President Trump's Senate Impeachment Options - DISMISS or ACQUIT or FULL-BLOWN TRIAL.

Sunday, January 12, 2020

It's not yet clear what date the Senate Impeachment Trial will begin, because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not yet transmitted the 2 articles of impeachment (Abuse of Power -and- Obstructing Congress) over to the U.S. Senate. But she promises to do so (after holding them for 27 days) this coming Wednesday, at the latest.

This evening, President Trump's friend and personal lawyer RUDY GIULIANI appeared on FoxNews, and was interviewed by Judge Jeanine. Here is an excerpt:

Rudy Giuliani appeared on Fox News late Saturday to argue that the Supreme Court should dismiss the impeachment trial against President Trump,

The president’s personal lawyer argued that the Supreme Court can and should nullify the impeachment, while also acknowledging that the Senate trial could benefit President Trump.

Claiming that the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges against Trump are not high crimes or misdemeanors, Giuliani said, “The remedy is to go before the Supreme Court of the United States and have it declared unconstitutional."

“The rules are set by the Senate. Then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court interprets the rules. The Chief Justice will be given the power to dismiss,” Giuliani argued.

If the impeachment articles are not dismissed as unconstitutional, he said, Trump would be “acquitted”.

“I can even argue that politically, it would be better to go to trial! They’ll then find out about Biden. They’ll find out what a big crook Biden is,” Giuliani said.

Source Article #1: (Anti-Trump) www.thedailybeast.com...
Source Article #2: (Pro-Trump) www.thegatewaypundit.com... oided/

Shortly after Rudy's live FoxNews interview tonight, President Trump tweeted...

Thank-you Rudy!-Source: twitter.com...


We do not (yet) know which outcome Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will seek, but as of right now, there appears to be three possible outcomes for the Senate Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump.

1.) The President's legal team can ask that the Trial's Judge, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, dismiss the 2 articles of Impeachment, due to not being based on High Crimes and Misdemeanors, as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.

2.) Senate Leader Mitch McConnell can ask all 100 Senators to outright Acquit President Trump of Obstructing Congress, and Abusing His Power. If 51 Senators vote "Yes", President Trump is off the hook, and the trial ends right then and there.

3.) Most Democrats in the House and Senate want a Full-Blown Trial. And many Republicans do too. If this is what McConnell chooses, there will be FACT WITNESSES (versus "HearSay" witnesses) to support Democrat's arguments for Impeaching President Trump. And, there will be FACT WITNESSES to defend President Trump delaying military aid to the country of Ukraine, until after he spoke to Ukraine President, Volodymyr Zelensky, in July 2019.

If path #3 is chosen, The Trump Legal Team will need to call former Vice-President Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden, to testify. They are both implicated in the very corruption that President Trump was talking to the Ukraine President about...and why the military aid to Ukraine was delayed by several weeks.

Also, there is growing evidence that the "Whistle-blower", whose complaint against President Trump caused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to get the Impeachment ball rolling, conspired with Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Intel Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, to fabricate the actual Whistle-blower complaint.

If that is what happened, they committed an ILLEGAL HOAX. Impeachment proceedings against President Trump by the U.S. House of Representatives on Sept 24, 2019 should never have commenced. Therefore, witnesses who have knowledge of this suspicion, will need to testify as well.

ATS MEMBERS: Which path would you like Senator McConnell to choose? I like #3 myself. The President and America have nothing to lose, but much to gain, by continuing to expose corruption in the Washington D.C. Swamp.

-CareWeMust

a reply to: carewemust

I'm with you #3 would be optimal. I don't think they will subject the whistleblower to a public hearing; I do wonder if the Senate will be able to hear the whistleblower in person in a SCIF as the House did.

a reply to: carewemust

#3 I want nothing left to he said she said. Have the hard evidence brought forth and examined. Bring forward the witness testimonials. Let it all out. I don't want hear of anything being swept under the rug. I want there to be no questions in the end. I'm tired of listening to it.

a reply to: carewemust

a reply to: carewemust

It seems odd to me that someone thinks that what Biden did, could somehow excuse Trump from what he did.

If someone does something against the law, they cannot argue that others also broke the law. It does not excuse them of their actions.

It sounds like Guiliani is suggesting that Biden's actions somehow excuse the President. They don't.

In answer to the specific points enumerated:

1. If Bill Clinton's impeachment is valid, and he simply lied about sexual indiscretion, then there is precedent that defines what Trump has done as within the remit of high crimes AND misdemeanors (I have highlighted the word 'and' to emphasize that even a minor misdemeanor is included as grounds for impeachment under the Constitution). The implication that only a high crime is impeachable ignores what is plainly written in the Constitution. There is no such thing as a 'high misdemeanor', if one were to try and argue that point. A misdemeanor is, by definition, of less 'criminality' than a high crime.

2. The Senate must try the case. The Senate are not the judge but sit as jurors. They cannot simply throw out the trial in the same way that jurors cannot stop a trial.

3. The trial must be a full trial. It isn't a popularity vote and evidence must be presented and evaluated. Even if the Bidens had done something wrong, Trump was using a foreign national to attempt to interfere with the 2020 elections by discrediting his opponent. Remember, Trump made similar requests to China and Australia, too. It isn't like his motive was not plainly revealed, or a single instance. Even if Biden was guilty (which would have to be established in an entire separate trial) it does not excuse Trump of what he did.

I sure hope for the first option: calling it unconstitutionally. That will set the bar for a coming impeachment a bit higher. Now the House seems to think a ‘high crime or misdemeanor (or bribery) is anything they say it is. Calling it unconstitutional would kill that argument. The future of the US and the presidency will be thankful!

Current politics should be looked at in a historical perspective in my view. What happens now will be the guide for the future! And the tables CAN and WILL be turned, somewhere in time.

Rudy is spouting disinformation. Nixon v. United States established that the Supreme Court has no oversight over an impeachment trial. Furthermore, Abuse of Power is pretty much the prototypical high crime. So I fail to see how a charge of Abuse of Power does not meet the requirements laid out in the Constitution.

As for his claim that the Senate can acquit immediately, I'm not sure that's true either. Looking through the Senate's rules on impeachment trials, it looks like the trial has to proceed, at least partially, before a vote can be taken.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Nixon v. United States established that the Supreme Court has no oversight over an impeachment trial.

No , no it did not.

a reply to: Gothmog

From Rehnquist's opinion:

A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.

a reply to: carewemust

Anything less than #3 will look like aiding and abetting or obstruction of justice.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Who is Rehnquist , and why should I care ?

a reply to: chr0naut

If trump was just investigating corruption then how did he do something wrong? I watched the whole impeachment trials and saw nothing but hearsay. I would like all our government officials to fight corruption and waste.

a reply to: Gothmog

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time of Nixon v. United States.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Rudy is spouting disinformation. Nixon v. United States established that the Supreme Court has no oversight over an impeachment trial. Furthermore, Abuse of Power is pretty much the prototypical high crime. So I fail to see how a charge of Abuse of Power does not meet the requirements laid out in the Constitution.

As for his claim that the Senate can acquit immediately, I'm not sure that's true either. Looking through the Senate's rules on impeachment trials, it looks like the trial has to proceed, at least partially, before a vote can be taken.

Abuse of power (at the time "maladministration") was a term specifically discussed and rejected by the founders in the forming of the language for impeachment. It was debated and specifically rejected as being to vague and easy to abuse (irony) to remove a person whenever they felt. Madison was one of the vocal parties.

It would be very easy to point back at those constitutional discussions as significant weight that "abuse of power" was not only not intended to be part of high crimes and misdemeanors, but specifically rejected as such.

The reality though is that it is a vote, and they can pretty much do whatever they can vote on regardless of the constitution. They can vote on rules, change rules etc. Based solely on the constitution, it could be argued that the House should have zero involvement after delivering the articles.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: carewemust

It seems odd to me that someone thinks that what Biden did, could somehow excuse Trump from what he did.

If the Biden's and others were involved in laundering foreign aid to Ukraine it doesn't matter that Joe Biden is a Democrat party candidate who from my view choose to run as cover anyway knowing full well Ukraine would fast become an issue.

Holding foreign aid until sure U.S. taxpayer money not used for graft, corruption and backdoor party donation was in perfect order.

I personally think the stink from Ukraine will be found on most foreign aid money across the board and when that happens many heads will roll - why impeachment distraction. why TDS, why crazy level vehemence from certain politicians and department of government.

I firmly go with option three, blow the lid off this thing once and for all.

a reply to: Halfswede

High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase that the Founders took from British law. Abuse of power was very much covered under the term. The fact that a number of people have been impeached for abuse of power over the years would seemingly support this fact.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Halfswede

High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase that the Founders took from British law. Abuse of power was very much covered under the term. The fact that a number of people have been impeached for abuse of power over the years would seemingly support this fact.

you can keep saying stuff, but do yourself a favor and search 'maladministration impeachment'. Just because it has been tried doesn't mean there isn't a significant constitutional argument that it doesn't fall under that umbrella.

Again, it is a partisan vote trial process, not a jury trial. People can do whatever they can vote on so law and fairness really go out the window regardless of what was intended.

www.smithsonianmag.com...

here's a start from the above link to show people "in the know" (the House of Reps) making the same argument

The House rejected a broad attempt to impeach Johnson for abuse of power in 1867, because congressmen felt a president had to commit a crime to be impeached. Instead, Johnson was impeached in 1868 for firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Nixon v. United States established that the Supreme Court has no oversight over an impeachment trial.

Nope

The case wasn’t ironclad as many people state .

Concurring opinions left room for supreme court intervention .

Nixon vs United States


BTW I laid out my opinion on the earliest scenario where “good guys” can dismiss while leaving the least amount of maneuverability from the left.

But I agree with number three I think Trump wants to go to trial .

a reply to: chr0naut

You will ignore everything I say; I am aware of that. But I present this rebuttal for other readers.

It seems odd to me that someone thinks that what Biden did, could somehow excuse Trump from what he did.

You are ignoring some key aspects of the case against Trump. There is nothing illegal, immoral, of unconstitutional about a sitting President asking a foreign leader to assistance in an investigation, especially when a major aspect of that investigation is under their jurisdiction. It is actually the President's duty to do so. The claim being made by the House Democrats (and you) is that Trump's purpose was to interfere with the 2020 elections by investigating an opposing candidate for political reasons.

It therefore follows that if there were legitimate non-political reasons to investigate the Bidens, the case against Trump has no merit. One may refute a malicious prosecution case (which this is) by simply showing that the prosecution was legitimate.

Thus, whatever corruption there may be surrounding Joe and Hunter Biden is extremely relevant to the case. It is not a case of "what Joe Biden did doesn't affect what Trump did"... it's a case of "did Trump have reason to ask for assistance with an investigation into Hunter Biden's activities in Ukraine?"

1. If Bill Clinton's impeachment is valid, and he simply lied about sexual indiscretion, then there is precedent that defines what Trump has done as within the remit of high crimes AND misdemeanors (I have highlighted the word 'and' to emphasize that even a minor misdemeanor is included as grounds for impeachment under the Constitution). The implication that only a high crime is impeachable ignores what is plainly written in the Constitution. There is no such thing as a 'high misdemeanor', if one were to try and argue that point. A misdemeanor is, by definition, of less 'criminality' than a high crime.

Several points here. First, the qualifier "high" is not limited to the noun "crimes." It may be applied to both "crimes" and "misdemeanors," depending on one's interpretation. Documents from the Founding Fathers indicate that this is the correct interpretation, as does simple logic. Jaywalking is a misdemeanor... so under your interpretation, jaywalking is cause for impeachment.

Misdemeanors are not crimes in the wording used in the Constitution. This is apparent by the wording itself: if misdemeanors also mean "lesser crimes," then there would have been no need for the word "and." "High crimes" would have covered it. Thus, a misdemeanor meant an action that was not a crime, but which was morally reprehensible and harmful to society.

"High" as is used in this case does mean mean "serious." It means "by reason of high office." There are some things that a sitting President can do which may not even be crimes per se, but are highly damaging to the country by virtue of the fact that the President is doing them. It is not illegal to be sloppy, falling-down drunk, for instance, but being sloppy, falling-down drunk during a crisis could prove a danger to the country. There are also things that are crimes, but cannot be committed by people not in high office. I cannot promise a foreign leader foreign aid if I get a campaign contribution... well, if I did it would be laughable anyway... but a President or even a Congressman can. Thus, doing so while in office would be a "high crime" and being sloppy, falling-down drunk would be a "high misdemeanor."

Bill Clinton did not just lie; Bill Clinton lied under oath. There is a difference. I can be held criminally liable for lying under oath on a witness stand; I cannot be held criminally liable for lying while talking to an acquaintance (good thing for you or you would be facing life in prison for all the "misdemeanors" you have already racked up here).

Finally, if we are going by the Clinton case, then since Bil Clinton was acquitted, so should Donald Trump be acquitted.

2. The Senate must try the case. The Senate are not the judge but sit as jurors. They cannot simply throw out the trial in the same way that jurors cannot stop a trial.

The OP did not say the Senate should "throw out" the case or stop the trial. It said that the Senate should acquit. That is exactly what a jury does: they either convict or acquit.

The Senate also sets the rules of the trial within Constitutional bounds. These rules can state that the Senate may stop the trial and vote to acquit for lack of evidence when the defense has rested its case. This is a common tactic used in courtrooms.

3. The trial must be a full trial. It isn't a popularity vote and evidence must be presented and evaluated. Even if the Bidens had done something wrong, Trump was using a foreign national to attempt to interfere with the 2020 elections by discrediting his opponent.

It does have to be a full and fair trial. That means statements like the one you just made are not allowed. One cannot simply walk into a court and start tossing out accusations without evidence, and the defense always has the right to rebut any evidence presented. There is no evidence that Trump was attempting to investigate a political opponent. He was recommending an investigation into Hunter Biden, not Joe Biden. These are two different people. Joe Biden is also not Donald Trump's opposition in 2020. He may be, or he may not be... the Democratic primaries will tell us that, but they have not been held yet.

You discount evidence and facts that dispute your narrative, while trying to press a narrative that has no evidence of facts supporting it. Is that what you call a "fair trial" over there? If I were to base my opinion of your country on your posts and statements, I would consider New Zealand to be some crime-riddled, uber-corrupt example of a third-world hell hole... luckily, there are other posters on here that counter your attempts to make others believe that. You should realize the extreme disservice you do your countrymen.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

Trump didn't break any laws, especially if Biden did what was suspected. All he did was ask a foreign leader to look into potential corruption. It doesn't matter whether or not that affected negatively a presidential rival.

He didn't break into a building to steal evidence, he didn't bribe anyone, he didn't commit a crime.

Jaden