As with mens rea, the principle that a defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself is part of the bedrock of our legal system. And for the same reasons, it is essential to responsible debate. The alternative is mob rule.
Here’s another reason the impeachment trial is unconstitutional
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
I wonder at what point it becomes appropriate for the Supreme Court to step in and end this farce?
LikeLike
Chief Justice Roberts’ refusal to preside over the hearing may be all we get, but it may be sufficient. I suppose that any “conviction” the Senate might arrive at without adhering to the Constitutional rules would be contestable.
LikeLike
“Chief Justice Roberts’ refusal to preside over the hearing”…
According to a fact check piece in Newsweek, he wasn’t even asked.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-chief-justice-roberts-refuse-preside-over-trumps-impeachment-trial-1564300
The argument that T**** can’t be held accountable through a conviction in the Senate , presided over by the Chief Justice, because he is no longer in office is also covered.
“The chief justice is required to preside over impeachment trials involving only sitting presidents.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Roberts did refuse. He used the constitution to decline while Schumer was waiting for him to decide. He wasn’t asked because it was assumed it was his responsibly but didn’t want anything to do with this farce.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/01/25/politics/john-roberts-trump-impeachment/index.html
LikeLike
Unlike you, they understand the Constitution and the difference between impeachment and a Bill of Attainder, so do not hold your breath waiting. Impeachments and Senate convictions are not subject to judicial review. Period.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Impeachments and Senate convictions are not subject to judicial review. Period.”
Actually, they are and have been:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-supreme-court-can-review-an-unfair-impeachment-trial/2020/01/10/00dae97c-32fa-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html
LikeLike
Anyone can bring a lawsuit. But, as your link reported the Court’s answer was clear . . .
“[SCOTUS] concluded that how the Senate conducted impeachment trials was essentially a political question, because the Constitution gives that body the “sole power” to try impeached officials. That meant the dispute was, in the legal jargon, “nonjusticiable.”
THAT is the law of the land and my statement was accurate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your statement was not accurate due to SCOTUS actually granting judicial review in Nixon, and by virtue of the court’s dissenting opinions in the case that judicial review of impeachments is permissible.
LikeLike
Baloney. Anyone can bring a lawsuit. SCOTUS explicitly denied having jurisdiction. And the reason is significant – Impeachment and the Senate trial are political processes under the Constitution and therefore “nonjusticiable.”
Courts have no role but not to worry. Politicians are restrained by fear of the voters. In a functioning democracy. Look what happened to the GOP after they abused the Impeachment process to attack Bill Clinton.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the ‘93 case was reviewed, but a precedent setting 9-0 rejection was the result. So I doubt there is much in this case to warrant judicial review.
The first impeachment was closer to review worthiness with McConnell setting the fix early on. At least according to the opinion if I read it correctly.
As an aside, dumping Trump in January 2020 would probably have sealed a Pence victory in November. Assuming he ran the pandemic response with just a smidgen of intelligence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “So I doubt there is much in this case to warrant judicial review.”
There’s this: “But other justices — namely Byron White, Harry Blackmun and David Souter — argued that, while Nixon deserved to lose, it was possible that one day the Senate would conduct such an unfair impeachment trial that the courts would be obliged to hear a case if an aggrieved party sought a judicial remedy.”
The specific outcome of Nixon doesn’t constrain the court, and shouldn’t, unless you want to eliminate the principle of checks and balances in our system of government.
LikeLike
So what is the egregious unfairness of this Senate trial? Republicans don’t want witnesses…and didn’t in 2020 either. Is that the egregious unfairness in play here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “So what is the egregious unfairness of this Senate trial?”
I have asserted that without the Chief Justice presiding (as the Constitution requires), there is no impeachment trial at all. Do you not agree that it would be egregiously unfair to employ a “kangaroo court” in this matter?
LikeLike
It was egregious to not call witnesses in 2020 trial. It was also egregious to announce it advance that there would be no conviction.
That was a true show trial.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BZZZZ. Not exactly accurate, Mr. Roberts.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-chief-justice-roberts-refuse-preside-over-trumps-impeachment-trial-1564300
You lose.
LikeLike
Hmm. Let’s see.
The trial is a “farce” because Trump is NOT the President. Just a private citizen.
and
The Trial is a “Kangaroo Court” because the Chief Justice MUST preside over the Senate trial of a President.
These simpleminded claims are mutually contradictory. That is the kind of nonsense that happens when one checks their rational judgment at the door as a requirement of the cult they are in.
The truth is simple – Trump was Impeached while in office and now must be tried in the Senate as the Constitution and precedent require. The Chief Justice need not preside in the Senate because the President in question has already been removed by the voters and so it is NOT the President who is on trial.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “These simpleminded claims are mutually contradictory.”
The only one putting them together is you, inventing red herrings.
My assertion is only that an impeachment trial without the Chief Justice presiding would be contestable on that basis. The legal technicality you fantasize about would then be tested.
LikeLike
“The only one putting them together is you, inventing red herrings.”
Paul is NOT alone.
https://images.theweek.com/sites/default/files/248347_rgb_768.png?resize=807×807
LikeLike
I wish SCOTUS would rule on it just to end the tiresome barking from the fringe.
Hell, even THIS court would take about 2 minutes to approve the process.
LikeLiked by 2 people
SCOTUS did try to end the “farce” with de facto rejection of spurious, baseless lawsuits.
Trump would have none of that judicial crap that all the rest of the nation has agreed to abide by.
So, the gangs on stand by were alerted and the rest is history.
And that is what we are trying to sort out now. Is it OK for a loser to attack the Capitol to regain power?
If not, what should be the penalty?
LikeLiked by 3 people
As any lawyer knows; when you can’t dispute the facts you dispute the progress.
LikeLiked by 1 person
*process…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, the typo was spot on😎
LikeLiked by 2 people
Or pound the table and yell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Is it OK for a loser to attack the Capitol to regain power?”
It will be hard to prove that any such thing happened.
LikeLike
Call the election fraudulent even before the election.
Pack the courts.
Go to street gangs to attack Congress.
Pretty clear evidence of an attempted autogolpe.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Pretty clear” ?
Only if one is willing to look and use reason to process the information presented.
LikeLike
RE: “Pretty clear evidence of an attempted autogolpe.”
Nope. You cite actions, but legally, “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.”
LikeLike
“…mind is guilty”.
So Trump did all those things by accident?
I did not know.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“It will be hard to prove that any such thing happened.”
Laughable.
The opposite is true. We ALL know what happened. There is not a fact in any real dispute.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Another bullshit “Constitutional’ argument to defend this treasonous bastard. The Senate “trial” is not a criminal proceeding. Senators can base their political decision on anything that informs their thinking.
LikeLiked by 2 people
1) Intent (mens rea) – To many the constant bitching and moaning, if I lose it is rigged, the election was stolen and we need to fight like hell statements are all INTENT to overthrow the results, CERTIFIED by the states results, of a free and fair election, opinion not supported by FACTS be damned. Begging the VP to overthrow the results and refuse to accept them, telling the AG of GA to “find” the votes necessary to change the outcome in that state, are all statements of intent of an outcome. The intent is there, so there goes THAT argument.
And T**** was asked to testify (not officially subpoenaed) and refused to do so. He is not being compelled to testify. And if he IS subpoenaed, he can claim his 5th Amendment right to not incriminate himself. But if he did nothing wrong, there is no reason to use that defense. Kind of like potentially pardoning anyone associated with him prior to his leaving office. If nothing illegal was done, then there is nothing to pardon.
Marginal Revolution, American Thinker, and the other sites you have linked to are nothing but shill’s for T***** and T****ism. They are not patriotic or Constitutionally sound; they support a wannabe dictator who does not believe in the Constitution except when it benefits him directly. He cares not about you, me, them, or this country; only HIM.
LikeLike
RE: “are all INTENT to overthrow the results”
There’s nothing illegal about that.
LikeLike
GA is looking into charges with regards to attempting to coerce state officials to overturn an election.
Trump is better off getting convicted in the Senate. GA law requires prison time if the election interference is deemed a felony.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have a very silly idea of what is illegal. Overthrowing a legal election not illegal? Laughable. And dangerous
LikeLike
You would lose in a court of law. You cannot prove President Trump’s intent of anything and his clear statement asking protesters to “peacefully and patriotically” make their voices heard only supports intent of protest, not trespassing in the capital. There was NO urging by Trump for anyone to enter the capital building except in Schiff parodies and we all know how bullshit laden they are.
LikeLike
“You would lose in a court of law”
That may be true, but the Senate trial is not a court of law and Mr. Trump’s intent is not relevant. His reckless rhetoric and incitement going back years is the cause of the attempted overthrow of the government whatever his intentions might have been.
BTW, his ONE CYA sentence fools only those who want to be fooled. It does not outweigh his months of lies and incitements.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your claims of attempted overthrow of the government by these people is laughable at best, pathetic nonsense at worse. This group had zero plans or capability to overthrow anything. It was more of a Facebook photo op. Give up the Schiff parodies, you’re not very good at it.
LikeLike
Claims? Uh, no. I was merely stating the facts. Trump and his mob attempted to overthrow the government. That they failed and only ended up damaging public property and killing people does not exonerate them.
Here, read the law on treason, sedition and insurrection. . .
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115
Here is the most directly relevant language . . .
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
…” group had zero plans”…
What freakin’ planet are you living on? Just because OANN and NEWSMAX don’t show you the videos and audio the rest of the real world has seen doesn’t mean it didn’t happen/
I just have to ask: Were you one of the “trespassers” at the Capitol that was smart enough NOT to be caught on video?
LikeLike
You pull the only clear statement that makes claim of peacefully and patriotically, yet ignore the fight like hell, and other references to fighting.
Sorry Bobr. You are so far gone down the T**** hole, you’ll never get back.
LikeLike