Trump: If Democrats try to impeach, I'll go to Supreme Court to make it stop

[mystery-ak]

Trump: If Democrats try to impeach, I'll go to Supreme Court to make it stop
by Dominick Mastrangelo
 | April 24, 2019 09:25 AM

President Trump on Wednesday suggested that if Congress voted to impeach him, the Supreme Court would be able to stop it from happening.

“If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Trump tweeted. “Not only … are there no 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors,' there are no Crimes by me at all.”

The U.S. Constitution dictates that impeachment is a power assigned solely to Congress.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-if-democrats-try-to-impeach-ill-go-to-supreme-court-to-make-it-stop

[Night Hides Not]

Playing to the crowd, just like those Democrats jumping on the "end the Electoral College" bandwagon.

Impeachment is a political avenue, not judicial.

[mystery-ak]

Impeachment is a political avenue, not judicial.

I don't see how SCOTUS could stop impeachment proceedings.

[edpc]

Maybe someone on the staff can get him to watch Schoolhouse Rock, during executive time.

[Night Hides Not]

I don't see how SCOTUS could stop impeachment proceedings.

To answer your question, here's a funny article I saw in Splinter after I posted the Biden thread. It makes perfect sense to a Not-Always-Never Trumper like me. I don't like the acronym, but it will have to do for now: NANT. I think I prefer RT, or Rarely Trumper.

https://splinternews.com/trump-am-brain-status-french-onion-soup-1834236986

Trump AM Brain Status: French Onion Soup

While we may never know what Howard Taft worried about at 6 a.m. and Lyndon Johnson’s pre-breakfast ruminations were, we now live in an era where the president of the United States can share his dumbest, most soup-brained concerns to the entire planet—a privilege of which Donald Trump frequently avails himself. But even by Trump’s already logorrheic standard, Tuesday morning’s Twitter barrage was one for the ages.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Yeah, Trump's wrong about this.  But it's a harmless error because it won't matter.

[ABX]

"The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. "
I'm pretty sure the Constitution means that no part of the impeachment process can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

[aligncare]

“If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Trump tweeted. “Not only … are there no 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors,' there are no Crimes by me at all.”

@Maj. Bill Martin

Looking at it from Trump’s perspective he knows he did nothing to collude or obstruct. He gave the bogus Mueller investigation—staffed by 18 skilled anti-Trump investigators—two years and every document they wanted, and every interview they requested. Thirty million dollars later Mueller’s report concluded, at the end of all that professional investigating, that they had bupkis—except for some planted allusions and ominous overtones written in by the biased investigators on Mueller’s team.

So, what happened next? The insinuations got tag-teamed over to the bumbling moron Nadler and the partisan hacks in the House to continue replaying the accusations and lies in committee hearings! Solely to conduct a prolonged public high tech lynching of Donald Trump ahead of 2020.

So Trump said enough! Let the judicial system hear his argument. And I’m not so sure he doesn’t have a case for redress here.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Looking at it from Trump’s perspective he knows he did nothing to collude or obstruct. He gave the bogus Mueller investigation—staffed by 18 skilled anti-Trump investigators—two years and every document they wanted, and every interview they requested. Thirty million dollars later Mueller’s report concluded, at the end of all that professional investigating, that they had bupkis—except for some planted allusions and ominous overtones written in by the biased investigators on Mueller’s team.

So, what happened next? The insinuations got tag-teamed over to the bumbling moron Nadler and the partisan hacks in the House to continue replaying the accusations and lies in committee hearings! Solely to conduct a prolonged public high tech lynching of Donald Trump ahead of 2020.

So Trump said enough! Let the judicial system hear his argument. And I’m not so sure he doesn’t have a case for redress here.

I think there is zero chance that the Supreme Court chooses to decide what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" actually means.  They will say that is up to Congress to decide if/when it chooses to impeach and try a President.

[aligncare]

I think there is zero chance that the Supreme Court chooses to decide what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" actually means.  They will say that is up to Congress to decide if/when it chooses to impeach and try a President.

Yes, I agree with that. However, I don’t think Trump’s ire was aimed at impeachment hearings per se.

I think his comment expressed his concern over the endless hearings democrat committee chairmen have in store over the next year-and-a-half leading up to election, all over a settled investigation.

There is no reason for congress to continue hearings, there was no collusion and no obstruction. He’ll argue that having congressional hearings over a dead issue, to the exclusion of other constitutional duties—like on the growing border emergency is harmful to security interests and is purely politically motivated.

He’ll blaze a trail if he has to and use the courts and SCOTUS to get a resolution.

[libertybele]

"The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. "
I'm pretty sure the Constitution means that no part of the impeachment process can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

You are correct.  Trump is simply b.s.ing his base.  It is time that they start recognizing that they can only believe very little of what he says.

[libertybele]

Yes, I agree with that. However, I don’t think Trump’s ire was aimed at impeachment hearings per se.

I think his comment expressed his concern over the endless hearings democrat committee chairmen have in store over the next year-and-a-half leading up to election, all over a settled investigation.

There is no reason for congress to continue hearings, there was no collusion and no obstruction. He’ll argue that having congressional hearings over a dead issue, to the exclusion of other constitutional duties—like on the growing border emergency is harmful to security interests and is purely politically motivated.

He’ll blaze a trail if he has to and use the courts and SCOTUS to get a resolution.

Of course he's angered at the continued nonsense from the left; we all are.  But to sit and say something that he know is b.s., only takes away from his credibility. 

Quite honestly, I'm tired of people making excuses for what he says and I'm even more tired of him saying one thing only to retract it a couple of days later, or to do just the opposite.

Yes what the left has done is grossly despicable. Time for the President and ALL to move forward.  It's done.  They have no grounds to impeach him.  The RINO's are my biggest concern in this mess.  Hate to say it, but sure glad McCain no longer has a voice in all of this.

[Night Hides Not]

Yes, I agree with that. However, I don’t think Trump’s ire was aimed at impeachment hearings per se.

I think his comment expressed his concern over the endless hearings democrat committee chairmen have in store over the next year-and-a-half leading up to election, all over a settled investigation.

There is no reason for congress to continue hearings, there was no collusion and no obstruction. He’ll argue that having congressional hearings over a dead issue, to the exclusion of other constitutional duties—like on the growing border emergency is harmful to security interests and is purely politically motivated.

He’ll blaze a trail if he has to and use the courts and SCOTUS to get a resolution.

Blazing a trail? Just like Hedley Lamarr, all the way to Rock Ridge. 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Maybe someone on the staff can get him to watch Schoolhouse Rock, during executive time.

That's brilliant.  Can the presidential security briefings be converted to cartoon?

[ABX]

I think there is zero chance that the Supreme Court chooses to decide what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" actually means.  They will say that is up to Congress to decide if/when it chooses to impeach and try a President.

That has always been for the representatives of the people (Congress) to decide. 'High crimes' does not mean what many believe it does. They are not traditional crimes like assault or jaywalking.  According to Hamilton in Federalist 65, they are violations against the public trust.

Take for example the first attempt at impeachment in our country, John Tyler. He was attempted to be impeached simply because he took different positions as Harrison, and it was believed by Congress, because he was appointed through Harrison's death, he had to follow Harrison's policies because be wasn't elected. That attempt failed but the next impeachment, Andrew Johnson was successful and very similar.

Johnson's impeachment was because he fired people in the War Department that Lincoln appointed (again, Congress thought because he wasn't elected, he had to not change Lincoln's policy, even though by the book, they were people the president could fire). Also, 'disrespecting Congress' (actual term in the articles) by basically thumbing his nose at their demand of oversight.

Historically, a president doesn't have to commit a serious crime, he just has to, in the opinion of Congress and the founding fathers, betray the trust of the people (what Hamilton called the 'high crime of the presidency').

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Sigh...

 

Leaving impeachment up to the USSC is a hugely poor decision and is blatantly against the USC.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

That has always been for the representatives of the people (Congress) to decide. 'High crimes' does not mean what many believe it does. They are not traditional crimes like assault or jaywalking.  According to Hamilton in Federalist 65, they are violations against the public trust.

Take for example the first attempt at impeachment in our country, John Tyler. He was attempted to be impeached simply because he took different positions as Harrison, and it was believed by Congress, because he was appointed through Harrison's death, he had to follow Harrison's policies because be wasn't elected. That attempt failed but the next impeachment, Andrew Johnson was successful and very similar.

Johnson's impeachment was because he fired people in the War Department that Lincoln appointed (again, Congress thought because he wasn't elected, he had to not change Lincoln's policy, even though by the book, they were people the president could fire). Also, 'disrespecting Congress' (actual term in the articles) by basically thumbing his nose at their demand of oversight.

Historically, a president doesn't have to commit a serious crime, he just has to, in the opinion of Congress and the founding fathers, betray the trust of the people (what Hamilton called the 'high crime of the presidency').

High crimes and misdeameanors was kept deliberately vague by the framers. Ford was right when he said that the threshold for impeachment is whatever the HoR decides.

However, in my mind, the President needs to be tried and convicted of a crime before impeachment can go forward. Give me an actual, verifiable and provable crime, not just "we don't like this guy".

[ABX]

High crimes and misdeameanors was kept deliberately vague by the framers. Ford was right when he said that the threshold for impeachment is whatever the HoR decides.

However, in my mind, the President needs to be tried and convicted of a crime before impeachment can go forward. Give me an actual, verifiable and provable crime, not just "we don't like this guy".

The challenge with the second part is the President is immune from criminal prosecution while he is President. The Constitution only offers impeachment as a recourse. Only once he is out of office, can he be criminally indicted.  At least that is the point that has been raised in the past and currently by both Trump's lawyer and Muller in separate circumstances.

[dancer]

First they have to find a crime.  Love how PDJT plays with his enemie's heads.  Gives them a tweak, and they fall for it every time.   

[aligncare]

First they have to find a crime.  Love how PDJT plays with his enemie's heads.  Gives them a tweak, and they fall for it every time.   

Yep. Which shows that we cannot spare this man. He fights.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The challenge with the second part is the President is immune from criminal prosecution while he is President. The Constitution only offers impeachment as a recourse. Only once he is out of office, can he be criminally indicted.  At least that is the point that has been raised in the past and currently by both Trump's lawyer and Muller in separate circumstances.

Wasn't clinton indicted for perjury?

[ABX]

Wasn't clinton indicted for perjury?

I had to go back and stroll down memory lane to remember, and no, he wasn't.  Robert Ray was waiting until Clinton left office to indict him (which he apparently never did).
https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/president-clintons-indictment-and-pardon-coming-soon.html

Starr, like Muller now,  did not criminally indict the President but turned his findings over to the House Judiciary Committee to make that decision. At that, the parallel is uncanny.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/icreport.htm?noredirect=on