Could the Senate Acquit President Trump Without Trial?

| December 24, 2019

If Hunter Biden didn’t do anything wrong, how would an investigation into his father help President Trump’s reelection campaign? (r/The_Donald)

One of the Democrat impeachment witnesses argued, in an article, that unless the articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate, President Trump is “not” impeached. The reality is that a reading of the articles of impeachment, and the vote taken to impeach, shows that the President is impeached.

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to impeach. It gives the Senate the power to conduct the trials that result from impeachment. In reality, they could carry out their constitutional duty without the House appointing managers and without the House delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

From Ren Jander on The Post & Email:

This means that if the Senate acquits Trump immediately – without a trial – the Supreme Court has no authority, whatsoever, to review the Senate’s acquittal, and there isn’t a damn thing the House can do about it.

Feldman is distracting the nation from understanding the full scope of Senate acquittal authority. He knows that if the House hasn’t impeached the President, the Senate could not immediately acquit him. This is why Feldman appears to be defending POTUS.

Appearances are deceptive. Feldman’s true game is to provide cover for Pelosi’s power play in not delivering the articles of impeachment or choosing House impeachment managers, neither of which is necessary for the House to impeach. The Constitution doesn’t mention “articles of impeachment” or “impeachment managers.” And once the House impeaches, the Senate takes over. The House then has no power whatsoever to dictate terms of a trial. No trial is even required.

The article talks about how a judge was essentially accused of a quid pro quo arrangement that resulted in a prosecutor’s halting an investigation. This was an investigation into the actions of a son of the businessman involved with the quid pro quo with the judge.

The House of Representatives voted on three articles of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. The Senate leveraged Senate Impeachment Rule XI. This allowed the presiding officer to appoint a committee to receive both evidence and testimony. They presented their findings to the full Senate. More than 2/3rds of the Senate voted to convict and remove Nixon.

Nixon took this case to court, arguing that the whole Senate had to be involved with gathering evidence and with hearing testimony. He asked for his impeachment conviction to be voided and for his salary and privileges to be restored.

This case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. They concluded that the Supreme Court, by extension the court system, had no power to review the impeachment process. The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments.

Using this as precedence, the Senate could download the articles of impeachment and proceed from there. They could decide to take no witnesses and go straight to a vote of innocence or guilt. If they vote to acquit, that’s it. “Case dismissed”.

Thanks to 11B-Mailclerk for the link. You could read the whole article here.

Category: Politics

Comments (58)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. 5th/77th FA says:

    Again, I would prefer a full blown trial with all of the evidence against the true enemies of our Republic exposed for the power hungry grifters that they are.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Sadly, there are far too many folks at risk for that to happen. The Swamp will ooze protectively around its own.

      But McConnell needs to step up to the plate, move an acquittal, hold the vote, and be done with it. He could add a motion to Censure for Pelosi abusing her office and obstructing Congress. (Which would be -epic- smack-back.)

      • rgr769 says:

        Since no crime, not even a misdemeanor, is alleged in their fake articles of impeachment, the Senate should vote on a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. The D-rat progs could not even come up with allegations sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss in federal court in a civil case. If anyone here can cite anything Trump did that constitutes a crime related to the faux articles feel free to tell us what they are.

    • xyzzy says:

      Sure. This trial MUST be apolitical in order to be fair. Leave the politics OFF the table and get to the facts. If guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, convict; if not, acquit.

      Sooooo… get the bills of impeachment to the Senate, hold a fair trial, then let the votes fall where they may.

      I know, I know. You’re telling me to lay off the crack pipe. I know that won’t happen. But it ought!

  2. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    Sen Graham is wanting to call everyone that signed FISA warrants to testify:

    If he does it, how ugly will it get?

    • Combat Historian says:

      Grahamnesty is usually all hat and no cattle. I’ll believe him when he actually calls the hearing to order and force the deep state derps to testify…

  3. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    Given how flimsy the case Pelosi and the D-rats have presented, I don’t think that any of it has a snowflake’s chance in hell, it’s all a big bucket of politics, which often stinks like shit!

  4. LC says:

    So in response to all the outrage from Repblicans over a ‘sham’ impeachment in the House, … the response is to have a sham trial in the Senate? Brilliant. Good to see people want our representatives to do their job.

    • AW1Ed says:

      McConnell is pushing for the same rules as Clinton’s impeachment, which passed unanimously back in the day. Now Dems want testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn, and secret grand jury material from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

      Trump is claiming Executive Privilege over McGahn, and they have no legal access to the grand jury information. This is all smoke and mirrors while Pelosi sits on her bony ass with the Articles of Impeachment.

      • Mason says:

        Remember a week ago how Trump was such an imminent national security threat that they needed to vote NOW on impeachment? Funny how he’s not such a national security threat now that she’s gotten her vote. Of course, that won’t be pointed out on your MSM sources.

      • LC says:

        Sorry for the slow response – got waylaid by a flu. Short answer: I don’t care what rules they adopt, so long as a real trial -the job they’re supposed to do- is conducted. My initial comment was that a ‘sham trial’ (meaning, an acquittal without even a trial, per the headline) is utterly indefensible.

        I have a ton more respect for Congress critters whom I disagree with but do their job than I do ones I agree with but don’t. One of the jobs of the Senate is to conduct the trial – they damn well better do that, regardless of the outcome.

    • Mason says:

      So you’re in favor of the Senate just outright dismissing the charges and acquitting? I’m really surprised, LC. I thought I was going to agree with you here, because you’re usually a “let’s get all the evidence and then make a decision” guy.

      Of course a Senate trial is going to be partisan. Impeachment is a partisan process. However, there’s far more to be gained from a Senate trial after the shitshow that was the House “investigation”.

      • LC says:

        I think we’re in agreement, and I just wasn’t clear – that or you’re being very clever, and my flu-addled brain isn’t picking up on it.

        I’m not in favor of outright dismissing the charges – by ‘sham trial’, I literally meant just that, per the headline of the article. I want the Senate to do their job, per the Constitution. Hold an actual trial, with evidence, and come to a conclusion.

    • SFC D says:

      It’s been a sham from the beginning. Why drag out a trial based on a crap indictment?

      • LC says:

        I just want my elected representatives to actually do their job. In my job, if a colleague is a slacker and doesn’t do shit, I can’t use that as an excuse to also do nothing. I’m there to do a job; I should do it to the best of my ability.

        Otherwise it’s just like watching two kids fighting and both excusing their actions because they feel the other kid started it. The Senate, I would hope, would be the grown-ups in our slightly dysfunctional government.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      I favor a full trial, with none of the bullshit restrictions Schiff & Co. are trying to impose. For that matter, I’d like to see Schiff on the witness stand. Either he tells the truth under oath that he lied his ass off from the getgo, or he lies his ass off under oath and goes down for it.

      LC, you know as well as I do that this impeachment thing started the moment the ballots were certified in 2016. The far-leftists have been digging all the dirt they possibly could find on Trump and come up empty handed again and again. The only thing that has stuck is that he’s a boorish serial adulterer, to which the rest of the country said, “No shit, he’s Donald Trump. Tell us something we don’t know.” Remember that democrats didn’t seem to think that Bill Clinton’s inability to keep his dick in his shorts was a big deal, despite multiple actually-credible rape accusations. Trump is not a guy I’d invite over for Christmas dinner. My vote in 2016 wasn’t so much for Trump as it was AGAINST Das Hildabeast. That being said, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by his performance in office.

      This whole MO of “I/we don’t like him, so we’re gonna find something to prosecute him for” is not just wrong, it’s utterly anti-American in every sense of the word.

      • rgr769 says:

        It is a classic application of the commie principle of “show me the man and we’ll find his crime.”

      • LC says:

        I favor a full trial too, though I clearly expressed that poorly up above.

        As for the impeachment, sure, there were some Democrats who, from the moment Trump won, wanted to see him impeached. No question. Where we disagree is that this is the result of that – look, if you want to argue on the abuse of power charge, I think there can be a compelling defense of the President. On the obstruction of justice case? That’s a much harder sell.

        One of the ironies in all of this is how much politicians on both sides have done a straight 180 from their positions during the Clinton trial. Lindsey Graham, for example, said that ignoring subpoenas was an impeachable offense. And it’s a little strange that every witness that testified under oath said there was a quid pro quo, and the only ones who say there wasn’t have refused subpoenas. Don’t you find that the least bit strange? Don’t you want to hear from people like Bolton and Mulvaney? Not to mention President Trump, for that matter, given that Clinton testified in his investigation. To me, that’s not politics, that’s getting to the truth.

        All in all, if the Democrats were trying to impeach him for something utterly inconsequential, I’d be more inclined to agree with you. But the argument that the President is strong on corruption and was just trying to ensure Ukraine was rooting out corruption, via the Bidens, seems to lack any real evidence, and the alternate explanation – that he wanted to tar his primary rival’s name – seems more plausible. And again, even if you argue that’s not an abuse of power (possibly, though I don’t like it), the conduct of ignoring subpoenas and stymieing any investigation into these acts is worth a trial.

        ‘Truth’ and ‘Justice’ are very American.

        • Poetrooper says:

          LC says, “And it’s a little strange that every witness that testified under oath said there was a quid pro quo, and the only ones who say there wasn’t have refused subpoenas. Don’t you find that the least bit strange?”

          No, I find it irrelevant, as does about half this nation, as an avenue to impeachment. Every dollar of foreign aid doled out by our government has all sorts of strings attached to it for the purpose of buying compliance in some form or another, so the term “quid pro quo” is nothing more than Latin for “negotiation” and counts for nothing as an article of impeachment.

          As Pelosi’s bickering with McConnell amply demonstrates, quid pro quo is a staple of all political activity, foreign and domestic. To criminalize it would render all politicians and government leaders subject to prosecution, not that that might not be a good thing.

          And if you wish to argue that Trump was seeking information harmful to a potential opponent, I will counter that as the chief law enforcement officer of this nation, he was rightfully acting in that role to determine whether or not his predecessor’s administration was corrupt at the highest levels, something most definitely needing to be investigated, predicated on Biden’s very foolish public assertions.

          I agree that both Democrats and Republicans are likely involved in Ukrainian corruption–I just do not believe it is Donald Trump or his family, which is why he can and has, justifiably, called for Ukraine to investigate the rot in our two governments.

          What I find strange is that you find all this strange.

    • David says:

      Two things: FULL TRIAL WHEREVER THE TESTIMONY LEADS! Shine light on ALL the cockroaches and see who runs for cover. Might empty the House and Senate, but I am OK with that. Too many years of two much BS from both parties. Might oughta throw public flogging and complete asset forfeiture into the mix, too.
      2nd thing: Anyone who has uttered a public opinion before the fact should recuse themselves and House vote counts to be adjusted accordingly. Not just Graham and Mitchie-boy, but Pelosi, AOC, Omar, Schiff, Green, Waters et all – if they create the appearance of being biased their vote should not be counted. Could end up a 20-19 final count one way or the other…. I am OK with that. Oh, and maybe a vote of censure on all such public pronouncements.

    • ArmyATC says:

      How is using the Clinton impeachment rules a “sham trial?”

      • LC says:

        I wasn’t talking about the rules, and obviously didn’t make my point very well – when I said ‘sham trial’, I guess I meant ‘no trial at all’. The headline of this article is ‘Could the Senate Acquit President Trump Without a Trial’. That would be a sham trial.

        I want Congress to do its job.

  5. Comm Center Rat says:

    “If the Articles of Impeachment doesn’t fit, the Senate must acquit.”

    ~ Hardonicus Ejaculus, Roman Senator and Retired Centurion

  6. Ex-PH2 says:

    Whether or not the Senate moves independently on this without waiting for the Articles of Impeachment (or downloading them), if there is no Senate trial, it becomes a moot point. No impeachment. It fizzles away to a clown show by the House, a desperate attempt to control the voting public in an election year (2020).

    Trump says he wants the trial, but that may be another one of his “smoke and mirrors” tactics, because he does not have any reason to clear his name over anything and he knows it.

    The author of that article suggested that having the Senate trial might generate a bigger problem and he should not do it, but I don’t think she really understands his tactical skills.

    Pelosi is holding off until after the New Year as a means of using this as a political weapon, and we all know that. She’s not as clever as she thinks she is, but I believe she does know that if a trial were to be prosecuted, she’ll lose. Then she could holler “collusion” and “cheated!!!!” and a bunch of other stuff.

    What a butthead she is!

  7. I mentioned the below comment yesterday so here goes it again.–I wonder if the DemoRat’s merry go round are starting to run out of brass rings as it goes round and round and where it stops, nobody knows.

  8. ArmyATC says:

    If McConnel had any balls he would call Pelosi’s bluff. He should announce that she has until the second week in January to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate or he will proceed using those publicly available.

    • Mike Kozlowski says:

      …I saw another suggestion this morning that I am absolutely loving: McConnell moves to suspend ANY trial until 5 November 2020, to let the PEOPLE decide. Since it’s a purely procedural motion, he only needs 51 votes, and he’s got that easy. And the President and the GOP need to hammer it in 24/7 that the articles of impeachment are public record – the people need to make the decision…

      That sound you hear in the distance is Congressional Democratic heads exploding.

      • Poetrooper says:

        I love it. Can you imagine Trump standing at podiums and telling Americans that it is their decision to make as to whether or not it was the right thing to do for him to investigate Joe Biden for threatening to get that Ukrainian “son-of-a-bitch” fired to protect his corrupt son? Can you imagine the roar of affirmation from the crowds?

        The Biden’s, Hunter in particular, whose sleazy criminal behaviors are an ongoing three-ring circus of revelations, could be the centerpiece of Trump’s campaign and the means of spotlighting the general dishonesty of the Democrats and the media.

  9. Commissar says:

    Responding to your raptor meme…

    Trump never wanted an investigation into Biden or his son. Trump wanted an ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation. He just wanted the political smear and shadow. He did not and does not give a damn about corruption.

    As for the rest; you all have jumped the shark into pure identity cult. Trump is unfit and he consistently put his own financial and personal interests over the interests and security of the United States.

    You know you are being conned but too proud and too deep in the cult to walk away.

    • GDContractor says:

      Lecture them some more! You Bernie voter! 🤣🤣🤣

    • The Other Whitey says:

      “ You know you are being conned but too proud and too deep in the cult to walk away.”

      Says the questionably-literate Bernie-worshipping socialist tool.

    • Fyrfighter says:

      You just described Obama to a “T” Commissar.. and Merry Christmas!

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      Lars, I used to let you get to me, but anymore I see you as a source of amusement as well as a study subject in Abnormal Psychology. Today you give an awesome example of what Sigmund Freud referred to as “Projection” which in his definition is when one is SO afraid of or intimidated by their own thoughts that they “Project” them onto others much like a convicted Rapist accusing his therapist of wanting to do the same thing, I apply that to you with your statement of “You know you are being conned but too proud and too deep in the cult to walk away.”. You see Commissar Seagull, YOU are SO wrapped up in the propaganda you devour that you flat out refuse to see anything else despite the Everest-sized mountains of evidence to the contrary. I bet I could write a Masters AND PhD Theses in Abnormal Psychology just off of what I’ve seen YOU spout here without mentioning the crap that your Antifa ilk does!
      Pelosi and your side of the political fence are doing and AWESOME JOB at insuring President Trump’s reelection, MAGA 2020!!!

      Oh, and MERRY CHRISTMAS!

      • OWB says:

        Pretty good analysis there, API! What makes it especially sad is that it is what it willfully elects to do and be. Such a complete waste of humanity when it could instead be putting all that energy to some useful purpose.

        Oh, well. Free will can be such a wonderful thing. But, too many use it to harm themselves and others.

        Hey, Commie! You may never be able to admit it, but what you see in us is an exercise in free will. We choose to vote as we wish, based upon whatever criteria we wish to use, just as you do. The difference between us is that we do it knowing that others will disagree with our choices, and we are OK with that. Somehow, you seem threatened by our choices when they are not the same as yours. That is your problem, not ours.

        Quit projecting your shortcomings on us and others. Make whatever choices you want, and simply own them. Quit whining about it. You will never find folks who agree with you on everything. It’s just not going to happen, so why worry about it? Complaining just makes you look small, petty, and incapable of accepting your own self.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Your rage is your undoing. Repent.

    • David says:

      Damn, Lars… you do raise irritating to a new level. I’d bet money that if you went swimming in San Diego, there’d be a bumper crop of pearls north of Seattle.

    • SFC D says:

      Merry Christmas, Lars.

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      Projecting a little bit there, Lars?

      BTW, Merry Christmas…

    • ArmyATC says:

      I’ll bet the Dems didn’t want an investigation either. Funny, I don’t remember seeing this covered by the mainstream media outlets. Can you say “collusion?”

    • Mason says:

      I post this for you with all seriousness. You need to seek psychiatric help. Your TDS has consumed you to the point I think you’re having a break with reality.

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        Not TDS, Lars has Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder (YARD) to the point where he lets it run his life making him a Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder Operative, Lars is a TARDO!

    • SgtM says:

      Sucking your Antifa buddies penis this Christmas. You on these pages admitting to having them as your friends. When they are judged domestic terrorist, we will report your commie lock ina sock ass. Commissar from Berkley

    • Slow Joe says:

      Lars, as a troll, you are a master.

      I have never been able to get as many enraged responses as you do with a single drive-by-posting.

    • ArmyATC says:

      “You know you are being conned but too proud and too deep in the cult to walk away.”

      Seriously? This coming from a proud member of the “Orange man bad” cult? I’m sure the irony escapes you.

      I never agreed with your politics, but I thought you were at least a reasonable, rational person. Not anymore. You are obviously a die hard Trump hater. I’ll confess to not liking the guy. I think he’s an arrogant, loudmouth uncouth lout. But your hatred borders on the pathological. The Democratic hatred of Trump goes back to day one of his administration. he’s was barely sworn in when certain Democrats started screaming for his impeachment. They had nothing to impeach him for, but they were going to find something. That’s what the last almost four years has been about, the Dems trying to impeach Trump and remove him from office because Hillary didn’t win. And it’s hypocritical seeing the dirt being discovered about the Democratic Party, many of whom are also die hard Trump haters and directly involved in his impeachment. There’s an old saying about glass houses and stones…

      Next years elections are going to be nastier than the last. And look for the Democratic party to be put in the crosshairs for their uber partisanship and lack of doing the will of the people. Imagine the ads showing Mad Maxine screaming about impeaching Trump in 2016. Democrats will have to defend the near constant investigations into Trump as anything more than a political stunt to destroy a presidency.