ORIGINAL NOTABLE NOW NOTABLE AFFF
SINCE ANON CAN'T FIND ANON/SHILL'S
ALLEGED TWO PRIOR NOTABLES
Original NOTABLE was that a SCOTUS 9 - 0 case supports Senate option to acquit @POTUS WITHOUT receiving Articles from House
BAKER, NOTABLE AF ORIGINAL NOTABLE
“THEY [Senate] CAN END IT NOW [By acquittal without House transfer of Impeachment or Identifying Impeachment Managers]”
…."The case is Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
Once you comprehend the momentous importance of this case, you will then understand why Harvard Law School professor (and Democrat impeachment witness), Noah Feldman, recently published an article erroneously claiming that President Trump hasn’t been impeached yet.
Feldman isn’t trying to help the President. He knows the Senate can acquit immediately without waiting for Speaker Pelosi to transfer articles of impeachment, or for House impeachment managers to be appointed. This is because the Supreme Court has ruled – in the Nixon case – that how the Senate goes about acquitting or convicting any impeached person is non-justiciable, in that the Senate’s power is plenary and the Supreme Court may not even review it.
This means that if the Senate acquits Trump immediately – without a trial – the Supreme Court has no authority, whatsoever, to review the Senate’s acquittal, and there isn’t a damn thing the House can do about it.
Feldman is distracting the nation from understanding the full scope of Senate acquittal authority. He knows that if the House hasn’t impeached the President, the Senate could not immediately acquit him. This is why Feldman appears to be defending POTUS.
Appearances are deceptive. Feldman’s true game is to provide cover for Pelosi’s power play in not delivering the articles of impeachment or choosing House impeachment managers, neither of which is necessary for the House to impeach. The Constitution doesn’t mention “articles of impeachment” or “impeachment managers.” And once the House impeaches, the Senate takes over. The House then has no power whatsoever to dictate terms of a trial. No trial is even required.
The Nixon court held that “the word ‘sole’ indicates that this authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else.” Feldman is fully aware of this, and he fears the American people will discover the truth. This is why he is trying to convince you that the House has not impeached the President yet.
House Resolution 755 states that the House voted to impeach President Trump, and it voted to exhibit articles of impeachment to the Senate. The twin objectives of the resolution are stated clearly in the text of H.R. 755:
“RESOLUTION
Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:”
The resolution passed. It was resolved that the President “is impeached” and that the articles be “exhibited” to the Senate. The first objective was accomplished when the resolution passed, and the second objective has not yet been accomplished. But formal transmission of the articles is not required by the Constitution for there to be an impeachment.
The Senate has no authority to determine what conduct is impeachable or what process the House uses to impeach. On the other hand, the House has no authority over the Senate’s sole power to acquit, or convict, or the process invoked to either end.
Therefore, no trial is necessary for the Senate to acquit immediately. This saga could be over right now. Feldman realizes this is true, so he invented a bogus unwritten requirement into the Constitution, to the effect that impeachment is a process requiring transmission of articles of impeachment to the Senate. Feldman, of course, does not mention the Nixon case."….
https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/12/22/scotus-no-articles-of-impeachment-or-a-trial-are-required-for-the-senate-to-acquit-president-trump/
Thanq Bakes for adding "Senate can immediately acquit" notable. Seems that shill fukery was afoot with a shill lying that "this is old newz already covered in TWO prior notables" which he never sauced and w/ two nominating anons not recalling those alleged prior notables (who could forget them as this has been the MAIN ISSUE over the last 4 days) and another anon couldn't find them in a separate search. Sills are pulling out all stops on their Little Bighorn last stand.