Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, admonished Democrats against pursuing another impeachment trial against former President Donald Trump, saying Monday it shows “shockingly bad judgment.”

In an interview on “America Reports,” Cornyn admonished President Biden to not squander the “precious first few days of a new administration” by expending his party’s energies on the Senate trial.

Trump was impeached by the House for a second time, shortly before leaving office, on an article of inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and the article will be delivered to the Senate Monday night.

LEAHY EXPECTED TO PRESIDE OVER TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL INSTEAD OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS

SEN. JOHN CORNYN: “This is unprecedented. We know that there have been three impeachments during American history, and the rules were laid out in the Constitution and in the rules of the Senate, but there are no rules. There is no constitutional provision permitting the impeachment for the sole purpose of removing them from running for office in the future, somebody who is no longer president, who is a private citizen …

The post Democrats showing ‘shockingly bad judgment’ with Trump impeachment focus: Cornyn first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Roberts doesn’t want to preside over Trump’s second impeachment trial: Schumer first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy “is expected to preside” over the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, a Senate source told Fox News on Monday, signaling that Chief Justice John Roberts will not be forced to oversee the politically charged arguments now that Trump is out of office.

The source said Leahy, the president pro tempore of the Senate, would preside instead of the chief justice because senators usually fill that role when the impeached individual is not the current president of the United States. A separate government source confirmed that Roberts will not participate in the impeachment trial.

Leahy, D-Vt., confirmed that he will preside over the trial in a statement Monday.

“The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents. When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws,” Leahy said. “It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously.”

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 22: U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) speaks as Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) listens during a news conference in front of the U.S. Capitol after a boycott of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court on October 22, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

He added: “I consider holding the office of the president pro tempore and the responsibilities that come with it to be one of the highest honors and most serious responsibilities of my career.  When I preside over the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, I will not waver from my constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws.”

Politico last week reported that Roberts “wants no further part” in overseeing an impeachment after he presided over Trump’s impeachment trial one year ago.

During that trial, Democrats pressured Roberts to get involved against the former president, including an instance in which Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., asked Roberts whether he was harming the Supreme Court’s legitimacy because Republicans wouldn’t allow witnesses. And Trump himself habitually attacked Roberts on Twitter while he was in office.

Roberts is known for his desire to preserve the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court as a neutral arbiter that calls “balls and strikes.” He often will lead coalitions on the court to rule narrowly on hot-button issues, deciding merely the case in front of the justices without announcing broader proclamations that some of his fellow justices would like.

Chief Justice John Roberts smiles for the cameras as the nine members of the Supreme Court pose for a new group photograph on October, 08, 2010 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE BEING SENT TO SENATE MONDAY

The chief justice of the United States is constitutionally required to oversee impeachment trials of sitting presidents. But it’s not clear whether the chief justice is required to oversee a trial of a former president. That Roberts will not oversee the upcoming trial is evidence that he and top Senate leaders do not believe he must be there for the body to hold a legitimate trial of a former president.

The news that Leahy will preside over the trial of Trump also means that Vice President Kamala Harris will also not. CNN first reported that Leahy will preside. Harris has a constitutional role as the president of the Senate and is expected to be highly involved in the upcoming Congress in order to break ties on votes that fall along party lines — the Senate is currently split evenly with 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and two independents who caucus with Democrats.

In almost all cases, the vice president and the Senate president pro tempore are interchangeable as far as who oversees Senate business. The job of Senate president pro tempore goes to the most senior member of the majority party — Leahy has been in office for more than 46 years.

The person who presides over the Senate trial of Trump is unlikely to have a substantive effect on the proceedings but will affect the optics of the event.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and his wife Marcelle, arrive for the 59th Presidential Inauguration at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021. ((AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, Pool))

House impeachment managers will deliver the impeachment articles to the Senate at 7 p.m. Monday night, officially triggering the start of the trial. But a deal reached between Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., will allow both the impeachment managers and Trump’s legal team the opportunity to submit what are essentially pre-trial briefs over a period of a couple of weeks.

The meat and potatoes of the trial, when Leahy will be presiding over arguments on the floor from both sides, will not start until Feb. 9.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The House impeached Trump this month after a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol while lawmakers and former Vice President Mike Pence were meeting in a joint session to certify President Biden’s electoral victory on Jan. 6.

Trump held a rally earlier that day at which he doubled-down on months of false claims that he won the presidential election and encouraged rallygoers to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically.” At the same rally, his most vocal supporters used harsh rhetoric, including lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who said “let’s have trial by combat.”

It’s highly unlikely that Trump could be convicted at a Senate trial, as 17 Republicans would need to join all 50 Democrats to reach the two-thirds threshold. But if Trump is convicted, he could be barred from holding office in the future by a simple majority on a subsequent vote.

Fox News’ Jason Donner and Bill Mears contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/leahy-to-preside-over-senate-impeachment-trial

The post Leahy expected to preside over Trump impeachment trial instead of Chief Justice Roberts first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The 5-4 ruling included dissents from conservative justices who said limiting church gatherings to 50 worshipers while allowing bars, restaurants, casinos, and indoor amusement parks to operate at 50% capacity violates freedom of religion.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices in turning aside a challenge from a Nevada church. The same five justices ruled the same way in May, when a California church sought to exceed a 25% capacity threshold under the theory that local businesses were allowed to do so. In that case, Roberts said religious observances are comparable to public assemblies, not secular businesses.

More:Pandemic lawsuits from voters, worshipers, prisoners meet roadblock at Supreme Court

In the Nevada case, the five justices in the majority did not explain their ruling. But the dissenting justices wrote 24 pages to complain that churches were not being treated equally with public assemblies, a violation of the First Amendment in their view.

More: Year of surprise Supreme Court rulings shows influence of Chief Justice John Roberts

A woman prays while wearing a face mask at the International Church of Las Vegas. Two other churches seeking to overturn Nevada’s 50-person cap on religious gatherings amid the coronavirus pandemic were dealt a setback when a federal judge sided with the state. John Locher/AP

“The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance,” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote.

“Under the governor’s edict, a 10-screen multiplex may host 500 moviegoers at any time,” Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch noted. “A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there.

“But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshipers – no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all,” Gorsuch said.

And Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh complained that “the risk of COVID-19 transmission is at least as high at restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms as it is at religious services. Indeed, people congregating in restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms often linger at least as long as they do at religious services.”

Lawyers for the state had argued that religious services require tougher limits than commercial establishments because of their duration and close quarters. They said other venues, from movie theaters to museums, faced the same 50-person limit.

“Sadly, the types of communal, interpersonal gatherings that put Nevada citizens most at risk for spreading the virus include larger, in-person religious services – which are a major source of COVID-19 infections,” the state’s lawyers said.

The high court’s earlier ruling on the issue came on May 29, when Roberts sided with the liberal justices in a ruling against California’s South Bay United Pentecostal Church. Roberts said choosing when to lift restrictions during a pandemic is the business of elected officials, not unelected judges.

Earlier: Supreme Court won’t force states to speed up church reopenings

At that time, Kavanaugh wrote that “the basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.”

More: As churches reopen, outbreaks sprout and some keep doors shut

Coronavirus changing the way people worship
The coronavirus crisis is forcing believers to scramble to maintain traditions without bringing large numbers of people together.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/24/supreme-court-nevada-covid-rules-can-favor-casinos-over-churches/5454128002/

The post Supreme Court says Nevada can impose tighter virus limits on churches than casinos first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

• President Donald Trump’s lawyers are duking it out with New York state prosecutors over a subpoena for his tax returns in a case that is likely to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
• Trump’s lawyers argue that the subpoena should be nullified because, as president, Trump is immune not just from criminal prosecution but from any investigation at all.
• Constitutional scholars told Insider there’s no legal precedent backing up Trump’s position, which one called “untenable.”
• “Chief Justice John Roberts looks for big cases around which he can build a consensus,” one legal expert said. “That’s exactly this case. I suspect that the vote at the Supreme Court would be 7-2, 8-1, or even 9-0 in favor of the state of New York.”
• Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

President Donald Trump’s lawyers are putting forth a bold argument as they battle a subpoena from New York state prosecutors for Trump’s tax returns: that the president is immune not just from criminal prosecution but from the criminal investigation as well so long as he is in office.

The notion that a sitting president cannot be indicted isn’t new; it was put forth in a 1973 memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under the Nixon administration and proved pivotal in the special counsel’s Russia investigation.

But Trump’s argument — that he’s immune from being investigated in the first place — has confounded legal and constitutional scholars and even sitting judges.

The fight over Trump’s taxes is likely to make it all the way to the Supreme Court. If he loses, the public would get a window into Trump’s closely-held finances before the 2020 election.

Louis Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, told Insider that there’s no legal precedent backing up the Office of Legal Counsel memo’s claim. The Supreme Court also held, in Clinton v. Jones, that a president could be sued civilly while in office.

Moreover, even the Office of Legal Counsel opinion doesn’t go as far as to say a sitting president cannot be criminally investigated while in office, as Trump’s lawyers have claimed in the legal fight over his tax returns.

To be sure, “even if actual indictment has to be delayed, there can be strong reasons to investigate now while the recollection of witnesses is fresh and evidence is still available,” Seidman said.

The subpoena for Trump’s taxes, issued by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, is part of a criminal investigation into whether the Trump Organization fabricated business records related to hush-money payments made to women who say they’ve had affairs with Trump.

After the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., subpoenaed Trump’s accounting firm for the records, Trump’s team countersued to nullify the subpoena.

An ‘untenable’ position

Earlier this month, US District Judge Victor Marrero dismissed the countersuit, ruling that Trump’s lawyers were making an “extraordinary” reach that was “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.”

Marrero wrote that Trump’s argument implied “the constitutional dimensions of the presidential shield from the judicial process are virtually limitless.”

If that argument held, then until Trump leaves office, “his exemption from criminal proceedings would extend not only to matters arising from the performance of the President’s duties and functions in his official capacity, but also to ones arising from his private affairs, financial transactions, and all other conduct undertaken by him as an ordinary citizen both during and before his tenure in office,” the ruling said.

Trump’s lawyers contested the ruling, and the case is now being considered by the federal appeals court in New York.

On Wednesday, during a hearing before the three-judge appeals court panel, Trump’s lawyers went a step further and said the president would theoretically be immune from investigation or prosecution even if he were to shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, alluding to comments he made during the 2016 election.

Jens David Ohlin, a vice dean at Cornell Law School who is an expert in constitutional and criminal law, told Insider that the case looked “destined” for the Supreme Court — and not because it’s a close call but rather because it’s the opposite.

“Chief Justice John Roberts looks for big cases around which he can build a consensus,” Ohlin said. “That’s exactly this case. I suspect that the vote at the Supreme Court would be 7-2, 8-1, or even 9-0 in favor of the state of New York.”

Ohlin added that Trump’s legal position was “untenable” and stood little chance of withstanding scrutiny.

“Even if you accept that the president can’t be indicted while in office (which is contested), the president must be subject to investigation; otherwise, it would be nearly impossible to prosecute him after leaving office,” he said. “It would also be impossible to prosecute conspirators who don’t have presidential immunity because both — the conspirators and Trump — would be part of the same investigation.”

Seidman struck a more cautious tone, suggesting that how the Supreme Court would rule was anyone’s guess. The bench has a 5-4 conservative majority, and two of the justices were appointed by Trump.

Cases surrounding the president, Seidman said, are so politicized that predicting how the highest court would rule is “more a judgment about what the individuals think about Trump than what they think about the law.”

• Read more:
• Trump’s lawyers say he couldn’t be investigated or prosecuted if he shot someone on 5th Avenue
• Newly uncovered tax documents show Trump kept ‘2 sets of books’ and may have committed financial fraud
• A federal court ordered Trump’s accounting firm to turn over 8 years of his taxes to Congress
• A Fox News poll just found that more than half of American voters want Trump impeached and removed from office

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-taxes-new-york-subpoena-supreme-court-2019-10

The post Legal experts say Trump’s last-ditch effort to hide his taxes is ‘untenable,’ and we could see them as soon as next year first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.