SCOTUS: No Articles of Impeachment or Trial Required for Senate to Acquit

There's been much questioning, mis-information and dis-information making the rounds regarding impeachment protocols in general, and with Trump specifically. According to this author, the viral claim that "Trump hasn't been impeached" may just be deliberate disinformation. The following analysis is very informative and interesting, and well worth the read.

Full title as it appears at source: SCOTU S: No Articles of Impeachment or a Trial Are Required For The Senate to Acquit President Trump

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).

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.

NOTE: The "Nixon" in the above referenced case is not President Richard Nixon; it is Walter Nixon, a federal judge in Mississippi.

The Senate has sole power and authority in terms of how -- and if -- they choose to proceed. They are not required to conduct a trial. They are not required to do anything at all. (And if the Constitution makes no such demands of the Senate, then certainly the Speaker of the House has no power or authority to make such demands of the Senate.) For all practical intents and purposes, the House should have already presented all witnesses, documents, records and other evidence to make their case, prior to even holding a vote to impeach. The Senate should already be aware of all evidence, and are just as qualified to judge as the House was qualified to judge. If the House evidence is not sufficient for the Senate to judge, then neither was it sufficient for the House to judge.

So yes, the Senate has the power and authority to acquit Trump right now -- no formal Articles of Impeachment required, no debate required, no trial required, nothing -- violating neither the letter nor the spirit of the law. Dems are more than welcome to make of that whatever political hay they can, but that's about all they can do.

But wait... Trump hasn't really been impeached, right? Well, that's what we've been told, but --

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.

Feldman's logic relies on the House Resolution itself, which specifically cites two specific actions for impeachment:

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:”

Because only the first action has been done, Feldman reasons, Trump is not yet impeached. But Feldman is (willfully?) ignoring U.S. v Nixon, and citing conditions and requirements that the Constitution does not. It matters none that the House has not "exhibited" the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Once they voted to impeach, they gave the power to the Senate to judge their impeachment. That's how it works.

The House does have another option:

Of course, the House would be well within its sole power to cancel impeachment by voting on a new resolution...

But I seriously doubt that's going to happen. Although, these days, anything can happen. That's just how crazy times -- and critters -- have become.

My overall opinion stays the same: The Dems who are guilty of criminal conduct in Ukraine -- and their (adult) children -- are using a sham impeachment process to prevent and/or discredit an in-depth thorough investigation of their activities by Trump/Zelensky, and want to drag this process out as long as possible to muddy the waters, while using "impeachment" against Trump (and all Republicans) in the upcoming election year. The guilty do not want a fair and just trial -- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth -- because their own criminal corruption would be exposed for the world to see.

And I fully expect "the guilty" includes McConnell, Never Trumpers, and other sordid and sundry Republicans.

I also fully expect this is be used as a political football and dragged out as long as possible. That gridlock may be for the best. I'm happy to let We The People decide whether or not to "impeach" Trump next November.
---------------------------------------------

FYI: These are the other sources used in the OP

Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

Nixon v. United States

I do not think Mr. Trump has lost much sleep about the impeachment. As a casual observer of this whole theater, it gives me the impression he is, most of the time, a few steps in front.

That and trying to do his job. The Democratic party is the one that should be held responsible for interfering in elections and obstructing the progress of your country.

I suspect the House Democrats simply wanted to buy time to lobby Republican Senators, or put the squeeze on them directly or through the media.
Pelosi will transmit the articles in the new year or McConnell will just move ahead anyway.
Thanks for the info though OP, I did know about the precedent set for this by the SC.

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that NO ONE in the main stream media has even mentioned it.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
I do not think Mr. Trump has lost much sleep about the impeachment. As a casual observer of this whole theater, it gives me the impression he is, most of the time, a few steps in front.

I think you're right about that! Trump knew it was coming, and has prepared accordingly.

I also think Trump was right about the Dems really going after us, We The People, and Trump is just the one "in the way." Trump was never going to be president forever. But precedents set today will be. Pelosi and Nadler both outright stated that they can't trust the people to vote correctly -- i.e., vote Trump out -- so they took it upon themselves to usurp our vote... our power and authority.

That and trying to do his job. The Democratic party is the one that should be held responsible for interfering in elections and obstructing the progress of your country.

And the "loyal opposition" who enable and empower and embolden them. Republicans are often guilty of not using their own power to stop Dem power grabs and other bad behavior.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Full title as it appears at source: SCOTU S: No Articles of Impeachment or a Trial Are Required For The Senate to Acquit President Trump
"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).

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."[/url]

Interesting... thanks for that, you learn something new every day.

Incredible scathing article to the would be leftist who might challenge it.


The beauty and inadvert actions as a result of the Trump Presidency has engage The People to research information and data themselves.

Since we can no longer count on media to deliver unbiased news, we have to reach up and see how things are for ourselves and it's best that way.

S+F

a reply to: Boadicea

Interesting. My Tin foil hat, gets a little tight however with that knowledge of: " no trial to acquit."

It seems a really convenient way to brush all the "new conspiracies" under the carpet and folks will get to feed the dialectic and argue about this crap for decades.

I want to feel satisfied with the knowledge of acquital, but Ill be more than pissed if these "recently brought to light deeds" arent dug into further.

Ukraine is the tippy top of the corruption nightmare from folks on both sides. In this regard, Trumps presidency has truly tapped into the "peoples" representative.

Its come to far,cwe need heads to roll, I want a trial

a reply to: Boadicea

President Trump wants a trial. So, there will be a trial.

The only questions now are, what kind of trial? Will there be witnesses? Will they allow witnesses that already testified during the inquiry to testify and be cross examined by the defense? Will they allow new witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed and deposed?

a reply to: BlueJacket

I would very much like to see a trial as well... I'd like to see lots of trials!

But we've gotta keep it in perspective as well. No doubt much incriminating information would be exposed about many people in an impeachment trial, but mostly in terms of the specific charges against Trump. So even as satisfying and important as that would be, it wouldn't be everything.

I'm keeping my eye on Rudy Guiliani and what he's exposing, and will be exposing. Unfortunately, Rudy seems to be already campaigning for 2024 (or maybe that's just me), but he's the one currently digging deep and finding the real dirt.

I haven't read it yet, but the Daily Mail has this today: Rudy Giuliani fuels Ukraine corruption conspiracy theory by claiming U.S. embassy - led by Marie Yovanovitch - shut down probe into alleged scheme funneling foreign aid money to NGOs run by billionaire Democratic mega-donor George Soros

a reply to: Boadicea

So when are they going to do something to all these democrats that stomped on the constitution they swore to uphold? There needs to be repercussions so this childish "I don't like you and since we outnumber you we're impeaching you" game doesn't happen again.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Boadicea

President Trump wants a trial.

Trump says he wants a trial, yes. Maybe he does. Maybe he's just calling their bluff. Trump says lots of things...

So, there will be a trial.

Maybe. Maybe not. We'll find out together.

a reply to: Boadicea
No side of this conflict is innocent but these 'Democrats' really shoot the bird. I live in a republic with an indirect democratic voting system, similar to the US. I hold progressive and conservative views and I dislike putting myself on any side because I disagree with every party on at least one point.

What the US democrats preach has nothing to do with democracy, it is so far away from the democratic thoughts and all about identity politics and only having it their way.

Opposition just because, too. The hatred and unreasonable demands they make reminds me of spoiled and uneducated children. Normally I would write now that children are children. But these are full grown adults.

And while Trump has his own flaws and traits and is hated my most of the world for the only reason that media tells them so, it looks like he does a good job. Your economy is booming while you are not at a big war currently.

I understand that riles up some people in the military industry, too.

Trump was never going to be president forever. But precedents set today will be. Pelosi and Nadler both outright stated that they can't trust the people to vote correctly -- i.e., vote Trump out -- so they took it upon themselves to usurp our vote... our power and authority.

Yes that is scary and I noticed it here too. There are only few civil boundaries left. 'They' count on the short lived memories of the masses with their hypocrisy and they have success.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Boadicea

So when are they going to do something to all these democrats that stomped on the constitution they swore to uphold? There needs to be repercussions so this childish "I don't like you and since we outnumber you we're impeaching you" game doesn't happen again.

What a good question. I wish I had the answer. Whatever the solution, it must come from us. We The People. They certainly won't hold themselves accountable.

Quite honestly, I don't think half our congress critters even know or understand the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, much less the foundational principles. Maybe we should start with a mandatory crash course in Constitutional Principles for every new session of Congress...

a reply to: Boadicea

Trump says he wants a trial, yes. Maybe he does. Maybe he's just calling their bluff. Trump says lots of things...

Trump wants vindication. If the Senate votes to dismiss or acquit without the appearance of a fair trial, Trump won't get his vindication.

a reply to: Oleandra88

I agree with everything you so thoughtfully stated -- thank you for sharing it here!

I can only add that I truly believe that we are currently seeing is a few criminally corrupt critters using their party and the system to hide their own criminal conduct. For various (partisan) reasons, the rest of the party is playing right along with them. Let me add ignorance and arrogance to their reasons as well.

I suspect/expect that if the details of Ukraine corruption were revealed, it would expose others with similar graft and money laundering set-ups, including Republicans.

In some ways, I'm much more interested in how Republicans will respond to Pelosi's antics than anything else now. They have power. They don't take their marching orders from Pelosi. I want to see what they do and don't do, both as a whole and as individuals. It might be very telling in the bigger picture.

It will be interesting if there is a full blown trial which many on here are hoping for. I think it will show how corrupt the system is on both sides and I don't think Trump really cares anymore. I think he is sick of the BS and if you are not with him you are against him and I see him not having a problem bringing it all down if in fact he falls.

Once all of the layers are pulled back I think we will see the Ukraine and other overseas corruption runs very deep and is a major conduit for many of these politicians to pad their personal pocketbooks.

I personally feel there will be some very embarrassing things that come out regarding lots of folks. The only thing I don't have confidence in is the fact that once the evidence is shown what is going to be done about it. Most likely nothing, sure some people may resign but will teh fundamental issues be corrected? I doubt it

a reply to: Sookiechacha

He'll get his vindication in 2020 when he beats the left by a landslide.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Trump wants vindication. If the Senate votes to dismiss or acquit without the appearance of a fair trial, Trump won't get his vindication.

I'm sure Trump is prepared for a trial, and probably wouldn't mind a trial.

But I'm also sure that Trump is prepared for many eventualities, and has a plan for each.

Anything Trump could expect to be revealed in a trial, Trump could reveal all by his lonesome with the power and authority vested in his office, and could have already. Trump is playing the long game. Trump knows that other pending lawsuits can be influenced by these events. Trump isn't going to show all his cards unless and until he absolutely positively has to. And I don't believe for a minute that the public is privy to everything going on in the White House nor in the Capitol.

As I said, we'll see what happens together.

a reply to: Boadicea
Thank you, although I am a bit pissed off today because of offline things, I try not to let it out too much.

I can only add that I truly believe that we are currently seeing is a few criminally corrupt critters using their party and the system to hide their own criminal conduct. For various (partisan) reasons, the rest of the party is playing right along with them. Let me add ignorance and arrogance to their reasons as well.

This is what concerns me. The looking away. It is one thing to get a beating for the team, being loyal. But to look away from corruption, lies and personal vendettas is enabling it.


I can not say anything positive or negative about the Republicans but it is logic to assume they are no saints either. Until now my impression is, now I am generalizing, overall they are a bit more cold headed and not so trigger happy. By that I mean the old meaning, not the new *triggered* meaning. I mean they appear more thoughtful with their decisions.

a reply to: UKTruth

Rather than assuming they are willfully ignoring knowledge they already have. I'd be more likely to assume they're just plain ignorant.

They don't know, and they don't want to know. They have no interest in anything that might exculpate the current president. Now if this were a Democrat president, they'd all be insta-experts on this topic by now.