What we witnessed on February 13, 2021 with Mitch McConnell’s reason for voting not guilty in the impeachment trial of ex-president Donald Trump, is the Senate playing the Judicial Branch.
The question on whether the Senate had jurisdiction to hold impeachment trial was raised, and voted on. The Senate’s vote was that it had jurisdiction.
In a regular court of law, once a judge has ruled, the issue can no longer be argued, and jurors are instructed not to consider the issue during deliberations. However, the Senate is not a court of law. Mitch McConnell disregarded the majority Senate vote and used the issue of constitutional jurisdiction to acquit ex-President Donald J. Trump.
The argument over whether the Senate has jurisdiction to hold an impeachment trial for a government official no longer in office, is over a hundred years old. In 1862, it was federal judge West Hughes Humphries. In 1876, it was Secretary of War William Belknap. So, why hasn’t a federal court settled the question? Read the rest of this entry
“President Donald Trump insisted in a tweet Friday that he has a “legal right” to demand that Attorney General William Barr intervene in a federal criminal case — just hours after the Justice Department chief asserted that the president’s social media posts “make it impossible for me to do my job.”
In my first college semester Political Science class, we learned and discussed constitutional separation of powers. Forty of the 50 states have constitutions of the same. Elected officials cannot intervene in court cases.
I remember many years ago organizations of citizens who saw corruption in federal courts wrote their U.S. Reps and Senators. They all received letters that stated about the separation of powers and advised that they obtain private legal counsel.
It is a slap in the face of the U.S. Constitution and separation of powers for Donald Trump to assume that he has a legal right to demand the U.S. Attorney General to intervene in a federal criminal case or any other case. He appears to be a man whose only motivation to be president of the U.S. is to use the power of the position to benefit his friends and pay retribution to those he cannot exploit.
What angers me is that there are separation of powers, and prosecutors are replacing the judiciary as interpreters. Judges have defined “reasonable” and that is also included in jury instructions in cases of this nature. Now, how can a prosecutor who has found that killing 12-year old Tamir Rice was reasonable, is going to be able to indict a ham sandwich before the grand jury?
BY: LEON KWASI KUNTUO-ASARE
Two reports done by Cuyahoga County, Ohio Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty found the shooting of Tamir Rice, by police officer Timothy Loehmann to be a “reasonable ” shooting.
For those of you whom don’t remember, Tamir Rice was a 12 year old school kid, who was playing with a toy gun, when he was gunned down in approximately three seconds by , police officer Timothy Loehmann, who was responding to a 911 call about someone walking around with a gun. Ohio by the way is an open carry state.
A grand jury will still have to make the final decision if charges will be brought against Loehmann.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION USE LINK :
Two Reports Find Police Killing Of 12-Year-Old Tamir Rice ‘Reasonable,’ Family Attorney Calls Results ‘Whitewashed’ http://bit.ly/1VLJpiV