HOUSE DEMOCRATS FILED ANOTHER ATTEMPT PURSUE ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT IN AN ATTEMPT TO FILE MORE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
“House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals into whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn after the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,” reports Politico.
SCOTUS HAS SPOKEN TO CLEAR THE AIR
BREAKING NEWS DEC 22,2019 (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).
PRESIDENT TRUMP ISN’T IMPEACHMENT UNTIL THE HOUSE TELLS THE US SENATE!!!
Dems' own witness says Trump not truly impeached unless articles go to 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 impeachPresident 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.
BREAKING NEWS!!!! House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., announced Thursday afternoon that there will be no more House votes until Jan. 7, prompting cheers from his Democratic colleagues in the chamber.
The announcement is confirmation that the House will not approve impeachment managers or send the two articles of impeachment to the Senate until the beginning of the new year.
The shadow government is considering using its “continuity of government” (COG) mechanism already in place to overthrow the entire Trump administration.
In the Obama White House, Durham and Barr will have questions for Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Ben “Benghazi” Rhodes, and UN Representative Samantha Powers. Barr said he is looking at “unauthorized surveillance” and “Political Surveillance”. He said unequivocally that “Spying did occur”. At some point, Durham is going to have to interview the man behind the persecution of Donald Trump, former President Barack Obama.
The COG procedures, which were first drafted during the Cold War to ensure the government’s survival during a nuclear war, mesh well with the establishment narrative that the 2016 presidential election was “stolen” by “Russian hackers.”
“Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial,” Feldman wrote.
“If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president,” he continued. “If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”
Now that the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump,
1) what is the constitutional status of the two articles of impeachment?
2) Must they be transmitted to the Senate to trigger a trial?
3) could they be held back by the House until the Senate decides what the trial will look like, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted?
A) The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate.
B) Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.
But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem.
FACT#1 - Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial.
FACT#2 - Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution:
The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.
FACT#3 - If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president.
If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.
That’s because “impeachment” under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with “House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached”.
FACT#4 - As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, “TRUMP IMPEACHED,” those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement.
So far, the House has voted to impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn’t impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the Senate and the House members deliver the message.
Once the articles are sent, the Senate has a constitutional duty to hold a trial on the impeachment charges presented.
Failure for the Senate to hold a trial after impeachment would deviate from the Constitution’s clear expectation.
For the House to vote “to impeach” without ever sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial would also deviate from the constitutional protocol.
It would mean that the president had not genuinely been impeached under the Constitution; and it would also deny the president the chance to defend himself in the Senate that the Constitution provides.
The relevant constitutional provisions are brief. Article I gives the House “the sole power of impeachment.” And it gives the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article II says that the president “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Putting these three different provisions together yields the conclusion that the only way to remove the president while he is in office is if the House impeaches him and the Senate tries and convicts him.
The provisions say nothing about timing. Taken literally, they don’t directly say that articles of impeachment passed by the House must be sent to the Senate. But the framers’ definition of impeachment assumed that impeachment was a process, not just a House vote.
The framers drafted the constitutional provisions against the backdrop of impeachment as it had been practiced in England, where the House of Commons impeached and the House of Lords tried the impeachments. The whole point of impeachment by the Commons was for the charges of impeachment to be brought against the accused in the House of Lords.
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.
What would make that trial fair is a separate question, one that deserves its own discussion. But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial – that’s what the “sole power to try all impeachments” means.
If the House votes to “impeach” but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or send impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn’t directly violated the text of the Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution’s description of impeachment.
A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the opportunity to defend himself before the Senate. That’s built into the constitutional logic of impeachment, which demands a trial before removal.
To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, there can be no trial there. That’s what the “sole power to impeach” means.
But if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with strong justification that he was never actually impeached. And that’s probably not the message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send.
No comments:
Post a Comment