The Senate makes the impeachment rules and this isn’t one of them
By Tank Murdoch
(TNS) Democrats and their allies in the Leftist pundit class were furious after they failed to convinced at least four Republican Senators to back new witnesses in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, after the upper chamber voted 51-49 against them on Friday.
And by Sunday, they were getting rather desperate. As the GOP-controlled Senate appears set to acquit the president by Wednesday afternoon, pundits and so-called “legal analysts” for the networks are pulling out all the stops and all of the off-the-wall tactics they can think of in order to see that Trump is tossed out of office.
One of the more bizarre suggestions came from NBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner, who suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts could declare a “mistrial” because the president’s legal team wasn’t honest in his defense, or something.
On Twitter, Kirschner argued that lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff should try to compel a mistrial, though there is nothing in the Constitution about that or in the Senate’s impeachment rules.
“I wish Schiff WOULD make a motion for a mistrial based on, among other things, the revelation of [Pat] Cipollone’s grossly unethical conduct/conflicts of interest,” Kirshner wrote in reference to unfounded allegations that presidential chief counsel Pat Cipollone was a witness to Trump’s ‘crimes.’
“The Senate rules may not contemplate/authorize a mistrial motion,” he admitted. ‘I would argue the rules as adopted NEVER contemplated the president’s lawyers would have hidden from the Senate, the Chief Justice and the American people such egregious, disqualifying information (as recently disclosed by John Bolton).”
Kirshner concluded: “Cipollone perpetrated a unimaginable fraud on the Senate and the American people and the Dems should not go quietly into that dark acquittal. Move for a mistrial and see what the Chief Justice says.”
Many have asked if the House managers can move for a mistrial. Here are my quick thoughts: I wish Schiff WOULD make a motion for a mistrial based on, among other things, the revelation of Cipollone’s grossly unethical conduct/conflicts of interest. I wouldn’t be deterred that… https://t.co/F7UVx7lCUM
— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) February 2, 2020
the Senate rules may not contemplate/authorize a mistrial motion. I would argue the rules as adopted NEVER contemplated the president’s lawyers would have hidden from the Senate, the Chief Justice and the American people such egregious, disqualifying information (as recently
— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) February 2, 2020
disclosed by John Bolton). Cipollone perpetrated a unimaginable fraud on the Senate and the American people and the Dems should not go quietly into that dark acquittal. Move for a mistrial and see what the Chief Justice says.
— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) February 2, 2020
If anyone has a reputation for dishonesty throughout the impeachment odyssey, it’s Schiff. In a piece for RealClearPolitics, Frank Miele notes:
Watching Schiff spin his yarns as chief House manager for the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump reminds me of the great dissemblers of Shakespeare, such as “Honest Iago,” who is only comfortable in his own skin when he is making the skin of others crawl. The “motiveless malignity” that poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge ascribed to Iago is writ large in the perfunctory perfidy that Schiff practices with unassuming ease. He would destroy a king, but he assures us he takes no pleasure in it, wink-wink, nod-nod.
As for a declaring a “mistrial,” there is nothing in the Constitution’s language about how the Senate should conduct an impeachment trial other than noting the upper chamber is to handle it. Based on the limited precedence available for impeachment, the Senate also makes the rules for the process. There is no ‘mistrial’ provision.
Regarding witnesses, there is much speculation that the Democrats were going to be vocal in pushing for them because they knew Republicans wouldn’t approve them; in reality, party leaders never really wanted them because that would subject Schiff, a fact witness in the Ukraine whistleblower drama, and the Bidens to being subpoenaed as witnesses.
And the details they would have to provide, under oath and GOP cross examination, are not something Nancy Pelosi wants made public.
This article originally appeared at The National Sentinel and was republished with permission.
FOLLOW @Breaking_1st on Twitter for News On Time.
Scroll down to leave a comment!