Posted on 11/14/2019 9:56:18 AM PST by Red Badger
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) will be called as a witness in a Senate impeachment trial, which will be held if the House votes to impeach President Donald Trump.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he’d call Schiff to testify during an appearance on Fox News’s “Hannity” late Nov. 13.
Graham also said he wouldn’t let a trial of Trump be based on hearsay evidence alone. A trial would also not be held if the whistleblower doesn’t testify, he said.
“Let’s say they get 218 votes. Here’s what I promise the country. We’re not going to try the president of the United States based on hearsay. So any resolution setting up a trial in the Senate, I’m going to make sure that hearsay cannot be the basis of an impeachment allegation,” Graham told host Sean Hannity.
“If you invoke the hearsay rule, what would be left?”
“A trial in the Senate, to me, should not legitimize what’s going on in the House. No American is denied the right to call witnesses on their behalf, except for Donald Trump. No American is accused of wrongdoing anonymously, except Donald Trump. What they’re doing in the House is a danger to the presidency itself,” Graham continued.
“So any trial in the Senate needs to make sure that you can’t impeach a president based on hearsay, because that’s a danger to the presidency itself. And secondly, any trial in the Senate must expose the whistleblower so the president can confront his accuser. I will not accept a trial in the Senate until I know who the whistleblower is.”
A trial in the Senate is held if a president is impeached by the House. The trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. If the Senate convicts the president, he is removed from office; if it does not, he remains in office. No president has ever been convicted of impeachment. Conviction requires a two-thirds concurrence of those present.
“Adam Schiff Will be Called as a Witness in Senate Impeachment Trial: Graham”
And if someone calls him out when it doesn’t happen, he’ll just say he had his fingers crossed behind his back.
Why is he not immune? He has a Constitutional immunity, which is Supreme Law of the Land.
The "whistleblower case" stems from whistleblower legislation passed by Congress, supported by the Intelligence Inspector General statutes, also passed by Congress. Both of these are inferior to the Constitutional privileges and immunities clause.
The Senate can make the case that Schiff committed a felony in his interference with the whistleblower or the IG, but that's more than just calling him to testify as a "fact witness." They'd be calling him to explain a felonious act, which would instantly inflame Pelosi and Schumer.
The only recourse for a person who abuses his authority is expulsion by 2/3rds of the chamber, or a devastating PR campaign in his district to compel his constituents to not reelect him.
-PJ
-PJ
Hook him up to a lie detector.
There was no whistleblower.
Zaid would have to identify this whistleblower, or (more likely) admit that the whistleblower never existed in the first place.
If the whistleblower actually DOES exist, he/she is Witness #2. And the names and affiliations of all his/her contacts in Congress are revealed, and become Witness #3, Witness #4, etc.
If there is no whistleblower, then the case is over at that point.
They will then run on Trump racist, Trump Hitler, republicans KKK.
//////////////////
Sorry, didn’t make myself clear enough. They will attack the Senate trial as illegitimate because republicans are trying to unmask the whistleleaker and summon Schiff because he headed the impeachment. They will use the “illegal, unconstitutional “ trial as proof Trump and supporters are racist, Hitler, KKK. this is in coordination with deep state and Soros backed antifa type groups. Thanks for helping clarify this. I agree with your statement entirely. Again my opinion that they are past the point of no return. They have all the pieces in place. They cannot allow four more years of Trump.
Again look at the attack on Dan Bishops son at NC state one day after Bishop outed the whistleleaker.
I believe the immunity you cite refers to being held to account (sued) for slander, character assassination or other things a Congressman says while acting in the performance of his job.
Make him perjure himself on whether or not he knew who the whistleblower was.
= = =
And he is:
Sadm Achiff
And he is protected as a asylum seeking immigrant from a ‘peace-loving’ country.
And Epstein didn’t kill himself
I have printed out removable address labels with that saying and place them everywhere I go. It is a blast.
Make sure it’s by a subpoena.
I think Adam Shifty will claim “Executive Privilege”, especially since he thinks he is running the whole clown show.
By your interpretation, if a House member shot and killed another and a third member on the House floor in a speech said he saw the whole thing, he could not be questioned by the police or testify at the trial of the other house member. I do not believe this is the intent and I do not believe a court would interpret this section that narrowly.
Just my thoughts...
I think he should call the three Dem senators who probably got kickbacks from the missing $1.8 Billion in Ukraine. A lot of people had their hand in that cookie jar.
You are so right. The DS within the Republican Party installed him as judiciary chairman to provide cover for the Schifft show in the house. I suppose Grassley was seen as not “boom, tick tock” enough to live on Hannity’s show. Of course, after the Schifft show ends and Graham is re-elected Grassley comes back and Linda 2.0 reappears.
Schiff may be immune from giving testimony, but the Senate could easily give him an option to waive the immunity: Testify, or your case is summarily dismissed.
Not to sure about the veracity of Bishops claim he was attacked. There is video and counter claims. All is not as it appears.
That really is funny!
Why not go to a local book store and put them smack dab in the middle of page 1 of books written by Liberals?
Speaking of liberals, on a side note, has anyone else noticed the drudgereport sliding left? Just curious.
Therefore, unless there is precedent that narrows the immunity, it is whatever anyone claims it is until finally tested with SCOTUS.
Remember the case of Idaho Senator Larry Craig (R) who was arrested for a "wide stance" at an airport bathroom while traveling back home from Washington? Some argued that he should have been privileged from arrest because he was traveling to and from Congress. A narrow interpretation of the privilege would suggest that he's only privileged from arrest for actions or statements he took during legislating.
Then there was the case of Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-MA) who crashed his car into a barrier at the Capitol at 2:45am. Kennedy claimed that he was sleep driving due to taking Ambien, and thought he was going to vote. Some suggested that even this was covered by the privilege from arrest clause, but Kennedy said he wanted no special treatment.
So, the bottom line is that I don't know if it's been tested one way or the other, so I'm erring on the side of broad interpretation.
-PJ
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.