Posted on 02/04/2021 7:05:59 PM PST by caww
Democrats on Thursday asked Donald Trump to testify under oath for his Senate impeachment trial, ... Trump adviser Jason Miller dismissed the trial as “an unconstitutional proceeding” and said the former president would not testify. Separately, Trump’s lawyers denounced the request as a “public relations stunt.”
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
I seem to recall many deep state Democrats refusing to appear at hearings.
They would never let Trump say a word anyway
Like I said in another thread,
They can demand in one hand...
If they refuse to hear it on standing it would prove once an for all to the rest of the citizens who still care about having a Constitutional Republic that the Court is a fraud, since Roberts refuses to preside over it ...
Send in the AV clerk and run a tape of Democrat calling for and perpetrating violence against Trump and his supporters over the last five years.
Starting with Schumer’s threats against Kavanaugh and Gorsuch last year.
Trump is under protection of the DOD, whereabouts unknown. It’s foolish stoopidy on ‘Rats part (DS) that he’d appear and break cover.
Oh, and I highly doubt he is in FL (although he could be, just as any other state).
An FAA VIP TFR follows the whereabouts of the former president (a smaller one than POTUS, at 3 mi radius). There is none in FL at the moment.
“An FAA VIP TFR follows the whereabouts of the former president (a smaller one than POTUS, at 3 mi radius). There is none in FL at the moment.”
That is interesting
How can you have a show trial without the target?
While I said there are no VIP TFR’s in FL; there are none in any other state either...
except a “president” VIP TFR (30 mi radius) for Wilmington PA this weekend.
On the curious side, there does not appear to be VIP TFRs for any former President.
If they refuse to hear it on standing it would prove once an for all to the rest of the citizens who still care about having a Constitutional Republic that the Court is a fraud, since Roberts refuses to preside over it ...
The Chief Justice does not preside over impeachments of former presidents. Rule IV provides, "When the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States, upon whom the powers and duties of the Office of President shall have devolved, shall be impeached, the Chief Justice of the United States shall preside; and in a case requiring the said Chief Justice to preside notice shall be given to him by the Presiding Officer of the Senate of the time and place fixed for the consideration of the articles of impeachment, as aforesaid, with a request to attend." The Senate did not send such a notice and request. Whether the presiding officer is the Chief Justice, the Vice President or a senator, he does not wield any great authority, and is more of a figurehead. He can issue no binding ruling. Any ruling he makes on an issue can be objected to by any senator, upon which a vote of the senate is taken, and the majority decides the issue. The Chief Justice could not cast a tie-breaking vote on anything at an impeachment proceeding. Senator Leahy as presiding officer still casts all votes as a senator and sworn member of the court.
Why hasn't Trump filed to declarative relief with SCOTUS on the grounds that this impeachment is unconstitutional?
As the Court has stated, the Constitution explicitly gives sole authority over impeachment to the Congress. Thus, the courts have no authority to review the congressional action in an impeachment proceeding. The Supreme Court can and has refused to consider reviewing an impeachment process and thoroughly explained why the Judicial Branch had no authority to review impeachment proceedings. Below are some excerpts.
(Judge) Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
At 228:
A controversy is nonjusticiable—i.e., involves a political question—where there is “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it . . . .” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962).
At 229:
In this case, we must examine Art. I, §3, cl. 6, to determine the scope of authority conferred upon the Senate by the Framers regarding impeachment. It provides:“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.The language and structure of this Clause are revealing. The first sentence is a grant of authority to the Senate, and the word “sole” indicates that this authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else.
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 commonsense meaning of the word “sole” is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. The dictionary definition bears this out. “Sole” is defined as “having no companion,” “solitary,” “being the only one,” and “functioning ... independently and without assistance or interference.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2168 (1971). If the courts may review the actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body “tried” an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be “functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.”
At 233:
The history and contemporary understanding of the impeachment provisions support our reading of the constitutional language. The parties do not offer evidence of a single word in the history of the Constitutional Convention or in contemporary commentary that even alludes to the possibility of judicial review in the context of the impeachment powers. See 290 U. S. App. D. C., at 424, 938 F. 2d, at 243; R. Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems 116 (1973). This silence is quite meaningful in light of the several explicit references to the availability of judicial review as a check on the Legislature’s power with respect to bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and statutes. See The Federalist No. 78, p. 524 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (“Limitations ... can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice”).
At 234:
There are two additional reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments. First, the Framers recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable offenses—the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. In fact, the Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings. See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. The Framers deliberately separated the two forums to avoid raising the specter of bias and to ensure independent judgments:“Would it be proper that the persons, who had disposed of his fame and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should in another trial, for the same offence, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error in the first sentence would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights, which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision?” The Federalist No. 65, p. 442 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).Certainly judicial review of the Senate’s “trial” would introduce the same risk of bias as would participation in the trial itself.
Second, judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers’ insistence that our system be one of checks and balances. In our constitutional system, impeachment was designed to be the only check on the Judicial Branch by the Legislature. On the topic of judicial accountability, Hamilton wrote:
“The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for mal-conduct by the house of representatives, and tried by the senate, and if convicted, may be dismissed from office and disqualified for holding any other. This is the only provision on the point, which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character, and is the only one which we find in our own constitution in respect to our own judges.” Id., No. 79, at 532-533 (emphasis added).Judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for purposes of judicial review, is counterintuitive because it would eviscerate the “important constitutional check” placed on the Judiciary by the Framers. See id., No. 81, at 545. Nixon’s argument would place final reviewing authority with respect to impeachments in the hands of the same body that the impeachment process is meant to regulate.
At 236:
In addition to the textual commitment argument, we are persuaded that the lack of finality and the difficulty of fashioning relief counsel against justiciability. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S., at 210. We agree with the Court of Appeals that opening the door of judicial review to the procedures used by the Senate in trying impeachments would “expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos.” 290 U. S. App. D. C., at 427, 938 F. 2d, at 246. This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and hence his effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated. Equally uncertain is the question of what relief a court may give other than simply setting aside the judgment of conviction. Could it order the reinstatement of a convicted federal judge, or order Congress to create an additional judgeship if the seat had been filled in the interim?
I have wondered about that myself..
The Senate has no authority to put a private person on trial...with one of the Senators as the presiding "judge" no less.
The Supreme Court really has a limited role in the political lunacy involving the legislative and executive branches of government. They would probably refuse to take the case on that basis alone — unless Congress tries to impose some kind of punishment that hinders Donald Trump as a private citizen outside government.
However, as an admitted "armchair constitutional lawyer" I still don't see how any of the Nixon citations are applicable in the impeachment of a FORMER official.
As I understand it the constitution in both Article I section 3 and Article II section 4 explicitly state impeachment is only to remove the current President from office and disqualify him from future office.
In my admittedly layman's opinion, the fact that Roberts refuses to preside over this impeachment even though it is explicitly called for in Article I section 3 proves that these proceedings are not constitutional, so I don't see how asking for relief, which in this case would be clarifying the Constitutional authorization for the Senate to carry this out at all is interfering with the legislative branch.
In other words, where in the Constitution are the rules for Impeaching a former official detailed ?
Congress can do whatever it likes to whomever it wants, if SCOTUS refuses to get involved, which it will. Again.
From the OP link to AP:
“... Raskin said Trump’s refusal to testify “speaks volumes and plainly establishes an adverse inference supporting his guilt.” ...”
Who? Jamin Ben Raskin is an American lawyer and politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Maryland’s 8th congressional district. This Sabbatean Frank goes by fake goy name Jamie and he is a Demoncrat. He is on the House impeachment management team.
Now to that quote from AP of the filth spilling from Raskin’s own mouth: Have you ever heard a judge give instructions to a jury that no inference is to be made about a defendant’s innocence or guilt based on whether or not they testify? It’s standard boilerplate language in every criminal trial. And everyone knows that no one can be compelled to testify or speak at all. And yet this elected BOOBUS, a Demoncrat and a lawyer no less, ignores both of these issues and declares Trump guilty. I looked up the photo and expected to find a female EBT American with an AA education given the STUPID!
WHAT COUNTRY ARE WE LIVING IN? DC is a haunt of Demons.
My thought is that the Democrats requesting that Trump testify tells you about all you need to know about their level of confidence. They could subpoena him, if they want to. But then he could challenge that subpoena power all the way to the SCOTUS and it would crash and burn right there. So they will not subpoena him, just bitch and moan about him not accepting their request. It is theater.
The Senate may have the sole responsibility for carrying out the process. But that assumes the process is being carried out in application to a proper subject. Say Alcee Hastings when he was a Federal Judge. Or Bill Clinton (or Donald Trump) when they were in office. [Although I have to admit, their position does raise the appealing thought of impeaching Bill Clinton all over again...]
Judicial Review being parceled off while the consideration was a sitting President, might make some sense. But Trump has no Executive powers at this point. The Supreme Court would not be interposing itself between two co-equal branches of government. Just between Congress and a private citizen who once was President.
Me? I'm just a country lawyer, but I like DJT's chances. I recommend he let the Democrats take enough rope to hang themselves with. I like Bannon's suggestion that Trump make the opening argument. It could be a 3 hour presentation, would not need to be all Trump, could be done remotely to minimize Covid risk. Trump has done well in controlled settings, and this would be totally controlled in that the Senate is compelled to sit there and take it. He could excoriate a**holes like Chuck Schumer, Blumenthal and Whitehouse, and they would just have to listen.
Congress is not subservient to the SCOTUS under the U.S. Constitution. It’s the other way around.
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.