Trump's Goto
Place for Absolution
(He seems to think so)
Trump seems
to think that since he made two USSC appointments, that somehow the high court
is his pet project – at his whim matter the issue – for example article
here from MSNBC in part:
· The White House’s agenda on DACA?
Trump expects the Supreme Court to rule his way.
· On birthright
citizenship? Trump expects the Supreme Court to rule his way.
· Redirecting funds through an emergency
declaration? Trump expects the Supreme Court to rule his way.
· Tearing down the
country’s health care system? Trump expects the Supreme Court to rule his
way.
With those issues in
this mind, consider this Trump’s latest
mini-tantrum via two tweets natch:
“The Mueller
Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with
unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID
NOTHING WRONG. If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head
to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
And:
“Not only are
there no ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ there are no Crimes by me at all. All
of the Crimes were committed by Crooked Hillary, the Dems, the DNC and Dirty
Cops - and we caught them in the act! We waited for Mueller and WON, so now the
Dems look to Congress as last hope!”
My note: First of all, I can’t stop
laughing at Trump’s total lack of Constitutional knowledge).
Trump said
he’d ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene if Congress mounts an impeachment
effort against him – even though there are no legal or Constitutional grounds
for the justices to consider such a request.
In two tweets Trump said: “If the
partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the Supreme Court.” Then: “There no ‘High Crimes and
Misdemeanors,’ there are no Crimes by me at all.”
Memo for Mr. Trump: The Constitution gives the House of
Representatives the wide latitude to impeach any president. Some DEMS have
called
for starting that process now. Speaker Pelosi and other
party leaders have rejected.
To wit: “The House shall have the sole Power
of Impeachment, and the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments.”
Even a 1993
Supreme Court decision says the courts have no role to play in that process, but
that the Chief Justice (now: John Roberts) would preside over any Senate trial.
Also, Supreme Court Justice Brett
Kavanaugh, who was nominated by Trump, wrote in the MN Law Review in 2009: “If
the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.
No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the
Constitution assigns to the Congress.”
My 2
cents:
Yes, impeachment is
mostly a political question, but in the case of Nixon is was clearly that –
Clinton not so much, and Andrew somewhat questionable.
With Trump there is strong circumstantial evidence (and
real or direct evidence) and plenty of examples, like his own words and actions,
even those attempted but not completed are enough, I strongly believe for the
House to charge him with high crimes and thus issues a number of Articles of Impeachment.
Then his conviction by trial and vote to remove him from office in the senate.
So, can a person, even a president be charged and
convicted on circumstantial evidence? Yes, and it is important to note that our
justice system is one that is based on the presumption of innocence until
proven guilty just like stated in Blackstone's
formulation that it is “Better
that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
However, the burden of proof for the prosecution is
quite high, sometimes even with amazing advancements in technology, prosecutors
aren't able to convince a jury that the defendant's guilt has been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt — and sometimes the public disagrees with that
decision. But public opinion doesn't matter to the justice system, and where
there's reasonable doubt in the jury's collective mind, there simply can be no
conviction.
We shall see – stay tuned. This is only half way over.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment