- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: .
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:44 am to davyjones
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:44 am to davyjones
quote:Context, mi amigo.
davyjones
This thread is not ABOUT the broader concepts that you outlined (which are correct, of course).
It is specifically about an article addressing criminal due process. From the OP:
quote:
I've seen many articles recently saying that the President is not entitled to due process during impeachment. Here is one today from USA Today has a piece out today stating as much. From the link: Like Bill Clinton in the 1990s...Trump does not have the same constitutional protection afforded to a criminal defendant..."He has no entitlement to demand due process...Congress is not obliged to follow due process, (though) it may well decide to provide things that look like due process" Gerhardt said.
2
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:50 am to Kraut Dawg
quote:
The President Not Entitled to Due Process?
Well duh!. He's a republican. No due process for you.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:57 am to AggieHank86
I see ya on that Hankster. Valid point. I guess I've just gotten used to the majority of people lumping the entire concept of due process into the exclusive category of criminal due process. At which point it typically follows that "there is no due process whatsoever afforded in this particular situation." So agreed, the specific list of criminal due process rights probably doesn't apply to impeachment. BUT some of the same concepts at the heart of criminal due process rights may cross over.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:59 am to davyjones
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:00 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:01 pm to Kraut Dawg
quote:
The President Not Entitled to Due Process?
No, he is not, this is a political issue. Likewise, the House Dims are not entitled to a impartial trail in the Senate, this is a political process.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:05 pm to Kraut Dawg
quote:
it's much more likely that this mess is more political than criminal?
That was obvious when Trump wasn't charged with a crime. The House and Senate can make up their own rules for impeachment. That being said, denying the president due process looks really bad to the public and there will be significant blowback as evidenced by all the recent polls going against the Dems.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 1:09 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Hillary argued this very point when she was on staff as a Watergate counsel.
quote:
Yes - even argued that he should not be allowed to have counsel. She was fired from the committee for lying repeatedly.
The brief Hillary filed argued that Nixon was not entitled to counsel during the preliminary investigation into whether or not to proceed with impeachment.
She was not fired. But she was not hired to work on the impeachment phase.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 1:09 pm to davyjones
quote:
I guess I've just gotten used to the majority of people lumping the entire concept of due process into the exclusive category of criminal due process.
Due process is a moral concept that has been part of western civilization for a thousand years.
Criminal Law mandates due process before you can imprison or punish someone.
Not affording due process to anyone, whatever the situation - short of war or self-defense, is an admission of wrong-doing. It is simply WRONG.
Theft is not wrong because it is against the law - it is wrong because it is wrong. Same with due process.
Saying = "if it isn't against the law, then it is ok to do it" is a huge step backwards to primitive stages of pre-history.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 1:11 pm to LSUconvert
quote:Surprised this has to be explained. People here usually know a whole lot about how our government works.
The reason due process does not apply is because this is not a criminal trial. Even if removed from office, he will still not be convicted of a crime.
It's amazing to me that grown adults don't understand how our government works.
Your two replies before mine are great. They’re basically “yeah but still.”
Posted on 12/31/19 at 1:17 pm to xiv
Is a President entitled to any due process in the entire impeachment process, and if so, to what is he or she entitled?
Posted on 12/31/19 at 1:19 pm to davyjones
He’s entitled to still be President if there aren’t enough votes to remove him. It’s impeachment. What other rights are at stake if all we’re determining is whether or not Trump keeps his gig?
This post was edited on 12/31/19 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 12/31/19 at 1:27 pm to Kraut Dawg
I'm confused that Schumer keeps asking for due process. Isn't due process to protect the defendant from the prosecutor? Why is he asking for due process for the prosecutor from the defendant?
Posted on 12/31/19 at 1:28 pm to Kraut Dawg
this isn't a civil or criminal trial. It is basically a political trial, so do your part and vote come election time.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 1:28 pm to xiv
quote:There are no negative effects from an attempted hit job.
He’s entitled to still be President if there aren’t enough votes to remove him. It’s impeachment. What other rights are at stake if all we’re determining is whether or not Trump keeps his gig?
Posted on 12/31/19 at 1:30 pm to xiv
So in other words, what deprivation is at stake, yeah? Life, liberty or property....without due process of law.
True, for one, his gig or job is at stake. That is something he already possesses that is at risk to be deprived. His salary, whether he chooses to keep it or not, is at risk of deprivation.
How do other federal employees enjoy due process rights prior to a determination of being relieved of their position (or not), but the President doesn't?
ETA....and although it is impeachment, that's still government actor(s), seeking to deprive POTUS of job and salary.
True, for one, his gig or job is at stake. That is something he already possesses that is at risk to be deprived. His salary, whether he chooses to keep it or not, is at risk of deprivation.
How do other federal employees enjoy due process rights prior to a determination of being relieved of their position (or not), but the President doesn't?
ETA....and although it is impeachment, that's still government actor(s), seeking to deprive POTUS of job and salary.
This post was edited on 12/31/19 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 12/31/19 at 2:13 pm to Kraut Dawg
quote:
so might he be a biased source?
Basically whatever arguments made during the Clinton impeachment have been swapped by the parties....hypocrisy of convenience.
This post was edited on 12/31/19 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 12/31/19 at 2:50 pm to davyjones
quote:In the face of that, what is he entitled to (whether morally or constitutionally) beyond the structural protections of the impeachment process, each step of which, along with the 2/3 vote buffer, serves as red tape separating the impeachers from their goal of removal?
although it is impeachment, that's still government actor(s), seeking to deprive POTUS of job and salary.
This post was edited on 12/31/19 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 12/31/19 at 2:53 pm to AggieHank86
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 11:07 am
Posted on 12/31/19 at 2:55 pm to AuburnTigers
quote:
so the Constitution doesnt apply to the President?
Where have you been?? The Constitution doesn't apply to anything, if the restricts the democrat socialist from doing what they want in the slightest.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News