Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Republicans: Let’s Get This Show on the Road!
We have entered a new year. I, for one, want to start with a fresh outlook, regardless of my tendency to assume the worst when it comes to politics. I think that breaking through the stand-off regarding the impeachment of Donald Trump could start a tidal shift in the power of the Republicans. I’m calling out Mitch McConnell to disregard any demands by the Democrats, rally the Republicans, and get this show on the road!
In a previous post, I explained some of the requirements, or lack of them, for impeachment. The articles of impeachment have essentially been delivered (by public announcement); the trial can proceed whether Pelosi appoints Managers or not; and there do not have to be witnesses. These points make up the crux of the stalemate:
This is not a criminal trial. The Democrats are demanding the processes of a criminal trial, and yet they refused to follow those types of procedures in their own investigation.
They can’t have it both ways; no acrobatics they try will make it a criminal trial. So, all of the demands they are making go out the window.
The trial must be fair and impartial—Senators take an oath that they will “do impartial justice,” but technically declaring they’ve made up their minds doesn’t contradict that statement. Mitch McConnell has declared that he is not impartial at all, and Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri law professor responds:
‘In the past,’ Bowman said, ‘senators try to maintain at least the fiction of impartiality, to maintain at least the notion that they could be persuaded. What we have with McConnell … is essentially a statement that there’s nothing you can do that’s going to persuade us: We’re the president’s men and women, and he’s going to stay in office.’
Democrats may see this as brazen, but it’s not unconstitutional.
In a criminal trial, lawyers probably would keep someone off the jury if he declared as little impartiality as McConnell.
In an impeachment trial, senators can’t be disqualified if they express bias. That makes sense, Bowman said. Otherwise, ‘the majority will just disqualify the minority and you have this sort of bizarre free-for-all, with six people left standing. It will be silly.’
So Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi can call it “unfair” all they want, but it’s a meaningless charge. This impeachment is not a criminal process.
Nancy Pelosi is making demands about the rules the Senate should make for the trial—just as the House made its own rules for the impeachment process, the Senate has sole authority to make rules for the trial process. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Due process, which the President has been demanding, does not apply to an impeachment–Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, explains due process in this way:
The Fifth Amendment says no one can be deprived of ‘life, liberty or property’ without due process of law. A president facing an impeachment trial is not at risk of losing life, liberty or property.
Congress ‘is not obliged to follow due process, (though) it may well decide to provide things that look like due process,’ Gerhardt said.
Due process, at a minimum, requires an impartial decision-maker. ‘You can see how that doesn’t really apply to impeachment,’ he said.
I’m sure the President is frustrated by this fact, and he may already know he has no grounds to stand on; I hope his protest is just part of his “show.” This is not a criminal trial.
I understand that Mitch McConnell might choose to wait until the Christmas break has ended. Beyond that date, I see more negatives than positives for allowing Nancy Pelosi to drag out delivering the articles.
If she waits—she could deliver them right before the election, and hope to affect the results. She could drive Donald Trump crazy (which I believe gives her a certain level of satisfaction); you can say that his protests are theater, but I think he wants this thing done.
If she continues to demand to have input to the Senate rules—there is no good reason for McConnell to acquiesce. None.
If McConnell moves forward after the Christmas break—he can give Pelosi three days to deliver the articles, and if she doesn’t, he has many ways of appointing managers to acquire them or even proceed without them. He should forget about bringing in witnesses as part of the trial. He should either set limits to how long the attorneys can take to present their sides or dismiss the entire case.
(Other investigations can be scheduled to depose all the people they wish to interview about the last four years; those people don’t need to be part of the trial.)
Then the Senate should vote.
The Republicans can use this moment as a launching pad for an assertive and determined beginning to the year. It’s time to put impeachment behind us: the sooner, the better!
Published in Politics
This is the point. If it is a congressional power, the executive cannot assume it, no matter how poorly performed. And it is not about violating court orders, it is about what authority is granted in the constitution. And Trump is certainly not the first (e.g. Truman’s attempt to take over steel companies during the Korean War).
And note that is sometimes takes courts time to catch up.
What is your basis for this claim? So far he has hewed meticulously to the law.
Correct. No one has any answers.
And impeachment was partisan. Congress is partisan.
Can you give an example of Trump over reaching?
It’s just occurred to me that if we are going to try to gain some perspective about Trump and this whole impeachment mess, it helps to step back for a moment. I’m beginning to understand that there is a struggle going on of enormous proportions. To an even greater extent than I imagined, this is really a fight for survival–a fight between the corrupt status quo (the swamp) and those who have decided to tear it down. The swamp is refusing to acknowledge their illegal and destructive actions; they project it all on Trump. They could care less about citizens. All they want is power. Period.
In comes Trump, and he is destroying all of it. The more he does, the more critical, angrier and disgusting they become. And as much as I dislike Trump personally, he’s probably the only person I can think of who is immune from their hatred, threats, and designs. The harder he fights, the angrier and more frightened they become. In fact, in some ways they are fighting for dear life–the life of power, tyranny and control–and they will stop anyone or anything in their way.
I don’t know what will happen after impeachment and the next election. It may get even uglier. But it will only be because Trump has rallied enough Republicans to join him in this crusade.
That is the equation! Some people will resist understanding to their last breath what is so clear.
The ‘impeachment’ is empty as are your points about President Trump not having authority. A threat to do an action is not the same as doing the action and unless the action is prohibited by statute or constitutionally, your argument that he has no authority won’t hold up. He has broad authority to declare emergencies.
I think this is correct and the ‘swamp dwellers’ are acting illegally and evilly . Those average normal people, in the middle, so to speak, thinking they are living in a republic, in the form of a representative democracy, lack an awareness of the grave danger we face. Many followers of the evil ‘swamp dwellers’ in their effort to depose Trump are here the victims they have chosen to be by accepting these views without questioning – they are satisfied to reside in the bubble. The corrupted educational system and the morally bankrupt entertainment industry and MSM carry the torch for the Democrats and the swamp dwellers.
Susan, you are where I got to about a year ago. I don’t care if Donald is a swine. I want my government back.
I’m a slow learner! ;-)
Nah. I had just heard “hard evidence”, “incontrovertible proof,” and “smoking gun” one time too many.
The homeless crises in California is already developing into what could be legally authorized as a Federal emergency because of the outbreak of disease that could be infectious and contagious, spreading across the country if not subdued.
Yes, his use of the a declaration of a national emergency to transfer military funds to build the border wall.
And his pardoning of Navy Seal Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher.
And his blocking of the military funding for the Ukraine was illegal.
The constitution does not prohibit, it specifies what powers may be exercised. Everything not specifically granted is off limits. And they are quite limited. Trump is not alone in this regard.
The courts said otherwise
Not even close to being illegal. The Constitution is explicit that this is his power with no oversight at all.
Never happened. Except when Obama did it.
Personally I think McConnell should dismiss the charge outright or if that is not viable to make it as cursory a process as possible. This whole thing was a sham, and it doesn’t deserve an iota of respect.
I recognize that if you believe in sanctuary cities and open borders you would never see a national emergency in a flood of illegal aliens placing burdens on public services and finances, terror risks, and subordination of law abiding citizens to the interest of illegal aliens.
His pardoning power is express in the constitution. So how is this a derogation of Congress’ powers?
And you do realize that the criminal code of the military is (and always has been ) an executive order, not a federal statute passed by Congress.[corrected]You are conflating authorization/appropriation and foreign relations. The former is within the purview of Congress, the latter within the Executive. Placing conditions on the release of appropriated funds for foreign relations purposes is neither new nor unusual. You only see it as such because of the political passions of the moment.
That’s not true at all. The UCMJ is a creation of Congress based on the Constitution Article I, Section 8 which gives Congress the power to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.
I stand corrected and will edit my comment to delete.
This is what you asked for, not for what was legal or illegal.
The emergency declaration was an over reach and I would expect it to be denied if it gets to the Supreme Court. Clearly this is a prime example of presidential over reach.
If a democrat had done this, and they will when elected, we will all scream to high heaven. And rightfully so.
But the rules have changed. We can no longer rely on the people screaming to high heaven to stop politicians intent on robbing us of our freedoms. Americans overwhelmingly opposed homosexual marriage in every vote. Americans were overwhelmingly against bailing out those wall street firms in 2008, but both parties loved doing it. Americans were strongly against Obamacare, but it got shoved down our throats.
I don’t much care about some things anymore. We need radical actions to undo the injustices inflicted on us.