Trump says he would challenge impeachment in Supreme Court

[demmiblue]

Source: The Hill

President Trump on Wednesday said that he would attempt to challenge impeachment in the Supreme Court if Democrats carried out such proceedings, though it's unclear the high court would hear such a case.

"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," Trump tweeted.

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

The president accused Democrats, Hillary Clinton and "dirty cops" of being guilty of criminal activity.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/440358-trump-says-he-would-challenge-impeachment-in-supreme-court

[2naSalit]

1. Hoo boy...

Gonna be a rough day for somebody.

[Iliyah]

2. This will not fair well . . .

It would allow future presidents to be as corrupt and even more so without any consequences. McTurtle is a prime example of corruption and allowing any senate leader to do much worst, tho McTurle is really really bad.

They should remember, although I don't think these Republicans have any souls.

[Rene]

38. both drumpf and mcturtle are pond scum

[Stuart G]

94. The "PSAA" begs to differ with you..that is the Pond Scum Association of America..

While it is true, that pond scum is not the cleanest or the best..we of the association do believe that pond scum is a whole lot cleaner than President Trump and McConnell. Scum as it is dissected, has only a certain amount of infections and dirt. The amount is limited by the ability to live and grow in water..

....President Trump and McConnell have unlimited dirt and infections. When you combine the two, Trump and McConnell (mctrutle), the amount and infectious abilty of their scum is beyond reason or ability to count and keep track of...

[BootinUp]

3. Keep digging that hole dumbass. Nt

[in2herbs]

4. IMO this is why we must being impeachment proceedings ASAP. By getting the USSC on record with

their impeachment decisions, if decided in favor of tRump, I believe the American people would finally recognize the threat to the US by the conservative judges on the USSC and vote for Dems in droves in 2020, allowing the dems to expand the court with more liberal judges. It is the only way our country will survive the plague on our voting rights, abortion rights, etc.

[orangecrush]

8. Good points all.

Time is critical.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. The federal courts have no jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings.

The only decision they ever made about impeachment was that they didn't have jurisdiction. That was a Rehnquist opinion from 1993, and this court won't ignore a Rehnquist opinion; he was as right-wing as any of them.

[mitch96]

91. "federal courts have no jurisdiction over impeachment "

I did not know that.. I though him saying he will fight in court was him thinking a conservative court would do his bidding.. Hummmm
m

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

95. That was because he has no idea how any of this works.

And he doesn't listen to whichever pathetic lawyers still work for him.

[melm00se]

110. The particular case

was Nixon v. United States.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

113. Yes, it was about a judge, Walter Nixon (and not *the* Nixon, which was US v. Nixon),

who had been impeached and was trying to seek a remedy in the courts. The Supremes, by right-wing hack Rehnquist, said that the court couldn't hear the case because it involved a political question that was entirely the province of the Senate.

[gldstwmn]

88. They could refuse the case. They don't have to take it.

Trump would completely lose his shit. It sure would be fun to watch.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

98. They couldn't take it, they don't have jurisdiction.

[gldstwmn]

100. That's what we said right before they decided an election.

That said I do not think Roberts cares for Trump at all and wouldn't entertain this nonsense for a second.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

109. It's in the Constitution in black and white.

A court full of originalists won’t be able to ignore that.

[NurseJackie]

5. He sounds nervous... and frightened.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Yup. A tell. Not a case of "Don't throw me into the briar patch". He's desperate to avoid impeachmen

[Lucky Luciano]

32. Maybe...or maybe he feeds off of the controversy. nt

[Botany]

6. Is somebody gonna tell him that is not how things work?

Impeachment happens in the House and then a conviction and removal vote is in the Senate.


His guilt is eating him alive.

[elleng]

89. and the trial in the senate is PRESIDED OVER by the Chief Justice!!!

Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2019, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

[Botany]

99. thanx I forgot about that fact

n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

114. Not exactly. The CJ is the "presiding officer" but he doesn't act as a trial judge.

It's only in impeachment cases involving a president or VP where the chief justice acts as the presiding officer, who in other impeachment cases would be the president of the Senate - that is, the VP. The reason it was decided that the VP can't be the presiding officer in a presidential impeachment trial is that he would have a vested interest in the outcome (that is, if the president gets impeached the VP gets his job). But the presiding officer isn't intended to act as a real judge but as more of a referee whose job is to keep the process running smoothly, and not to rule on substantive issues. When Rehnquist presided over the Clinton impeachment trial he did almost nothing - mostly he decided when they could take breaks. And even though Rehnquist was a highly partisan GOPer, Clinton was acquitted. Rehnquist did not interfere in any way, and I would not expect Roberts (who is much less of a hack than Rehnquist was, in case anybody's forgotten about that guy) to interfere, either.

[elleng]

115. Right, thought about changing my wording; will do so!

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Really? On what grounds? That Congress is a lesser branch of government

than the other two?

[lagomorph777]

9. That's hilarious. The Constitution does not allow SCOTUS to weigh in.

Sorry, Agent Orange.

[Iliyah]

15. Good to know!

[Scoopster]

37. Actually it does, in a way.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sits in the presiding chair as the representation of the Judicial Branch during a Senate impeachment trial, in the place of the VP or Senate pro-tempore.

[paleotn]

43. But the actual vote is by sitting Senators

Roberts would preside, but has no impact on the outcome.

[Scoopster]

76. Yeah I get that.

I think Roberts would at the very least keep things under control, since we know if it even got to that point McConnell & the rest of his cronies would be doing their best to disrupt the proceedings.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

56. But they don't control the outcome. CJ Rehnquist presided over the trial that acquitted Clinton.

[paleotn]

42. Bingo!

The ass has no idea how our government works. This is strictly a constitutional issue and the constitution makes no provision for SCOTUS to weigh in. They’re not part of the equation.

[abqtommy]

10. Isn't that cute how tRump will use the law and the courts to

defend his corruption! "Ain't that America!"/John Mellencamp

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. This constitutes another impeachable offense. The man is incapable of upholding the Constitution.

Ignorance of the Constitution is no defense when you are President of the United States.

[cstanleytech]

13. Unless I am mistaken SCOTUS has zero say in any impeachment of an official by Congress.

[PJMcK]

31. A minor point

If the House impeaches the president and the Senate holds a trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acts as the judge in the Senate trial. Oddly, I think John Roberts would be a better judge in such a case than Rhenquist was during President Clinton's Senate trial.

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. Chief Justice does not serve as a "judge", he "presides" over the trial

In this case Roberts would literally make sure "Robert's" rules of order were followed, but he doesn't have any role in "sentencing" or even around admissibility of evidence, I think...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

60. As far as I can tell from reading the Senate's rules on impeachment trials,

and from what I recall from the Clinton trial, they don't strictly follow the Federal Rules of Evidence. And Chief Justice Rehnquist, a right-wing partisan if there ever was one (much worse than Roberts), presided over that trial and Clinton was acquitted.

[gldstwmn]

90. Roberts certainly has been a pleasant surprise.

[Delmette2.0]

36. I didn't know that.

I think Roberts would do the right thing and defend the Constitution and the rule of law.

[Volaris]

64. In this case ya.

As in, 'ohplease ohplease ohplease OH PLEASE put this lunacy to John Roberts supreme court'-it would be 9-0 and it would be a halirious slap down.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

69. The only involvement Roberts would have in an impeachment trial

would be to "preside," which means he would decide only technical procedural matters. They don't adhere strictly to the rules of evidence in those trials, so he wouldn't be much involved even in that. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, right winger Rehnquist presided over the Clinton impeachment trial and Clinton was acquitted anyhow. There is no appeal to any federal court from an impeachment conviction because the federal court system has no jurisdiction.

[Volaris]

72. no, no, I mean in reference to Trump wanting to sue the Congress for impeaching him.

Roberts would have a damn field day writing that opinion!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

73. LOL, you have to hand it to him for creativity.

I'm glad I'm not his lawyer, though.

[Volaris]

77. RIGHT??? But really whats his argument gonna be?

Trump: '"Your Honors, Congress is trying to Impeach me as a political excercise."
SC: "Ummmm...ya. Thanks for coming in, were glad everyones on the same page."
Trump: "Soooo, that means I don't have to get impeached?"
SC: "HAHAHAHAHAH--No, and get the fuck out of our courtroom before WE cite you for contempt."

[Delmette2.0]

81. Spot on. Thanks.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

83. LOL.

"Yes, Mr. President. Political exercises are exactly what Congress does. That's why we don't get involved. Now, don't you have a tee time this afternoon?"

[Volaris]

87. '..dont you have a tee time this afternoon?'

Trump: "Well, NOT ANYMORE." (as hes dragged back to the well of the House to testify).

[melm00se]

14. Impeachment

Ok folks, lets go to the document from which the power of impeachment is derived:

Article I, Section 2 clause 5:
"The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."


Article I, section 3, clause 6

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"

Note the word "sole". This has always been assumed to mean that impeachment proceedings are outside the scope of judicial review.

This assumption was challenged in Nixon v. United States (no, not that Nixon but the judge). In its ruling the Court held that a claim to judicial review of an issue arising in an impeachment trial in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable “political question".

[Marcuse]

25. Expect McConnell to try to block an impeachment trial as he did the Garland hearing.

Why wouldn’t he? Ethics? Truth? Justice? The American Way?

[PRETZEL]

30. McConnell would have no choice in the matter

the Impeachment Trial in the Senate is overseen by the Chief Justice.

The Senators only render the verdict on the case presented by the House.

[paleotn]

44. Exactly

And the judgment of sitting Rethuglicans will depend on the charges, the evidence and more importantly the politics at hand. I do not begin to predict how that will turn out. Only that a politician’s first directive is to get re-elected.

[machoneman]

66. Yes, finally for once McConnell can only act as a senator, not the head of the Senate.

He's poweless to stop the House sending the Articles over for a vote.

[qazplm135]

84. sure he could

the Trial is overseen by the Chief Justice AFTER the Senate actually initiates the process...until that moment, there's nothing for him to oversee.

Yes, the Senate rules say it starts at 1pm the following day now, but McConnell will either:

a. change the rules
b. ignore the rules, for at least some period of time. He will couch it as saying this is unprecedented, blah blah.

[MarvinGardens]

45. I'm not sure he can.

The Constitution specifies that the Chief Justice presides over impeachment trials.

[melm00se]

75. Once a Bill of Impeachment passes

the trial, as I understand it, is required.

[onenote]

93. The difference is that nothing in the Constitution or Senate rules required a vote on Garland

But the Constitution contemplates a trial by the Senate to resolve an impeachment by the House and the Senate rules specifically require that trial process to commence upon the House's presentation of the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

[Bleacher Creature]

16. I love that he doesn't know how impeachment works.

He clearly has no clue that the Chief Justice would preside over his trial in the Senate.

[Scarsdale]

17. The security and safety

of future elections HAS to be a priority. The voting machines are owned by Russian companies!! Time to get a more secure election procedure in place. We have been damaged already, this corrupt arse has done more than enough damage to the WH and the Constitution. It should be stopped ASAP. Any gop member who protects him needs to be voted OUT.

[47of74]

50. And make both electoral fraud and voter suppression capital offenses

And our government should publicly execute anyone involved. Both are as bad as treason and it’s past time for our government to put its foot down through the for over this.

[exboyfil]

18. If Bill Clinton had said this

Even the Democrats would have voted against him. This lack of understanding of the Constitution is disqualifying in of itself for being the President (or any other elected office).

[Farmer-Rick]

19. Considering that the Supremes are involved in Impeachment of a president

That would be like appealing to the supremes about their own decision.

The chief justice of the United States would presides over the impeachment of Trump in the Senate. So, I doubt the Chief Justice would allow an appeal of his own court.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

70. No, they are not involved. The federal courts have no jurisdiction over the impeachment process.

The Chief Justice acts only as the "presiding officer" in an impeachment trial, and as such deals only with technical procedural matters and does not decide substantive issues.

[Farmer-Rick]

96. To me that IS involvement

And it would block appeals to the Supremes based on technical procedural matters. That only leaves appeals based on other issues.

It still would look ridiculous to see the Chief Justice presiding in the Senate over Trump's Impeachment then see the Supremes take it up for appeal. It would be a ridiculous show.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

97. It won't happen. Rehnquist was a worse partisan hack than Roberts

and he did virtually nothing during the Clinton impeachment trial except decide when to take breaks. And Clinton was acquitted.

[SKKY]

20. I honestly can't see Roberts buying into this...

...He's a Conservative, for sure, but I also think he cares more about his and the court's legacy than perhaps most people realize.

[lagomorph777]

54. It doesn't matter - SCOTUS is not permitted to weigh in.

Other than Roberts himself "presiding" over the Senate trial. But Idon't think he can block the whole trial, nor will scoundrels such as Kavanaugh and Gorsuck have any say whatsoever.

[padah513]

57. That is so good to know

[tymorial]

21. Could you imagine the supreme court having to respond to this?

Asking the court to weigh on the constitutionality of the constitution lol.

"Mr President, perhaps you ought to read the document you swore to defend"

seems appropriate

[Yavin4]

35. Yeah, it's the Constitution, not an iTunes TOS n/t

[Itchinjim]

22. Fucking moron.

[SunSeeker]

23. What innocent person says stuff like "they didn't lay a glove on me"?

Mueller most certainly did describe crimes committed by Trump, as is evident to everyone who has read the Mueller report. That is why Barr had to lie about what it said. The reason Trump is not in jail for it, as the report notes, is because DOJ policy precludes prosecuting a sitting President. Indeed, as the report notes, the policy precludes even a sealed indictment that would await the end of Trump's term. That is why Mueller REPEATEDLY said in his report that it is Congress' duty to impeach.

[gademocrat7]

24. What a buffoon.

[The Wizard]

26. The Repubics have been stacking the Court with partisan hacks

Thanks Miss McConnell for corrupting the Senate to advance fascism. The Repubic fall back position is to go to the Mediocre (formerly Supreme) Court packed with unqualified partisans.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

74. Doesn't matter in this case; the Supremes can't be involved in impeachment trials.

[The Wizard]

118. The Supreme Court can make up the rules as they like

They could come up with a convoluted legal theory that recognizes Trump as the Unitary Executive who is above all laws and thus rendering impeachment as quaint and not suited for today's needs. Remember, as long as Trump is in power laws only apply to his enemies.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

119. No, they can't. The Constitution expressly says that impeachment

is solely the responsibility of Congress (Article I, section 2). It says the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." And in 1993 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist - who was actually much more of a partisan hack than Roberts, in case you don't remember him - held that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over impeachment procedures for that reason, and specifically because impeachment is a political question which the courts can't involve themselves in. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224. They can't change the rules (the Senate's rules for impeachment trials are here, https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf ) if they don't have jurisdiction to even look at the rules. Don't forget, the conservatives on the Supreme Court are constitutional originalists who are not likely to ignore the plain language of the Constitution itself, or an opinion of arch-conservative Rehnquist.

[C_U_L8R]

27. Spoken like a cartoon criminal

"Hey coppers, you didn't lay a glove on me."


Hold my beer....

[barbtries]

28. what the hell.

how long will this go on?? will i die and he's still president?!
this shit is wearing me DOWN.

[Freethinker65]

29. Let the House investigate. If Trump continues to obstruct, impeach to get the information

Then the GOP Senate gets to decide if they want to destroy the entire US government to protect Trump. If they decide to protect Trump above the country and constitution, disband Congress, as it no longer has any role to play.

[Purrfessor]

34. First head to the Supreme Court? What would his second...

third, fourth and fifth attempts to block impeachment entail.

[TryLogic]

39. That is the uninformed nonsense of an arrogant, uneducated fool who...

has gotten away with way too many crimes and bully tactics in his life. There are numerous things he needs to learn about consequences.

[marylandblue]

40. I'm against impeachment, but he will convince me to do it and it will happen.

Still, I want to give him enough rope to hang himself. He's giving the House no choice but to impeach him. I think they will when the vast majority of independent voters want it. That time is not far off.

[HuskyOffset]

41. "...didn't lay a glove on me."

Correct, as Robert Mueller & team were not wearing gloves, because they wanted to deliver the rawest, bitch-slappingest of legal bitch slaps directly to your stupid orange face. Which they did, if you had the wit to read and understand the report they wrote, even with the redactions. If you remove the orange coating from your face and look in the mirror, you'll see a red hand print.

[yaesu]

46. He feels emboldened, untouchable, fits right into his mental illness

megalomania, sociopath & a lifetime criminal.

[Nitram]

47. Of course he would. He packed the court with conservatives. But I doubt Roberts would support

Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

him if the case against him is was strong as I think it will be. Alito and Clarence the Wordless will support Trump to the end. the others, I'm not so sure.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

61. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over impeachment trials.

Right-wing extremist Justice Rehnquist said so back in 1993. A person who is convicted following impeachment can't appeal to any federal court.

[onenote]

92. Nor can he resort to the courts to block the House from considering articles of impeachment

Nixon v. US case involved an attempt by a federal judge who had been impeached by the House to challenge the conduct of the trial in the Senate. It failed because the Constitution clearly states that the Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachments.

While that case arose after the House had impeached, the same reasoning applies with respect to the consideration of articles of impeachment by the House. The Constitution also states that "The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment."

[Nitram]

102. Thanks for reminding me of that, one note.

[Nitram]

101. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I guess the best way Trump can use the Supreme Court at this stage is to try to block subpoenas of his staff and White House material before a vote for impeachment occurs.

[struggle4progress]

48. .

[Nitram]

49. That's a non-starter. Even most of the conservatives on the Supreme Court believe in

the Constitution. Roberts doesn't want to leave a legacy like that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

67. Roberts won't have to leave a legacy like that because the federal courts don't have jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was much more right-wing than Roberts (a fact most people seem to have forgotten), made that point in a 1993 case, Nixon v. U.S. (not that Nixon, a judge, Walter Nixon, who was impeached by the Senate). He said the courts couldn't review an impeachment conviction because the Senate has the sole authority and it's strictly a political question.

[George II]

51. On what basis, dotard? The Founding Fathers were "fake news"?

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

52. This is STILL not normal.

Don't assume that the Republicans are going to follow the rules in the Constitution just because they're there.

Don't assume that John Roberts is going to follow the rules in the Constitution just because they're there.

We have an Attorney General who has sworn allegiance to his boss, rather than the people he's supposed to serve.

We have a Senate that simply will not do their job because the man in charge has far too much power in that body and has decided that they're going to look the other way.

We are on the edge of the abyss, and Paul Krugman is right. We're close to becoming a republic in name only.

[Eliot Rosewater]

53. He will encourage his idiots to start shooting

[kimbutgar]

58. Funny how he think he now also controls the supreme court and they'll ignore the rule of law

Does he know something we don’t?

Is the supreme court already corrupted by Russia?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

62. The federal court system doesn't have jurisdiction in impeachment trials.

There's nothing for the Supreme Court to ignore - they won't, and can't, get involved.

[kimbutgar]

63. Thank you

[mahatmakanejeeves]

79. What are the CJ's duties in presiding over an impeachment trial? Thanks. NT

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

85. He doesn't act as a judge, as such. He is the "presiding officer" of the Senate

for cases involving presidents and vice presidents; otherwise the presiding officer would be the vice president because he is also the president of the Senate. So it isn't a judicial job. He makes only technical or procedural decisions necessary to keep the proceedings in order and leaves substantive matters to the Senators. Don't forget that CJ Rehnquist, who was much more of a partisan hack than Roberts, presided over Clinton's impeachment trial and Clinton was acquitted. IIRC Rehnquist didn't do much besides sit there and occasionally decide when to take breaks. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/13/us/president-s-acquittal-chief-justice-rehnquist-goes-with-senate-flow-wiser-but.html

[ET Awful]

59. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

The Constitution spells out specifically who has control over impeachment and how the process works.

The House of Representatives has the "SOLE Power of Impeachment" (emphasis mine) and the Senate shall have "the Sole Power to try all Impeachments".

The USSC has no say in the matter and no jurisdiction over the matter.

[jmowreader]

65. The truth would hit Trump in the head like a 2x6 made of cast iron

Let’s see...the courts have no jurisdiction over impeachment, impeachment isn’t even appealable in the courts, the Mueller Report would have recommended a nice one-inch Manila rope if it weren’t against policy to indict a sitting president...and this tweet makes it painfully obvious Trump is more guilty than any man in the history of the Republic.

[Nevermypresident]

68. Try it Conman!

[calimary]

78. Mueller report didn't lay a glove on him?

All that obstruction fully investigated and laid out in detail with sworn witnesses and plenty of backup?

‘Zat the “glove” he’s talking about?

Sheesh - anybody who’s still willing to believe him after his TENS OF THOUSANDS of lies just since the campaign, is a certified fool.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

116. Hobnailed boots, maybe.

[PSPS]

80. Anything that begins with "trump says" can be ignored

And I think the proper vernacular here is, "I dint do nuttin."

[LibDemAlways]

82. Pretty clear he slept during Government class

in high school. He has no clue about the roles and responsibilities of the 3 branches of government. Unfortunately, no one seems willing to forcefully and definitively school him. Hope the Republican lackeys on the court realize the overreach here, but not holding out much hope.

[gldstwmn]

86. I don't think you want to do that Donnie.

[PoliticAverse]

103. Nixon v. United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.

[Thomas Hurt]

104. Not even the christofascist imams on the SC would touch this.

[sprinkleeninow]

105. Been busy with stuff. Has the Big 'I' commenced yet?

I'm waiting, but not patiently.

[Raven123]

106. Not an option per Article 1 Section 3 the Senate has THE SOLE POWER TO TRY AND CONVICT IMPEACMENTS

And the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presides.

[truthisfreedom]

107. This is further acknowledgment that he's the president of only one party

He doesn’t respect the authority of any Democratic Party members. He rejects more than half of Americans.

[Talitha]

108. He's always depending on someone to defend him, because he doesn't know 'jack'.

He thinks he knows more than anyone else in the universe, so let him keep proclaiming dumb stuff. Don't try to help him by explaining things to him, because he won't listen anyway. Just let him keep walking around with that long strip of toilet paper stuck to his shoe.

[montanacowboy]

111. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

what a super fucking dolt

go for it orange shit for brains

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

112. The dumbfuck must have flunked civics.

[Honeycombe8]

117. If he has that right, then he has that right. Using OPM (other people's money) for his own use again

He belongs in prison.