall, Explained (The New York Times | Jan. 7, 2019)