Take it to trial Mitch

I know I said stick a cork in it on impeachment.

Egg on my face.

While I have grown tired of the Democrats white whale.

The Interpretation of senate rules around Nancy withholding the articles do Interest me.

I hate to say it but the way I see it she can hang onto the articles as long as she damn well pleases.

Looking at article 1 section 3 rule 1 of .

Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials

1. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to con- duct 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.

Blacks legal dictionary defines “whensoever” as of course whenever. So according to the Senate and rules there is no time limit imposed for submitting the articles of impeachment.

The Senate can ask for a reinterpretation of rule one set a time limit and dismiss the articles of impeachment outright if not delivered. As proposed by many in DC and the main stream media.

Senate rules need a super majority to be changed. But they can be re-interpreted at any time after a motion. Reinterpretation can be accomplished with a 51 votes simple majority. (Cloture)

I believe a reinterpretation that denies semblance of a trial can be strongly challenged in the courts and drag things out for a long time.

(see Nixon versus the United States)

now we have to skip to rule number seven.....,

VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise.specially provided for. And the Presid- ing Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence includ- ing, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redun- dancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules ofthe Senate.

It’s at that point it becomes a trial and the presidents attorney can file a motion for dismissal. It would all be in the standing rules and give the Democrats a lot less ammo for vilifying us. It should also stop any judicial review.

If they try for debate go nuclear on their asses.

Articles that I have read. Brought up Nixon versus the United States 1993 as “ ironclad” proof that the judicial branch cannot get involved in impeachment. It was a unanimous decision by SCOTUS affirming that the Senate has sole power over trial. “Unanimous decision” is a little bit misleading.

It ended in unanimous decision with with 4 justices concurring.

A concurring opinion is one which agrees with the court's decision, but offers further commentary. It is used to explain the reasoning of a particular judge. A concurring opinion may agree with the outcome decided by the courts majority. But would have reached the same result for a different reason.

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that Nixon sought relief claiming that Senate rules violated his constitutional right to be “tried “ by the full senate . When the Senate chose to delegate review of evidence to committee instead of trail by the full Senate.

But we conclude, after exercising that delicate responsibility, that the word "try" in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority

That settles that!

Well maybe not?

At the same time as Nixon vs the United States was going on and there was another case challenging impeachment in basically the same way.

Both cases concerned Interpretation of article 1 section 3 of the constitution and the senates sole power to “Try”. Their petitions claimed that review by committee denied them the right to “trial”

In Hastings vs the United States the US Court for the district of Columbia found ....

*Note House of Representatives and Senate are interchangeable. These rulings are over the impeachment process.

Only one claim remains, however, it is the one with merit. Did the use of an impeachment trial committee pursuant to Rule XI of the Rules of Procedure and Practice when Sitting in Cases of Impeachment[16] violate the Constitution? This Court believes it did. The Constitution says "The House of Representatives shall chuse (sic) their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment." Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 5.
 
This language gives the House of Representatives exclusive power to issue articles of impeachment and the Senate sole power to "try" impeachments. While the Senate does have considerable discretion to decide what procedures it will use when it conducts an impeachment trial, it cannot ignore the mandate of the Constitution which requires that the procedure merit the name "trial." As Judge Edwards stated in his dissent in the Nixon case

Judge Sporkin’s ruling overturning the impeachment was vacated after the supreme courts decision on Nixon.

Renhquist (the majority)ruled the case was nonjusticiable because the word “try” didn’t give a identifiable textual limit to the Senate. Which made it non-judicial . So the supreme court could not intervene.

Now we move onto the concurring opinion’s.

Justices White and Blackmun. Found that there was a textual identifiable limit . Which would’ve made the case reviewable. But they agreed with the majority because they felt Constitution requirements of a trial were met.......

The Court is of the view that the Constitution forbids us even to consider his contention. I find no such prohibition and would therefore reach the merits of the claim. I concur in the judgment because the Senate fulfilled its constitutional obligation to "try" petitioner.

They also gave a hypothetical situation that would never happen. Which is technically occurring as we speak.....

This is so because the Senate has very wide discretion in specifying impeachment trial procedures and because it is extremely unlikely that the Senate would abuse its discretion and insist on a procedure that could not be deemed a trial by reasonable judges.

Democrats could claim republicans are abusing their power. Which is likely because it’s in their nature. Whatever they accuse us of they’ve already done.

Which makes the opinion persuasive precedent

Justice Souter ......

One can, nevertheless, envision different and unusual circumstances that might justify a more searching review of impeachment proceedings. If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin-toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply " 'a bad guy,' " ante, at ____ (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment), judicial interference might well be appropriate. In such circumstances, the Senate's action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence. "The political question doctrine, a tool for maintenance of governmental order, will not be so applied as to promote only disorder.

Change bad guy to good guy.

And it’s in agreement with the above 2 justices and 1 judge so once again.

Persuasive Precedent

Justice Stevens.....

Government forecloses any assumption that improbable hypotheticals like those mentioned by Justice WHITE and Justice SOUTER will ever occur.

He agreed that the judicial system. should not get involved in the impeachment process in part. But he based his decision on improbable hypotheticals would never happen. Yet here we are.

The Democrats could claim that without a trial at the same instances are occurring today.

Persuasive precedent

So we have three justices and a appellate court judge. That disagreed with the majority that the word “try” didn’t have Identifiable textual limits which would make it judicially reviewable.

If the conditions for a trial hadn’t been met. No probability Nixon versus the US would’ve been a 6-3 decision.

All four justices said the impeachment process could be reviewable if the Senate or House for that matter got out of line.

Who knows how that would be ruled on now?

That leaves the myth of no involvement in the impeachment process laid bare. There are conditions where the Supreme Court may get involved.


To get to the point I started on seven days ago. Lol

Why should we give the Democrats fuel for the fire? Be patient and wait for the proper moment to move for dismissal. Which is after the requirements for a trial are fulfilled .

I don’t think the Democrats would win. But they would have standing.

I don’t know if it would have to go directly to the Supreme Court or if they could milk it through the appeals system.

If they got in front of Liberal rubber stamp judges it could take a while.

My opinion is why take the chance?

Let the wicked witch of the west (Nancy) hold back her flying monkeys(the managers) as long as she wants. All it does is piss off the radical left and expose what the Democrats are doing to the independents we need in November.

Win win

It’s probably a moot point. I think Trump wants a trial. Put Schumer and the rest of them on the stand. My interpretation of the rules imply that all immunity is off.

Disclaimer;

I’m not a lawyer but I drove by a Holiday Inn express last night.

He agreed that the judicial system. should not get involved in the impeachment process in part. But he based his decision on improbable hypotheticals would never happen. Yet here we are.

The Democrats could claim that without a trial at the same instances are occurring today.

Persuasive precedent

So we have three justices and a appellate court judge. That disagreed with the majority that the word “try” didn’t have Identifiable textual limits which would make it judicially reviewable.

If the conditions for a trial hadn’t been met. No probability Nixon versus the US would’ve been a 6-3 decision.

All four justices said the impeachment process could be reviewable if the Senate or House for that matter got out of line.

Who knows how that would be ruled on now?

That leaves the myth of no involvement in the impeachment process laid bare. There are conditions where the Supreme Court may get involved.


To get to the point I started on seven days ago. Lol

Why should we give the Democrats fuel for the fire? Be patient and wait for the proper moment to move for dismissal. Which is after the requirements for a trial are fulfilled .

I don’t think the Democrats would win. But they would have standing.

I don’t know if it would have to go directly to the Supreme Court or if they could milk it through the appeals system.

If they got in front of Liberal rubber stamp judges it could take a while.

My opinion is why take the chance?

Let the wicked witch of the west (Nancy) hold back her flying monkeys(the managers) as long as she wants. All it does is piss off the radical left and expose what the Democrats are doing to the independents we need in November.

Win win

It’s probably a moot point. I think Trump wants a trial. Put Schumer and the rest of them on the stand. My interpretation of the rules imply that all immunity is off.

Disclaimer;

I’m not a lawyer but I drove by a Holiday Inn express last night.

Concurring cases included

Hastings versus the US

Senate impeachment rules and procedures

a reply to: Fallingdown

An excellent and well thought out OP!

Expanding on your thought...

If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin-toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply " 'a bad guy,' " ante, at ____ (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment), judicial interference might well be appropriate. In such circumstances, the Senate's action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence.

Change the words "Senate" there to "House" and perhaps the SCOTUS needs to take the time to examine the actions of the House.

Perhaps if Pelosi sits on the Articles long enough they will.

Either way, win win, as you say.

S&F!

a reply to: Lumenari

a reply to: Lumenari

Thank you

Truth be told I revise my position at least four times as I looked through the caselaw . Everytime I thought I had a point caselaw showed I was wrong .

I agree that house members should face repercussions . But if we challenged it before hand. Nancy’s nuts and their propaganda arm would have declared we were obstructing a constitutional process.

Why give them the chance?

Let’s put those lying low life’s and their fraudulent claims Under oath.

There is the question of congressional immunity for the at the house of representatives.

However

I ran across this case on congressional immunity from 1908 which has long-standing.

It involved a congressman charged with “subordination of perjury”. I explain subordination of perjury in another thread it is enabling someone to submit falsified evidence or influencing someone to give false testimony knowingly. Which is a criminal offense and enhances the charge of perjury.

This is from the heritage foundation The caselaw is in bold

The Supreme Court interpreted the language "in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace" to encompass all crimes. Williamson v. United States (1908). Tracing the origins of the clause to parliamentary privilege, the Court found this identical language was used to qualify Parliament's privilege from arrest so that the members of Parliament were not immune from criminal prosecution. The Court concluded that the Framers' use of the identical phrase, without any explanation, indicated that Congress's privilege was to have the same limitation regarding criminal actions as did the parliamentary privilege from which the language was borrowed. The clause, therefore, does not provide Congress with any immunity from criminal prosecution.

There’s always been a lot of confusion around congressional immunity. That case still stands.

I couldn’t show definitively that they don’t have immunity from criminal prosecution for things done on the floor.

But from what I read I believe they have zero immunity from criminal prosecution during impeachment. (Rule to on pain of imprisonment)Or anything they did in this ruse that wasn’t on the house floor.

Don’t submit the articles and the whole thing dies. Submit the articles and there may be repercussions.

What are you going to do Nancy fish or cut bait?



Heritage foundation

This is an amazing post!
This gives a great educated nuance to the saga.
I wish journalists would still exist, to do this also. But professional journalism died with the rise of Trump...
I’m greatful to be a part of ATS for these kind of posts.

I’ll come back and read this again in the coming future, while things progress.

As I've said on another thread, I feel like a key reason that the Articles are being withheld is due to the holiday. Once the Articles are delivered the Senate's rules dictate a very strict timetable.

Do you think an already divided Senate is going to give this matter the attention it deserves when it interferes with their vacation?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

you think Nancy is just looking out for the Senators vacation?

That makes me smile.

a reply to: Fallingdown

While I have grown tired of the Democrats white whale

You do remember the white whale got Ahab in the end dont you? Yeah the white whale is real.

Pelosi and Schiff LIED.

It was the utmost URGENCY to impeach Trump because they didn't want to fight a court battle over suponeas.

Then they turn around and say bascially, ' We gonna take our time now'.

It was a effing farce to begin with, and it's still a farce now.

I guess Trump haters are never going to wake up to the Fact yet again they been played like the worlds smallest fiddle.

And they're the last people to be whining about Bias.

Democrats screwed Republicans. They screwed Trump, and they won't even release bunker transcripts.

This thing is so below board even moles are laughing their rears off at humans.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yeah I remember Ahab died chasing the white whale .

That makes quite the metaphor .

Here’s another one for nancy.

The best way to avoid a plane crash. Is don’t get in the plane .

a reply to: neo96

I agree and I especially liked this .....

This thing is so below board even moles are laughing their rears off at humans.

😆

No person with even a shred of intellect would expect Pelosi to forward the Articles to the Senate when the Majority Leader and several other Republicans have openly and cavalierly stated that they plan to rubber-stamp-acquit Trump as soon as they receive them. I mean come on FFS. It is immaterial whether the pro-Trumpers THINK there is no merit to the Impeachment. The fact is, a majority of Congresspeople along with a significant body of outside legal experts have stated that there are sufficient facts to warrant the Impeachment. The impeachment is like an indictment. Trump has been indicted. The next step is supposed to be a trial. But McConnell & Co. don't want an actual trial --- no witnesses, no testimony, no evidence, just a speedy acquittal. Given that, why WOULD Pelosi --- why would ANYBODY --- forward the Articles?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Fallingdown

While I have grown tired of the Democrats white whale

You do remember the white whale got Ahab in the end dont you? Yeah the white whale is real.

So the democrats will be the cause of their own demise in this situation. They have become Ahab seeking revenge for Trump's win. They will eat themselves slowly.

originally posted by: jtma508
No person with even a shred of intellect would expect Pelosi to forward the Articles to the Senate when the Majority Leader and several other Republicans have openly and cavalierly stated that they plan to rubber-stamp-acquit Trump as soon as they receive them. I mean come on FFS. It is immaterial whether the pro-Trumpers THINK there is no merit to the Impeachment. The fact is, a majority of Congresspeople along with a significant body of outside legal experts have stated that there are sufficient facts to warrant the Impeachment. The impeachment is like an indictment. Trump has been indicted. The next step is supposed to be a trial. But McConnell & Co. don't want an actual trial --- no witnesses, no testimony, no evidence, just a speedy acquittal. Given that, why WOULD Pelosi --- why would ANYBODY --- forward the Articles?

The rest of the country and I have been on holiday break the last week ... are we still doing this impeachment thing? We thought that was settled two weeks ago. Oh well I guess this is the political maneuver that never ends ... it just goes on and on my friends.

So the fact is only the leadership of roughly 1/2 of 1/2 Congresspeople have stated that there are sufficient facts to warrant the Impeachment... they even had to threaten to primary their own party members to get their strictly partisan vote ... and even than some still broke ranks. Infact with those defections; If one wanted to they could actually make the argument that the vote NOT to impeach Trump was bipartisan.

The fact is the only testifying outside legal experts with the integrity and professionalism to leave his bias at the door warned that impeachment was not warranted at this time. Not because he thought Trump was innocent; just that he thought the Democrats where setting themselves up for being guilty of their own abuse of power.

FFS ... that does make what I'm saying sound more dramatic ... how do you reconcile complaining about Republican partisanship while totally ignoring Democrat partisanship in this political circus?

Here I'll help you; impeachment is a completely political tool; it bares no resemblance to a criminal trial. Impeachment is not at all like an indictment ... that is just the way the lazy news media explains it to their low information viewers ... impeachment can be (and was in this case) highly political; there is no reason why the Senate trail can't be equally political.

for a man repeating over and over he did nothing illegal, he sure is resisting witness testimony.

one would think witness testimony would immediately absolve Trump of any wrongdoings.

Trump's team should use the transcript he released to the public as a legal document showing all he did in the phone call;



....less we forget that transcript was the holy Grail of innocence on ATS after it was released

a reply to: odzeandennz

If Trump said water is wet.

His haters would call him a liar.

a reply to: odzeandennz

....less we forget that transcript was the holy Grail of innocence on ATS after it was released

What I don't understand....If the phone call was so perfect why did the OMB send two emails to the Pentagon officials, the same day of said phone call, instructing them NOT to release the aid to Ukraine, and NOT to tell anyone about the hold?

90 minutes after the call, the first email to the Pentagon went out. Now, the White House is saying that the hold was actually placed a week earlier, but there is no paper trail that proves that. Even so, if Trump was considering holding up the aid at the time of the phone call, why didn't the perfect phone call clear up any doubts Trump may have had? Was Trump waiting for proof that Valensky was, in fact, going to open an investigation on the Bidens and Crowdstrike, maybe something like an announcement on CNN?