SCOTUS: No Articles of Impeachment or a Trial Are Required For The Senate to Acquit President Trump

“THEY CAN END IT NOW”

by Ren Jander, ©2019

Photo courtesy U.S. Senate

(Dec. 22, 2019) — The United States Supreme Court – in a 9-0 holding – unequivocally ruled that no trial is required for the Senate to acquit, or convict, anyone impeached by the House of Representatives.  Even liberal Justices Stevens and Souter concurred in the ironclad judgment.  The case is Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

Once you comprehend the momentous importance of this case, you will then understand why Harvard Law School professor (and Democrat impeachment witness), Noah Feldman, recently published an article erroneously claiming that President Trump hasn’t been impeached yet.

Feldman isn’t trying to help the President.  He knows the Senate can acquit immediately without waiting for Speaker Pelosi to transfer articles of impeachment, or for House impeachment managers to be appointed.  This is because the Supreme Court has ruled – in the Nixon case – that how the Senate goes about acquitting or convicting any impeached person is non-justiciable, in that the Senate’s power is plenary and the Supreme Court may not even review it.

This means that if the Senate acquits Trump immediately – without a trial – the Supreme Court has no authority, whatsoever, to review the Senate’s acquittal, and there isn’t a damn thing the House can do about it.

Feldman is distracting the nation from understanding the full scope of Senate acquittal authority.  He knows that if the House hasn’t impeached the President, the Senate could not immediately acquit him.  This is why Feldman appears to be defending POTUS.

Appearances are deceptive.  Feldman’s true game is to provide cover for Pelosi’s power play in not delivering the articles of impeachment or choosing House impeachment managers, neither of which is necessary for the House to impeach.  The Constitution doesn’t mention “articles of impeachment” or “impeachment managers.” And once the House impeaches, the Senate takes over.  The House then has no power whatsoever to dictate terms of a trial.  No trial is even required.

The Nixon court held that “the word ‘sole’ indicates that this authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else.”  Feldman is fully aware of this, and he fears the American people will discover the truth.  This is why he is trying to convince you that the House has not impeached the President yet.

House Resolution 755 states that the House voted to impeach President Trump, and it voted to exhibit articles of impeachment to the Senate.  The twin objectives of the resolution are stated clearly in the text of H.R. 755:

“RESOLUTION

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:”

The resolution passed.  It was resolved that the President “is impeached” and that the articles be “exhibited” to the Senate.  The first objective was accomplished when the resolution passed, and the second objective has not yet been accomplished.  But formal transmission of the articles is not required by the Constitution for there to be an impeachment.

The Senate has no authority to determine what conduct is impeachable or what process the House uses to impeach.  On the other hand, the House has no authority over the Senate’s sole power to acquit, or convict, or the process invoked to either end.

Therefore, no trial is necessary for the Senate to acquit immediately.  This saga could be over right now.  Feldman realizes this is true, so he invented a bogus unwritten requirement into the Constitution, to the effect that impeachment is a process requiring transmission of articles of impeachment to the Senate.  Feldman, of course, does not mention the Nixon case.

WALTER NIXON’S IMPEACHMENT CONVICTION

Walter Nixon was the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.  He was convicted of making false statements before a grand jury and sentenced to prison.

The investigation stemmed from reports that Nixon accepted a gratuity from a Mississippi businessman in exchange for asking a local district attorney to halt the prosecution of the businessman’s son.  (Sound familiar?)  Because Nixon refused to resign from his office as a United States District Judge, he continued to collect his judicial salary while serving out his prison sentence.

The House of Representatives adopted three articles of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.  The Senate voted to use Senate Impeachment Rule XI, allowing the presiding officer to appoint a committee of Senators to “receive evidence and take testimony.” The committee did its work then presented the full Senate with a transcript of the proceeding and a report on the facts.

The Senate voted by more than a two-thirds majority to convict Nixon.  The presiding officer then entered judgment removing Nixon from his office as United States District Judge.  Nixon thereafter commenced suit, arguing that Senate Rule XI violates the constitutional grant of authority to the Senate to “try” all impeachments because it prohibits the whole Senate from taking part in the evidentiary hearings.

Nixon sought a declaratory judgment that his impeachment conviction was void and that his judicial salary and privileges should be reinstated. The District Court held that his claim was non-justiciable, 744 F. Supp. 9 (D.C. 1990), and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed. 290 U. S. App. D.C. 420 (1991).  The Supreme Court accepted the case, and then ruled that they had no power to review the Senate’s impeachment process.  They affirmed that the case was non-justiciable.  The Court focused its attention on the word “sole”:

“Petitioner devotes only two pages in his brief to negating the significance of the word ‘sole’ in the first sentence of Clause 6. As noted above, that sentence provides that ‘[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.’ We think that the word ‘sole’ is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word ‘sole’ appears only one other time in the Constitution–with respect to the House of Representatives’ ‘sole Power of Impeachment.’ Art. I, §2, cl. 5 (emphasis added). The common sense meaning of the word ‘sole’ is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted.”  (Emphasis added.)

The Court’s holding is clear: the Senate alone determines acquittal or conviction. The Senate committee prepared a report, submitted the report to the Senate, and the Senate voted to convict.  Nixon demanded a full trial before the entire Senate.  He did not get one.  He lost and was removed.  The Supreme Court held that it did not have the power to review the Senate’s conduct.  As to the meaning of the word “try” in the impeachment clause, the court’s majority opinion states:

“The conclusion that the use of the word ‘try’ in the first sentence of the Impeachment Trial Clause lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review of the Senate’s actions is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Constitution does impose on the Senate when trying impeachments: the members must be under oath, a two thirds vote is required to convict, and the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried. These limitations are quite precise, and their nature suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings by the use of the word ‘try’ in the first sentence.” [Emphasis added.]

The Court’s use of the word “proceedings” is telling in the extreme.  Any action by the Senate is a proceeding, but not every proceeding is a trial.  If the Senate proceeds with a motion to dismiss, or a motion to acquit the President, no trial is required.

The Nixon Court continued by making it absolutely clear that an impeachment trial is not required, holding that the Senate is not limited in any way by the word “try” in convicting or acquitting impeached persons:

“In the case before us, there is no separate provision of the Constitution which could be defeated by allowing the Senate final authority to determine the meaning of the word ‘try’ in the Impeachment Trial Clause… [W]e conclude…that the word ‘try’ in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.” (Emphasis added.)

Nothing in the Constitution, or in the ruling by the Supreme Court in Nixon, requires the Senate to “try” anyone after the House impeaches.  The Senate can simply acquit the President without trying him, because the Senate alone has the power to convict or acquit. The Supreme Court held that there is no identifiable textual limit on that authority.  Justice White’s concurring opinion worried that such broad authority in the Senate could be abused, but six of the nine justices joined the majority opinion.  All nine approved judgment.  And the Senate’s plenary authority is controlling law.

If there is a tie on a motion to acquit or dismiss, the Constitution gives Vice President Pence the tie-breaking vote.  If the Democrat Senators running for President have no conflict of interest, neither does Pence.  Regardless, the Constitution directly gives Pence the tie-breaking vote, so the GOP can lose three votes, but the Dems would need four GOP defectors to overrule the Chair.

Not only did the Supreme Court reject the assertion that it could review the Senate’s conduct in acquitting or convicting any person impeached by the House, the Court held that it couldn’t even identify a limit upon the Senate’s authority to acquit or convict.

The Court also held that no separate provision of the Constitution is defeated by such a plenary construction of the Senate’s authority.  Therefore, not even the sole power of the House to impeach is defeated by the Senate’s sole power to acquit or convict.  Boom.  Just end it now, Mitch.

Note that current House Representative Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge, was impeached and removed from the bench.  He also argued in federal court that the Senate owed him a trial before the full Senate, after he too was convicted by a Senate committee report.  The D.C. District Court initially threw out Hastings’ impeachment conviction in the Senate, but after the Nixon ruling, that decision in favor of Hastings was vacated.  The district court then dismissed Hastings’ suit as non-justiciable according to Nixon.  Hastings remains impeached and removed from the bench.

MORE ON FELDMAN’S RUSE

Noah Feldman’s deceptive legal analysis continued:

“Strictly speaking, ‘impeachment’ occurred – and occurs — when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.”

This is the meat of Feldman’s paper chase fairy-tale, and it’s wrong on both claims.  Feldman asserts that in passing H.R. 755, the House only “voted” to impeach, but that the impeachment is not completed until the articles are presented to the Senate.  That claim fails upon reading the actual text of H.R. 755, which both impeaches the President and requires that the articles be exhibited to the Senate.  If the resolution had only mentioned exhibiting the articles, then Feldman might have a point.  But the resolution also clearly states that the President “is impeached.”  Full stop.

Second, once impeached, the Senate is certainly not “obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.”  Harvard’s esteemed Professor Feldman is certainly aware of the 9-0 Nixon holding.  Yet, he fails to mention it at all in his viral article published by Bloomberg.  And this is so very telling.  He ignores the most important Supreme Court decision in US history regarding impeachment.  That’s just lame, bro.

Of course, the House would be well within its sole power to cancel impeachment by voting on a new resolution, but until the House actually takes a subsequent official action, the President remains impeached.  So the Senate may acquit immediately.

I find it absolutely frightening that the President’s legal team might be considering Feldman’s position as beneficial to POTUS.  It’s even more disturbing that multiple conservative outlets have sadly taken Feldman’s bait.  Rather than agreeing with his fairy-tale construction of impeachment authority, the President’s legal team should be pressuring the Senate to rightfully acquit the President immediately, before the House can invent more fake facts from deep state saboteurs that Pierre Dilecto and friends will rely upon in removing the President from office.  You don’t want a full trial in the Senate, Mr. President.  If it gets that far, your goose may be cooked.  End it now.

ONE CHAMBER CHECKS THE OTHER

Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler wielded their authority with a hammer.  Their abusive impeachment inquiry broke from historical precedent.  They cracked the whip with stealth force.  And the framers knew such abuses would occur.  The majority opinion in Nixon quotes Federalist Paper No. 66 in discussing that the framers intended each chamber of Congress be a check on the other, whenever one might abuse its sole power regarding impeachment:

“Nixon fears that if the Senate is given unreviewable authority to interpret the Impeachment Trial Clause, there is a grave risk that the Senate will usurp judicial power. The Framers anticipated this objection and created two constitutional safeguards to keep the Senate in check. The first safeguard is that the whole of the impeachment power is divided between the two legislative bodies, with the House given the right to accuse and the Senate given the right to judge. Id., No. 66, p. 446. This split of authority ‘avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches.’”  (Emphasis added.)

A “factious spirit” in the House is exactly what the nation just witnessed as Schiff ran his impeachment inquiry from a bunker with an iron fist; exposed phone numbers of House members and journalists; lied to the American people about his staff meeting with the whistleblower; and read an egregiously prejudicial fictitious bilateral call transcript on the House floor as if it were real.

According to the Supreme Court’s holding in Nixon, the Senate has no legal duty to give the House impeachment a trial.  And there is certainly no moral reason for the Senate to respect the pain and suffering Schiff has caused by violating every chance for decency and mutual Congressional respect.  In the face of such a factious spirit, the Senate has every moral right and reason to end the Congressional abuse by acquitting the President immediately.  Impeachment is a political event.  The GOP needs to play hardball politics now.  The people will vote again in November.  Leave it to us.

In 1974, the Duke Law Journal published a comprehensive article about impeachment and removal of the President.  The following passage elucidates a simple truth:

“If impeachment, conviction, and removal are to accomplish a therapeutic effect upon the country, it is essential that the public be convinced of the President’s guilt in the commission of impeachable offenses and thereby be persuaded that his removal is in the constitutional interest of the country. The citizenry must not only be convinced of this but must also be convinced in bipartisan numbers if impeachment is to be dominantly therapeutic rather than divisive.”

There is no bipartisan support for impeachment in the citizenry.  Removal of the President will not be therapeutic.  It will be divisive on a level we have not seen since the Civil War.  The Senate should just end it now.

The Republican Senate majority must rely on the Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision in Nixon.  It’s up to the Senate alone whether they “try” the President.  They don’t have to.  Nothing in the Constitution requires a trial to acquit.  The Senate could simply acquit the President, dismiss the impeachment, or adjourn sine die, which is what they did when Andrew Johnson was impeached.

The point here is that the GOP holds power in the Senate, and the law gives them multiple options for ending this national disaster immediately.  The Republican Senators should not surrender their authority to Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi.  That would be a tragedy.

When the House abuses its power, the upper chamber is empowered to check that abuse.  The Senate may acquit without a trial, without any input from the House, and without any possible review by the Supreme Court.  This is not an esoteric theory of Constitutional law.  This is the exact holding of a 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court.  They could end this today by reconsidering Senate rules upon a simple majority.  Analysis of this procedure was published at Lawfare back in January by Bob Bauer:

“The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own ‘sole power,’ to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.

“The current rules governing Senate practice and procedure do not pose an insurmountable problem for this maneuver. Senate leadership can seek to have the rules ‘reinterpreted’ at any time by the device of seeking a ruling of the chair on the question, and avoiding a formal revision of the rule that would require supermajority approval. The question presented in some form would be whether, under the relevant rules, the Senate is required to hold an impeachment ‘trial’ fully consistent with current rules—or even any trial at all. A chair’s ruling in the affirmative would be subject to being overturned by a majority, not two-thirds, vote.”

Pursuant to the above scenario, the GOP could lose three votes for a tie, and Pence could then break the tie.  But if the Chair determines that no trial is required by the rules, the Democrats would need to flip four GOP votes.  Therefore, the President’s legal team should be pushing for a motion to acquit the President immediately.  Hold their feet to the fire and demand an acquittal vote before any trial.  If this measure fails, the four (or more) GOP defectors will seal their political fate.

The House has no authority to affect how the Senate conducts impeachment proceedings.  Should the Senate grace Speaker Pelosi’s stunt with any shred of legal credibility, it will usurp the Supreme Court’s holding in Nixon.  The Senate must not allow the House to overrule the Supreme Court.  They can end it now.  Spread the word.  

Written and Researched by Ren Jander

——————————-

Looking for all of your news in one place?  Try Whatfinger, your one-stop aggregator of news, opinion and everything else.

26 Responses to "SCOTUS: No Articles of Impeachment or a Trial Are Required For The Senate to Acquit President Trump"

  1. Robert Laity   Monday, December 30, 2019 at 2:55 AM

    David, The President is not encumbered from performing the duties of his office upon mere impeachment. He/she can nominate Judges and exert any other power and authority of his/her office until such time as he/she is no longer in office. The President’s power to pardon and grant reprieves is restricted “in cases of impeachment” meaning that a subsequent President cannot pardon an impeached and removed Public official, such as a President in such manner removed.

    Reply
  2. Lindsay Boxer   Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 7:21 PM

    “The Constitution says he can nominate judges “except in cases of impeachment”.”

    No, the Constitution says he may grant pardons except in cases of impeachment, nothing about appointing judges.

    Reply
  3. Bstoff   Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 6:41 AM

    Either way. I hope this works out for the best.
    The media will spin it the way they want, no matter what the Senate does.

    Reply
  4. Dale Coparanis   Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 12:05 AM

    While I agree with your assessment of the Nixon case and how it can be used here you are missing a very big point.

    Trump WANTS a trial. He wants his day in court.

    And Trump’s day in court does not have to be with any other witnesses. Since the Senate makes its own rules then they can simply call Trump as a witness, let him have the floor for a few hours, close the proceedings and then acquit him.

    No cross examination, nothing else.

    In an interview a few days ago, Lindsey Graham said emphatically – twice – that Trump will have his day in court.

    What will this accomplish? With the whole world watching – including those who don’t follow politics that much whom I will refer to as Joe and Juanita Sixpack – Trump will lay out all the sordid details in a way only he can. Remember, he’s not playing to a judge or a jury. The Rs in the Senate will vote against removal – no doubt there. Trump is playing to all the “normal” Americans who have never heard about all the hoaxes and fake news we who are political junkies know about.

    Joe and Juanita, on the other hand, need to get their information in a way that they can process it. No one speaks to them better than Trump. On top of this, Trump has spent 3 years reducing their taxes, ensuring they have job opportunities, decreasing illegal immigration and not starting any new wars. In other words, he has developed “street cred” with the Sixpacks.

    Once Trump finishes his expose on the DeepState then he will have completed the setup for the indictments to come down from the DoJ.

    It must happen in this sequence because if Trump does not make the case to Joe and Juanita first then the indictments against the FBI, CIA and other federal agencies that are basically respected by average Americans will look very bad. But if Trump makes the case directly to Mr. and Mrs. Sixpack then they will be much more accepting, if not outright supportive, of the indictments. Their acceptance and support will keep Trump’s approval ratings on the way up (as they are doing now) even while the media and the Democrats mercilessly lie to protect their sources for leaks and information.

    These indictments will be the crack in the dam needed to drain the swamp of Washington DC.

    The key is that Trump only has one shot at this. If he misses then the swamp will come back with another impeachment and, this time, likely removal from office. The swamp or the establishment – whatever term you want to use – will not allow a second chance to come after them.

    Trump cannot miss.

    Fortunately, Trump thinks BIG. It’s how he’s lived his entire life and how he has made his billions. No one else could do this. It will be glorious.

    Reply
  5. David   Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 6:20 PM

    I agree that the right thing for the Senate to do is to squash this thing like a bug, quickly. Some people want a “full trial” so the R’s can put on witnesses they wanted to hear in the House proceedings, or are hoping to force Hunter Biden to testify, or whatever. This makes exactly zero sense because Lindsey Graham has already invited Giuliani to bring his suitcases of Ukraine documents and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, unrelated to any impeachment trial.

    As long as we remain in the twilight zone of quasi-impeachment, the ability of Trump to nominate federal judges may be impaired. The Constitution says he can nominate judges “except in cases of impeachment”. So part of the Dem strategy may be to block those nominations for as many months or years as possible. They are truly desperate to stop them.

    So the Senate Republicans should squash this thing immediately and get back in the business of receiving Trump’s nominations and approving his federal judges.

    Reply
    1. Sharon Rondeau   Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 6:14 AM

      Comment from Joseph DeMaio:

      “The comment from David (12/24/19 @ 6:20 PM) is interesting, and well-taken. Recall that the president’s power to nominate federal judges extends not only to U.S. District Court (trial) judges and Circuit Court of Appeals (appellate) judges, but also to vacancies which may appear at the U.S. Supreme Court – through resignation or otherwise – perish that should happen.”

      Reply
  6. Cort Wrotnowski   Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 10:37 AM

    Ren Jander’s comments make it sound like the standard for impeachment is pretty much the same as the Islamic standard for divorce where the husband simply says three times, “I divorce you.”. No judge, nothing. You are gone.

    So, I am still having a problem with all of this.

    Reply
  7. Sharon Rondeau   Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 7:58 AM

    “COMMENT FROM REN JANDER:

    The Nixon case’s core holding is that “sole power” means plenary power, as to both the House power to impeach, and Senate power to judge impeachment, so it’s not possible for any court or other government branch to affect the House decision to impeach, or Senate decision to acquit.

    In the Trump case, the House passed HR 755, which states that the President “is impeached”. The Resolution passed. Therefore, according to Nixon, the President is, in fact, right now, impeached. Full stop. Because no court or branch can affect HR 755.

    Articles and managers are not required, or even mentioned in the Constitution. If the House says you are impeached, then you are, most certainly, impeached. If the House wanted to require delivery of articles, and appointment of House managers, before impeachment happens, then they would have said so, they would have styled HR 755 to that effect. Something like this — ‘As soon as the articles are delivered to the Senate, the President will be impeached.’

    But that’s not what 755 says. It is not a conditional resolution. The Resolution unequivocally states that the President “is impeached”. The words are simple. The plain language controls. Nobody really wants to debate what the meaning of “is” is, right?”

    Reply
  8. DAve   Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 2:13 AM

    The headline reads,

    “No Articles of Impeachment or a Trial Are Required For The Senate to Acquit President Trump”

    based on the case of Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

    This would be a different case, figuratively & literally, if in the case of Nixon, the Senate had NOT received “a message(s) that the House has voted impeachment, adopted articles, and appointed managers.” ((IV. Sequence of events at the beginning of a trial)

    The ruling in the Nixon case does not address whether the Senate had in fact received articles in accordance with its

    PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE

    SCOTUS ruled in the Nixon case the outcome of the impeachment, based on the procedures/process that were followed, was appropriate and legal.

    “1 First a message(s) from the House of Representatives
    is received containing the information that the House
    has voted impeachment, adopted articles, and appointed
    managers.” ………………. pg 9 (Chapter IV. Sequence of events at the beginning of a trial)

    Further,

    II. RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON
    IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

    I. WHENSOEVER THE SENATE SHALL RECEIVE notice from the
    House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their
    part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are
    directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the
    Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of
    Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the
    managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of
    impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

    While the Senate’s “sole” authority or power is not debatable, I don’t think the ruling in the Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) is applicable now given the “notice” requirement.

    Reply
  9. Nosh Itsherlock   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:52 PM

    The author’s case is persuasive for me. Regardless, I fail to see the benefit of a lengthy Senate circus. This author is not the first to point out that delivery of the articles to the Senate is not necessary for a rapid disposal of the impeachment. That leaves two questions: first, why hasn’t McConnell raised this possibility? Second, does McConnell already know he doesn’t even have a simple majority for a motion to dismiss?

    Reply
  10. Bob Smithers   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 10:10 PM

    Allowing the Demarxists any quarter would be folly, in regards to any possibility of a trial. So far, all along, they have lied, distorted, ignored, and eliminated ANY evidence that destroys their magical, dystopian quest to eliminate Orange Man. Why give the Demarxists ANY credence or leverage?
    Vote to outright dismiss, and save America from this DeMarxist ABUSE OF POWER!

    Reply
  11. Carpenter   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 5:44 PM

    I believe the Senate should call just a few witnesses to deliver the best possible blows to Schiff’s case as possible, and then acquit.

    Not acquit directly, as the media would spin it to mean “they didn’t dare hold a trial”. And not call a long line of witnesses which would blur the most important part.

    The best witness would be the Ukrainian president, who could testify in person or from a distance, perhaps through an intermediary. He has said there was no “quid pro quo”. Just have him say it again where people will actually hear it. The second witness should be the one person in Ukraine the U.S. embassy could actually have talked to about a “quid pro quo”; I forget his name. But he has said he never met with the U.S. diplomats in private, and the one time they did meet there was never any talk of a deal. Leave it at that. Then acquit.

    Of course I know the Senate will muddy this with witnesses no one cares about, so that in the public’s eyes it will just be a case of “he said, he said” instead of a clear case.

    Reply
  12. Jim   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:45 PM

    Which criminals in WashDC care anything about law and order? Both the GOP and the Dems are responsible for the chaos. This current state of affairs is what happens when the voters fall asleep at guarding the Republic and allow selfish clowns to rule over us. At this point, secession is the only solution by a good old fashioned state’s rights revolt once the financial house of cards crumbles at the federal level.

    Reply
  13. PlanBill   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:11 PM

    On the presumption that all that is stated is accurate (and I have no reason nor argument to the contrary), then the question is what benefit does McConnell and Trump’s legal team envision in having the impeachment hang fire over the holiday break?
    I think that Pelosi and Schiff have vastly miscalculated the effect of having their carefully crafted attack on the POTUS get brought back to the fore of the public attention in January with the Senate’s first proceeding being a full display of the vacuity of the charges followed by a bipartisan acquittal.
    The second part of the play will be Barr handing down several indictments for the deep state actors involved in the ginned-up Russia fiasco, with the declassification of evidence of the depth and breadth of their efforts spawning a closer look up the ladder of the DNC.
    Really, I’m buying popcorn futures because 2020 is looking like a banner year filled with schadenfreude on one side and tears and rending of robes on the other.

    Reply
  14. Cort Wrotnowski   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 10:47 AM

    Clarification – there has to be a determination of abuse of power by the legislative branch.

    Reply
    1. Sharon Rondeau   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:38 AM

      Reply from Ren Jander:

      “The safeguard of two-thirds to convict remains. For acquittal without a trial, you only need simple majority. If that fails, you can be acquited by less than 67 votes to convict. Mitch should give Trump two bites of acquittal apple. They can still manufacture dirty evidence and dirty witnesses. So end it now if possible.

      If you read the Nixon case, the super majority to convict is mentioned as a safeguard to abuse. Also, my follow up report will have more on potential abuse, and the veiled textual protection against it. Give the framers some credit. I agree with the 9-0 judgment. More to follow.”

      Reply
  15. Cort Wrotnowski   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 10:46 AM

    This article and SCOTUS says there is no protection against abuse of power. Non-justiciable? That certainly draws a bright line between politics and the law. 9-0? This citizen is the dissenting vote here. Now, I have never given this any thought. But somewhere there has to be a determination of abuse. Here there is none. 9-0 schmine O, this is wrong. If the democrats had the majority in the senate, these flimsy articles would have been all they needed and with the luxury of no trial by this ruling.

    You know what? If this is ultimately political and has nothing to do with the law, then something this important should be subjected to a special election/recall election. Break out those election machines and get busy.

    Reply
  16. Francisco Machado   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM

    James: The President is the accused, the subject of the proceedings before the House and subsequently the Senate. Not any of the others, at least some of whom are now under investigation and who are well deserving of indictment. They cannot be tried as part of another trial.

    Reply
  17. RandyLee   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 9:35 AM

    if the Senate does decide to hold a full trial, I don’t see how Trump’s goose would be cooked. it would take some real stupidity, bordering on treasonous, for any GOP senator to give the so-called ‘evidence’ put forth by the House any traction as actual evidence. if that happens, we might as well shut down DC and start the new civil war because it will be obvious our govt ‘leaders’ are just idiots.

    we expect this type of behavior from the dimwits and rino’s in Congress as they are scared of losing everything they have worked so hard to screw we the people out of for so many decades. the GOP will hopefully bring some sanity back to this process and stop the embarrassing behavior exhibited by the group of kindergartners currently serving as House democrats.

    Reply
  18. D3F1ANT   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 9:22 AM

    Democrats would use every tool available to them–thus they would immediately acquit if the shoe was on the other foot. Sadly, Republicans are always in a one-sided battle to prove how reasonable and fair we are…we’ll probably opt to further imperil the Union with a long painful trial–just to prove we’re SO fair that we’ll endanger ourselves beyond what the law requires. The Dems will take that opportunity to cheat their way to victory. I hope McConnell proves he’s better than the man we think he is and just end this Democrat farce.

    Reply
  19. Dave Hunter   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 9:16 AM

    Excellent article. Too bad Professor Feldman won’t suffer any consequences for leaving out the very important SCOTUS decision on impeachment, which he most certainly is aware of.

    Reply
  20. FreemenRtrue   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 6:36 AM

    Great article – full of facts – WOW – this is so unusual today. Congratulations and accalamamtion for a job well done.

    Reply
  21. James   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 4:43 AM

    But acquitting Trump would ruin the chance to bring in all the Treasonous, Seditious, Subversive, idiots who angered the people on both sides of the public.
    They would all be subpoenaed and call in to testify, each will be given a rope at the door before being seated.

    U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115

    18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 – TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

    US Code

    § 2381 – Treason
    § 2382 – Misprision of treason
    § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection
    § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy
    § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government
    § 2386 – Registration of certain organizations
    § 2387 – Activities affecting armed forces generally
    § 2388 – Activities affecting armed forces during war
    § 2389 – Recruiting for service against United States
    § 2390 – Enlistment to serve against United States
    § 2391 – Repealed. Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330004(13), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2142]

    Reply
  22. william   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:36 AM

    sorry but the impeachment was 2 articles, obstruction of congress and abuse of power . get the story straight they didn’t have any evidence of bribery and high crimes

    Reply
    1. Sharon Rondeau   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 7:08 AM

      The writer reported the wording of the Resolution the House drew up after the Articles were passed. Our other articles have properly reported that the two Articles of Impeachment claim “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.” https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/12/19/house-adjourns-until-next-year-without-action-on-impeachment-articles/

      Reply
      1. Sharon Rondeau   Monday, December 23, 2019 at 10:50 AM

        Response from Ren Jander:

        “The report quotes directly from HR 755 which was voted on and passed. The reader’s comment is misleading. HR 755 does not allege bribery or treason. They should read HR 755 at the link provided:

        https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.