IMPEACHMENT BY LAWFARE: A Special Message to President Trump’s Attorneys

Thousand Oaks, CA
November 12, 2019

Lawfare: Legal Issues Related To The Trump Impeachment Inquiry

by Rich Scheck

Chief Justice Roberts will preside over the Senate trial of President Trump following the expected vote by the House to Impeach him. That is what the Constitution requires when the POTUS and Chief Executive is charged with High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Roberts will be faced with unique challenges presented by the circumstances of this case as it pertains to whether Trump abused his powers with respect to Ukraine.

This article will attempt to provide a few insights into some of the legal issues that will likely emerge from the Impeachment Inquiry (IMP) ordered by Speaker Pelosi and conducted by Intelligence Committee Chairman, Adam Schiff.

1. Is the IMP Constitutionally grounded if there is no formal vote by the House to Impeach?

2. Is the IMP legally valid if key players like the Speaker, Intel Committee Chair and witnesses like presidential rivals of the incumbent have significant conflicts of interest?
A. Nancy Pelosi: son’s business interests in Ukraine
B. Joe Biden: son’s interests with Burisma
C. Hillary Clinton: Crowdstrike based in Ukraine; alleged source of Russiagate Hoax
D. Adam Schiff: ties to Ukranian oligarch Pasternak
E. Mitt Romney: ties to CIA intel agent Cofer Black
F. McCain (Graham?): trips to Ukraine to support Maidan vs. Russians

3. Is the IMP legally valid if it appears to be the product of an elaborate intelligence operation like we saw with Russiagate (Crossfire Hurricane)?

4. Is the IMP valid if it appears that key witnesses are part of an elaborate and admitted coup attempt by the incumbent’s opponents to bring down the presidency of a detested political rival?

5. Can witnesses with clear conflicts of interest and/or bias against the policies of a sitting president have their testimony impugned?

6. What is the legal propriety of a CIA agent interfering in domestic affairs; being assigned to the White House; acting as a spy; being part of an admitted coup vs. the president; coordinating his testimony with a biased figure like Schiff?

7. Does the Whistleblower (WB) statute apply to this person (alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella)?
7b.: Does the WB statute require he remain anonymous?
7c.: Can IMP proceed without the testimony from the person who filed the WB complaint?

8. Can Schiff be barred from leading the investigation based on his obvious prejudice; previous remarks (parodying); witness coaching; Star Chamber tactics, etc.?

9. What obligation do the proponents of IMP have to turn over Brady Material (exculpatory) to Trump?

10. Is the drive toward impeachment merely a policy dispute in which Trump was complying with the UK certification process which folks like Vindman, Taylor, Hill, Von and other Obama Admin holdovers disagreed with and are using to collude with Democrats?

11. What role does Executive Privilege play in the IMP?
11a. Can evidence be suppressed because of leaks to the press by opponents designed to compromise case vs. president? (poisoned fruit and improper influence on press)

12. Can the Senate refuse to hold a trial of Trump because of various issues described above pertaining to the legitimacy of the House inquiry?

13. Overarching issue relates to role of foreign aid and interference in internal affairs of nations: Nuland bragging of US/NATO spending $5 billion to overthrow pro-Russian govt. Does international law apply here? Are such acts arguably war crimes that Trump was attempting to stop (although inconsistently given U.S. regime changes in Venezuela; Yemen; Iran; Syria, etc.)

14. Does the admitted existence of a Deep State that secretly controls US policy undermine the legitimacy of any effort to destroy a duly elected president who opposes their covert actions such as in Ukraine?

Other possible issues related to the case include: the murder of Seth Rich and the DNC/Crowdstrike leads as they pertain to the 2016 election; HRC and the Russiagate investigation by Mueller. Was there a leak or a hack of the DNC/Podesta e-mails? Can Mueller’s Grand Jury material be included in the investigation?

Some of these issues are currently the subject of court challenges. Others are likely to be litigated going forward as the process drags out in Congress, the Media and the Courts. The Democrats dream of an early, quick case with charges brought forth by Christmas time is highly unlikely considering all the various scenarios involving possible delays.

N. B.: These rough notes are a brief summary of some possible legal issues related to the IMP. The writer has previous IMP experience by virtue of his role assisting his former law professor do research in the area of High Crimes & Misdemeanors relating to the Nixon Watergate IMP in 1973-74. He also tracked various aspects of the Clinton IMP in 1998 as well.

References: (vind rep)

Maladministration as grounds for imp:

The Democrats created an impeachment process where the individual leading the process was involved in creating it with a CIA spy who leaked information from a Presidential call. The same CIA spy was kicked out of the White House in 2017 for leaking.


Deep State:

Haley: (Kelly and Tillerson = policy dispute)

Vindman=policy dispute; dislike Trump’s UK policy so he reported him

The number of unconstitutional actions taken by Schiff is too numerous to count. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Code and other relevant foundational documents does it provide for an accuser to act as a witness, a prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the ruler for who is heard and what is said in a trial! And to think they are doing this not in a traffic court, but to remove the President of the United States from office!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.