Trump lawyers claim U.S. Senate has no authority to put him on trial

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (Reuters) - Lawyers for former President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that the U.S. Senate has no authority to try him as a private citizen on an impeachment charge that he incited an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

In a brief filed a week before his trial is due to begin, Trump's defense team also argued that the Senate has no jurisdiction to prevent him from holding public office in the future

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-lawyers-claim-us-senate-has-no-authority-to-put-him-on-trial/ar-BB1dkbDl?li=BBnb7Kz

---

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Well then he better git his sorry fat ass over to the Supreme Court and see if they can still read

the Constitution. The Senate Trial is no place to argue the Senate has no jurisdiction. If they have no jurisdiction, what did you show up for? And why did you hire lawyers?

[Miguelito Loveless]

11. The Dems need to take this STRAIGHT to the SCOTUS

and get a ruling. Kill this lie in its crib.

[Prof. Toru Tanaka]

25. lol, I can hear Don Knotts saying that!

[COLGATE4]

2. They also said that they have absolute proof that

the California forest fires were caused by "Jew lasers from space".

[underpants]

3. So this is sort of a "no standing" argument?

[LongtimeAZDem]

4. They need to rule on the merits!

[Midnightwalk]

9. Seems like they are trying to make that argument

Last edited Tue Feb 2, 2021, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)

The trial will proceed any way.

They will also bring up the election cases that were rejected because of no standing. Some of the judges were explicit in their orders that the case would have failed even if they had standing.

That’s what our response needs to he to that nonsense. The judges who rules no standing said the cases would have failed anyway for lack of evidence and the ridiculous remedy of disenfranchising millions of voters.

[underpants]

14. ✅

Thanks.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

13. That argument is valid only for a Republican president.

If a Democratic president did the exact same thing they'd try him for treason and hang him.

[groundloop]

30. hmmmmm....... I could get behind that fate for Benedict Donald

[WHITT]

5. He Was Impeached While In Office

the idea that they can't put him on trial just because his term ended would have the framers of the constitution calling bullshit. According to them, NOBODY is above the law.

[sdfernando]

6. I would counter that

it was impeached before it left office.

[Vinca]

7. Okay, then. Let's go straight to the sedition charge if we can ever get the AG confirmed.

[lisa58]

8. And they would be wrong

[Grins]

10. He has lawyers???

When did that happen?

[aggiesal]

12. Open season on pResidents to commit crimes during their Lame Duck period ...

then head out of town and say, "I'm a private citizen!"

The way I look at it, you committed the crime while in office, Senate has every right to try you.

[RainCaster]

15. Ignore it- DFT's hack lawyers are clueless

You will see many different trial balloons being floated by these ambulance chasers from now until the trial is over. Ignore them all, they are pure bullshit for the True Believers only. These type of arguments will be pummeled so hard by the Democratic leaders in the Senate that they will not come up.

[3825-87867]

16. If he isn't a president anylonger then

he no longer needs that retirement, medical and health coverage and especially doesn't qualify for SS Protection.

Cant have it both ways.

Give up all the perks then we'll talk.

[Gothmog]

17. From Marc Elias

Link to tweet

[DavidDvorkin]

18. That's what James I said to Parliament.

[Prof. Toru Tanaka]

26. Charles I said the court had no authority to try him for treason,

and ended up being beheaded.

[DavidDvorkin]

27. Sorry, I meant Charles I.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

19. Trump impeachment lawyer doesn't think Capitol riot videos should be shown at trial

Following the departure of his impeachment attorneys, former President Donald Trump put together a new legal team, including David Schoen, who appeared Monday on Hannity. Trump was impeached a historic second time in the House following the deadly insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, an insurrection that Trump is accused of inciting. The Senate impeachment trial is set to begin on Feb. 9, and Schoen argued that video footage of the insurrection should not be presented.

“Does this country really need to see videotapes? We know now, apparently, that Mr. Swalwell and the other managers intend to show videotapes of the riots, people calling in, people being hurt, police officers talking. Why does the country need that now?” Schoen asked. “We would stipulate that there was a riot that went on that day. It was a tragedy — this had nothing to do with President Trump, and the country doesn’t need to just watch videos of riots and unrest.”

Schoen, who was in talks to defend Jeffrey Epstein before the accused child sex trafficker died under mysterious circumstances while in jail in 2019, also weighed in on the possibility that Senate Democrats will allow witnesses at the impeachment trial. Republicans blocked witnesses from being called in Trump’s first Senate impeachment trial.

“I would say, you also should be able to call, then, many of the senators as witnesses because of the awful bias and prejudgement they’ve shown,” Schoen said, later adding, “Both sides, everyone, it’s clear to them: Donald Trump undercut democracy. How can we possibly have a fair trial?”

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trump-impeachment-lawyer-doesnt-think-capitol-riot-videos-should-be-shown-trial-074710749.html

Sounds like he wants a repeat of the first impeachment.

[Foolacious]

20. Try this scenario on the next Banana-Republican you meet who supports the Trump team's logic:

It's December 18, 2024.

Vice-President Kamala Harris is the President-Elect (Joe Biden declined to run for a second term). But news breaks that as Vice-President she paid massive bribes and withheld military and financial assistance in order to successfully coerce various US allies to come up with and publicize "dirt" on her opponent -- all of it false -- in the recently concluded election. Outraged, the House quickly approves and submits articles of impeachment to the Senate. Despite the holiday season, the impeachment trial in the Senate begins immediately, and right away it's clear that things are not going well for Harris.

Therefore, on January 5, 2025, Harris resigns as Vice-President. She is now a private citizen and, according to the Trump legal team's logic, beyond the reach of the Senate; it cannot find her guilty nor ban her from holding future public office. So Harris is inaugurated as President on January 20, 2025, and the new House membership (sworn in on January 3) thereafter votes against another impeachment.

If the Trump legal team's current logic is okay, then this scenario must be okay too.

[mdbl]

21. I keep hearing that you can't prosecute him as a president

so then we'll prosecute him as one of the rioters. Lock him up with no bail so he's not a flight risk until the trial.

[cstanleytech]

22. Actually the Senate does have the authority as he was impeached while he was in office by

the House as specified by the Constitution and no where does it say that an impeachment that the House voted on to pass to the Senate for trial has to stop once the person is out of office.

[ancianita]

23. So what. They file with SCOTUS?? Promote pre-trial hype?

He's not being tried as a citizen. He's being tried for what he did as president.
That president is subject to law that remains the basis for finishing his House indictment, and
the Senate has the constitutional authority to try him, and already voted to continue the impeachment process begun in the House when he was president.

Proclaiming who has standing presumptuously claims more than SCOTUS would support.

[tanyev]

24. Riiiight. Can't try him while he's President, because 'presidenting'

and can't try him after he's out because 'private citizening'. Nice racket you got there, Donny.

[NotASurfer]

28. Former President John Quincy Adams said, regarding his presidency

that he expected to be liable to be impeached as long as he lived for anything he did in office. I suspect he was making a point but I also suspect that someone raised by one of the founders of the country, at a time when some of the people involved in writing the Constitution were still kicking, would have some relevant insight into where the boundaries were with regard to impeachment and subsequent trial. He didn't claim he'd have had to have been impeached while still President. Knowing you could still be tried and punished should act to check the temptation to nefarious things while in office, in theory.

Who would have a better understanding of the Constitution anyway, 45 and his minions, or somebody who knew personally some of the individuals who wrote, debated, and helped ratify it?

[bringthePaine]

29. sooooo elegant to first say "not guilty cuz prez", then "not guilty cuz not prez"🤣