Star Chamber vs. Trump – USA Gov Policy

This article was exclusively provided to the New York analysis of Policy and Government by the distinguished retired judge, John H. Wilson

In Medieval England, the King established a court that was not required to follow the ordinary rules of evidence. Known as the Court of the Star Chamber, the judges of this court did not use juries; could act on information it had received, regardless of the source; and could administer punishments including whippings, branding and mutilation.

Under Charles I, who attempted to rule England without a Parliament, the abuses of the Star Chamber became intolerable, and in 1641, the Court was abolished by the English Parliament. But the term “Star Chamber” has become synonymous with an unfair proceeding, particularly one conducted in secret.

How else can one describe the procedure being used to investigate President Donald Trump in the US House of Representatives?

The latest effort to impeach President Trump began with a telephone call to the newly-elected President of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, on July 25, 2019, in which the President stated “there’s been a lot of talk about (Joe) Biden’s son (Hunter Biden), that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that…Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you could look into it…It sounds horrible to me.”

In fact, former Vice President Joe Biden did “brag” that he had been instrumental in getting that same prosecutor removed from office, by threatening to withhold a billion dollars in funding from the Ukraine if this prosecutor was not fired. Further, that same prosecutor had been involved in investigating a Ukrainian Natural Gas company that had hired Hunter Biden, who had no experience in the natural gas business, but is the son of the then Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden.

It is obviously improper for the Vice President to threaten to withhold funding from a foreign country unless and until they make an internal decision to halt an investigation that could affect that same Vice President’s son. Yet, a “whistleblower” came forward shortly after President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian President and accused President Trump of “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 US election.” h

Shortly thereafter, on September 24, 2019, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that the “House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.”

Under Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution, the House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach any federal official. However, an impeachment is the equivalent of an So many vardenafil tablets men focus on sex, the woman’s sexual gratification can form the wide range. Old locks might develop mechanical snags sample generic viagra anytime hence they are not reliable. Its key ingredients are Kesar, Long, Jaypatri, Jaiphal, Khakhastil, Salabmisri, Dalchini, viagra generika 100mg Samudershosh, Sarpagandha, Gold Patra and Akarkara. To determine that a certain person is an alcohol addict, there are signs and symptoms that must be seen. overnight cheap viagra indictment, or any other charge brought by any prosecutor. It is up to the Senate to hear the evidence upon which the impeachment is based, and to then vote to remove the official in question.

“The House of Representatives is responsible to commence the impeachment proceedings. A member of the House can start the procedure by listing the charges against the official under oath or by asking for a referral to the appropriate committee of the House…(d)epending on the type of impeachment, the referral will be presented to either the House Committee on the Judiciary or the House Committee on Rules.”

In the House, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) is the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Schiff is best known for having steadfastly maintained that evidence exists establishing President Trump colluded with Russian Agents in their efforts to influence the 2016 elections, despite the findings of the Mueller Report. Schiff was also famously pranked by Russian comedians pretending to have naked pictures of Donald Trump. But as we just noted, the Judiciary Committee is tasked with investigating impeachment allegations, and the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is Gerald Nadler (D-NY). Nonetheless, the House Impeach Inquiry is not being handled by Congressman Nadler and his Judiciary Committee alone – instead, the inquiry is being chaired by Congressman Schiff, as part of a joint committee.

In addition to this departure from the usual procedure, the joint committee investigation has been conducted in secret. Witnesses are being questioned behind closed doors, in a room shielded from electronic usage, such as cell phones or laptops. According to Congressman Schiff, the secrecy is necessary to protect the integrity of the proceedings and to prevent witnesses from coordinating their testimony. Recently, however, approximately 30 Republican members of Congress staged a protest of these secret proceedings by bursting into the hearing room and interrupting the testimony of a witness.

Fox commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano compared the procedure to a Grand Jury presentation, which is always conducted in secret. “(E)ventually” Judge Napolitano stated, “there will be a public presentation of (the evidence), at which lawyers for the president can cross-examine these people and challenge them.” But until then, Congressman Schiff and the Joint Committee can control what evidence is presented, and what is leaked to the press, and no one effectively contract their statements in the absence of any transcript of what the witnesses actually said.

While this procedure may be legal, for Americans used to transparency and public hearings, the closed door nature of these hearings is troubling. In its time, the Star Chamber was also legal. But the British Parliament didn’t close the Star Chamber for being illegal – it was closed for abusing its power.

House Democrats should expect similar treatment of and respect for their own version of the Court of the Star Chamber.

Illustration: Engraving of the Star Chamber, published in “Old and new London” in 1873, taken from a drawing made in 1836 (Wikipedia)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.