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

a reply to: Boadicea

if there is going to be a trial then I suspect that the first witness for the presidents council will be Giuliani

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: Boadicea

if there is going to be a trial then I suspect that the first witness for the presidents council will be Giuliani

I suspect you're right.

And that Giuliani would undoubtedly be the most important witness. Individual witnesses can testify to certain events and aspects... Rudy can tie it all together.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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?

trump lies.

We hear the President wants a full trial. That includes Schiff & the Whistleblower witnesses.

We hear McConnell wants a speedy disposition including no trial, summary dismissal.

We hear Chuck Grassley doesn't want to hear from any witness (implying the House didn't so why should the Senate?)

We hear Ted Cruz state whatever the President wants in a trial he can have.

We hear Lindsey Graham waffle this way and that about trial, witnesses, phone records, just about every aspect until finally he comes out that there's going to be a full trial with all the FISA signers witnesses, including Harry Reid.

BUT none of it matters if some of Graham's word ring true "I'll leave it up to Durham to prosecute.."

ganjoa

After reading through Nixon v. United States and the Senate's rules for impeachment trials, I don't think the interpretation presented in the OP is correct.

What the Nixon case actually says is that the courts have no kind of judicial review over impeachment trials. Instead it is solely up to the Senate and they are free to set their own rules and procedures.

It looks like the last time these rules were updated was in 1986. Reading through them, it's clear that the impeachment trial does not begin until the House delivers their articles. If McConnell wanted to hold a before the articles are delivered the Senate would need to vote on a rule change first.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The question remains why play games if it is so super important to impeach your President asap.

I terrible question to ask, I know. It makes people think why.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
After reading through Nixon v. United States and the Senate's rules for impeachment trials, I don't think the interpretation presented in the OP is correct.

What the Nixon case actually says is that the courts have no kind of judicial review over impeachment trials. Instead it is solely up to the Senate and they are free to set their own rules and procedures.

I'm not sure I'm seeing the distinction you're trying to make. Are you saying that a trial must be held, but the Senate determines the rules?

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.)

I would suggest that includes the authority to determine how an individual may be judged for acquittal or conviction. In the Nixon case, Nixon was demanding a trial before the full senate as opposed to proceedings before a Senate committee. No trial was conducted. The justices were well aware of that fact. The justices ruled for the sole power of the Senate to NOT conduct a trial.

What am I missing?

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
After reading through Nixon v. United States and the Senate's rules for impeachment trials, I don't think the interpretation presented in the OP is correct.

What the Nixon case actually says is that the courts have no kind of judicial review over impeachment trials. Instead it is solely up to the Senate and they are free to set their own rules and procedures.

I'm not sure I'm seeing the distinction you're trying to make. Are you saying that a trial must be held, but the Senate determines the rules?

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.)

I would suggest that includes the authority to determine how an individual may be judged for acquittal or conviction. In the Nixon case, Nixon was demanding a trial before the full senate as opposed to proceedings before a Senate committee. No trial was conducted. The justices were well aware of that fact. The justices ruled for the sole power of the Senate to NOT conduct a trial.

What am I missing?

You're not missing anything.
The Senate, based on that ruling, could change their rules to not require the transmission of any articles if the House Vote has taken place.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Individual witnesses can testify to certain events and aspects... Rudy can tie it all together.

Which is why I'd wait and call him much later.

First witnesses that need to testify: Brennan, Clapper, Comey, whistle-leaker 1, whistle-leaker 2, Schiff...

Then maybe Giuliani.

a reply to: UKTruth

This is a good example of why it's important to know and differentiate between Constitutional mandates and House/Senate Rules.

Rules are made to be broken... the Constitution is not.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, they set their own rules. But there is a procedure that must be followed for those rules to be changed.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I understand your logic, and in an ideal world -- or even a criminal trial -- I would agree... But this is political, and partisan, and intended for 15-second soundbites. NOT truth or justice.

Rudy can make the sweeping statements that reveal the big picture immediately. Rudy can also speak to the "before, during and after" of Trump's actions, motivations and purposes. (This will get the public's attention.) Subsequent witnesses can flesh out the details. (This will help the public keep up with the complexities of the circumstances and people involved... and keep the public's attention.) I would quite probably then call Rudy again to testify last, to draw on other witnesses' testimony to fill in the big picture. (This will satisfy the public's attention)

I think it's important for these purposes to lay a groundwork (by Rudy) for where the rest of the testimony is going, clearly establishing why Trump did what he did.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, they set their own rules. But there is a procedure that must be followed for those rules to be changed.

Okay, gotcha. Thank you.

And yes, you're right, there is a procedure. I don't see that as much of an obstacle though. If Pelosi continues to refuse to submit the Articles of Impeachment, the Senate could do so easily enough.

Senate acquits. Pelosi rushes over the articles. Senate says "too late cray woman!".

Impeachment by the House never happened.

Three more months wasted by House Democrats.

a reply to: carewemust

A glimpse into the future or did this just go down?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

All good questions.
If trump wants witnesses Chuck Schumer gets to call witnesses too.
He will call all the people who were told by trump not to go to the hearings.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well as we all know that won't stop trump from claiming total vindication.

a reply to: Boadicea

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

Really? He kind of strikes me as a fly by the seat of your pants kind of guy.
Reactive rather than proactive. I have not seen a single incident where he was proactive or ahead of the news cycle.
I have only ever seen him react to the news as it occurs.