- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: For the morons on here that claim the House's role in impeachment is akin to a grand jury
Posted on 10/24/19 at 6:03 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 10/24/19 at 6:03 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
You are talking about taking away someone's freedom or possibly even life. What is going on now is about removing someone from office lol. Sooooo not even close to the same thing.
Boy... such a great chasm between us. For many of us, this hits at first principles. That while technically you may be right, principally you are very very wrong.
For many of us the right that is being taken away is OUR very right to choose our elected officials. Our right to vote. Trump doesn’t have to go to jail to completely turn the foundations of our society on their head, which is exactly what will happen if he gets removed from office.
0
Posted on 10/24/19 at 6:10 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
You are talking about taking away someone's freedom or possibly even life. What is going on now is about removing someone from office lol. Sooooo not even close to the same thing.
When the government seeks to take a citizen's property by way of eminent domain is there not a requirement of due process prior thereto?
Or how about a govt agency seeking to nullify a bar owner's alcohol license/permit....isn't there due process afforded by way of a hearing?
These are just a couple examples of non-criminal takings that require due process.
Posted on 10/24/19 at 6:16 pm to davyjones
quote:
Can an individual testifying in front of the Intel Committee not "plead the Fifth"? Not rhetorical, serious question. If yes, then that's a due process right and I don't see how the other due process rights wouldn't apply throughout.
Impeachment is not a judicial or a legal process, it is purely political. That is why the constitution prevents Congress from handing down criminal punishments via impeachment. Removal and disqualification are the only options. The Supreme Court is clear on this. To the extent that the process doesn’t conflict with the bare bones language in the Constitution regarding impeachment, Congress can do what it wants.
Besides, just as a hypo. what exactly would be the due process violation in this instance? Investigating behind closed doors? In a criminal context, a defendant doesn’t get the prosecutions evidence until they are indicted. If he is impeached, he will be given due process.
All of this will be made public, because there will be a trial, and he won’t be removed.
This post was edited on 10/24/19 at 6:19 pm
Posted on 10/24/19 at 6:19 pm to PhDoogan
quote:Those are part of the testimony, sworn statements.
Could you send me a link to the transcripts? All I've got is some lousy drafted opening statements that were coordinated with Schiff and some Never Trumper attorneys leaked from the SCIF.
Posted on 10/24/19 at 6:27 pm to davyjones
quote:The 5th is a Constitutional Right, not really limited to "due process". It can be invoked in any setting, criminal or civil. If you invoke the 5th in front of a grand jury, it certainly doesn't allow other targets to come into the grand jury room.
Can an individual testifying in front of the Intel Committee not "plead the Fifth"? Not rhetorical, serious question. If yes, then that's a due process right and I don't see how the other due process rights wouldn't apply throughout.
Posted on 10/24/19 at 6:27 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
what exactly would be the due process violation in this instance?
It could be argued that there's an adversarial proceeding that occurs before it ever gets to the point of Senate involvement....the presentation of the case for vote on articles of impeachment before the full House. The due process argument being that the proponents of the President are not being allowed a fair opportunity to prepare their case against that of the Democrats in terms of the House vote.
Posted on 10/24/19 at 6:49 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
The 5th is a Constitutional Right, not really limited to "due process". It can be invoked in any setting, criminal or civil. If you invoke the 5th in front of a grand jury, it certainly doesn't allow other targets to come into the grand jury room.
The right against forced self-incrimination is definitely one of the due process rights under the 5th Amendment, but I'd reassess my previous assertion that if that applies then all must apply. That's probably not correct, actually....after rethinking it.
But my overall argument for due process applying in general is my post immediately above.
Posted on 10/24/19 at 7:31 pm to udtiger
Rationalizations about how it's all OK because something that is not a grand jury is a grand jury because it is exactly like a grand jury when it actually isn't like one at all.
There are none so blind as those who will not see...
There are none so blind as those who will not see...
Posted on 10/24/19 at 7:35 pm to TBoy
quote:
Here's where this doesn't even pass muster even if you are correct: If they are correct, then it DOES pass muster.
Is this where you touch yourself as you murmur "big, if true"?
Posted on 10/24/19 at 7:39 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Impeachment is not a judicial or a legal process, it is purely political.
This is a modern conception of impeachment. Presidential impeachment trials are overseen by the Chief Justice trial, and basic concepts of fairness are implied. Considering that a presidential impeachment will literally impact every citizen, secret hearings should be restrict only for matters of legitimate national security. Ukraine and an IC leaker do not meet that standard.
And given the super majority requirement for conviction, it was assumed by the framers that the house members would not invoke impeachment out of pure political whim and thus invoke the ire of their constituents, but only for legitimate true high crimes and misdemeanors [not jaywalking or even criminal, abuse of office type crimes].
quote:..
To the extent that the process doesn’t conflict with the bare bones language in the Constitution regarding impeachment, Congress can do what it wants.
Which I think it does, because power is given to the House, requiring a quorum. I will continue to belabor that point, but no more for now.
quote:
what exactly would be the due process violation in this instance? Investigating behind closed doors? In a criminal context, a defendant doesn’t get the prosecutions evidence until they are indicted. If he is impeached, he will be given due process.
This is not as cut and dry as you think, and I think your analysis is flawed. What the dims are accusing Donald Trump the President is potentially criminal and he could be criminally prosecuted if the fricknut dims go full jihad as expected and spineless progs Caesar his arse. Donald Trump the America has due process rights.
But maybe more fundamental than the president individual rights is the founders desires to create/maintain the separation of powers with a system of checks and balances.
This post was edited on 10/24/19 at 7:46 pm
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News