The latest reporting I've seen is that the Senate will take up President Trump's impeachment trial this week. What's wrong with that, you ask? I've already said what's wrong: the Schiff-Nadler Star Chamber violated President Trump's Fifth Amendment rights to procedural due process, rendering the resulting impeachment articles null and void as "poisoned fruit." The GOP leadership should do what the Founders would have done: challenge the legal legitimacy of the impeachment articles. The logic blueprint I will present below — Mr. Jefferson knew logic — will help make the case in court.

As we know, protecting the rights of the accused is of fundamental importance in a just legal system and is a key motivation behind the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which asserts that "[no person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The Supreme Court has interpreted due process broadly to include:

procedural due process rights,

substantive due process rights, and

prohibition against vague laws

as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Of concern here are only procedural due process rights (PDPRs), which include:

An unbiased tribunal. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it. The opportunity to present reasons for the proposed action not to be taken. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses. The right to know the opposing evidence. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. A decision based only on the evidence presented. Opportunity to be represented by counsel. A requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented. A requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision.

Now, consider legal proceedings that do not, by themselves, result in deprivation of rights. To review the relevant basics:

Just because, for example, a case has been referred to a grand jury for deliberation, that does not mean that the accused is ipso facto deprived of rights.

Even if a grand jury takes the further step of issuing an indictment against the accused, a true bill, this also does not mean that the accused is ipso facto deprived of rights.

A grand jury indictment means only that a majority of jury members believe there is probable cause that the accused has committed a violation of law and that, as a result, the prosecution is justified in proceeding to trial.

A grand jury referral for action to the prosecution also does not mean that the accused is ipso facto deprived of rights. The prosecution must still decide whether to go to trial and may well decline to do so for one reason or another.

Deprivation of rights can occur only after a guilty verdict in court, with specifics to be decided at sentencing.

Years may elapse between the time a case is referred to a grand jury and the time a guilty verdict is issued in court, during which time some or all constitutional rights are retained, depending on the specifics of the case. The option of appealing a verdict can also impact rights deprivation.

So are a person's PDPRs protected under the Fifth Amendment in legal proceedings of any kind whose outcome is not ipso facto deprivation of rights? Intuitively, the answer should be "yes." Surely, the Framers did not intend to imply that a person's PDPRs are not protected under the Fifth Amendment during grand jury deliberations and other such proceedings that do not, by themselves, result in deprivation of rights. That is, the Framers surely did not intend to imply when they drafted the Fifth Amendment that grand juries have a free hand while deliberating because deprivation of rights would not be the outcome if an indictment is issued — that grand juries may proceed capriciously by, for example, (a) considering only some of the available evidence; (b) disregarding exculpatory evidence; (c) arbitrarily ranking evidence in order of credibility; (d) indicting based on no evidence at all, as in "indicting a ham sandwich"; and so on.

The Framers would have found propositions I, II, III, V and VI below unobjectionable — though this article is not the place to argue the point. Propositions IV and VII are derived by logic — to repeat, Mr. Jefferson knew logic.

Proposition I : The accused retains PDPRs during grand jury proceedings.

Proposition II : Impeachment proceedings are sufficiently similar in relevant legal respects to grand jury proceedings. (In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton noted "the judicial character of the Senate ... as a court for the trial of impeachments.")

Proposition III : If legal proceedings A and B are sufficiently similar in relevant legal respects and PDPRs are retained during A, then they are retained during B.

Proposition IV : Therefore, the accused retains PDPRs during impeachment proceedings.

Proposition V : If the accused retains PDPRs during impeachment proceedings, then violations of PDPRs during impeachment proceedings are legally objectionable.

Proposition VI : If violations of PDPRs during impeachment proceedings are legally objectionable, then a verdict resulting from legally objectionable impeachment proceedings is legally objectionable as "poisoned fruit."

Proposition VII : Therefore, a verdict resulting from legally objectionable impeachment proceedings is legally objectionable as "poisoned fruit.

By my count, at least four PDPRs were violated during impeachment proceedings in the House Intelligence Committee (Schiff) and the House Judiciary Committee (Nadler).

PDPR #1: "An unbiased tribunal." Schiff, Nadler, and their Democrat colleagues effectively formed a cabal, stacking the deck against President Trump at every turn. They ran their committees with an iron fist. What we saw on television night after night was nothing more than show trials reminiscent of what happened in the Soviet Union under Stalin in the 1930s. Sycophantic media pundits colluded with Democrats, taking advantage of the slightest opportunity to spin mere opinions as facts.

PDPR #4: "The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses." Ranking GOP member Devin Nunes repeatedly appeared on Fox to express frustration at Schiff's high-handed management of Intelligence Committee proceedings. Schiff refused GOP requests time after time to allow testimony by witnesses showing that President Trump's Ukraine phone call was perfectly within his rights as president, that "there was no quid pro quo." Indeed, because foreign government corruption potentially involved a former vice president of the United States, President Trump had an obligation to seek the relevant facts even though Joe Biden might be facing him in 2020.

PDPR #6: "The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses." The so-called whistleblower, whose hearsay allegations launched the impeachment process, never appeared to testify. This is outrageous. Ranking member Devin Nunes and his GOP colleagues on the Intelligence Committee never had an opportunity to question the person who, under normal circumstances, would have been the star witness for the prosecution. Moreover, Schiff lied and got away with lying that he never met this person. Surreptitious contact with any potential grand jury witness by a prosecutor would normally be grounds for indictment dismissal and may even lead to disbarment of the prosecutor.

PDPR #10: "A requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision." This is perhaps the most egregious violation of all. Findings of fact were nonexistent in both committees. The witnesses Democrats called to testify expressed mere opinions that boiled down to disagreements with President Trump over his policies or were based on personal animosity toward the president. Nevertheless, Schiff and Nadler proceeded as if mere beliefs and allegations were findings of fact.

The above considerations lead to the following results:

PDPRs #1, #4, #6, and #10 and Propositions IV and V together logically imply that the Schiff-Nadler proceedings were legally objectionable.

This result and Proposition VI together logically imply that the House impeachment vote is legally objectionable as "poisoned fruit." QED.

Why am I urging that the two impeachment articles be challenged in court?