Posted on 02/07/2021 4:30:31 PM PST by Moseley
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to begin a trial on impeachment of Donald J. Trump officially announced for "the week of" February 8. According to C-SPAN, that means 1:00 P.M. EST on February 9, 2021. C-SPAN allows you to watch, live or whenever is convenient on demand, on a special web page.
Here is a preview for thinking Americans of some things to look for. You will be watching something like playing the Super Bowl in five minutes, with the best of players slipping and falling all over each other. No one can elegantly mash a two- to four-week trial into only a couple of half-days, while the Senate also conducts other business in the morning. compression will harm Trump's due process.
Each side has submitted briefs. The Democrat impeachment managers released an 80-page trial brief in small print. Trump's new lead attorneys, Bruce L. Castor, Jr. and David Schoen, submitted an "Answer" from Donald Trump later the same day on February 2, 2021. It is only 13 pages in big type plus a conclusion and signature block.
However, that was not Trump's trial brief. It was a reply to the Articles of Impeachment. It is in the style of "the allegations of paragraph 48 are denied in part and admitted in part." That sort of thing.
Trump's lawyers need to also file an actual trial brief. However, Castor and Schoen came on board only late last week. A case of this magnitude and complexity (more complex than you might think, with lifetime disqualification from public office and even criminal prosecution possibly down the line) would normally afford six months to eighteen months before going to trial. So Castor's and Schoen's Answer for Trump was thin.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
A "bill of attainder" is a legislature singling out a person for punishment rather than enacting a law of general application. Because the prohibition in the Constitution is absolute, Trump's lawyers raise it as a total bar.
In other words, they have put tyrannosaurus rex teeth into the argument that you cannot impeach a former president. They belabor the circumstances that the articles of impeachment have created: "a class of one" with only Donald Trump in the class.
That supports both an equal protection violation and a bill of attainder violation. They come close to arguing equal protection, but it sounds as though they ran out of time before hammering that point home.
Now, clearly, everyone is focused on whether Trump is disqualified from holding any political office in the future. That could include something like serving on a board, not just running for president. Democrats have made clear that their goal is to not face Trump at the ballot box on November 5, 2024. How convenient and banana republic–like to disqualify political opponents. The Democrats' fever is practically an admission that they might lose a rematch with Trump.
The news media have been in a fit over whether or not Trump (his lawyers) will argue that the 2020 election was stolen. Don't bet the farm on Castor and Schoen being that brave, because most lawyers are really not. But typically trial lawyers would be mystified by the question "are you going to argue A or B?" As my law professor asked in a (pretend) stunned expression: "Why do I have to choose only one?" A good trial attorney would be required to hit and smash each and every accusation against his client, in a row. Leaving any accusation alive is not in a trial lawyer's DNA.
Amazingly, though, Trump's brief reminds us that the Democrats are actually required to prove that the election was not stolen. The articles of impeachment do not merely open the door and allow Trump to prove there was election fraud. They accuse Trump of falsely claiming there was fraud in the election, thereby inciting protests.
Can you cry “fire!” in a crowded theater? Well, is there in fact a fire? Then yes. A prosecutor would have to prove there wasn’t any fire.
In order to prove their case, the impeachment managers are actually required to prove that Trump’s statements were false. The burden of proof is on the Democrats to prove that there was no fraud anywhere in the election. If Trump’s statements were true or he reasonably believed they were true, then the articles of impeachment fail. And Trump should be able to respond. Of course, the Senate won’t tolerate that or allow that much time.
bkmk
Does C-Span sell air time to advertisers like other networks? I just had a thought of which industries would considering buying 30 during this Must See second impeachment. I hope not.
It’s not an impeachment trial.
They are only calling it that, so they can pretend.
This is an illegal trial of a private citizen.
The Senate of the United States is forbidden to conduct
such a trial.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has refused to
reside over this trial. He is required by the Constitution
of the United States to do so, if it is an impeachment.
This would be a joke, if it wasn’t so clearly a criminal
undertaking by the Democrat Controlled Senate.
Private Citizens do not answer to the Senate of the
United States. They stand before a normal court of
law, where a judge or jury evaluate evidence and come
to a verdict.
This is how I understand the law to work. I’m not the
final voice on it, but I believe this to be correct.
I have thought that the proper response for Trump should be to ignore it. Announce that it is in his view an unconstitutional puppet show and refuse to dignify it.
Others see it differently, I suppose. I do want to see which Repubs line up against him so they can be dealt with down the road.
The United States cements it's status as a Banana Republic.
Mark Levin had Judge Starr on today. Impeachment of current private citizen Donald Trump is absolutely unconstitutional:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8BtsU6jiks
“Third World Kangaroo Court”, if you only look to the first Coup inspired “Impeachment” Show Trial. This time, the Subversives didn’t even follow the “basic” niceties of having hearings, one sided or not.
Shame on the elite GOP Senators for disobeying their sworn oaths to Protect the US Constitution.
DONT CARE! UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL CIRCUS ACT. TO HELL WITH ALL OF THEM
Still . . . . . How do you court martial a civilian ?
OMYLANTA!!!! THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SCHEDULE A HALFTIME SHOW!!!
Maybe something from JLow or the Jock Strap Rappers.
Something befitting the class and decorum of this Peachmint Kangaroo Kabuki Sideshow.
Cardboard Brains
Cardboard Bowl
Cardboard Impeachment
Cardboard Ballots
Cardboard Congress
Cardboard Supreme Court
Even worse,the "judge" is sitting Senator Leahy, a liberal democrat.
This is outrageous!
What kind of legal proceeding has a "judge" working for the prosecution?
Thank you very much! Well done!
It’s a group scolding with publicity. The Democrats are doing it to pander to their national mob of renegade harridans, hens, harpies, baboons,...
I would have filed a Writ of Prohibition and a Writ of Mandamus as per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21.
The impeachment trial of a non-sitting president is clearly unconstitutional. The Writs would have stopped the trial dead in its tracks.
Give it up.
The verdict is already in.
- He’s Guilty.
- Sentence will be public hanging in the Capitol Rotunda.
- The only thing left is the date.
I love the smell of Kabuki in the morning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.