Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
coorslite21

Senate Impeachment Hearings

Recommended Posts

So we know the ole girl got the ole boy "impeached forever".....(thinking female dog right now)

 

1st article on these events..

 

USA TODAY

 

TRUMPS  NEW LEGAL TEAM CALLS IMPEACHMENT BRAZEN & ILLEGAL

 

"President Trump abused the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in our elections for his own personal political gain, thereby jeopardizing our national security, the integrity of our elections, and our democracy.  And when the President got caught, he tried to cover it up by obstructing the House’s investigation into his misconduct," the House managers said.

'Impartial justice': Can partisan senators be unbiased in Trump trial? 

Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named seven House members as "managers," or members who will lead the prosecution against Trump: Reps. Jason Crow, Sylvia Garcia, Hakeem Jeffries, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Val Demings, and Zoe Lofgren. Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, is the lead manager. 

The two articles of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives on Dec. 18 accuse Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. 

More: Impeachment week ahead: House, Trump to file written arguments before Senate trial resumes Tuesday

More: President Trump's impeachment: What are the steps in the Senate trial

Democrats allege Trump abused his power by withholding nearly $400 million of security assistance and an Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pressure the Ukrainians into announcing an investigation of his political rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden. Democrats said the Trump administration stonewalled their inquiry into his conducted by refusing to allow key administration officials to testify and provide documents.

"His effort to gain a personal political benefit by encouraging a foreign government to undermine America’s democratic process strikes at the core of misconduct that the Framers designed impeachment to protect against. President Trump’s abuse of power requires his conviction and removal from office," the House managers wrote.

Democrats referenced the option the Senate has in calling former national security adviser John Bolton to testify in the impeachment trial. Bolton has offered to testify if subpoenaed. Democrats argued that his testimony could help prove that American officials saw the pressure campaign as “improper and political” given the “public reporting of his repeated, yet unsuccessful, efforts to convince the President to lift the hold (on military aid to Ukraine).” 

White House lawyers have a deadline of noon on Monday to file a brief outlining their argument defending the president, and Democrats will file another brief in response by noon Tuesday. 

In their Saturday filing, attorneys for Trump argued he wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption with his country. They said concern about corruption is the reason the administration held up military aid temporarily and added that the money was eventually released in September.

Saying the president "has done nothing wrong," spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said he "looks forward to the end of this partisan and unconstitutional impeachment" with an acquittal by the Senate.

Trump's legal team also raised procedural complaints against the House impeachment, saying the president did not receive due process – though House members repeatedly pointed out that the White House refused to participate in the investigation.

The filing said the White House withheld witnesses and documents because the information is protected by executive privilege, and Congress is not entitled access to internal deliberations within the executive branch.

Within minutes of the filings, Trump tweeted out a claim about his popularity among Republicans and an attack on the Democratic presidential nomination process.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan Dershowitz: Trump impeachment acquittal would make me unhappy

The Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz, a member of Donald Trump’s team for his impeachment trial, has said he will not vote for the president in November and that Trump’s acquittal by the Senate “would produce results that make me unhappy as an individual”.

 

But Dershowitz said acting “for the survival of the constitution” was more important than “the short-term partisan advantage of getting my person elected to be president”.

Dershowitz spoke to the BBC’s Today programme on Saturday, broadcast while the US east coast lay in darkness.

His remarks were no surprise: Dershowitz is a familiar voice in the media, to some degree a controversialist or gadfly, willing to go against the grain of public opinion or to represent unpopular clients, among them OJ Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein. He is a regular presence on Fox News.

But as Washington, New York and Boston woke, it remained to be seen how a notoriously changeable president might react to his new lawyer’s remarks.

In the event Trump woke up to tweet about the strong US economy while seemingly watching Fox. But there was plenty of coverage from less friendly outlets available should he choose to darken his mood.

The articles of impeachment charge that the president abused the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine to carry out investigations for his political benefit – including against former vice-president and possible 2020 nominee Joe Biden – and obstructed Congress in its efforts to investigate.

On Friday, it was reported that documents released by House Democrats showed that an aide to Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee and a key Trump ally, worked with Lev Parnas on approaches to Ukraine last year.

Parnas is a Soviet-born US citizen and associate of Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer who drove the Ukraine effort. Facing charges under federal campaign law, Parnas has turned against the president, discussing the Ukraine affair in wide-ranging interviews with TV, newspapers and websites.

As the White House faces into the storm, Dershowitz will join a Trump legal team that also includes Ken Starr, who played a leading role in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Jay Sekulow, a Trump lawyer and regular media surrogate, and Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, will also represent the president.

Procedural steps continue. House Democrats this week walked the articles of impeachment to the Senate and supreme court chief justice John Roberts arrived on Capitol Hill to preside.

House impeachment managers, led by intelligence chair Adam Schiff, had a 5pm deadline on Saturday to submit a trial brief. Trump had a 6pm deadline to respond to the charges against him.

A two-thirds majority of senators will be needed to convict Trump and remove him from office. Argument continues over whether witnesses including former national security adviser John Bolton will be allowed to testify. But as the Senate is controlled by a Republican party controlled firmly by Trump, and as majority leader Mitch McConnell has admitted to strategising in lockstep with the White House, a conviction remains extremely unlikely.

No president has been convicted and removed: Clinton and Andrew Johnson survived Senate trials and Richard Nixon resigned before he could be formally impeached. On the BBC, Dershowitz was asked if he thought Trump was a good president and how he felt about potentially facilitating his re-election.

“It’s a very, very different issue,” he said. “I’m a Democrat. I intend to vote Democrat. I think that Democrats would be disappointed to see the president re-elected and Republicans would be pleased.”

Pressed on his personal feelings about Trump’s impeachment, Dershowitz said it “creates ambivalence in me as it does whenever I represent somebody whose acquittal would produce results that make me unhappy as an individual. But I would never, ever allow my own partisan views to impact my views on the constitution.

“I’m not going to allow my partisan views to impact my constitutional views and what I think is best for the long term survival of the constitution rather than the short-term partisan advantage of getting my person elected to be president.”

Many observers have seen Trump’s selection of Dershowitz and Starr as a partisan move. In the words of the Washington Post: “To form the crack legal team that will defend him in the impeachment trial that begins on Tuesday, President Trump went right to the place where the most accomplished and effective lawyers can be found: Fox News.”

On Fox and elsewhere, Dershowitz has argued that abuse of power is not an impeachable offence. On CNN on Saturday morning, he said obstruction of Congress was “made up”.

He also said that in the Senate trial he would be “only arguing on behalf of the constitution”. He would answer questions from senators, he said, but would have a “limited role”, as agreed with Trump.

 

In a fiery exchange on the same network on Friday night, the legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin charged his old teacher with “pretending to be some sort of neutral observer, rather than Donald Trump’s lawyer”.

“For some reason you don’t want to admit that,” Toobin said, “and that’s up to you. But … I think straightforwardly that abuse of power, the framers recognised it, that’s what’s the issue in this case and the senators are perfectly capable of determining whether what the president did is a violation of his oath.”

Dershowitz answered: “Let me perfectly clear, I am an advocate … against impeachment. But I’m politically neutral, that is I would make the same argument whether it was a Democrat or a Republican. I don’t let my political preferences interfere with my constitutional analysis.”

“I think the country is helped,” he added, “when they hear from someone like me who is a liberal Democrat, who has always voted Democrat.”

But, he said: “I want the impeachment to fail.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alan-dershowitz-trump-impeachment-acquittal-145909892.html

 

 

WTH???

B/A

  • Thanks 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

Alan Dershowitz: Trump impeachment acquittal would make me unhappy

The Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz, a member of Donald Trump’s team for his impeachment trial, has said he will not vote for the president in November and that Trump’s acquittal by the Senate “would produce results that make me unhappy as an individual”.

 

But Dershowitz said acting “for the survival of the constitution” was more important than “the short-term partisan advantage of getting my person elected to be president”.

Dershowitz spoke to the BBC’s Today programme on Saturday, broadcast while the US east coast lay in darkness.

His remarks were no surprise: Dershowitz is a familiar voice in the media, to some degree a controversialist or gadfly, willing to go against the grain of public opinion or to represent unpopular clients, among them OJ Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein. He is a regular presence on Fox News.

But as Washington, New York and Boston woke, it remained to be seen how a notoriously changeable president might react to his new lawyer’s remarks.

In the event Trump woke up to tweet about the strong US economy while seemingly watching Fox. But there was plenty of coverage from less friendly outlets available should he choose to darken his mood.

The articles of impeachment charge that the president abused the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine to carry out investigations for his political benefit – including against former vice-president and possible 2020 nominee Joe Biden – and obstructed Congress in its efforts to investigate.

On Friday, it was reported that documents released by House Democrats showed that an aide to Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee and a key Trump ally, worked with Lev Parnas on approaches to Ukraine last year.

Parnas is a Soviet-born US citizen and associate of Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer who drove the Ukraine effort. Facing charges under federal campaign law, Parnas has turned against the president, discussing the Ukraine affair in wide-ranging interviews with TV, newspapers and websites.

As the White House faces into the storm, Dershowitz will join a Trump legal team that also includes Ken Starr, who played a leading role in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Jay Sekulow, a Trump lawyer and regular media surrogate, and Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, will also represent the president.

Procedural steps continue. House Democrats this week walked the articles of impeachment to the Senate and supreme court chief justice John Roberts arrived on Capitol Hill to preside.

House impeachment managers, led by intelligence chair Adam Schiff, had a 5pm deadline on Saturday to submit a trial brief. Trump had a 6pm deadline to respond to the charges against him.

A two-thirds majority of senators will be needed to convict Trump and remove him from office. Argument continues over whether witnesses including former national security adviser John Bolton will be allowed to testify. But as the Senate is controlled by a Republican party controlled firmly by Trump, and as majority leader Mitch McConnell has admitted to strategising in lockstep with the White House, a conviction remains extremely unlikely.

No president has been convicted and removed: Clinton and Andrew Johnson survived Senate trials and Richard Nixon resigned before he could be formally impeached. On the BBC, Dershowitz was asked if he thought Trump was a good president and how he felt about potentially facilitating his re-election.

“It’s a very, very different issue,” he said. “I’m a Democrat. I intend to vote Democrat. I think that Democrats would be disappointed to see the president re-elected and Republicans would be pleased.”

Pressed on his personal feelings about Trump’s impeachment, Dershowitz said it “creates ambivalence in me as it does whenever I represent somebody whose acquittal would produce results that make me unhappy as an individual. But I would never, ever allow my own partisan views to impact my views on the constitution.

“I’m not going to allow my partisan views to impact my constitutional views and what I think is best for the long term survival of the constitution rather than the short-term partisan advantage of getting my person elected to be president.”

Many observers have seen Trump’s selection of Dershowitz and Starr as a partisan move. In the words of the Washington Post: “To form the crack legal team that will defend him in the impeachment trial that begins on Tuesday, President Trump went right to the place where the most accomplished and effective lawyers can be found: Fox News.”

On Fox and elsewhere, Dershowitz has argued that abuse of power is not an impeachable offence. On CNN on Saturday morning, he said obstruction of Congress was “made up”.

He also said that in the Senate trial he would be “only arguing on behalf of the constitution”. He would answer questions from senators, he said, but would have a “limited role”, as agreed with Trump.

 

In a fiery exchange on the same network on Friday night, the legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin charged his old teacher with “pretending to be some sort of neutral observer, rather than Donald Trump’s lawyer”.

“For some reason you don’t want to admit that,” Toobin said, “and that’s up to you. But … I think straightforwardly that abuse of power, the framers recognised it, that’s what’s the issue in this case and the senators are perfectly capable of determining whether what the president did is a violation of his oath.”

Dershowitz answered: “Let me perfectly clear, I am an advocate … against impeachment. But I’m politically neutral, that is I would make the same argument whether it was a Democrat or a Republican. I don’t let my political preferences interfere with my constitutional analysis.”

“I think the country is helped,” he added, “when they hear from someone like me who is a liberal Democrat, who has always voted Democrat.”

But, he said: “I want the impeachment to fail.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alan-dershowitz-trump-impeachment-acquittal-145909892.html

 

 

WTH???

B/A

 

Sounds pretty clear to me. 

He is not going to let his personal feelings get in the way of the Constitution, as all politicians should. 

CJ Roberts could come in, start the proceedings and announce that the AOI don't meet the level required in

the Constiturion and dismiss the case.

Many Constitutional experts have said that very thing. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

 

Sounds pretty clear to me. 

He is not going to let his personal feelings get in the way of the Constitution, as all politicians should. 

CJ Roberts could come in, start the proceedings and announce that the AOI don't meet the level required in

the Constiturion and dismiss the case.

Many Constitutional experts have said that very thing. 

 

 

If this was truly a Judicial event ......that's how it would go.....burden of proof hasn't been met........hearsay......opinion.....2nd and 3rd party testimony wouldn't fly.......

 

Neither Congress or the Senate are Judicial......will be interesting to see how CJ  Roberts handles it....I'd like to see him send it back to the Congress and tell them they need some hard evidence....

JMO.        CL 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the new information coming to light I don't see how Roberts couldn't kick it out........

 

Karsten

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the other side of the coin....

We'll have to research this "abuse of power".....can it really be defined....or is it just opinion....      CL

 

=========

 

“The vote was to impeach on abuse of power ― which is not within the constitutional criteria for impeachment,” Dershowitz said. The claim rests on Dershowitz’s belief that abuse of power is not among the “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which a president can be impeached.

 

.@GStephanopoulos: "Is it your position that President Trump should not be impeached even if all the evidence and arguments laid out by the House are accepted as fact?"

Alan Dershowitz: "That's right." https://abcn.ws/363dVLK 

 
Embedded video
 
 
 
 

Dershowitz has frequently appeared on news broadcasts as one of Trump’s staunchest legal allies, arguing against oversight by Congress and against former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference. 

“That’s the argument I suppose you have to make if the facts are so dead-set against you,” Schiff respondedin a separate “This Week” interview. Schiff noted that along with several administration officials, Trump himself has already admitted to the conduct at the core of his impeachment. Schiff rejected the suggestion Trump’s conduct is unimpeachable.

“You had to go so far out of the mainstream to find someone to make that argument, you had to leave the realm of constitutional law scholars and go to criminal defense lawyers,” he said of Dershowitz. 

 

Rep. Adam Schiff: "The only thing really new about the president's defense is that they're now arguing – I think because they can't contest the facts — that the president cannot be impeached for abusing the power of his office." https://abcn.ws/368b8Rx 

 
Embedded video
 
 
 
 

“The logic of that absurdist position that’s being now adopted by the president is he could give away the state of Alaska, he could withhold execution of sanctions on Russia for interfering in the last election, to induce or coerce Russia to interfere in the next one,” Schiff added.

During an interview on “Face the Nation,” Nadler said the argument from Trump’s defense team is “simply ignorance,” adding previous impeachments prove “there is no question” as to whether a president can be charged for abuse of power. 

 

.@RepJerryNadler says he was “surprised” to hear claims from Trump impeachment lawyer Alan Dershowitz that @realDonaldTrump has not committed impeachable offenses. “That’s simply ignorance.”

 
Embedded video
 
 
 
 

The formal impeachment trial is expected to begin in the Senate on Tuesday.

Love HuffPost? Become a founding member of HuffPost Plus today.

Related...

House Democrats Release More Lev Parnas Documents

House Democrats And White House File Arguments Ahead Of Impeachment Trial

Democratic Senator Says He’d Be ‘Fine’ With Republicans Calling Hunter Biden To Testify

This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's Defense Brief Is So Weak He Likely Dictated Parts Himself, John Dean Suspect

Watergate figure John Dean criticized the initial brief laying out Donald Trump’s impeachment defense as an unconvincing “scorched earth” strategy that lawyers in the Senate aren’t likely to buy.

Some sections are so unsophisticated, according to Dean’s characterization, he speculated that parts of it may have been “dictated” by Trump himself. “It’s of that vernacular,” Richard Nixon’s former White House counsel said Sunday on CNN. “It’s not legally sophisticated. It obviously plays to the base.”

The brief was released Saturday by Trump’s legal team, headed by the president’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow and White House counsel Pat Cipollone, ahead of the impeachment trial set to begin Tuesday in the Senate. It calls the impeachment proceedings constitutionally invalid and claims they represent a “brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election.”

Dean dismissed the arguments as a “scorched earth” strategy that could alienate the many lawyers in the Senate. “I think it’s actually going to insult some of the lawyers in the Senate. If their more detailed brief is of the same tone, they’re making a serious mistake,” Dean said. “Lawyers are not going to buy into this. Most members of the Senate, both parties, are lawyers.” 

Dean also accused the legal team of cherry-picking particular details and distorting facts in the brief. The “scheme” to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, which would have politically benefited Trump, “wasn’t just two phone calls” to Ukraine’s president, as the brief claims, Dean noted. “Any news person, any person following the news, would know it’s been going on for months, involving multiple people,” added Dean, who called the operation a “shakedown.” 

Dean has said that the impeachment case against Trump is “more compelling” than the one against Nixon, which drove that president to resign.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-dean-donald-trump-impeachment-unsophisticated-033456035.html

 

 

 

I did notice Dershowitz distanced himself from this instantly. Obviously he wasn't impressed.

B/A

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump will not be voted out of office. He will be acquitted in the Senate. I just hope they call witnesses so the whole Public can see the whole thing not just what they hear on The Trump channel Fox News or on CNN. I personally know people who haven’t watched any news other than Fox News. With witnesses called it will be a big eye opener! Republicans want first hand knowledge. Well then call them! Call Biden too.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impeachment claims abuse of power as the high crime or misdemeanor........abuse of power is undefined in the Constitution......

 

Let's break the first article of impeachment down.....

 

It covers 2 areas......first that with-holding/delaying funding to the Ukraine created threat to US Security.......that's a real stretch by any means.....not sure the burden of proof could ever support that.

 

Second is trying to alter an election by trying to expose/smear your opponent....

 

Given what we know Bidens own activities exposed in videos of him speaking.....this indicates he was involved in some sort of corruption in Ukraine.....so realistically is it wrong for any sitting President to ask that it be investigated on that end.....we already know the DOJ thru Durham is investigating it on this end.....?

If Biden was the actual nominee this charge would carry more weight.....

 

And look at it this way.....if he becomes the nominee and is elected......likely he will be impeached on day 1 for his activities in Ukraine.....that revolving door has now been opened....

 

Another thing that hurts the process is the fact that the left has been trying to Impeach Trump from day one......Stormy...Firing Comey...Cohen.....Russia, Russia, Russia.....Mueller Report....and then this....

 

So the Country is at a crossroads.......should they call witnesses......sure why not......but call all of them....1st 2 should be Bolton and Schiff.....that might be very revealing......busy week ahead for me......should be interesting to say the least......   CL

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, caddieman said:

Trump will not be voted out of office. He will be acquitted in the Senate. I just hope they call witnesses so the whole Public can see the whole thing not just what they hear on The Trump channel Fox News or on CNN. I personally know people who haven’t watched any news other than Fox News. With witnesses called it will be a big eye opener! Republicans want first hand knowledge. Well then call them! Call Biden too.

 

I'd like to see witnesses as well......do recall......all who testified in the public Congressional hearings had testified privately in a bunker designed to keep the testimony secure......the witnesses we watched were basically vetted during that process before they were allowed in public......pretty one sided........

 

I'd like to see Schiff....whistle blower....Biden....Hunter Biden......Nellie Orr......and about 10 others testify.......it will never happen......but why not get to the entire truth.....Schiff would be my first witness.....he orchestrated this whole thing......    CL

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exciting times...look forward to compiling a list of the Senators who comply with the oath they just swore to and those who choose party over country.  The last midterm election was a real referendum on those who chose the latter....I suspect the next election will be much the same, as foreign interference is strictly forbidden. 

 

GO RV, then BV 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

The impeachment claims abuse of power as the high crime or misdemeanor........abuse of power is undefined in the Constitution......

 

Let's break the first article of impeachment down.....

 

It covers 2 areas......first that with-holding/delaying funding to the Ukraine created threat to US Security.......that's a real stretch by any means.....not sure the burden of proof could ever support system" rel="">support that.

 

Second is trying to alter an election by trying to expose/smear your opponent....

 

Given what we know Bidens own activities exposed in videos of him speaking.....this indicates he was involved in some sort of corruption in Ukraine.....so realistically is it wrong for any sitting President to ask that it be investigated on that end.....we already know the DOJ thru Durham is investigating it on this end.....?

If Biden was the actual nominee this charge would carry more weight.....

 

And look at it this way.....if he becomes the nominee and is elected......likely he will be impeached on day 1 for his activities in Ukraine.....that revolving door has now been opened....

 

Another thing that hurts the process is the fact that the left has been trying to Impeach Trump from day one......Stormy...Firing Comey...Cohen.....Russia, Russia, Russia.....Mueller Report....and then this....

 

So the Country is at a crossroads.......should they call witnesses......sure why not......but call all of them....1st 2 should be Bolton and Schiff.....that might be very revealing......busy week ahead for me......should be interesting to say the least......   CL


Agree with most. If you’re going to call Schiff add Devin Nunes to that list too!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shabibilicious said:

Exciting times...look forward to compiling a list of the Senators who comply with the oath they just swore to and those who choose party over country.  The last midterm election was a real referendum on those who chose the latter....I suspect the next election will be much the same, as foreign interference is strictly forbidden. 

 

GO RV, then BV 

 

I think McConnell and Graham need to retract their statements of not being impartial, or Justice Roberts should excuse them. JMHO

 

B/A

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bostonangler said:

 

I think McConnell and Graham need to retract their statements of not being impartial, or Justice Roberts should excuse them. JMHO

 

B/A

He would if it was a civil trial. I’m sure many Democrats have already made up their minds too just haven’t said it in public.......just to be fair.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, caddieman said:

He would if it was a civil trial. I’m sure many Democrats have already made up their minds too just haven’t said it in public.......just to be fair.

 

I agree they have all made up their minds, but saying it in public prior to the trial is not only juvenile, it's very un-statesmen like.

 

B/A

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Roberts Has More Power Than Mitch McConnell Would Like You to Think. But Will He Use It?

The Constitution is, in many respects, vague. And no part of our founding charter has more gaps than the impeachment clauses.

At the time of drafting of the Constitution, the colonists were still recovering from a bitter eight-year war for independence, in which their adversary was the armed forces of the British King George III — the tyrannical monarch who had stripped them of their right to self-government. So while the Founders understood the need for an executive department of any effective government, they were wary of recreating anything close to a monarchy. The result was a compromise, a tripartite state consisting of a legislature, an executive and a judiciary.

One of the checks in this balance was to give the legislature the power to remove the any member of the executive branch, including the President, by impeachment.

But the Founders chose not to provide many details regarding the impeachment process. All they told us in Article I was that (i) the House “shall have the sole power of Impeachment,” and the Senate “the sole power to try all Impeachments,” (ii) “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside” and (iii) it takes a two-thirds vote to convict, and the punishment is limited to removal from office.

That’s it. The Article says nothing about witnesses, hearings or any other procedural aspects in either house. Indeed, it is only when we reach Article II that we learn the standard for impeachment and conviction is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Now, facing the third-ever presidential impeachment trial in history, we grapple with procedural issues left unspecified by the Founders, but that are potentially of great significance on the issue of this President’s guilt.

The most prominent question today, is shall the Senate hear witnesses? Precedent suggests the answer is “yes”– there have been 15 prior impeachment trials in the Senate (two involving Presidents) and all have had witness testimony in the Senate. And there is no Constitutional bar against witnesses in what the Constitution refers to as an impeachment “trial.” But Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader in the Senate, is clearly willing to ignore precedent and has thus far refused to commit to calling witnesses. He even considers that his constitutional oath to do “impartial justice” permits him to coordinate every aspect of trial management with counsel for the President, who objects to witnesses.

But wait a minute. While McConnell is not mentioned in the Constitution, Chief Justice John Roberts is. Indeed, it is the Chief Justice of the United States who shall “preside” over the trial, not the Majority Leader. So why isn’t it up to Roberts to decide whether witnesses shall appear?

Absent anything in the Constitution to the contrary, it seems obvious that the witness dispute should be resolved by the ruling of the constitutionally appointed “Presiding Officer” of the trial. This is especially true if we were to abide by the conservative element of our judiciary that insists on the strict construction of the words of any constitutional or statutory provision.

Why isn’t “let presiding officer decide” the guiding principle here? Because the Senate, without a shred of constitutional authority, has adopted a set of rules that would effectively strip the presiding officer of much of his power to “preside” over the trial.

Are those Senate rules constitutional? I keep a pocket copy of the Constitution in my backpack. I have reread it a dozen times. I see nothing in there giving McConnell, or a majority herd of senatorial sheep, the power to limit the Chief Justice’s constitutional power — and duty — to “preside” over this trial.

Is there a remedy for this illicit power grab? Yes. The remedy is for the Chief Justice of the United States to exercise his sworn duty and “preside” over the trial unencumbered by unconstitutional Senate rules. If he deems it relevant to call witnesses, he has the power and the duty to do so, whatever McConnell thinks.

But even assuming the Senate did get, from some unknown source, the right to make impeachment rules that fill in the blanks left by the Founders, whence comes the assertion that the Senate can overrule the presiding officer on any issue? The claimed source is the Senate’s impeachment Rule VII, which provides, “The Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence, including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions…” But later in the rule the Senators granted themselves the right, by majority vote, to overrule the Presiding Officer with respect to those rulings.

What the Constitution giveth, the Senate taketh away.

Rule VII is also the basis of numerous media articles that erroneously state that every ruling by the Chief Justice is subject to being overturned by the will of the Majority Leader, or the majority, and therefore the appointment of the Chief Justice is “ceremonial.” Really? I would not be surprised if you do not find the word “ceremonial” in your copy of the Constitution, because I cannot find it in my copy either.

Conclusions:

1. The Senate lacks authority to adopt any rule placing any limit whatsoever on the Chief Justice’s power to preside over this trial. In his capacity as presiding officer, Justice Roberts has unlimited authority to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and if the occasion arises, he should so rule.

2. Even if one were to assume Senate Rule VII passed constitutional muster, the rule is quite limited, and arguably would not prevent the Chief Justice from issuing a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents. The ability to overturn a ruling on relevance is not a grant of total authority to overrule every act of the presiding officer.

Will our institutional Chief Justice rise to the occasion and do the right thing here?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-roberts-more-power-mitch-215058907.html

 

 

B/A

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate Impeachment Hearings......

Exciting times indeed as Shabbs has already voiced.  I made caramel popcorn molded into a elephant with a tint of red.  Got a cheese ball ready to go with green and black olives chilling.  Some of those little wrapped wieners wrapped in cheese bread with jalapeno.  Of course  the nachos and chips are ready.  A cheese and vegetable platter.....yum, yum.  Oh!  even tho it's cold outside, we have turn the heat up full blast and the cooler is iced down with plenty of ice cold beer.  After rules have been laid out, we are all set.  I wonder if head or tales will be involved.  I'm  looking at heads we win tales you lose kinda thing.   Exciting times? YES.

I believe the game is just about over and my team is in the lead.....let's eat

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2020 at 10:07 AM, bostonangler said:

 

Right because the White House and puppet McConnell don't want witnesses.

 

B/A

 

Nice try dip stick.......take 4 words out of a post and twist them to meet your narative....we may have to start calling you "Schiffty" BA

 

For the record.....I posted:

 

Clean up your act BA......    CL

 

"I'd like to see Schiff....whistle blower....Biden....Hunter Biden......Nellie Orr......and about 10 others testify.......it will never happen......but why not get to the entire truth.....Schiff would be my first witness.....he orchestrated this whole thing......    CL"

 

 

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Nice try dip stick.......take 4 words out of a post and twist them to meet your narative....we may have to start calling you "Schiffty" BA

 

For the record.....I posted:

 

Clean up your act BA......    CL

 

"I'd like to see Schiff....whistle blower....Biden....Hunter Biden......Nellie Orr......and about 10 others testify.......it will never happen......but why not get to the entire truth.....Schiff would be my first witness.....he orchestrated this whole thing......    CL"

 

 

 

You've learn well grasshopper... Name calling just like your fearless leader... I don't get why you are angry, I'm all for witnesses. In fact every impeachment including the two for presidents had witnesses. So the question is, what is McConnell afraid of? The partisanship on both sides of this is really disgusting. That's why I won't vote for either party in the coming election, they are all traitors when it comes to protecting the constitution.

 

B/A

Edited by bostonangler
  • Thanks 2
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, learning all i can said:

Senate Impeachment Hearings......

Exciting times indeed as Shabbs has already voiced.  I made caramel popcorn molded into a elephant with a tint of red.  Got a cheese ball ready to go with green and black olives chilling.  Some of those little wrapped wieners wrapped in cheese bread with jalapeno.  Of course  the nachos and chips are ready.  A cheese and vegetable platter.....yum, yum.  Oh!  even tho it's cold outside, we have turn the heat up full blast and the cooler is iced down with plenty of ice cold beer.  After rules have been laid out, we are all set.  I wonder if head or tales will be involved.  I'm  looking at heads we win tales you lose kinda thing.   Exciting times? YES.

I believe the game is just about over and my team is in the lead.....let's eat

 

I appreciate the shout out and your always upbeat attitude....Though I must say, when the dust settles, your cheese ball will be gone, Trump's impeached label will last forever whether he's removed or not.....So I fail to really see any winners, as we, the entire country loses because of the whole process, forced by Trump's own diabolical, unconstitutional hand.  Exciting times?  Yes...but for all the wrong reasons.

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I appreciate the shout out and your always upbeat attitude....Though I must say, when the dust settles, your cheese ball will be gone, Trump's impeached label will last forever whether he's removed or not.....So I fail to really see any winners, as we, the entire country loses because of the whole process, forced by Trump's own diabolical, unconstitutional hand.  Exciting times?  Yes...but for all the wrong reasons.

 

GO RV, then BV

well Shabbs, I have to disagree....impeachment will be forgotten by all come Nov..  True enough it will go down in the history books but Trump will be dead and gone as you and I, so the words hurt no one.  The Dems have demonstrated only that they will lie,cheat and steal to win a election.  This alone has been what has hurt our country and besides that right now I'm Hungary.  You should head to the kitchen. Whoops, how do ya spell hungry?`

Edited by learning all i can
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, learning all i can said:

well Shabbs, I have to disagree....impeachment will be forgotten by all come Nov..  True enough it will go down in the history books but Trump will be dead and gone as you and I, so the words hurt no one.  The Dems have demonstrated only that they will lie,cheat and steal to win a election.  This alone has been what has hurt our country and besides that right now I'm Hungary.  You should head to the kitchen. 

 

I agree with the Dems lie, cheat and steal to win an election comment....the only difference between them and team Trump is Trump's willingness to seek help from a foreign government to accomplish the same thing.  And that's a funny typo, "Hungary", not too far from Ukraine, or Russia for that matter.   lol.  :eyebrows:

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.