What Rights Does Trump Have In the Impeachment Process?

[sun rise]

The Constitution doesn’t give him any.

What Rights Does Trump Have In the Impeachment Process?

In fact, experts told me that pretty much any rights Democrats give Trump are above and beyond what they’re required to do. Trump hasn’t been charged with a crime and impeachment isn’t a legal proceeding, so he doesn’t have any of the rights you hear about on “Law and Order,” including due process. In the world of impeachment, “fairness” means whatever the majority party in the House of Representatives thinks it should mean.

 

[Stevicus]

He has the right to remain silent.

 

[Altfish]

The Constitution doesn’t give him any.

What Rights Does Trump Have In the Impeachment Process?

In fact, experts told me that pretty much any rights Democrats give Trump are above and beyond what they’re required to do. Trump hasn’t been charged with a crime and impeachment isn’t a legal proceeding, so he doesn’t have any of the rights you hear about on “Law and Order,” including due process. In the world of impeachment, “fairness” means whatever the majority party in the House of Representatives thinks it should mean.

Was it any different when Clinton was impeached by Republicans in the late 90s?

 

[Ouroboros]

He has the right to remain silent.

And he has the right to log off Twitter.

 

[shmogie]

To an extent you are right. When the star chamber moves into public hearings, schiff has forty five minutes of time for each witness, all else have five minutes.

The democrats can subpoena whomever they choose, the Republicans must get schiffs approval to subpoena.

Fairness, compared to the Nixon and Clinton impeachment is totally absent.

No matter, they must find a high crime, to impeach. That crime must meet all of the elements of a crime in a penal code or statute. So far, they are having problems with this.

As I have predicted, it is a wasted exercise that accomplishes nothing other than to show that democrats aren´t really interested in dealing with the serious problems of the nation.

Removal from office means the senate must say it is required. So, when after impeachment the articles go to the Senate, mc Connell could say the process was so blatantly unfair, he recommends a vote on whether a trial should even be held. The Republican majority could quash the trial right then.

If it goes to trial, twenty Republican senators must vote for removal, which will never happen.

In the end the whole circus will expose the democrats as whinney babies who forgot the country in their zeal to overturn the election of 2016.

I wanted them to go down this path.

With their collection of presidential candidates, impeachment, and kowtowing to the leftist idiots, they are destroying their party, which is all good.

 

[shmogie]

Was it any different when Clinton was impeached by Republicans in the late 90s?

Yes, it absolutely was.

 

[Altfish]

Yes, it absolutely was.

In what way?

 

[shmogie]

In what way?

The Presidents lawyer was allowed to be present and ask questions of witnesses, both sides had equal subpoena power and equal time to question witnesses. The transcripts of witness testimony was made public

The democrats so far have not allowed any of these in their star chamber proceeding.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He has the right to remain silent.

Trump? Remain silent?

 

[shmogie]

He has the right to shoot himself in the head before an upstanding citizen does it for him, I suppose.

The secret service will read your post. If you are in the US, you might get a visit from them. If not, you will be placed on a very special list.

You have no anonymity with them.

 

[Woberts]

The secret service will read your post. If you are in the US, you might get a visit from them. If not, you will be placed on a very special list.

You have no anonymity with them.

Cool. Already on a few lists, might as well get on another one.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, it absolutely was.

Yes, the current Congress is playing *much* more fairly than the one in the 90's. With Clinton, it was *clearly* a 'gotcha' involving a lie about sex and having nothing to do with his job. Here, there is a clear abuse of power affecting US foreign policy and the requirements of the office.

 

[Polymath257]

The Presidents lawyer was allowed to be present and ask questions of witnesses, both sides had equal subpoena power and equal time to question witnesses. The transcripts of witness testimony was made public

The democrats so far have not allowed any of these in their star chamber proceeding.

That was only MUCH later on in the process than where we are now. Originally, it was behind closed doors under Republican control of the process.

 

[Altfish]

The Presidents lawyer was allowed to be present and ask questions of witnesses, both sides had equal subpoena power and equal time to question witnesses. The transcripts of witness testimony was made public

The democrats so far have not allowed any of these in their star chamber proceeding.

But I thought up to now it has all been about whether to impeach or not; the proper hearings only start if it goes forward from now.

Anyway, aren't there any rules in your constitution?

 

[Stanyon]

Was it any different when Clinton was impeached by Republicans in the late 90s?

You must have a very short or a very selective memory, I know the U.S. isn't your country of origin but it was a completely different ballgame.

 

[Polymath257]

To an extent you are right. When the star chamber moves into public hearings, schiff has forty five minutes of time for each witness, all else have five minutes.

The democrats can subpoena whomever they choose, the Republicans must get schiffs approval to subpoena.

Fairness, compared to the Nixon and Clinton impeachment is totally absent.

No matter, they must find a high crime, to impeach. That crime must meet all of the elements of a crime in a penal code or statute. So far, they are having problems with this.

And this is incorrect. Impeachment is a political process and was meant to be from the origin of the Constitution. Anything the Congress determines to be worthy of impeachment and removal from office *is* enough.

As I have predicted, it is a wasted exercise that accomplishes nothing other than to show that democrats aren´t really interested in dealing with the serious problems of the nation.

Trump *is* one of the serious problems of our nation currently. And the Dems *have* dealt with a number of issues in the House, but the Senate (and the Reps) refuse to act on anything the House has sent over.

Removal from office means the senate must say it is required. So, when after impeachment the articles go to the Senate, mc Connell could say the process was so blatantly unfair, he recommends a vote on whether a trial should even be held. The Republican majority could quash the trial right then.

If it goes to trial, twenty Republican senators must vote for removal, which will never happen.

I fear you are correct here. The Reps won't hold a fair trial. They will whitewash whatever the Trump in chief has done.

In the end the whole circus will expose the democrats as whinney babies who forgot the country in their zeal to overturn the election of 2016.

I wanted them to go down this path.

With their collection of presidential candidates, impeachment, and kowtowing to the leftist idiots, they are destroying their party, which is all good.

And the Reps are destroying the whole country to get a few judges. Our nation is a laughing stock around the world because of this guy. He has repeatedly and flagrantly violated each and every norm of his office and repudiated the fact-based government we have worked so hard to develop.

 

[Polymath257]

But I thought up to now it has all been about whether to impeach or not; the proper hearings only start if it goes forward from now.

Anyway, aren't there any rules in your constitution?

In this case, the rules are that the House has the power to impeach, the Senate has the power to convict, and the Chief Justice runs the trial in the Senate.

 

[Altfish]

You must have a very short or a very selective memory, I know the U.S. isn't your country of origin but it was a completely different ballgame.

But, the 'crimes' are totally different.
Sexual indiscretion leading to lying - let's be honest, that's Trump's hobby versus dodgy dealings with foreign countries.

 

[sun rise]

Was it any different when Clinton was impeached by Republicans in the late 90s?

No. And Republicans should acknowledge that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No matter, they must find a high crime, to impeach. That crime must meet all of the elements of a crime in a penal code or statute. So far, they are having problems with this.

The Harvard Law Review disagrees with you.

For his part, Michael Stokes Paulsen emphasizes that the scope of the impeachment power “is strikingly broad . . . , indefinite, and by no means limited to commission of criminal offenses.” Invoking the “original meaning” of the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Paulsen writes that in English practice, “the term embraced a broad range of political offenses, as well as wrongs that might otherwise be punishable by the criminal law.”

High Crimes Without Law

Also, the Constitution lists two other reasons for impeachment besides "high crimes and misdemeanors:" treason and bribery. As this article describes, a strong case could be made for bribery... along with all the other strong cases that can be made for other aspects of Trump's wrongdoing:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...mmitted-democrats-arent-really-talking-about/