Wednesday Noon ~ thefrontpagecover

[Rudy Tirre]

.

TheFrontPageCover

~ Featuring ~

Trump's Impeachment Would Mean a Senate 

Trial. Here's How That Would Work.

- Hans von Spakovsky

.

Supreme Court Rules On Impeachment Article

 Hands Democrats A Major Defeat

By Adam Casalino

{ patriotjournal.org } ~ Democrats didn’t think the Supreme Court would dare – this is big! Democrats have been walking on thin ice with their impeachment bid—but it looks like the ice is cracking... We know that for months, they’ve been accusing Trump of  a “quid-pro-quo” to get Ukraine to investigate loose lips liar-Joe Biden.  Yet, after all that talk, they are trying to impeach him on “abuse of power” pretty vague charge and “obstruction of Congress.” Whatever that means. scumbag/liar-Schiff and others subpoenaed current and former Trump staffers, but Trump denied him, saying he has executive privilege, and taking it to the courts to decide. And Democrats say they can impeach him over that? But it looks like the Supreme Court just pulled the rug out from under this charge, according to Alan Dershowitz. The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week…Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court. The Supreme Court is reviewing a lower court ruling that will directly affect the House’s charge of “obstruction of Congress.” This move supports Trump’s claim that the House had no right to force his staff to testify against him. If the Supreme Court rules to uphold Trump’s claims, that means one of the Dems’ impeachment articles has to be thrown out. They can’t say Trump “obstructed” Congress if the Supreme Court says he was right to do so!.. Dems don't care what the Courts or the constitution say.

https://patriotjournal.org/op-supreme-court-impeachment-article/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pjnewsletter  

.

FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer Blasts 

FBI in Response to Evidence of FISA Fraud – 

Likely More Unreliable Applications

by sundance

{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ To fully understand today’s response order from FISA Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to the DOJ/FBI, a little background context is needed... As we noted, last weekend HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes dropped the gloves and essentially stated the DOJ/FBI were conspiring against U.S. citizens with the wilful participation of the FISA court. This was a stunning, albeit unreported, development. Nunes change in posture is important because he outlined that without severe corrective action the FISC should be dismantled. Additionally, on the specific issues of fraudulent applications to the FISC, in February  2018 Devin Nunes and former Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte had prior communication to Judge Collyer with warnings. Very strongly worded warnings and concerns. So there’s a history on this exact issue. In their prior communication Judge Collyer, representing the judicial branch, downplayed the warning of the legislative branch, and told Nunes and Goodlatte to work it out with the executive branch. The developments over the FISA fraud now stand against that context. Today, Judge Rosemary Collyer responds to the DOJ and FBI about the inspector general investigation and subsequent findings. Having read her writings, and understanding that everything FISC is classified, it is possible to see between the lines she writes. Collyer outlines in her order how the DOJ-NSD and FBI reported issues to the FISC in October and November prior to the IG report release.  Essentially, Collyer infers the DOJ informed the court that additional FISA applications should now be considered unreliable as a result of the FBI Office of General Counsel compromise Kevin Clinesmith...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/17/fisc-presiding-judge-rosemary-collyer-blasts-fbi-in-response-to-evidence-of-fisa-fraud-likely-more-unreliable-applications/  

.

Devin Nunes Questions FISC Judge Lack

of Candor  Again Calls For Dismantling

of FISA Court

by sundance

{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ During a stunning interview last Sunday Devin Nunes called for the FISA court to be deconstructed. In my opinion it was that statement, not the IG report, that spurred FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to make a public order today...Today, hours after Judge Collyer released her order, Devin Nunes responded to the review of the FISC by stating, accurately, Judge Collyer doth protest too much. In this interview Devin Nunes outlines his February 2018 notification to the FISC about the specific fraud upon the court; and as a result of that and a follow-up notification, Nunes again takes the FISC to task for saying they were not aware. Collyer was aware because Nunes told her.  Accepting the totality of the FISC obfuscation, HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes again calls for the dismantling of the FISA court process. Despite the media ignoring the scale of Nunes prior statements, this is not some just some arbitrary representatives’ opinion. Nunes was Chairman of the HPSCI when he informed the court of the abuse; and he is currently the ranking member of the same committee.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/17/nuclear-devin-nunes-questions-fisc-judge-lack-of-candor-again-calls-for-dismantling-of-fisa-court/  

VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Qbfu3-4aE&feature=emb_title

.

Hamas, Thirty-Two Years Later

by Khaled Abu Toameh

{ gatestoneinstitute.org } ~ The Palestinian Hamas movement this week celebrated its 32nd anniversary by reminding everyone of its main goal: the destruction of Israel... This message is proof that Hamas has not – and will not – change its charter, originally published in 1988. It is also a powerful message to those who may have deluded themselves into believing that Hamas has transformed into a non-violent Palestinian faction. This charter, also known as the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, states  that Hamas's "struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for replacing Israel with an Islamic state. "There is no solution for the Palestinian issue except through Jihad (holy war)," the charter says. "Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. Renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion of Islam." Thirty-two years later, the leaders of Hamas have again shown that they remain more committed than ever to their covenant, particularly regarding the desire to replace Israel with an Islamic state. In this regard, Hamas deserves credit for being straightforward about its true intention. In statements marking the anniversary of the founding of Hamas, the movement's leaders again demonstrated that they do not mince their words. Ibrahim Yazouri, one of the founders of Hamas and its military wing, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, said in an interview with the Hamas-affiliated Palestinian Information Center: "Hamas and its military wing are continuing with their policy until the liberation of Palestine. We are nearing the day of liberation. Within a few years, God willing, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, occupied Jerusalem and all of Palestine will be liberated. Hamas will continue to use all means to liberate Palestine. The big victory is nearing and we need to be more patient." When Hamas leaders talk about the "liberation of all of Palestine," they are actually repeating their commitment to destroy Israel...  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15306/hamas-thirty-two-years-later   

. 

Mexico Is In Crisis And It’s Not 

Just The Cartels, It’s The Elites 

By John Daniel Davidson

{ thefederalist.com } ~ Last week, millions of pilgrims arrived in Mexico City for the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe on December 12. They came from all over Mexico and Central America... by bus, caravan, bicycle, motorcycle, even on foot. Driving through Mexico City in the days leading up to the feast, you could spot  peregrinos hiking through the city, large icons of the Virgin Mary affixed to their backpacks and festooned with tinsel garlands. I went to the basilica on the feast day along with the pilgrims. There were ciclistas from Techachalco, some seventy miles east of the city, pedaling behind a truck bearing a statue of Our Lady and a kneeling Juan Diego, the Indian to whom the Virgin Mary is said to have appeared in 1531. There were white-clad musicians from Matamoros, playing on horns and strings in the Marian Square in front of the basilica. Next to them were southern Mexicans adorned in indigenous costumes—elaborate feather headdresses and animal skulls and body paint—dancing furiously to their drums. There were parish groups from Ecuador, Guatemala, and elsewhere. Amid the throng I noticed a large man clad in black, a five-foot-tall statue of Our Lady lashed to his back, tattoos on his neck and face. He was with a group of similar-looking men, some wearing black ballcaps that read SUR13. They were Sureños, part of a violent gang originally from California but now expanded to Mexico and affiliated with various drug cartels, and they too were on pilgrimage. Lingering a few blocks away was a platoon-sized cohort of National Guard soldiers and federal police, idle and bored-looking and utterly indifferent to the presence of the Sureños. Here then, among the peregrinos  and in the shadow of the basilica, was a microcosm of all that now besets Mexico: cartel henchmen and gangsters are free to make this pilgrimage under their own banner, broadcasting their allegiance and their business in the face of an impotent and apathetic state. I spent last week in Mexico City, meeting with U.S. and Mexican government officials, academics, journalists, and law enforcement personnel in an effort to understand the mounting troubles south of the Rio Grande. The major takeaway from these meetings and conversations is that Mexico is in worse shape than I thought, indeed than most Americans realize, and things there are going to get much worse unless we start taking seriously what can only be understood as a continental crisis—one that’s brewing now in Mexico, but will not stay there. To the extent most Americans think about “the crisis in Mexico,” they generally think of the sharp increase this year of Central American families seeking asylum at the southwest border. Indeed, the border crisis has kept Mexico in the headlines over the past year as the Trump administration has adopted unorthodox and controversial tactics, from narrowing the grounds for asylum relief to making migrants wait in Mexico for the outcome of their asylum cases in U.S. immigration courts...  https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/18/mexico-is-in-crisis-and-its-not-just-the-cartels-its-the-elites/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=b19fe1ca21-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-b19fe1ca21-83771801   

.

 Paul Manafort's state fraud charges dropped, 

New York judge cites federal convictions, 

double jeopardy

by foxnews.com ~ A New York judge has dismissed an indictment against Paul Manafort, President Trump's former campaign chairman, citing double jeopardy laws... Manafort, 70, was previously convicted in a pair of federal cases earlier this year. Following the ruling, Todd Blanche, Manafort's attorney, said: “We have said since the day this indictment was made public that it was politically motivated and violated New York’s statutory double jeopardy law. "We thank Judge Wiley for his careful consideration of our motion and his thoughtful opinion dismissing the charges against Mr. Manafort. "This indictment should never have been brought, and today’s decision is a stark reminder that the law and justice should always prevail over politically-motivated actions.” Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr. said they would appeal the decision.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/paul-manaforts-state-fraud-charges-dropped-new-york-judge-cites-federal-convictions-double-jeopardy  

.

.

Trump's Impeachment Would Mean a

Senate Trial. Here's How That Would Work.

 Hans von Spakovsky

 

The vote by the House Judiciary Committee Friday to adopt two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump makes it clear that Democrats are moving full speed ahead on the road to impeachment — regardless of the merits of their accusations or the integrity of their process.

But speeding down this road looks like it will be dangerous for the Democrats, who face the strong possibility that the trip will end in a crash and leave the party with serious injuries that will cause it to lose majority control of the House in the 2020 elections.

House Democratic leaders are so determined to strike out at Trump that they seem to be operating on the notion that “desperate times call for desperate measures.”

“The next election is at risk,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman scumbag liar-Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., when unveiling the committee’s two articles of impeachment earlier this week. “We must act now.”

The full House, with a big Democratic majority, is expected to follow the lead of the Judiciary Committee next week and also adopt the articles of impeachment.

But don’t look for Trump to start packing his bags. The House vote simply sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Then what happens?

Here is what we know based on the Constitution and Senate procedure.

The Constitution has two short paragraphs regarding the Senate and impeachment. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 states that the “Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

Further, it provides that when sitting for an impeachment trial, senators “shall be on Oath or Affirmation.” That means that they are sworn to tell the truth and are supposed to rule in accordance with the law and the evidence presented.

Impeachment can be used to remove various federal civil officers, including judges. The Senate has used a committee to try the impeachments of lesser officers (and then referred the record to the full Senate, along with the committee’s recommendation). But when it is the president, the trial is held by the full Senate and “the Chief Justice shall preside.”

Conviction requires a supermajority vote: two-thirds “of the Members present.” Not two-thirds of the 100 senators that make up the Senate, but two-thirds of the senators in the chamber at the end of the trial. That works out to 67 senators if all 100 vote.

Democrats and allied independents hold 47 Senate seats. So even if every Democrat votes to remove Trump from office — and that’s not a certainty — 20 Republicans would have to also vote to remove Trump if 100 senators vote in the trial.

What are the chances of the Senate convicting Trump?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told Sean Hannity Thursday on the Fox News program “Hannity” that the Senate will not remove Trump from office.

“The case is so darn weak coming over from the House. We all know how it’s going to end,” McConnell said. “There is no chance the president is going to be removed from office.”

And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Thursday that he wants a quick trial with no witnesses.

“My goal is to end this as soon as possible for the good of the country because I think it’s a danger to the presidency to legitimize this,” Graham said on “America’s Newsroom.”

So while the chance of the Senate convicting Trump and throwing him out of office are slim to none, it’s worth noting that Article I (Sec. 3, Clause 7) of the Constitution gives the Senate two powers. One is to convict a federal official and remove him from office. The other is to bar that official from ever holding a future office in the federal government.

Even if the Senate were to remove Trump, he could still run for election in 2020 unless the Senate also voted specifically to bar him from doing so. Former federal Judge Alcee Hastings, a nominee of President Jimmy Carter, was impeached by the Democratic-controlled House in 1988 for perjury and bribery.

Hastings was convicted in the Senate in 1989 and removed from office. But because the Senate did not bar him from holding future federal offices, Hastings ran for a seat in the House as a Democrat in 1992 and has been there ever since.

In the only two presidential impeachment trials ever held in the Senate, both presidents — Andrew Johnson and scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton — were acquitted.

For Johnson’s trial in 1868, the Senate adopted specific rules to govern the proceedings.

According to the current “Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials” (as revised in 1986), the Senate must start the trial by 1 p.m. on the day (Sunday excepted) following the day that the House sends its impeachment “managers” to the Senate to present the articles of impeachment.

But nothing will happen in the Senate, even after any articles of impeachment are approved, until (1) the House appoints managers (the House members who will prosecute the case in the Senate) and (2) the managers formally appear in the well of the Senate and “exhibit” the articles of impeachment to the senators.

The last impeachment trial — of former federal Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. — that was held in the Senate was in 2010. The Democratic manager of the case was Rep. scumbag/liarAdam Schiff, D-Calif., now a leader in the drive to impeach Trump. The Republican manager was former Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia.

For the scumag/liar-Clinton impeachment trial, the House appointed 13 managers.

Under the 1986 Rules, the Senate shall “continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered.”

All other “legislative and executive business” before the Senate is suspended during the conduct of the trial. The rules specify that the “chief justice shall be” sworn in “by the presiding officer of the Senate and shall preside over the Senate during” the trial.

The Senate has the “power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments,” and to “punish” disobedience to its orders and mandates. Thus, the Senate could compel witnesses such as the so-called whistleblower to appear.

All motions, objections, and requests go to the presiding officer, who is given the power to “rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy.”

Those rulings can be overturned only if a senator objects and asks for a formal vote by the entire Senate — and no debate is allowed.

There is no requirement that the president appear for the trial; his lawyers can appear on his behalf (which is what happened with scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton). The president is not limited to using a senator as his trial counsel but can choose his own lawyers to defend him.

In Porteous’ impeachment trial, his lawyer was professor Jonathan Turley, one of the expert witnesses who testified in the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing last week, called by Republicans.

The rules provide that witnesses shall be questioned by “one person on behalf of the party producing them, and then cross-examined by one person on the other side.” Any senator called as a witness must be sworn in.

If a senator wants to ask a question of a witness, a House manager, or the defense counsel, the question must be put in writing and given to the presiding officer, who will then present the question.

The House managers and the defense lawyers can object to witnesses answering questions from senators, and both sides can argue “the merits of any such objection.” As previously noted, the presiding officer will determine the merits of the objection, unless overruled by a vote of the Senate.

One person on each side can make the opening argument in the impeachment trial and two people on each side can make the closing arguments.

When the trial is completed, the full Senate meets to deliberate and vote separately on each article of impeachment. The deliberations may occur in a closed session, but the votes are cast in open session.

Since the Democrats’ proposed impeachment resolution has only two charges, there would be two votes. If neither article of impeachment is approved by the requisite two-thirds vote of the senators present, then “a judgment of acquittal shall be entered.”

Under the rules, no senator is allowed to file a motion to reconsider the vote.

scumbag/liar-Clinton’s trial started on Jan. 7, 1998, and the Senate recessed several times during the trial.

The House took three days to present its case, and scumbag/liar-Clinton’s team took three days to present its defense. Senators spent two days asking their own questions, and several days were spent presenting excerpts from videotaped depositions. There were no live witnesses.

Closing arguments took three hours from each side, and when a vote was held on Feb. 12, scumbag/liar-Clinton was acquitted.

So there we have it. What we still don’t know in this case is: who the lawyers and House managers will be; the number and identity of witnesses, if any, to be called and whether their testimony will be live or through depositions; and how long the trial will last.

If the scumbag/liar-Clinton impeachment trial is a guide, it would be surprising if this trial took more than a month. Graham told Fox News he was looking for a shorter time, closer to a week.

We’ll all find out soon.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/67389?mailing_id=4737&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4737&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body