House Refers Impeachment To Senate: Here Are The Details

The delaying tactics ended today as the House voted to send the articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate. The impeachment will now move to the majority-Republican upper house for the trial of President Trump.

The vote to refer the articles and appoint impeachment managers fell mostly along party lines. The only defector in the 228-193 vote was Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) who voted with Republicans against the measure.

The impeachment managers who will present the case against the president are headed by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Cal.), head of the intelligence committee, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), head of the judiciary committee. Other members of the prosecutorial team include Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), Rep. Jason Crow (D-Col.), and Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).

There was speculation that Pelosi would reach out to former Republican Rep. Justin Amash to join the impeachment team, but CNN’s Jake Tapper reported that Amash said that the Democrats never reached out to him. With Amash considering a presidential run, it makes sense that Pelosi would not want to give him a platform to gain national notoriety.

Jake Tapper

✔@jaketapper

.@justinamash says House Democratic leadership never contacted him about potentially being a House impeachment manager and he would have had the conversation

848

4:27 PM - Jan 15, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

313 people are talking about this

The first step for the Senate will be to pass an agreement defining the rules of the impeachment trial. This process will start tomorrow, January 16. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says that he would like the trial to follow the model set in the impeachment of President Clinton in 1999.

In the Clinton trial, witnesses were deposed behind closed doors in video-recorded sessions. Following the witnesses, each side presented closing arguments and the Senate deliberated behind closed doors. Senators were not allowed to speak during the testimony but were each given 15 minutes during the deliberations. Votes were held after deliberations concluded.

The chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over the impeachment trial. For Mr. Trump, that means that John Roberts is in charge of the proceedings. This induces a measure of uncertainty since McConnell cannot drive events as he normally does in the Senate. No one knows how active Roberts will be in his role. In the Clinton trial, William Rehnquist was largely a fly on the wall.

As I reported yesterday, Republicans now seem to lack the votes to dismiss the impeachment outright so the trial is likely to last for several weeks as witnesses present sworn testimony.

The prospect of witnesses leads to speculation that former National Security Advisor John Bolton will be invited to testify. This could set up another showdown since Bolton has previously said that he would honor a Senate subpoena, but the president has threatened to invoke executive privilege in an attempt to silence his former advisor.

Another early fight shaping up regards press access. Some senators have advocated new restrictions on the press for the duration of the trial. There is bipartisan opposition to these new rules, however.

For now, we’ll have to wait to see what ground rules senators agree to as the trial gets underway tomorrow.

Originally published on The Resurgent

There May Be More Witnesses At Senate Impeachment Trial After All

All hope is not lost for those who would like to see a real impeachment trial in the Senate rather than a pro forma acquittal of the president. When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced last week that he had the votes to move forward on a quickie trial without Democratic input, it seemed that the impeachment would be over in a jiffy. Now, however, it looks as though the House impeachment managers may have a chance to call witnesses in the Senate after all.

On Tuesday morning, CBS News reported that unnamed “senior White House officials” said that they expected several Republican defections in the upcoming vote to establish ground rules for the trial. In addition to the usual dissidents, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitt Romney of Utah, the report also named Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Corey Gardner of Colorado, and Rand Paul of Kentucky as Republicans who might possibly vote to hear additional witness testimony.

 Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the Senate’s number four Republican, confirmed Tuesday afternoon to The Hill that Republicans did not have the votes to dismiss the impeachment articles out of hand, saying, “I think our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss. ... Certainly, there aren't 51 votes for a motion to dismiss.”

McConnell, speaking to reporters on Tuesday, also said in a Fox News report that “All 53 of us [the Republican caucus] have reached an agreement,” but he did not say exactly what that agreement entailed. McConnel did hint that a decision on witnesses would be made “at the appropriate time” and that “both sides will call witnesses they want to hear from” at that time.

The possibility of more testimony and evidence is even more important in light of evidence that has come to light since the House impeachment vote last month. First, a Freedom of Information Act request unveiled emails that directly implicated Donald Trump in the freeze of aid to Ukraine. Then former National Security Advisor John Bolton announced that he would testify if subpoenaed by the Senate. Then Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, turned over thousands of pages of documents, text messages, and photos to House investigators. The Senate should also subpoena White House officials and Rudy Giuliani, who ignored subpoenas from the House.

The cracks in Republican opposition to a trial that allows new evidence may be the result of polling that shows voters strongly oppose a dismissal of the articles of impeachment. Morning Consult found that voters supported a trial with more witnesses by more than two-to-one. Majorities of Democrats and independents favored more witnesses while Republicans were almost evenly split on the question.

While it is by no means certain that the Senate will call additional witnesses, it is at least no longer a foregone conclusion that Senate Republicans will block additional testimony. Regardless of which side of the impeachment debate you stand on, this is a good thing. Hearing more witnesses and seeing more evidence would present an opportunity for the Senate to get to the truth of the matter.

If you are a Trump supporter and believe the president is innocent, then you should support additional testimony and evidence that may exonerate the president and, in so doing, embarrass the Democrats. If you are a Trump critic, you should support the deeper inquiry because further evidence may help build a more compelling case that Mr. Trump abused his office. The only logical reason to oppose further investigation is if you believe that additional evidence will undermine your preconceived ideas about what happened.

As Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” American voters want sunlight to shine on the details of the Ukraine scandal and let the chips fall where they may. The Senate should honor their wishes.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why the New York Terror Trials Are a Bad Idea

Attorney-General Holder recently announced plans to move the trials of several Guantanamo detainees, among them Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to New York City. The plan has drawn opposition from both sides of the political spectrum and is a bad idea for several reasons.

Most obviously, the show trial is a bad idea because it is unnecessary. The detainees have already admitted guilt. KSM in particular has repeatedly confessed his role in planning the 9/11 attacks and has indicated his desire to be executed so that he can become a martyr [1 ]. As radio talk show host and author Michael Medved put it, “Normally I don’t agree with giving in to the demands of terrorists, but when they demand to be executed, that is one demand that we should give in to” [2].

The detainees were set to receive fair trials from military tribunal. A military trial would have saved the government millions of dollars. A criminal trial in the civilian justice system will be expensive, especially in light of the runaway spending habits the Obama Administration has already exhibited. A civilian trial will mean that the government must pay for civilian lawyers, court costs, and security in expensive New York City. A military trial could have been conducted on a secure military base with military lawyers at minimal cost.

Security is also a concern. It will be very difficult to provide security for the courthouse and for all the people involved in the trials. Securing the area will likely involve a huge disruption of buildings and streets surrounding the courthouse as well. In an era when one terror plot after another is being discovered – or carried out – a huge, well publicized trial will provide a tempting target for both homegrown radicals and international terrorists.

A show trial will necessarily be covered in-depth by the media. This media coverage will grant the defendents a golden opportunity to espouse their radical anti-American views and claim abuse at the hands of the United States. Likely defense strategies will involve claims of torture and attacks on US foreign policy. The defendents have already announced their plans to plead not guilty in order to justify their actions as a reasonable response to American actions abroad [3]. This publicity can do nothing but harm the United States and will likely serve to radicalize more Muslims and inspire them to carry on the jihad. Justice does not require that the US give terrorists a media soapbox from which to address the world.

There is also a question of jurisdiction. These detainees are not US citizens, they were not arrested in the United States, and their crimes were not committed in the United States. Most of the detainees were captured in Afghanistan. KSM was captured in Pakistan. None of the detainees were directly involved in the 9/11 terror attacks or any other attacks on US soil. Instead, they planned and supported attacks on the US and other countries from bases in other countries.

As noncitizens, the detainees are not entitled to the protections of the US Constitution. As illegal combatants who were not members of an organized national army, they are entitled to only limited protection under the Geneva Convention. To move military prisoners from a war into the civilian criminal justice system is unprecedented. In World War II, prison camps in the continental United States housed German and Italian prisoners-of-war. These POWs were not granted habeas corpus and were not allowed to challenge their detention in US courts.

Additionally, since these prisoners of the War on Terror were captured by the military, the standard of proof of guilt is different that what is required for arrest by a civilian police officer. For example, a defense attorney might object because soldiers never advised the detainees of their Miranda rights. It may also be difficult for a prosecutor to show enough evidence to a jury to assure a conviction without compromising intelligence sources. Rules are very different for soldiers and police officers because they serve different roles.

Along the same lines, if US soldiers are required to abide by civilian standards in order to protect prosecution in future cases, the result will be more dead soldiers and more terror attacks. Applying peacetime civilian standards to soldiers in combat will mean that more terrorists go free. If more terrorists remain on the loose, it means that they will be free to attack US soldiers abroad or civilian targets here at home. It might also mean that US forces are less likely to take prisoners in the future if it becomes apparent that lawyers are intent on forcing the release of terrorists based on legal technicalities.

In some cases, civilian criminal courts are an appropriate venue for trying terrorists. For example, when a terrorist is a US citizen he has a constitutional right to a trial by jury. Likewise, a foreign terrorist who is apprehended within the US by civilian authorities can correctly processed in the civilian criminal justice system. However, it is gross mistake to place foreign terrorists and guerillas, captured abroad, into a criminal justice system better suited to dealing with common murderers and burglars.

Attorney-General Holder and President Obama’s plan for show trials in New York City is a bad idea on many levels. It will be expensive, dangerous and embarassing to the United States. It will waste millions of dollars in a time when our national treasury is already depleted. It will attract terrorists to the cameras like moths to a flame. It will provide a means for the terrorists on trial to broadcast their views to the world and recruit more disaffected Muslims. Finally, it is legally questionable and completely unnecessary. It grants unprecedented rights to illegal combatants and sets a frightening precedent for how the US will handle terrorist trials in the future. Such decisions by President Obama and the members of his administration cannot help but have a negative affect on the prosecution of the War on Terror and consequently make us all less safe.

November 23, 2009
Enroute to White Plains NY
Sources:
1. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/12/10/khalid_sheikh_mohammed_asks_for_martyrdom
2. As heard on the Michael Medved radio show. Available on podcast at michaelmedved.com.
3. “Lawyer: 9/11 Suspects Won’t Deny Roles,” USA Today, November 23, 2009.