Former presidents aren’t federal officials. They’re private citizens. They don’t receive national security briefings. Why on Earth would they?
Current presidents sometimes consult with former presidents. As part of that, I suppose it’s possible the current President might share some classified briefing materials with them and ask their opinion, but that would be an ad hoc arrangement entirely at the discretion of the President.
In general, no one is entitled to national security briefings*. Presidents have near absolute authority to determine who has access to what classified information.
*A President-Elect is legally supposed to receive such briefings under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, as amended, and Congress can demand briefings as part of their oversight powers, but beyond that, it’s entirely up to the discretion of the sitting President.
Former presidents receive intelligence security briefings. Supposedly they can lend insight from their experience to the current president which maintains some continuity of experience.
To the extent that they do, that’s entirely at the discretion of the current President. There’s no legal requirement that they be given such briefings.
It certainly seems like the Senate could bar a former president from receiving such briefings upon conviction on an impeachment charge (that’s a pretty clear-cut example of an “office of trust”), but equally a current President could simply decline to provide such briefings to any or all former presidents.
The Presidential pension and expense perks are conditional, per the law that concedes them, on the President finishing their term without being removed, and that’s it. And while disqualification from office may be understood to mean future activities will not qualify as official expense, the personal pension is a benefit of a former office, and the law does not contemplate revocation.
The intelligence briefings are, as gdave pointed out, at the discretion of the current President, the former President is not “entitled”. The President does not hold a personal security clearance. And even if he did, that does not provide access to classified information for the asking.
The Secret Service protection, as far as I can tell from reading the laws and rules, does not contemplate anywhere removal for cause.
Really asking. Are you suggesting that as long as a president can cross the finish line of one term then anything illegal they did during that term does not matter as regards things like their pension?
If I were to nitpick I would say since Trump was impeached (the second time) before his term was over then he’s still on the hook even if the senate waited till after he left office.
That’s exactly what it is, and it’s one reason that no President will ever be removed from office via impeachment.
If you’re asking what is the check on this loophole, there isn’t really any except for the degree to which the Senator cares how their rationale looks to the voters, or how it looks in the historical record.
For example, if my colleagues offered evidence that the President did indeed shoot someone on 5th Avenue, would I then be too ashamed to record an objection of ‘well, he probably deserved to get shot?’ If I silently voted ‘no’, would my constituents judge me negatively? Would history view me negatively? Do I care?
If we’re asking if impeaching/convict a former President is constitutional, I would argue that it plainly is. The constitution doesn’t deal with whether the individual is a current or former President; it only lays out how such charges are to be adjudicated. We refer to former presidents with the title of “President” for their entire lives, we extend them a pension and security for life, so it seems like they should be impeachable for life.
Were it impossible to impeach or convict a former President, then lame-duck Presidents would have enormous incentive to do some egregiously bad conduct in the final days of their term, knowing that there are few if any effective legal remedies available. Especially if the incoming President is an ally.
The precedent of Belknap seems, well, unimpeachable. Even so, 150 legal scholars, including notable conservative ones, have released a statement affirmed the constitutionality of the process.
"If an official could only be disqualified while he or she still held office, then an official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate’s final conviction vote,” they noted. “The Framers did not design the Constitution’s checks and balances to be so easily undermined.”
The conservatives arguing otherwise are doing so strictly ideologically. They are also making a mockery of originalism by doing so.
It is fairly common practice that they do. They have a good working knowledge of what is going on, and are often asked for advice from later administrations, which would not be all that useful if they were not up to date on intel.
That said, it doesn’t require impeachment to cut an ex-president off, just an act of the current administration.
No, I mean that the laws on pensions and protection are silent on revocation for cause after completion of the term, and the impeachment clause on sanctions other than denying further official power. So it would have to be decided after the conviction. And from what’s in the text of both constitution and law, it doesn’t look like the Senate itself could just add on to the judgement “and we the Senate further decree that his pension and protection be removed”. It would have to be a whole other question to resolve.
…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
Off the hook is a different term than I would use.
To be honest, the 200k a year is a pretty small part of the issues here.
One of the things about impeachment is that there will be a ton of evidence and testimony as to his conduct.
Now, the only penalty for impeachment is removal from office and possibly (probably) disqualification for holding further office.
OTOH, I don’t see any reason why this evidence and testimony cannot also be used against him when criminal charges are filed. As part of those criminal charges, things like his continuing benefits may be able to be removed, along with any other penalties that may be assessed against him.