DOCSLIB.ORG

Trial Memorandum of President Trump (Without Appendix)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP Jay Alan Sekulow Pat A. Cipollone Stuart Roth Counsel to the President Andrew Ekonomou Patrick F. Philbin Jordan Sekulow Michael M. Purpura Mark Goldfeder Devin A. DeBacker Benjamin Sisney Trent J. Benishek Eric J. Hamilton Counsel to President Donald J. Trump Office of White House Counsel January 20, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 STANDARDS............................................................................................................................... 13 A. The Senate Must Decide All Questions of Law and Fact. .................................... 13 B. An Impeachable Offense Requires a Violation of Established Law that Inflicts Sufficiently Egregious Harm on the Government that It Threatens to Subvert the Constitution. .................................................................. 13 1. Text and Drafting History of the Impeachment Clause ............................ 14 2. The President’s Unique Role in Our Constitutional Structure .................. 17 3. Practice Under the Impeachment Clause .................................................. 18 C. The Senate Cannot Convict Unless It Finds that the House Managers Have Proved an Impeachable Offense Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. .................. 20 D. The Senate May Not Consider Allegations Not Charged in the Articles of Impeachment. ................................................................................................... 21 PROCEDURAL HISTORY .......................................................................................................... 21 THE ARTICLES SHOULD BE REJECTED AND THE PRESIDENT SHOULD IMMEDIATELY BE ACQUITTED. ........................................................................................... 24 I. The Articles Fail to State Impeachable Offenses as a Matter Of Law. ............................. 24 A. House Democrats’ Novel Theory of “Abuse of Power” Does Not State an Impeachable Offense and Would Do Lasting Damage to the Separation of Powers. ........................................................................................... 24 1. House Democrats’ Novel Theory of “Abuse of Power” as an Impeachable Offense Subverts Constitutional Standards and Would Permanently Weaken the Presidency. ........................................... 24 (a) House Democrats’ Made-Up “Abuse of Power” Standard Fails To State an Impeachable Offense Because It Does Not Rest on Violation of an Established Law. ........................................................................... 25 (b) House Democrats’ Unprecedented Theory of Impeachable Offenses Defined by Subjective Intent Alone Would Permanently Weaken the Presidency. .................... 27 2. House Democrats’ Assertions that the Framers Particularly Intended Impeachment to Guard Against “Foreign Entanglements” and “Corruption” of Elections Are Makeweights that Distort History. ............................................................ 33 B. House Democrats’ Charge of “Obstruction” Fails Because Invoking Constitutionally Based Privileges and Immunities to Protect the Separation of Powers Is Not an Impeachable Offense. ......................................... 35 1. President Trump Acted Properly—and upon Advice from the Department of Justice—by Asserting Established Legal Defenses and Immunities to Resist Legally Defective Demands for Information from House Committees. ................................................ 37 (a) Administration Officials Properly Refused to Comply with Subpoenas that Lacked Authorization from the House. ........................................................................................... 37 (i) A Delegation of Authority from the House Is Required Before Any Committee Can Investigate Pursuant to the Impeachment Power. ............. 37 (ii) Nothing in Existing House Rules Authorized Any Committee to Pursue an Impeachment Inquiry. .............................................................................. 39 (iii) More Than 200 Years of Precedent Confirm that the House Must Vote to Begin an Impeachment Inquiry. .............................................................................. 40 (iv) The Subpoenas Issued Before House Resolution 660 Were Invalid and Remain Invalid Because the Resolution Did Not Ratify Them. ............................... 41 (b) The President Properly Asserted Immunity of His Senior Advisers from Compelled Congressional Testimony. .................................................................................... 43 (c) Administration Officials Properly Instructed Employees Not to Testify Before Committees that Improperly Excluded Agency Counsel. ........................................................... 46 2. Asserting Legal Defenses and Immunities Grounded in the Constitution’s Separation of Powers Is Not an Impeachable Offense. ..................................................................................................... 47 (a) Asserting Legal Defenses and Privileges Is Not “Obstruction.” ............................................................................... 47 (b) House Democrats’ Radical Theory of “Obstruction” Would Do Grave Damage to the Separation of Powers. .............. 48 (c) The President Cannot Be Removed from Office Based on a Difference in Legal Opinion. ................................................ 54 II. The Articles Resulted from an Impeachment Inquiry that Violated All Precedent and Denied the President Constitutionally Required Due Process. ................. 55 A. The Purported Impeachment Inquiry Was Unauthorized at the Outset and Compelled Testimony Based on Nearly Two Dozen Invalid Subpoenas. ............................................................................................................ 56 ii B. House Democrats’ Impeachment Inquiry Deprived the President of the Fundamentally Fair Process Required by the Constitution. ............................ 57 1. The Text and Structure of the Constitution Demand that the House Ensure Fundamentally Fair Procedures in an Impeachment Inquiry. ............................................................................... 58 (a) The Due Process Clause Requires Fair Process. ........................... 58 (b) The Separation of Powers Requires Fair Process. ........................ 60 (c) The House’s Sole Power of Impeachment and Power to Determine Rules of Its Own Proceedings Do Not Eliminate the Constitutional Requirement of Due Process. ......................................................................................... 61 2. The House’s Consistent Practice of Providing Due Process in Impeachment Investigations for the Last 150 Years Confirms that the Constitution Requires Due Process. ............................................. 62 3. The President’s Counsel Must Be Allowed to Be Present at Hearings, See and Present Evidence, and Cross-Examine All Witnesses. ................................................................................................. 66 4. The House Impeachment Inquiry Failed to Provide the Due Process Demanded by the Constitution and Generated a Fundamentally Skewed Record that Cannot Be Relied Upon in the Senate. ................................................................................................. 67 (a) Phase I: Secret Hearings in the Basement Bunker ........................ 67 (b) Phase II: The Public, Ex Parte Show Trial Before HPSCI ........................................................................................... 69 (c) Phase III: The Ignominious Rubber Stamp from the Judiciary Committee ..................................................................... 70 C. The House’s Inquiry Was Irredeemably Defective Because It Was Presided Over by an Interested Fact Witness Who Lied About Contact with the Whistleblower Before the Complaint Was Filed. ................................... 74 D. The Senate May Not Rely on a Factual Record Derived from a Procedurally Deficient House Impeachment Inquiry. .......................................... 75 E. House Democrats Used an Unprecedented and Unfair Process Because Their Goal to Impeach at Any Cost Had Nothing To Do with Finding the Truth. ................................................................................................. 75 III. Article I Fails Because the Evidence Disproves House Democrats’ Claims. ................... 80 A. The Evidence Refutes Any Claim That the President Conditioned the Release of Security Assistance on an Announcement of Investigations by Ukraine. ............................................................................................................ 81 1. The July 25 Call Transcript Shows the President Did Nothing Wrong. ...................................................................................................... 81 iii 2. President Zelenskyy and Other Senior Ukrainian Officials Confirmed There Was No Quid Pro Quo and No Pressure on Them Concerning Investigations. ............................................................. 84 3. President Zelenskyy and Other Senior Ukrainian Officials Did Not Even Know that the Security Assistance Had Been Paused. ............. 85 4. House Democrats Rely Solely on Speculation Built on Hearsay. ................................................................................................................... 87 5. The Security Assistance
Recommended publications
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 116 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

    Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 116 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 116 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 166 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020 No. 13 House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Friday, January 24, 2020, at 2 p.m. Senate WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020 The Senate met at 1 p.m. and was I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the The Senate will now hear you. called to order by the Chief Justice of United States of America, and to the Repub- OPENING STATEMENT the United States. lic for which it stands, one nation under God, Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Jus- indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. f tice, Senators, counsel for the Presi- f dent, and my fellow House managers: I TRIAL OF DONALD J. TRUMP, want to begin by thanking you, Chief PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED THE JOURNAL Justice, for a very long day, for the STATES The CHIEF JUSTICE. Senators, will way you have presided over these pro- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate you please be seated. ceedings. I want to thank the Senators will convene as a Court of Impeach- If there is no objection, the Journal also. We went well into the morning, as ment. of the proceedings of the trial are ap- you know, until I believe around 2 in The Chaplain will offer a prayer. proved to date. the morning. You paid attention to f Without objection, it is so ordered.
  • Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States: Report of the Comm

    Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States: Report of the Comm

    IN THE SENATEOF THEUNITED STATES Sitting as a Court of Impeachment Inre IMPEACHMENTOF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THEUNITEDSTATES HOUSEOF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE IMPEACHMENTTRIALOF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP United States House of Representatives AdamB.Schiff JerroldNadler Zoe Lofgren HakeemS.Jeffries Val ButlerDemings Jason Crow Sylvia R.Garcia U.S. House of RepresentativesManagers TABLEOF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................................9 I. C ONSTITUTIONALG ROUNDSFORP RESIDENTIALI MPEACHMENT....................................................9 II. THE HOUSE’SIMPEACHMENTOF PRESIDENTDONALDJ. TRUMPANDPRESENTATIONOF T HISM ATTERTO THE S ENATE..............................................................................................................12 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................................16 I. T HE S ENATES HOULDC ONVICT P RESIDENTT RUMPOF A BUSEOF P OWER..................................16 A. PresidentTrumpExercisedHis OfficialPowerto PressureUkraineintoAidingHis Reelection....................................................................................................................................16 B. PresidentTrumpExercisedOfficialPowerto
  • The Ukrainian Weekly, 2020

    The Ukrainian Weekly, 2020

    INSIDE: l Thousands participate in online protest in Ukraine – page 4 l Ukrainians prohibited from owning land in Crimea – page 7 l Bishop uses social media to connect with U.K. faithful – page 9 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY Published by the Ukrainian National Association Inc., a fraternal non-profit association Vol. LXXXVIII No. 14 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, APRIL 5, 2020 $2.00 NEWS ANALYSIS Verkhovna Rada dismisses two crucial ministers Breakthrough in Ukraine’s and approves their replacements amid pandemic land privatization saga by Bohdan Nahaylo The World Bank and others viewed this ban as an unduly conservative and unwar- KYIV – On March 30 and 31, the ranted impediment to Ukraine realizing its Ukrainian Parliament finally delivered on economic potential. It estimated that the two crucial issues set as preconditions by moratorium has deprived Ukraine’s econo- the International Monetary Fund in order my of billions of dollars in land taxes and for the country to receive financial support investment in agriculture. of up to $8 billion to help offset the effects Furthermore, in May 2018 the European of the coronavirus pandemic and its devas- Court of Human Rights declared that the tating impact on Ukraine’s fragile economy. moratorium on farmland sales violated The first involved the adoption in its first Ukrainians’ human rights as Ukrainian reading of the so-called “banking” or “anti- farmers – an estimated 7 million of them – Kolomoisky” bill named after the notorious because they were not allowed to manage billionaire oligarch who wants to recover their property freely. Ukraine’s largest bank, PrivatBank. It was In 2018, a coalition of 39 companies and nationalized in 2016 after he allegedly over 1,500 agricultural producers peti- embezzled $5.5 billion from it.
  • Presidential Election in Ukraine Implications for the Ukrainian Transition Presidential Election in Ukraine Implications for the Ukrainian Transition

    Presidential Election in Ukraine Implications for the Ukrainian Transition Presidential Election in Ukraine Implications for the Ukrainian Transition

    Helmut Kurth/Iris Kempe (Ed.) PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN UKRAINE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UKRAINIAN TRANSITION PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN UKRAINE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UKRAINIAN TRANSITION KIEV – 2004 The following texts are preliminary versions. Necessary corrections and updates will be undertaken once the results of the election process are final. These preliminary versions are not for quotation or citation, and may only be used with the express written consent of the authors. CONTENTS Preface ................................................................................. 5 Timm Beichelt/Rostyslav Pavlenko Presidential Election and Constitutional Reforms in Ukraine ............................................................................ 7 Olaf Hillenbrand Consensus-Building and Good Governance – a Framework for Democratic Transition ........................... 44 Oleksandr Dergachov Formation of Democratic Consensus and Good Governance ....................................................... 71 Oleksandr Sushko/Oles Lisnychuk The 2004 Presidential Campaign as a Sign of Political Evolution in Ukraine....................................... 87 Iris Kempe/Iryna Solonenko International Orientation and Foreign Support of the Presidential Elections ............................................ 107 5 Preface Long before Kiev’s Independence Square became a sea of orange, it was clear to close observers that the presidential election in 2004 would not only be extremely close and hard fought, but also decisive for the country’s future development. Discussions
  • The Case Study of Crossfire Hurricane

    The Case Study of Crossfire Hurricane

    TIMELINE: Congressional Oversight in the Face of Executive Branch and Media Suppression: The Case Study of Crossfire Hurricane 2009 FBI opens a counterintelligence investigation of the individual who would become Christopher Steele’s primary sub-source because of his ties to Russian intelligence officers.1 June 2009: FBI New York Field Office (NYFO) interviews Carter Page, who “immediately advised [them] that due to his work and overseas experiences, he has been questioned by and provides information to representatives of [another U.S. government agency] on an ongoing basis.”2 2011 February 2011: CBS News investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson begins reporting on “Operation Fast and Furious.” Later in the year, Attkisson notices “anomalies” with several of her work and personal electronic devices that persist into 2012.3 2012 September 11, 2012: Attack on U.S. installations in Benghazi, Libya.4 2013 March 2013: The existence of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server becomes publicly known.5 May 2013: o News reports reveal Obama’s Justice Department investigating leaks of classified information and targeting reporters, including secretly seizing “two months of phone records for reporters and editors of The Associated Press,”6 labeling Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “co-conspirator,” and obtaining a search warrant for Rosen’s personal emails.7 May 10, 2013: Reports reveal that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeted and unfairly scrutinized conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status.8
  • IN the SENATE of the UNITED STATES Sitting As a Court of Impeachment in Re IMPEACHMENT of PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP TRIAL MEMORA

    IN the SENATE of the UNITED STATES Sitting As a Court of Impeachment in Re IMPEACHMENT of PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP TRIAL MEMORA

    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Sitting as a Court of Impeachment In re IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP United States House of Representatives Adam B. Schiff Jerrold Nadler Zoe Lofgren Hakeem S. Jeffries Val Butler Demings Jason Crow Sylvia R. Garcia U.S. House of Representatives Managers TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 9 I. CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT .................................................... 9 II. THE HOUSE’S IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP AND PRESENTATION OF THIS MATTER TO THE SENATE .............................................................................................................. 12 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 16 I. THE SENATE SHOULD CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP OF ABUSE OF POWER .................................. 16 A. President Trump Exercised His Official Power to Pressure Ukraine into Aiding His Reelection ...................................................................................................................................
  • Congressional Record—Senate S1184

    Congressional Record—Senate S1184

    S1184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 27, 2020 bomb components, repair and return of weap- get. Laser designation for the LGB can be ests above the interests of the United States. ons, weapons training equipment, practice provided by a variety of laser target markers The House Impeachment Managers have bombs, TTU–595 Test Set and spares, fin as- or designators. proven that the President’s abuse of power semblies, rocket motors, training aids/de- 4. Mk–82 General Purpose (GP) bomb is a and congressional obstruction amount to the vices/spare parts, aircraft spare parts, sup- 500 pound, free-fall, unguided, low-drag weap- constitutional standard of ‘‘high Crimes and port equipment, clothing and textiles, publi- on usually equipped with the mechanical Misdemeanors’’ for which the sole remedy is cations and technical documentation, travel M904 (nose) and M905 (tail) fuzes or the conviction and removal from office. expenses, medical services, construction, air- radar-proximity FMU–113 air-burst fuze. The II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS craft ferry support, technical and logistical Mk–82 is designed for soft, fragment sen- On December 18, 2019, the United States support services, major modifications/class sitive targets and is not intended for hard House of Representatives passed H. Res. 755,1 IV support, personnel training and training targets or penetrations. The explosive filling ‘‘Impeaching Donald John Trump, President equipment, U.S. Government and contractor is usually tritonal, though other composi- of the United States, for high crimes and program support, and other related elements tions have sometimes been used. misdemeanors.’’ H. Res. 755 contains two Ar- of logistics and program support.
  • Impeachment, Donald Trump and the Attempted Extortion of Ukraine

    Impeachment, Donald Trump and the Attempted Extortion of Ukraine

    Pace Law Review Volume 40 Issue 2 Article 4 July 2020 IMPEACHMENT, DONALD TRUMP AND THE ATTEMPTED EXTORTION OF UKRAINE Lawrence J. Trautman [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lawrence J. Trautman, IMPEACHMENT, DONALD TRUMP AND THE ATTEMPTED EXTORTION OF UKRAINE, 40 Pace L. Rev. 141 (2020) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol40/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPEACHMENT, DONALD TRUMP AND THE ATTEMPTED EXTORTION OF UKRAINE Lawrence J. Trautman1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 143 II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR IMPEACHMENT ....................................................................... 144 A. Treason ......................................................................... 145 B. Bribery .......................................................................... 145 C. Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors ..................... 145 D. Impeachment Is An Emergency Measure .................. 146 III. HISTORY OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ........................................................................ 148 A. President Andrew Johnson ......................................... 149
  • A New Imperialism? Evaluating Russia’S Acquisition of Crimea in the Context of National and International Law Trevor Mcdougal

    A New Imperialism? Evaluating Russia’S Acquisition of Crimea in the Context of National and International Law Trevor Mcdougal

    BYU Law Review Volume 2015 | Issue 6 Article 15 December 2015 A New Imperialism? Evaluating Russia’s Acquisition of Crimea in the Context of National and International Law Trevor McDougal Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the International Law Commons, and the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Trevor McDougal, A New Imperialism? Evaluating Russia’s Acquisition of Crimea in the Context of National and International Law, 2015 BYU L. Rev. 1847 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2015/iss6/15 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 12.MCDOUGAL.AA-2 (DO NOT DELETE) 4/4/2016 12:26 PM A New Imperialism? Evaluating Russia’s Acquisition of Crimea in the Context of National and International Law I. INTRODUCTION In November 2013, after some progress toward greater economic union between Ukraine and the European Union, then- current President Yanukovych suspended Ukraine’s preparations for a trade deal with the European Union, instead choosing closer ties with Russia.1 During the following three months, a variety of protests took place with some physical confrontations also occurring.2 On February 18, 2014, the confrontations between protestors and police officers reached their bloodiest day yet, leading to the deaths of at least eighteen people, with casualties on both sides.3 In the aftermath of the violence, President Yanukovych fled from the country and was replaced by an interim leader, Oleksandr Turchynov, who acted as president until elections were held in May.4 Hours after Yanukovych fled, he was impeached by Ukraine’s parliament for abusing his powers.5 Russia sent forces to the Crimea region of Ukraine, despite repeated claims by Putin that there were “no Russian units in eastern Ukraine .
  • Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump

    Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump

    IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP Jay Alan Sekulow Pat A. Cipollone Stuart Roth Counsel to the President Andrew Ekonomou Patrick F. Philbin Jordan Sekulow Michael M. Purpura Mark Goldfeder Devin A. DeBacker Benjamin Sisney Trent J. Benishek Eric J. Hamilton Counsel to President Donald J. Trump Office of White House Counsel January 20, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 STANDARDS............................................................................................................................... 13 A. The Senate Must Decide All Questions of Law and Fact. .................................... 13 B. An Impeachable Offense Requires a Violation of Established Law that Inflicts Sufficiently Egregious Harm on the Government that It Threatens to Subvert the Constitution. .................................................................. 13 1. Text and Drafting History of the Impeachment Clause ............................ 14 2. The President’s Unique Role in Our Constitutional Structure .................. 17 3. Practice Under the Impeachment Clause .................................................. 18 C. The Senate Cannot Convict Unless It Finds that the House Managers Have Proved an Impeachable Offense Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. .................. 20 D. The Senate May Not Consider Allegations Not Charged in the Articles of Impeachment. ..................................................................................................
  • Qatar Committed to Patient Safety and Quality Care Credentials

    Qatar Committed to Patient Safety and Quality Care Credentials

    BUSINESS | 01 SPORT | 09 Kahramaa, QEWC Samba under and MHPS sign no ‘pressure’ MoU on internship ahead of Doha program Worlds Wednesday 18 September 2019 | 19 Muharram 1441 www.thepeninsula.qa Volume 24 | Number 8018 | 2 Riyals Join the elite, with beIN and Ooredoo ONE Qatar committed to patient Prime Minister meets Chairman of SIGA safety and quality care FAZEENA SALEEM Minister of Public “In May this year, the WHO THE PENINSULA Health, H E Dr Hanan endorsed the establishment of World Patient Safety Day Qatar’s commitment in Mohamed Al Kuwari, (WPSD) to be observed annually embracing a patient safety said: “Patient safety on September 17. culture that puts quality and has been identified as “The WPSD is a campaign patient safety at the forefront one of the pillars that encouraging all stakeholders in was highlighted during the of 5th the healthcare system to raise Qatar Patient Safety Week guides the process of global awareness on patient (QPSW) which was inaugurated strategy development safety and encourage global sol- by Minister of Public Health H E and implementation.” idarity and action. Dr Hanan Mohamed Al Kuwari. “As part of Qatar’s commit- The Minister emphasised that ments to the Global Action on the Ministry of Public Health “Patient safety has been Patient Safety, this year Qatar (MoPH) plays a crucial role in identified as one of the pillars Patient Safety Week shall be ensuring that the people living in that guides the process of joining hands with the WPSD Qatar receive the safest quality strategy development and celebrations adopting their care available across the globe.
  • Establishment and Investigation by the Court of the Factual Circumstances of the Case

    Establishment and Investigation by the Court of the Factual Circumstances of the Case

    establishment and investigation by the court of the factual circumstances of the case. In conclusion, it should be emphasized that in the conventional paradigm of fair justice, the requirements of procedural equality of arms and adversarial proceedings are considered related. In order for a minor case to be heard under the rules of summary proceedings, the plaintiff must not arbitrarily change the subject matter of the claim, and the increase in the amount of claims is allowed only within clearly defined limits, while the defendant must refrain from exercising his right to file a counterclaim. Action may be a court decision on the case under the rules of general claim proceedings (Part 4 of Article 193 CPC; Part 5 of Article 274 CPC). This indicates that the scope of implementation of guarantees of adversarial proceedings and procedural equality of the parties are significantly limited during the trial of minor cases. References: 1. Giorgiantonio C. Procedure Reforms in Italy: Concentration Principle, Adversarial System or Case Management? [Text] / C. Giorgiantonio – Rome: Banca D`Italia, 2009. P. 19. 2. Jolowicz J. A. Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure [Text] / J. A. Jolowicz // I.C.L.Q. 2003. Vol. 52. P. 254. THE CONCEPT OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE IN UKRAINE: GENESIS AND CURRENT STATE ANDRIY BOIDA, student Precarpathian National University named after V. Stefanyk DANYL KHOMUTETSKYI, student Lviv Ivan Franko National University LILLY KUZNETSOVA, Associate Professor, PhD in Philology, Language Adviser Lviv Ivan Franko National University УДК [342.3:342.537.91-057.177.1](y77) The concept of impeachment procedure in Ukraine: genesis and current state.