info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gregg Jarrett: [No ethics...] Pelosi seeks retaliation in Trump impeachment trial -- get ready for 'the sequel'
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Leroy N. Soetoro
Jan 25, 2021, 8:18:25 PM1/25/21
to
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/pelosi-trump-impeachment-trial-gregg-
jarrett
Here we go again. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slowly and somberly walking
an article of impeachment through the Capitol flanked by House managers
giving their best impression of a funeral procession. Except this time,
they’re wearing Covid masks.
Let’s call it "Impeachment: The Sequel." It is destined to be as pitiable
as the original. Like a cheap movie franchise that Hollywood keeps
exploiting, this sham version will be the equivalent of a box office dud.
Mugging for the cameras, Pelosi will probably mutter something about
"making history," as she did before. Maybe she’ll again pass out souvenir
signing pens like lollipops at a town carnival. It’s an insult to
charades. Pelosi seeks retaliation masquerading as impeachment.
The first impeachment trial in the Senate a year ago was a baseless fiasco
that ended in the easy acquittal of President Trump. Democrats did not
come close to mustering the two-thirds majority votes required for
conviction and removal from office. That predictable outcome rendered the
entire exercise a colossal waste of time.
TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE BEING SENT TO SENATE MONDAY, AHEAD OF TRIAL NEXT
MONTH
It is almost certain that the sequel will mimic the same bad ending.
Democrats in the House rushed through an ineptly crafted article of
impeachment accusing Trump of "inciting an insurrection" when he delivered
a speech on the nation’s mall on January 6, 2021, and criminals chose to
riot inside the Capitol building.
Pelosi and her colleagues didn’t bother to abide by their own established
rules that call for hearings, presentation of evidence and witnesses, the
right to cross-examine those witnesses, the right of defense counsel to be
present, and the right of an accused to mount his own defense. By
depriving Trump of the essential rights of due process, they abandoned all
semblance of fairness in an impetuous bid to pass what can only be
described as a "counterfeit impeachment."
This thin veneer of legitimacy will not withstand scrutiny in the Senate
when the trial is expected to commence on Monday, February 8, 2021.
Republican senators are sure to assail the trampling of fundamental rights
that are a cherished part of any trial process, including impeachment. A
motion to dismiss the case on this basis must be seriously considered.
GROWING NUMBER OF GOP SENATORS OPPOSE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
A dismissal motion should also argue that the Senate lacks jurisdiction
and authority to hold an impeachment trial of a private citizen who cannot
be removed from office. It is obviously an impossibility to expel a
person from an office he has already left.
Take a moment to read the text of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. It
states that "The President…shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and
Misdemeanors."
Yet, Trump is no longer "The President" as the Constitution defines it
because Joe Biden is. We have one president at a time.
As law professor Jonathan Turley has correctly argued, removal from office
is the primary purpose of impeachment. Inasmuch as Trump does not hold a
federal office, a belated Senate trial of the former president would be
invalid and unconstitutional.
MCCONNELL SAYS TRUMP 'PROVOKED' THE CAPITOL RIOT AS SENATE WEIGHS ANOTHER
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
There is precedent for this, as Turley explained. William Blount, one of
the signers of the Constitution, was the first federal officer to face
impeachment in 1798-99. The Senate, on a motion to dismiss, refused to
hear the case because, in part, Blount had already left office and the
Senate did not have jurisdiction over a matter that was moot.
Some have argued that the value of a retroactive Senate impeachment trial
is to bar Trump from holding future federal office. However, a strict
reading of the Constitution indicates that disqualification from office is
a secondary purpose. Indeed, it is a separate vote that can happen only
after the Senate decides on removal. In other words, it is an optional,
discretionary, and contingent penalty. Without removal, there can be no
disqualification. Since Trump cannot now be removed from an office he
does not hold, such a disqualification vote would not be constitutionally
valid.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER
If Congress is allowed to prevent private citizens from holding office by
the practice of retroactive impeachments, what is there to stop it from
deploying this tactic to forbid anyone they might politically oppose in
the future? The answer is nothing. This is surely not what the Framers
intended.
Given the current composition of the U.S. Senate (a 50-50 tie with Vice
President Kamala Harris casting the deciding vote), a motion to dismiss
may not succeed for purely political, instead of constitutional, reasons.
Trump’s defenders will then be forced to argue the case based on its
conspicuous lack of merit.
Did Trump truly "incite an insurrection," as the impeachment article
alleges? It appears that Democrats cavalierly assumed that Trump was the
proximate cause of the violence without ever bothering to consider what he
actually told the gathered crowd.
In relevant part, here is what Trump said: "I know that everyone here
will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and
patriotically make your voices heard."
Nowhere in Trump’s remarks did he advocate violence or destruction of
property. He did not direct or encourage protesters to launch an assault
on the Capitol building, breach security, attack police, threaten
lawmakers, riot, vandalize, loot, and engage in seditious conduct. To the
contrary, Trump called on the crowd to act "peacefully." He urged them to
make their "voices heard," not their actions devolve into violence.
Under the law, incitement requires the speaker to be clear, obvious, and
unequivocal in directing specific acts of imminent harm. There is no
evidence Trump did this. Yes, he extolled people to voice support for
Republican lawmakers who were contesting the electoral vote and to "fight
like hell" in their challenge of that result. But encouraging a public
demonstration is not the same thing as inciting criminal acts. There is a
big difference between rousing passions in a speech —which all politicians
do— and inciting an insurrection. The former is protected by free speech,
while the latter is not.
As I have argued before, Trump’s remarks on January 6, 2021 were ill-
advised, if not foolhardy. They were driven by an obstinate refusal to
accept defeat and the mistaken belief that Congress had the constitutional
authority to reverse the outcome by altering the tally of electoral votes.
But his words that day do not remotely constitute an impeachable offense
or meet the legal definition of incitement.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The violence on our nation’s Capitol was grotesque and disgraceful. Those
who committed crimes must be prosecuted and punished. However, what
happened there does not constitute grounds for impeaching Trump, nor
should Congress be permitted to compound the tragedy by contorting the
meaning of impeachment for political gain or persecution. It is time to
end the politics of revenge.
An assault on our seat of government should not give rise to an assault on
our Constitution.
--
"LOCKDOWN", left-wing COVID fearmongering. 95% of COVID infections
recover with no after effects.
No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Donald J. Trump, cheated out of a second term by fraudulent "mail-in"
ballots. Report voter fraud: sf.n...@mail.house.gov
Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed
dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.
jarrett
Here we go again. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slowly and somberly walking
an article of impeachment through the Capitol flanked by House managers
giving their best impression of a funeral procession. Except this time,
they’re wearing Covid masks.
Let’s call it "Impeachment: The Sequel." It is destined to be as pitiable
as the original. Like a cheap movie franchise that Hollywood keeps
exploiting, this sham version will be the equivalent of a box office dud.
Mugging for the cameras, Pelosi will probably mutter something about
"making history," as she did before. Maybe she’ll again pass out souvenir
signing pens like lollipops at a town carnival. It’s an insult to
charades. Pelosi seeks retaliation masquerading as impeachment.
The first impeachment trial in the Senate a year ago was a baseless fiasco
that ended in the easy acquittal of President Trump. Democrats did not
come close to mustering the two-thirds majority votes required for
conviction and removal from office. That predictable outcome rendered the
entire exercise a colossal waste of time.
TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE BEING SENT TO SENATE MONDAY, AHEAD OF TRIAL NEXT
MONTH
It is almost certain that the sequel will mimic the same bad ending.
Democrats in the House rushed through an ineptly crafted article of
impeachment accusing Trump of "inciting an insurrection" when he delivered
a speech on the nation’s mall on January 6, 2021, and criminals chose to
riot inside the Capitol building.
Pelosi and her colleagues didn’t bother to abide by their own established
rules that call for hearings, presentation of evidence and witnesses, the
right to cross-examine those witnesses, the right of defense counsel to be
present, and the right of an accused to mount his own defense. By
depriving Trump of the essential rights of due process, they abandoned all
semblance of fairness in an impetuous bid to pass what can only be
described as a "counterfeit impeachment."
This thin veneer of legitimacy will not withstand scrutiny in the Senate
when the trial is expected to commence on Monday, February 8, 2021.
Republican senators are sure to assail the trampling of fundamental rights
that are a cherished part of any trial process, including impeachment. A
motion to dismiss the case on this basis must be seriously considered.
GROWING NUMBER OF GOP SENATORS OPPOSE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
A dismissal motion should also argue that the Senate lacks jurisdiction
and authority to hold an impeachment trial of a private citizen who cannot
be removed from office. It is obviously an impossibility to expel a
person from an office he has already left.
Take a moment to read the text of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. It
states that "The President…shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and
Misdemeanors."
Yet, Trump is no longer "The President" as the Constitution defines it
because Joe Biden is. We have one president at a time.
As law professor Jonathan Turley has correctly argued, removal from office
is the primary purpose of impeachment. Inasmuch as Trump does not hold a
federal office, a belated Senate trial of the former president would be
invalid and unconstitutional.
MCCONNELL SAYS TRUMP 'PROVOKED' THE CAPITOL RIOT AS SENATE WEIGHS ANOTHER
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
There is precedent for this, as Turley explained. William Blount, one of
the signers of the Constitution, was the first federal officer to face
impeachment in 1798-99. The Senate, on a motion to dismiss, refused to
hear the case because, in part, Blount had already left office and the
Senate did not have jurisdiction over a matter that was moot.
Some have argued that the value of a retroactive Senate impeachment trial
is to bar Trump from holding future federal office. However, a strict
reading of the Constitution indicates that disqualification from office is
a secondary purpose. Indeed, it is a separate vote that can happen only
after the Senate decides on removal. In other words, it is an optional,
discretionary, and contingent penalty. Without removal, there can be no
disqualification. Since Trump cannot now be removed from an office he
does not hold, such a disqualification vote would not be constitutionally
valid.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER
If Congress is allowed to prevent private citizens from holding office by
the practice of retroactive impeachments, what is there to stop it from
deploying this tactic to forbid anyone they might politically oppose in
the future? The answer is nothing. This is surely not what the Framers
intended.
Given the current composition of the U.S. Senate (a 50-50 tie with Vice
President Kamala Harris casting the deciding vote), a motion to dismiss
may not succeed for purely political, instead of constitutional, reasons.
Trump’s defenders will then be forced to argue the case based on its
conspicuous lack of merit.
Did Trump truly "incite an insurrection," as the impeachment article
alleges? It appears that Democrats cavalierly assumed that Trump was the
proximate cause of the violence without ever bothering to consider what he
actually told the gathered crowd.
In relevant part, here is what Trump said: "I know that everyone here
will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and
patriotically make your voices heard."
Nowhere in Trump’s remarks did he advocate violence or destruction of
property. He did not direct or encourage protesters to launch an assault
on the Capitol building, breach security, attack police, threaten
lawmakers, riot, vandalize, loot, and engage in seditious conduct. To the
contrary, Trump called on the crowd to act "peacefully." He urged them to
make their "voices heard," not their actions devolve into violence.
Under the law, incitement requires the speaker to be clear, obvious, and
unequivocal in directing specific acts of imminent harm. There is no
evidence Trump did this. Yes, he extolled people to voice support for
Republican lawmakers who were contesting the electoral vote and to "fight
like hell" in their challenge of that result. But encouraging a public
demonstration is not the same thing as inciting criminal acts. There is a
big difference between rousing passions in a speech —which all politicians
do— and inciting an insurrection. The former is protected by free speech,
while the latter is not.
As I have argued before, Trump’s remarks on January 6, 2021 were ill-
advised, if not foolhardy. They were driven by an obstinate refusal to
accept defeat and the mistaken belief that Congress had the constitutional
authority to reverse the outcome by altering the tally of electoral votes.
But his words that day do not remotely constitute an impeachable offense
or meet the legal definition of incitement.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The violence on our nation’s Capitol was grotesque and disgraceful. Those
who committed crimes must be prosecuted and punished. However, what
happened there does not constitute grounds for impeaching Trump, nor
should Congress be permitted to compound the tragedy by contorting the
meaning of impeachment for political gain or persecution. It is time to
end the politics of revenge.
An assault on our seat of government should not give rise to an assault on
our Constitution.
--
"LOCKDOWN", left-wing COVID fearmongering. 95% of COVID infections
recover with no after effects.
No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Donald J. Trump, cheated out of a second term by fraudulent "mail-in"
ballots. Report voter fraud: sf.n...@mail.house.gov
Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed
dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.
Unknown
Feb 1, 2021, 6:17:13 AM2/1/21
to
these people get up every morning after they sleep with themselves, lying
some more to God. Who wants a 2000 a month stimulus over a real president.
I don't. And I'm a poor man. Their lies about a bird flu virus to hide
their pocket books has gone far enough. Time to shut down the Alberta
slut.
Unknown
Feb 1, 2021, 6:26:38 AM2/1/21
to
On 1/25/21 5:18 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
Hunter Biden) My question is, why did he not know this? Or do it? The
rest, is a illegal smoke screen
0 new messages