Noah Feldman

On Monday, President Trump’s chief lawyers in his impeachment trial, Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollone, submitted a 110-page brief to the Senate laying out the case for his acquittal. The articles of impeachment, they say, are “an affront to the Constitution” brought about by a “rigged” “crusade” against a president who “did absolutely nothing wrong.” ... There are a select few scholars, however, who say the consensus should be reconsidered. One is Nikolas Bowie, an assistant professor at Harvard Law School. In 2018, Mr. Bowie suggested in the Harvard Law Review that impeaching a president without any statutory justification conflicts with a fundamental principle of American law: that a crime cannot be retroactively defined. Impeachment without an underlying legal violation also risks setting a dangerous precedent that “would apply not just to someone as unpopular as President Trump but also to future presidents whose policies happen to misalign with a congressional majority,” he wrote. “The philosophical defense that the president should only be impeachable for a defined statutory crime is probably the strongest defense available to Trump’s supporters,” writes Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School who testified in the House impeachment inquiry.

Anderson Cooper interviews Noah Feldman on the House managers case laying out abuse of power charge against President Donald Trump. ... "Everyone who is involved with this impeachment process has to understand, even if the outcome is the one most people predict, that's not what really matters on deepest level. It would be nice if Senators would come around, but that Trump is not just impeachable, but deserves to be removed from office. But even if they don't, it's important for the future of American democracy that others in the future, future generations, will be able to look back, watch this footage, watch the commentary, read the transcripts and see exactly what Donald Trump did and that he was impeached for it, to send the message that this kind of conduct just isn't okay, no matter what two-thirds of the Senate decides."

An article by Noah Feldman: President Donald Trump is on trial in the Senate. But the Senate is on trial, too — to see if it’s capable of fulfilling its constitutional duty to hold a credible impeachment trial. James Madison thought the Supreme Court, not the Senate, should try presidential impeachments. Until now, the other framers’ rejection of Madison’s idea seemed to have been wise. Yet the unprecedented degree of partisanship in Trump’s “trial,” and the possibility that for the first time there will be no witnesses, raises the possibility that the framers’ impeachment design has hit a dead end.

Constitutional scholar Noah Feldman tells Christiane Amanpour that President Trump's legal defense amounts to a "linguistic game."

An article by Noah Feldman: President Donald Trump’s legal defense is putting a lot of weight on a brand-new memo from the Office of Legal Counsel. In fact, the memo appears to have been written specifically as part of the president’s defense strategy. That’s noteworthy because the OLC is part of the Department of Justice: It’s supposed to be legally independent, not partisan, and certainly not part of the president’s defense team. The memo’s reasoning borders on egregious. It concocts a technicality to invalidate the subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives during the impeachment inquiry, making it somehow legitimate for Trump to have obstructed Congress — the basis of one of the articles of impeachment the president faces. And then there’s the timing of the memo. It’s dated January 19, 2020, two days before the impeachment trial was slated to begin, and one day before Trump’s legal team issued its own memo summarizing his defense.

An article by Noah Feldman: President Donald Trump’s lawyers have filed a 110-page memorandum sketching out the defenses they intend to raise at his impeachment trial. Overall, it’s a pretty poor showing. The memo includes some political posturing. It also contains specious claims to the effect that Trump did nothing wrong on his July 25, 2019 phone call. The memo’s centerpiece, however, is a handful of dubious legal arguments about why his impeachment is supposedly illegitimate. There’s nothing here to convince Democrats; and precious little that would give Republicans the cover some may want to vote against removing Trump from office.

An article by Noah Feldman:  White House counsel Pat Cipollone will reportedly lead the team that represents President Donald Trump in the Senate impeachment trial.

An article by Noah Feldman: If you’re expecting President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate to be a matter of high drama, it’s time to lower your expectations. The trial won’t look much like “Law & Order,” or for that matter any other criminal trial you’ve seen on TV or in real life: There will be no witnesses in the opening phase, and likely none at any point in the proceedings. Instead, it will look much more like a series of speeches by the House impeachment managers and Trump’s lawyers. How can it be that the impeachment trial will barely be a trial at all? The answer lies in the Senate’s own changing practices over the centuries. Given the Senate’s love for protocol, you might imagine that there would be some time-tested, universally respected procedure for how an impeachment trial should go. The truth is otherwise.

An article by Noah Feldman: Has John Bolton had some sort of constitutional revelation? Back in November, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser made it clear that he would not testify voluntarily before the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, and that if subpoenaed he would go to court to ask for judicial direction. Yesterday, Bolton issued a statement indicating that if subpoenaed by the Senate during Trump’s trial, he would testify. What changed? Although Bolton gave a constitutional explanation for his flip-flop, it’s difficult to see a coherent argument in it. The most likely explanation is politics: Bolton seems to be calculating that Senate leader Mitch McConnell will do everything he can to avoid allowing Bolton to be called. That would mean Bolton can now present himself as willing to testify without actually having to appear.

An article by Noah Feldman: Mitch McConnell is giving every indication that President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial will not introduce any new evidence. Instead, it will use only the evidence gathered by the House of Representatives and cited in the articles of impeachment. Is this, have some Democrats have argued, a travesty of justice? The short answer is no. There is already more than enough evidence to convict Trump of the high crimes and misdemeanors with which he is charged. And although they’ll protest, this outcome might be better for Democrats politically than striking some kind of deal with McConnell. Of course, it would be preferable for the Senate to call former national security adviser John Bolton, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Mulvaney’s adviser Robert Blair and budget official Michael Duffey. Bolton has even said he would testify if called — although the timing of his announcement, on the eve of McConnell’s, lends credence to my theory that he only offered to testify on the expectation that he would not actually have to do it.

Hosted by June Grasso. Guests: Frank Wilkinson, Bloomberg Opinion Editor, on gun control. Max Nisen, Bloomberg Opinion health care columnist, on Medicare for All. Noah Feldman, Harvard Law professor and Bloomberg Opinion columnist, on the impeachment hearings. Shira Ovide, Bloomberg Opinion technology columnist, on "techlash." Noah Smith, Bloomberg Opinion columnist, on automation.

An article by Noah Feldman: The year in impeachment was a true roller coaster ride: A slow build to a high peak at the time of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report; a deep and fast dive in its aftermath; a rocket-like ascent following the whistle-blower’s report of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukraine; and now, at year’s end, a harrowing run to an impeachment that itself will likely end in the “pffft” of a Senate vote not to remove the president...But the ride won’t end when the year does. January 2020 will see the Senate trial. It’s hard to imagine that the trial will feel like any kind of roller coast ride at all. The outcome is as close to foregone as it gets in U.S. politics.

An article by Noah Feldman: A presidential impeachment trial in the Senate is one man’s worst nightmare. That man isn’t President Donald Trump, however. He’ll take it in stride. It’s Chief Justice John Roberts, who will have to preside. Roberts has devoted his whole career to trying to keep the Supreme Court from being seen as a partisan body. That started with the famous baseball analogy he offered at his Senate confirmation, according to which the justices are like umpires who call balls and strikes. The comparison is pretty dubious: balls and strikes aren’t infused with controversial moral questions like when life begins and who can marry whom. But Roberts was trying to illustrate his ideal of a justice who stays out of the partisan fray of team spirit.

An article by Noah Feldman: The 2010s will go down in history as a contradictory period at the Supreme Court. The decade featured one liberal decision — the gay marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges — that will be read as long as the justices’ opinions are taught in law schools. Yet the decade also saw the emergence of important new libertarian trends in First Amendment law, regarding both free speech and religious liberty, that are widely seen as conservative. And although the court shifted rightward over the last ten years, that may seem mild compared to the rightward shift we could see in the 2020s.

Top Democrats on Sunday renewed their demands for witnesses to testify at President Trump’s impeachment trial, citing newly released emails showing that the White House asked officials to keep quiet over the suspension of military aid to Ukraine just 90 minutes after Mr. Trump leaned on that country’s president to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. The emails, released late Friday by the Trump administration to the Center for Public Integrity, shed new light on Mr. Trump’s effort to solicit Ukraine to help him win re-election in 2020, the matter at the heart of the House’s vote on Wednesday to impeach him...At least one academic, Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor who testified as an expert for Democrats during the impeachment inquiry, has argued that Mr. Trump will not be impeached until the articles are transmitted. Republicans have cited that position in their demands for Ms. Pelosi to move forward.

Denial can be an ill-advised, if effective, strategy for temporary coping over the holidays, and it’s one that the White House is reportedly contemplating as part of its impeachment messaging. Like a spouse going off to “work” post-layoff, the White House may soon be arguing that everything is fine and nothing of particular note has happened in the past few weeks. According to CBS News, the Trump administration is considering arguing that Trump has not yet officially been impeached. The idea comes down to a technicality: Because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not transmitted the two articles of impeachment to the Senate, Trump officials may claim that the process has not yet been finalized in the House. The argument emerges from an op-ed by Harvard Law professor and House Judiciary Impeachment witness Noah Feldman. “If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president,” Feldman, who has endorsed Trump’s impeachment and removal from office, wrote in Bloomberg. “If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: Call me old fashioned or naïve, but I think my job is to explain what the U.S. Constitution actually means, no matter who likes it or doesn’t. That led me to explain recently that under the Constitution as it was understood by the framers and as it still should be understood today, impeachment isn’t complete when the House of Representatives votes to impeach. Constitutionally, impeachment becomes official when the House sends word of that impeachment to the Senate, triggering a Senate trial. Impeachment was originally understood to take place when someone from the House formally impeached the president “at the bar of the Senate,” which meant a member of the House formally stated to the Senate that the president (or judge, or other officer) was impeached. That practice lasted from the late middle ages until 1912. Since then, the House has instead sent a written message to the Senate stating that the House “has impeached” the defendant, a message that triggers the trial procedures in the Senate.

Maybe President Trump has not been impeached after all, or at least not yet. Impeachment happens, according to Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, only when the House transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate. So “technically speaking,” he said, “the president still hasn’t been impeached.” That idea has left much of the legal academy unconvinced, including Laurence H. Tribe, one of Professor Feldman’s colleagues at Harvard. “The argument is textually bizarre, historically inaccurate, structurally misguided and functionally misleading,” Professor Tribe said. Professor Feldman was one of three constitutional scholars to testify in favor of impeachment before the House Judiciary Committee this month.

President Trump lashed out Friday at Democrats and an evangelical magazine that has called for his removal from office, as the timing and scope of his impeachment trial in the Senate remained in limbo and he prepared to head to Florida for the holidays. ...Republicans have seized on a notion advanced by a law professor called by Democrats to testify during the impeachment inquiry that technically Trump would not be “impeached” if the House does not send articles of impeachment to the Senate. Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial,” Harvard University law professor Noah Feldman wrote in a Bloomberg column on Thursday. “Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution ... If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.” Feldman’s argument received pushback from other legal scholars, including Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard. In a tweet on Thursday night, Tribe said Feldman is “making a clever but wholly mistaken point” about the possibility that Trump won’t be impeached. “Under Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain impeached. Period,” Tribe wrote.

An article by Noah Feldman: Now that the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump, what is the constitutional status of the two articles of impeachment? Must they be transmitted to the Senate to trigger a trial, or could they be held back by the House until the Senate decides what the trial will look like, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted? The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work. But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.