Democrats May Try 14th Amendment to Disqualify Trump With Simple Majority—Rick Green on Impeachment

impeachment in our Constitution is designed for those three categories listed in Article 2, Section 4, and that's the president, the vice president, and civil officers, so people that are still serving in office. What does the U.S. Constitution have to say about the current impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate? What does historical precedents say? In this episode, we sit down with constitutional attorney Rick Green, a former Texas state representative and co-founder of the Patriot Academy. It's unlikely that the impeachment managers will persuade 67 senators to convict former President Donald Trump, but separate to the attempt to convict, Rick Green expects they are exploring other means to disqualify Trump from running for office again. By raising the 14th Amendment issue, they are looking for an opportunity to get a vote that does not require two-thirds, to still try to prevent Donald Trump from running for office. How would this scenario work exactly? This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Jan Kelly. As you may know, YouTube has demonetized us. To stay connected, please sign up for our mailing list in the description below so you never miss an episode. Rick Green, so great to have you back on American Thought Leaders. Jan, good to be back with you, sir. So Rick, as we're taping right now, it is the morning after the vote of authorization for the impeachment trial in the Senate for former President Donald Trump. As everybody knows, 56 votes came out in favor of proceeding with the trial. You're a constitutional educator and attorney. What are your thoughts about what happened here? The Constitution certainly has not changed. There have been a few minds changed by the arguments about whether or not the Constitution allows for impeachment of a former president, someone that's no longer in office. This is being debated hotly, of course, in legal circles. But like most major legal issues, there are two sides to every story. There are those who believe that these clauses in the Constitution can be pieced together to create an argument for impeaching a former president, something we've never done before, but that somehow we can change the language or put the language together to create this new scenario. And then there are those who have obviously been arguing that, look, this has never been done before for a reason. The founding fathers spoke to these things. They had experience with this very type of thing, trying to impeach a former officer, not a former president. They never dealt with that. But there's definitely two sides to the story. I would argue that the text of the Constitution is very, very clear here in terms of what is allowed in an impeachment. The clause for impeachment is very clear as to who can be impeached, and then what those punishments can be, and who presides over an impeachment when it's the president. And so there's a lot of very clear things in the Constitution. And I think the water's being muddied. And Jan, honestly, I think the reason it's easy to get people confused on this is because it's like many things in our culture right now and in our civics in our country. We don't know who has authority to do what. We used to talk about jurisdictional lines and so we knew, hey, the Senate is supposed to do this. The federal government's supposed to do this. The states are supposed to do this. And there were lines around that. We've moved into this area where it doesn't really matter. There's no lines. We go to government for answers to everything in our life. And in this case, we look to any level of government to get the solution that we want, to get the outcome that we want, instead of really drilling down on the jurisdictional question of, do I have authority to hear this case? And of course, that's what the senators were debating when this all started. But those lines have become very, very blurry. So that's really interesting. And I want to ask you a couple of questions out of the gate here. There's, in fact, quite a bit of ambiguity even about the meaning of the term impeachment. I was just speaking with Victor Davis Hanson the other day. He explained to me, it's just simply impeachment is indictment, as opposed to impeachment is a final step or something like this. So if you could just clarify for us, impeachment versus conviction, because frankly, for anyone that's not American, it's probably a mystery. And then I have a few more questions in this vein to start us off. Sure. He's exactly right. And he uses exactly the right term. Impeachment is very much like an indictment. And so an indictment is where a grand jury will really only hear one side of the case. And based on what they hear, they'll say, okay, we think there's enough here to have a trial where we can hear from both sides. And then you go have your actual trial where a regular jury comes in and makes the final decision of guilt or innocence. In the same way right here, we have an impeachment by the House that is based on what the House looks at and decides, is there enough to have a trial? The House decided that there was, in this case, in the fastest way possible. Never before have we seen one without any due process and in just a few hours chose to impeach. But nonetheless, that is their power under the Constitution. But all it does is basically say, you're indicted. We're actually saying we want to see a trial to see if you're guilty or innocent. And then the Senate is the one that decides, are they going to convict if they say he is guilty, or will they acquit if there aren't enough votes to convict? So he's exactly right. Impeachment's like an indictment. A conviction happens in the Senate, and even then, there will be the next step of what we would call sentencing if we were having a local trial on something. And the sentencing would be, according to the Constitution, a couple of options. They can say he's convicted, therefore he's removed, and they can choose to possibly take the additional sentencing step, which is disqualification, as Article 1, Section 3 says. We've only done that three times, actually, out of the almost two dozen impeachment trials that we've had in the Senate, but they will have that choice. But it is a multi-step process. I want to get back to this disqualification step in a moment as well. The other question is, is this whole thing actually a judicial process? Because typically this happens, there's a judge presiding, there's a jury if it's a jury trial. Here we have a lot of political actors involved, and it works differently, basically. So explain this to me. When we have political actors involved, we get political theater. And that's a lot of what we're getting here. And you're touching on a very, very important point here. Is this the judiciary now? Is the Senate now the judiciary that will try any citizen? Because an impeachment is specifically for someone that is in office, according to the American Constitution. I understand a lot of the experts on the other side of this equation that don't hold my opinion, along with other experts like Dershowitz. I've got liberal friends and conservative friends in the legal community that are with me on this in terms of my read of the Constitution, and some that are on the other side. But virtually everyone agrees that impeachment in our Constitution is designed for those three categories listed in Article II, Section 4, and that's the president, the vice president, and civil officers, so people that are still serving in office. And so we're seeing a lot of theater here to basically say the Senate is now going to be the judiciary because somehow a president could get away with doing something awful in the last few days of office. That was a lot of the rhetoric in the opening statements in the Senate, this idea of a January exception, this made up idea that somehow a president could do something terrible, and just because they resign or their term ends, there is no adjudication, there is no accountability. It's absolutely not true. That's why we have a judiciary, which is what you're alluding to. Is the Senate the only place that can be the judiciary, or has it now become the judiciary? And it shouldn't be. If a president does something, deserves some sort of criminal indictment and some sort of prosecution, and they're no longer in office, that's absolutely available to the local DA to do that. So this concept that's being pushed right now in the trial that if we don't convict Donald Trump, he's going to get away with doing horrible things, and future presidents will be able to do whatever they want and get away with it, that's a total red herring. It's literally fantasy. I thought the defense attorneys, that was one of the things that they did make a good case on in the opening, was that, look, this January exception thing is made up. Nobody's claiming on either side that a president can do whatever he wants with impunity, and just because he's out of office, no one can go after him. In fact, the Constitution speaks to that specifically and says that they can still be liable for indictment and prosecution. My fear is a separation of powers conflict here, that the Senate becomes more and more the judiciary, as you just said. And now if they can go after someone that's a citizen like Donald Trump is today, well, they can indict you, they can indict me, they can prevent us from running for future office. I know that was not the view of the founding fathers. And when you abuse a constitutional provision in one instance, then other people will be able to abuse it in other instances in the future. What is the significance of Chief Justice Roberts refusing to preside over this, in your view? I think part of the challenge that the impeachment managers have in this case is that they are claiming on one hand, we have to impeach Donald Trump because he was the president, but then they're trying to gloss over the fact that the Constitution clearly says that when the president is impeached and there's a Senate trial, that the Chief Justice will preside. And the fact that the Chief Justice has said that he will not preside, and frankly, we all know why, because Donald Trump is no longer the president, and it wouldn't be appropriate for him to do so in this case. I think that's pretty glaring to a lot of people. And the fact that we have a senator presiding over this case that will also have a vote whenever the Constitution was very clear that you should not have one branch, just the legislative branch, in this case, the Senate, even just half of that branch presiding and making the decision. Part of the beauty of the way they designed this, if you're going to go after the president, the executive branch, then you need to have both of those other two branches involved in that process. And that's why they put the Chief Justice to preside over a Senate trial for the president. So I think it's a really bad sign. It looks bad, and it's a bad precedent for the future for any civil officer or former president or former vice president. Let's get back to the constitutional arguments or the arguments based on the Constitution. You said that there were elements of the Constitution that were being strung together, I guess, inappropriately, in your view, to make arguments. So break that down for me, please. In order to make the case, the impeachment managers have to convince the senators that the Constitution does allow for an impeachment of a former president. What they've done is they've taken the language from Article I, Section 3, and separated some of these things. Then they've jumped over into the 14th Amendment and used some of the language in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as well. The reason they're doing that is because on one hand, they want to say he's the president, and on the other hand, they want to say, it doesn't matter if he's the president, he did something awful, and we can still impeach. So putting those things together is the way that they're trying to make their case. I view it like this. When we say political theater, it's literally what we're talking about here. This is common in all of politics. I thought the impeachment managers did a fantastic job of presenting this picture, of trying to make it sound like this is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted. It was very much theater. It was well done. It was masterful in the way that they took a few kernels of truth. So they took a few phrases out of the Constitution that are obviously there, and they even took a few historical stories, and they used those to weave that together to create a fantasy of a situation that has never been done in history. But it feels like it's accurate and it's truth because of the little kernels of truth that were thrown out there. That's frankly good political theater and effective in what they're doing. It's wrong, in my opinion. It's deceptive because it's being used to change the Constitution on a whim, simply by the Senate on their own changing the Constitution. If people think it's okay to impeach former officers and presidents, amend the Constitution. Article 5 allows for that. They did that in England. We heard that even in the opening statements that this stuff was done. We've heard several senators talk about impeaching former officers. State constitutions allowed for the impeachment of former officers. But we chose not to do that in the U.S. Constitution for good reason. To change that and suddenly go back to what England did or what some of the states did at the time of the founding requires a constitutional amendment. At the moment, the Democratic Party has complete control of government, as far as I can tell. They've got control of the House, the Senate, and the administration. In this sort of scenario, how easy is it for them to change things like this? In the past, I would say no, because there was usually a respect that if you had a very slim majority—I would say not a super majority, but a very slim majority—in the Senate, we're tied 50-50. In the House, we have a very slim majority leaning to the Democrats. Then, of course, they have the White House. They have both branches, the legislative and the executive, and both houses of the legislative. But to change history, to change the Constitution with such slim majorities is incredibly dangerous. George Washington warned about this very thing. My friend Jerry Newcomb has a great article out this week reminding us of his farewell address, where he said, when we get so partisan that we can't reason together, and that we will be vengeful against each other when we have even the slimmest of majorities or power through that party, that it will separate the country and it will cause us to create this great divide. It will be very hard to heal our nation, and we're going to see abuses of the Constitution if we do that. I think we're seeing that come true right now. So yeah, I think they will use that slim power to try to change things. I do think, depending on what they do in this trial, and depending on if they manage to create a conviction without two-thirds—I'm sorry to go down that rabbit hole, but a lot of people are thinking because they can't get to 67 votes that nothing will happen here—I do think they're going to try to create a scenario where they piece together these different parts of the Constitution to be able to get a vote with a majority based on the 14th Amendment and based on that part in Article 1, Section 3 about disqualification to still try to prevent Donald Trump from running for office. If they do that and they create this scenario, I do think he's going to have some good arguments to challenge that before the US Supreme Court. The problem is, Jan, the Supreme Court has said in the past that it has no say over impeachment and no say over the outcome of an impeachment trial. So the appealing of what happens here in the Senate is going to be very difficult. He's going to have great arguments, but I think there's a good chance that the Supreme Court will punt. I'm afraid that this slim majority believes that they can use that slim majority to abuse that power and that there will be no accountability for them, that they are now a branch, literally on their own, with no one to oversee them. None of that tug of war that the founders designed, that separation of powers and those checks and balances, that they can now rule with impunity and punish their opponents. That's so dangerous for our republic. It sets a tone that is very, very negative for our country, certainly not uniting. I don't think there's any turning it around at this point. At least, hopefully, they won't get to the 67, but just moving forward with the trial continues to create that divide. A whole number of people I've seen commenting have been saying, quite simply, there's—especially because of this vote of 56 to 44—there's basically zero chance that there will be a conviction. But you're telling me right now something a bit different. How would that work? My concern is that by raising the 14th Amendment issue, they are looking for an opportunity to get a vote that does not require two-thirds. This is uncharted territory, so they may be able to make up the rules as they go here. The problem with the 14th Amendment claim is that it requires that you have found someone did, in fact, participate in some level of insurrection. You've had a conviction in a court somewhere. You've had due process. Under that 14th Amendment, I don't believe the founders—I don't see any evidence of the founders, not the founders, but those in the 1860s that passed the 14th Amendment—that they envisioned that the Senate would be the one to be the trier of fact in that case. That would be for someone that was convicted in a court of being a part of insurrection that you could say, now they can't run for office. But I don't think they care about that. I think they're going to connect that language out of the 14th Amendment to the disqualification from office in Article I, Section 3. If I could go down that rabbit hole a little bit, that disqualification language is tied directly to removal from office. The way our Constitution was written, the way our Constitution has been used throughout our history, is that you cannot disqualify someone from office that you haven't removed from office. Because those have been tied together forever, most people expected that if you can't get to the two-thirds required for removal from office, you can't get to the disqualification from office. But what I think they're trying to set up by bringing in the 14th Amendment is a way to ignore conviction of impeachment with two-thirds and removal from office and simply go straight to a 14th Amendment claim that they have participated, someone that was an officer of the United States participated in an insurrection. And of course, we haven't even got to whether or not anybody actually participated in an insurrection. But let's just assume for a minute that their claims that he did convince 51 senators of that, then they could use the 14th Amendment to say, we're going to disqualify based on that. And they're already floating that idea. They've been putting out articles, they've had experts out there saying that this would be okay. So there's a real concern in my mind that that's what they'll attempt to do and just run roughshod over the Constitution and ignore the judiciary that normally needed it for something like this. But you're also saying that there's potentially no appeal process? How does that work? Well, now let me clarify on that, because what the Supreme Court has said, that it did not have authority to review, is an impeachment trial and conviction. So if they now use the 14th Amendment, and they may go outside of the impeachment trial itself to do the 14th Amendment, they may try to do it just through a resolution that is passed through the House and the Senate. If that happens, I believe he will have appellate ability. He will be able to challenge that going to the U.S. Supreme Court. That's something they've never ruled on before. So that would be new territory there. It just seems like there's a whole lot of new territory here from everything you're telling me. I would say it's a fantasy world. We're living post-Constitution at this point. We're literally ignoring the constitutional history and the plain text of the Constitution. But I got to tell you, Jan, I thought that the impeachment managers were masterful in painting that picture. It was worthy of an Academy Award in terms of this. A Tolkien or Lucas could not have created a better fantasy world in terms of what they caused the senators, or at least tried to project to the senators, that the Constitution actually said. It was a well done argument. I think it's important for us to actually, as citizens, to go look at the Constitution ourselves and not just listen to the silver tongue rhetoric. Just like any other trial, you walk into a trial, if trial attorneys are really good, they paint the picture that they want you to believe. I'm afraid they've done that in this case, but it is new territory, and it ignores 240 years of history in the United States. Most importantly, it ignores the Constitution itself. You started talking about exactly how their argument wasn't sound in your mind. Can you break this down for me in detail? You're saying that this was a powerful argument, but you're saying it's a wrong argument. Why is this argument wrong in some detail? First of all, they convince everybody that if you don't agree with what we're asking for, that we will have rogue presidents doing anything they want with no accountability. That is totally a red herring and false. I thought the defense team did do a good job of going directly to that language in Article 1, Section 3, and saying that if a president or someone else under impeachment is convicted or acquitted and can still be held liable by their local courts and DAs and the judicial process, then also someone that is a tried in this case, that is a former president, could also be held liable. So that whole image that was created, I think, was wrong. But then just the basic legal argument. They were very good at basically ignoring Article 2, Section 4, that says that the only categories of folks that we can impeach under our Constitution are very specifically the president, the vice president, and civil officers, so people that are in office. There was no mention of the 1799 trial where the Senate decided that William Blunt was no longer in one of those three categories and could not then be impeached or have a conviction of his impeachment. There was no mention of that. I hope that the defense team plans to raise that later in the trial. But just ignoring that and skipping to why impeachment is a good tool, why we don't want officers to be able to get away with anything that they do in office and not be held accountable. They created the idea that the Senate is the only place that could ever happen, and that senators are the only ones that can do that. Almost putting this burden on the senators to think that if you don't convict, you're allowing future presidents to do even worse things than what we're claiming that Donald Trump did. That is an emotional argument, but it is not the reason for impeachment. Impeachment in our Constitution is designed for someone that is in office, that we need to get out of office because what they're doing is so bad. We have this very unique situation for the Senate to be the judiciary instead of the judiciary being the judiciary. But they've tried to tie it to something that it was never intended to do. In terms of the defense, I've seen quite a bit of criticism of the defense from both sides, so to speak, and some support for it. What's your overall take on how the defense went? Probably not as critical as what I've heard some people say. I thought it was important to lay out the dangers of this whole process itself, which I thought they did initially. There's a part of us that wants them to go immediately to the constitutional defense, but I think doing the same job of painting the picture of what can happen if this goes wrong was important. So I thought that was good that they did that. Then I thought that David Shone did a good job of going specifically to these areas of the Constitution. The one thing that I thought they left out that I would have liked to have seen more time on was the impeachment manager spent a lot of time driving in on this phrase in the Constitution, all impeachments, that the Senate has the authority to try all impeachments. Then they tried to make it sound like all impeachments could include things that impeachments under Article II, Section 4 didn't include. So I thought there needed to be a better explanation by the defense attorneys to say, wait a minute, sure, yeah, they do have the authority to try all impeachments that are done according to the rest of the Constitution. You can't separate those two. But it goes back to this thing of creating this fantasy world where all impeachments now means these new kinds of impeachments for non-officers, non-presidents, non-vice presidents, which nothing in the Constitution actually authorizes. So we're back to that question of who has the authority, who has the jurisdictional lines. I agreed with a lot of what the impeachment manager said about things that we don't want to have happen in our country and how we do want to prosecute certain things. But we need to ask who has the authority to prosecute that? Which court should this be in? Who has actual jurisdiction in this case? That was the real question on that day. I think that's why they had to create this perception, this new perception of the Senate having jurisdiction in a case that it's never had jurisdiction before. I guess to me, the obvious question that comes to mind, though, is if we've learned, having been through two impeachments now, how much more of a political process impeachment is versus a traditional trial of sorts, even though of course there's potential politicization and so forth in these scenarios as well. So wouldn't the fear be of the typical citizen that if the jurisdiction gets moved, as you were saying, into the Senate and so forth, all these things just become much more political processes than judicial processes? And the result of that, Jan, is instability, because you start having the ability to remove officers so much more easily and just based on the political whims. I can't remember which attorney it was that mentioned it in the opening day, but it is true that if you were watching the Bill Clinton impeachment, you were seeing the first impeachment of your lifetime. If you were alive to see that, you have now seen three impeachments in one lifetime. Prior to Clinton, no one had seen an impeachment for over 100 years. So now all of a sudden, three impeachments in just a few years. It's a dangerous situation where, like you said, it becomes political. The problem is the due process in the impeachment trials. There is due process there if it's done correctly. There wasn't in this case, and I did think the attorneys laid that out very well. I think that's what turned off a lot of the legal community in this instance, is that the House just rammed this through without any of the due process, and even the Senate, very little due process here. When Clinton was impeached, it was months and months of due process. When you go back to Johnson, it was close to a year. There was a lot of time spent in these impeachments and very little in this particular case. So you're basically creating a scenario where one side gains power and they can finger to the wind. If they've got that power for just a little while, they can silence their opposition. Using impeachment, they can potentially completely remove their opposition from being able to run for office in the future, which silences not only the candidate, it silences the people that supported that candidate. That argument was made in the Senate as well, that if you prevent Donald Trump from running for office in the future, you're actually taking away the ability of those 75 million people being able to vote for who they might want to vote for in 2024. We don't know, of course, who's going to run in 2024, but this takes that option off the table. To have that power in the Senate's hands as a political tool instead of an actual tool of justice is very dangerous. It sounds that way. Even irrespective of what happens now, is impeachment now just going to be used as this kind of tool? Is the first thing that's going to happen when the Republicans gain power in the House? Are they going to be running out to impeach presidents? Yeah, you're right. Regardless of the outcome of this particular trial, it's going to make it so much easier for either party to scream impeachment. We've seen that from the beginning. They showed that video in the opening statements, that there were Democrats screaming for impeachment even before the election was over in 2016, but certainly since 2016, over and over and over again. But in the past, when that has happened from either side, there were Republicans that did that during Clinton's presidency. In the past, it was usually this lone voice out there or one or two voices that would do that. People would say, well, yeah, both sides have their crazies that will do that sort of thing. But now apparently the crazies are in charge because it's not just a few people filing that in the House. It's actually getting done. It's getting through the House, and it's actually moving to a Senate trial. So you're exactly right. It's going to be so much easier in the future for either party to do the exact same thing. That's really the danger. I think that's what the defense attorneys were initially saying in the opening statements, is stop for a minute. Let's all take a breath. Realize what you're doing just by going forward with the trial. Because if they had voted down having the trial, instead of just 44 members of the Senate saying this is a bad idea and it's unconstitutional, if it had been 51 that had done that, then that would have been a rubber stamp to say, hey, you've really got to have a constitutional process here, and we're only going to do the impeachments when it is someone that's in office so that we know we're reaching that bar of something that rises to that level instead of just the political whims. Tell me about this 1799 case that you mentioned earlier. I'm guessing is he going to get a lot more play in the near future. Ironically, Jan, this was a signer of the Constitution that was impeached. His name was William Blunt. He had been involved in a land scam that Adams uncovered, and so he brought it to the Senate. Blunt had become a U.S. senator. He was a U.S. senator at the time. The Senate voted to remove him. Not under impeachment, there's a separate part of the Constitution that allows the Senate to remove one of their own officers or the House to remove one of their own officers with a two-thirds vote. So they did. They kicked him out of the Senate. Well, the House decided they were going to impeach anyway. So they impeached him. It goes over to the Senate, and Blunt was defended by a guy named Jared Ingersoll. He was another signer of the Constitution. He was greatly respected by the members of the Senate, and there were still some other signers in the Senate as well. So this was at a time, think about it, 1799. You're only 12 years after the Constitutional Convention. So a lot of these folks were still in government. So the ones that actually had put the Constitution in place, that had debated what types of impeachments they would want under this new system and this new, very unique Constitution in the history of the world, they were still around. So you didn't have to just read their writings. They were part of the voices in this. So Jared Ingersoll, one of those voices, defended William Blunt and said, he's not in office anymore. He's not someone that you should be or could, under our Constitution, impeach. That argument won the day. Thomas Jefferson actually presided. I got to correct what I said earlier. They did mention the Blunt case. In fact, I thought they distorted the facts of the Blunt case when the impeachment managers laid out their case initially. So they talked about this and tried to create this image that because he was impeached and there was a trial, that meant it was okay, ignoring the fact that the whole argument in the Senate was whether or not someone that was no longer in that definition of those three categories I mentioned earlier could actually be impeached and put on trial. And the Senate answered that and said, no, we're throwing this thing out. We're done. Obviously, there's a lot of this kind of hunt for other historical precedents to be used here at the same time. So tell me— Jan, if I could add right there, I think if you really want to be impartial when you look at an issue like this, and there's varying perceptions about the constitutionality or debates about the constitutionality, I think Jefferson and Madison both were very clear in some of their statements. Anytime you have a question about the construction of the Constitution or the phrases, it's very important to go back to the time when the Constitution was created or when those phrases were put into the Constitution, if it was an amendment, and actually get into the mindset of the people that put it there, rather than what they called squeeze whatever meaning you might want out of the Constitution or inventing phrases or inventing meanings into the Constitution. They said, instead of doing that, go back and find out what the folks that created the Constitution were thinking and doing. So to those that are on the other side that think this is okay, and they sometimes use, for instance, that impeachment in 1876 of the former Secretary of War, they mentioned that one in the opening trial as well. Instead of looking at one in 1876 that doesn't involve any of the founders, if you have an example to go back to and look at with the founding fathers, that's how you get that spirit, as they said, manifested in the debates of the Constitution. Going back and being an originalist is very important because when you have a debate over what the Constitution says, you need to know what the people that actually put the Constitution in place were thinking and saying. That's why I emphasize the 1799 case and not the 1876 case. There's a big difference in time there. No signers of the Constitution alive at that time, regardless of what they actually did. If the Senate got it wrong in 1876, we don't just keep getting it wrong. Congress has done things that are unconstitutional. It doesn't mean that we want to keep doing things that are unconstitutional. So that's why I raised that old 1799 example and think that that's what we should be looking at. Briefly, what happened in the 1876 case exactly? Of course, it was referenced. They did go forward with a Senate trial. They did not choose not to make a decision. They did acquit, so the guy was not actually convicted. But it wasn't based on the idea that the Senate believed it could no longer have a Senate trial of someone that was no longer in those three categories. That was the argument of the impeachment managers. They did a trial. They voted on whether he was going to be convicted or acquitted. Therefore, they settled the question of whether or not the Senate can try someone that's no longer in office. That's the argument of the Democrat impeachment managers. What I'm saying and what I've heard most legal scholars say on the other side is just because they got it wrong in 1876 doesn't mean we keep getting it wrong. We should look back to the actual Constitution and to the 1799 trial and the answer of the Senate then. Jan, when you and I were together, I guess a month or two ago, when we were talking about the 12th Amendment and interpretation of who can do what and can you object to electors, and there are different sides out there that debate these things, this is a little bit similar to that. There are a lot of legal scholars on both sides. So every citizen should actually take the time to look at the language in the Constitution themselves. When you look at the actual language, it's not ambiguous. I think it's unambiguous. I think it's very, very clear. When we're dealing with someone that is not in those three categories, the impeachment power does not exist. Just out of curiosity, in this 1876 case, was that two-thirds required or simple majority required to convict? Yeah, two-thirds to convict. By the way, I'll add to that, he resigned right before the impeachment. That's part of why they went forward. They thought, he's just trying to get away with his crimes and we still want to move forward and have a show trial. Essentially, we want to have something that's public where we can embarrass him and where we can say that what he did was wrong and we don't want other people to do the same thing. There's merit to some of those arguments. But remember, there's also a closer precedent. That is that when the House wanted to impeach Richard Nixon and he resigned, they might have had the votes in the House and the Senate to get not only an impeachment, but a conviction over in the Senate. But once he resigned, it was no longer an officer. It was dropped because they understood this idea of not impeaching someone that's no longer in office. Can't remove someone that is no longer in office. Well, Rick, so what's going to happen next here? Well, I don't have that crystal ball I wish I had. No telling. I think it is obvious that they will not be able to get to two-thirds. I don't think any of the arguments that are being made by the impeachment managers are going to move enough votes. As I mentioned earlier, they did change one vote. And again, based on a painting a picture worthy of an Academy Award, the facts didn't change, the Constitution didn't change, the fact that a senator changed his vote based on a better argument being made by the impeachment managers than the defense team and not based on whether or not the Constitution had changed, I think is a sad commentary on the senator, not a sad commentary on the Constitution. All of that to say, I don't think there's any way they get to 67 and have an actual conviction that's a constitutional conviction. But like I said before, I think we're going to see some really creative lawmaking by the Senate because that's what they're doing here. They're making law here. They're creating a precedent that can be used in the future. And so I think that's what people should be watching for is not the 67 vote conviction, but potentially a 51 vote resolution from the House and Senate that would still prevent Donald Trump from running for office. Any final thoughts before we finish up? I hope as folks watch this happen and they realize this is definitely a lot of political theater and they may think there's nothing I can do about this, this is big federal government over in Washington, DC, what a great opportunity to say, wait a minute, that's my government, and that's my Constitution. It's a great opportunity for us to learn what the rulebook is that we live by. I've said this throughout this whole process that what they're doing in pulling together different parts of the Constitution and creating these new rules is more worthy of a banana republic than a constitutional republic. There's a reason we're a constitutional republic. We want the rules in writing. We want the stability of knowing that those rules don't change unless we amend the rulebook. And so we as citizens have to know that rulebook. So I would challenge all citizens to take the time to simply read through the Constitution. As all of this talk is happening in Washington, DC, and we hear these phrases being thrown out in the Constitution, just take the time to read through it. It's not that long. It's our founding document. It's the rulebook by which our nation is supposed to exist. And if we, the people, at the beginning of that document, if we don't know the document, we certainly can't expect our leaders to rule by that document. It starts with us. Sounds like really sound advice, Rick. And so great to have you on. Jan, thank you for having me.