What Rights Does Trump Have In the Impeachment Process?

[Shad]

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.

Due process counts in civil matters too.

 

[Stanyon]

And we're seeing obvious obstruction on the part of the current regime by demanding that people ignore a valid Congressional summons. Those who refuse should be locked up until they comply.

Like I said, Trump's hobby

The court of public opinion based on media reports does not equal guilt, as I have said Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice and Trump has not been.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Yes, that's probably where this is all going to end up, and I think the Democrats are probably aware of this as well. So, while they still have the ball, they'll use it as much as they can.

Then, when the Republican controlled Senate summarily dismisses the articles of impeachment from the outset, then the Democrats can be the ones to cry foul and say "You see? The Republicans are standing in the way of justice!"

So, I think the Democrats have reasoned that all of this will come to nought anyway, so they might as well have as much fun with it as they can.

 

[Stevicus]

This is obviously somewhat absurd, but not more absurd than the Democrats and their premise that there even needs to be an impeachment process at all presently. If they had *anything* they wouldn't have to sweat to get some sort of process rolling at all, but instead they're just on a fishing expedition in the desert. Now, each day that goes on for the worse it looks for them. It makes Trump look right and that's never a win politically.

I do find it somewhat fascinating to see such a wide range of opinions about "how Trump looks." As you say "it makes Trump look right," but then others are saying that "it makes Trump look wrong."

Both sides are apparently seeing the same thing, yet have diametrically opposed opinions about "what it looks like."

It seems like competing versions of The Emperor's New Clothes gambit at work. Or maybe a variation on the Asch Conformity Experiments. (aka "This is what I think it looks like, and anyone doesn't see what I see is surely a fool.")

 

[Altfish]

The court of public opinion based on media reports does not equal guilt, as I have said Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice and Trump has not been.

But the process is only just beginning. Lying about his sex lie is what cheating males do, ask you hero Donald
It is not a matter of national security - it was wrong, but c/w Trump is was petty.

 

[Ouroboros]

He is a habitual and flagrant liar, never admits error and has a grandiose sense of specialness and entitlement.
That combination spells Personality Disorder, and that makes the whole world nervous.

Not sure about the personality disorder, but he most definitely is a pathological narcissist. He lies to make himself look good. He can't think of himself anything but the sprinkles of skittles shed by the tears of gods.

 

[Ouroboros]

It seems like competing versions of The Emperor's New Clothes gambit at work. Or maybe a variation on the Asch Conformity Experiments. (aka "This is what I think it looks like, and anyone doesn't see what I see is surely a fool.")

This emperor's clothes are made out of bubble wrap. He needs to protect his sensitive image. Some people see it as the latest fashion statement. Other can't help to wanting to pop the bubbles.

 

[sun rise]

The court of public opinion based on media reports does not equal guilt, as I have said Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice and Trump has not been.

Trump has not been YET. But I guess you don't consider time and process to be meaningful.

I am sure that as soon as he's impeached, the Ministry of Lies will just issue new talking (lying) points to harp on.

 

[Stanyon]

Trump has not been YET.

Already found him guilty before all the facts are in and the witnesses cross examined?

 

[shmogie]

You don't listen to what the other side tells you so you are left with a story of your own invention. It is clear not only to people within the administration but to nearly half of the country that Trump needs to be removed from office. It was never about his politics but always about his moral and ethical character. He was immoral and unethical as he stood on the stage with over a dozen other respectable Republican presidential candidates in 2016. He was immoral and unethical as his administration had record turnover while he was in office with a majority in both the Senate and the House. He belittled those who sincerely recused themselves due to ethical considerations. He was dismissive of those who told the truth after they left his corrupt administration. He even has a group within his adminstration acting as the "adult in the room". What other administration ever took their leader for such a child as has this president's administration?

If you think that the Republican held Senate can easily dismiss an impeachment proceeding and expect to easily win re-election, then sit back and enjoy your victory. If not then be sure to come back to this forum and eat your proverbial hat.

We saw what happened in the House of Representatives in 2018. Independents decide the issues when Democrats and Republicans are at odds and the number aren't moving in the right direction for your particular cause:

Poll: Independents Move In Favor Of Impeachment Inquiry; GOP Stays Firmly Against

One cannot be impeached for being immoral or unethical. Those are relative terms, depending upon who is stating them.

The Constitution requires HIGH CRIMES, or misdemeanors, for impeachment. Misdemeanors meant something totally different when the Constitution was written, they are very serious crimes.

So, the democrats must find a serious felony, in a statute, and prove Trump committed it. So called obstruction of congress is not a crime, exercising executive privilege is not a crime, inquiring into the possible criminal activities of Americans overseas is not a crime, they have to cobble together real crimes, and make their case.

Being a totally political process, they will vote articles of impeachment, and the senate will reject them. Just like the democrats did with slick Willy.

The election is a year away, an eternity in politics. Polls and such mean little now, remember the polls in 2016 ?

I have seen it time and time again, the paradigm changes drastically the closer to the election.

So, we will see.

Who are the democrats going to run, Warren ? She has absolutely no chance.

The party establishment will do everything possible to send the convention voting into a second ballot, that is when the party hacks, the super delegates, can vote. If they think the choice of the people can´t win, they will do exactly what they did to Sanders in 2016, plug in their choice. Unlike in the Republican party, the democrat establishment thinks they know best over the people, thatś why they have written the rules so they always have control.

It will be fun

 

[shmogie]

Are you sure about that?


Source: High Crimes Without Law

many other legal scholars maintain that the words of the Constitution are perfectly clear and mean exactly what they say. Otherwise impeachment becomes even more of a political hit job, based solely on the subjective judgement of political enemies applying a non codified standard based upon their opinions.

Tribe is a virulent democrat, and Alan Dershowitz, also a democrat, totally and completely disagrees with him.

It really is a moot point however, since this President will not be removed from office, no President ever has and none ever will.

It is just political folderol that will hurt the democrats, I welcome it.

 

[sealchan]

One cannot be impeached for being immoral or unethical. Those are relative terms, depending upon who is stating them.

The Constitution requires HIGH CRIMES, or misdemeanors, for impeachment. Misdemeanors meant something totally different when the Constitution was written, they are very serious crimes.

Um, no...the rules of ethics are clearly spelled out and anyone working for a major corporation which holds annual trainings knows exactly what they are.

So, the democrats must find a serious felony, in a statute, and prove Trump committed it. So called obstruction of congress is not a crime, exercising executive privilege is not a crime, inquiring into the possible criminal activities of Americans overseas is not a crime, they have to cobble together real crimes, and make their case.

Not true. This is largely because the law is open to interpretation for a president and in order for their to be any chance of a balance of power there has to be a body that can pass judgment in that realm of ambiguity. But clearly Trump has committed obstruction, lied, ignored conflicts of interest, bullied individuals acting on ethical principles in his own administration, and attempted to use foreign governments to undermine a free and fair election. The ambiguity of whether this is lawful is not nearly as important as the profound loss of ethical conduct and the implications for national security and global citizenship this entails.

Being a totally political process, they will vote articles of impeachment, and the senate will reject them. Just like the democrats did with slick Willy.

The process is defined more or less in the U.S. constitution so it is not entirely political. The fact that there is a process at all is detrimental to the will of pure party politics and serves to balance mere political interest.

The election is a year away, an eternity in politics. Polls and such mean little now, remember the polls in 2016 ?

Remember the results of 2018. Fool me once (2016) shame on you, fool me twice...

I have seen it time and time again, the paradigm changes drastically the closer to the election.

So, we will see.

Who are the democrats going to run, Warren ? She has absolutely no chance.

Wrong RealClearPolitics - 2020 - Latest 2020 General Election Polls

The party establishment will do everything possible to send the convention voting into a second ballot, that is when the party hacks, the super delegates, can vote. If they think the choice of the people can´t win, they will do exactly what they did to Sanders in 2016, plug in their choice. Unlike in the Republican party, the democrat establishment thinks they know best over the people, thatś why they have written the rules so they always have control.

Much less right DNC changes superdelegate rules after Bernie Sanders' supporters slammed process that paved way for Clinton in 2016 - CNNPolitics

It will be fun

Oh, but for whom?

I agree, we will see.

 

[shmogie]

The Harvard Law Review disagrees with you.


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/

Many, many legal scholars disagree with this interpretation.

This interpretation makes the Constitution bizarre.

It states that treason, a crime, a felony, bribery, a crime, a felony and other HIGH Crimes, doesn´t mean an actual crime, but whatever political enemies decide is bad about you, to impeach. Stupid.

 

[sealchan]

One thing that the Democrats, where they have control of this process, I hope will consider is that if a trial is simply going to take too long before the election then they should just present their findings to the American people publicly and allow the electoral process to take it from there. Then the voter will have a wealth of testimony from people with direct knowledge of the president's ethics and attitudes and they can make their own decision. That way the Democrats will have leveraged the truth but the American people will get to pass judgment. Much, much less potential for any fallback on the Democrats.

 

[shmogie]

One thing that the Democrats, where they have control of this process, I hope will consider is that if a trial is simply going to take too long before the election then they should just present their findings to the American people publicly and allow the electoral process to take it from there. Then the voter will have a wealth of testimony from people with direct knowledge of the president's ethics and attitudes and they can make their own decision. That way the Democrats will have leveraged the truth but the American people will get to pass judgment. Much, much less potential for any fallback on the Democrats.

Evidence must be tested. Witnesses must be tested, and cross examined for lying or underlying biases.

Releasing testimony without these makes the testimony just more democrat manipulated propaganda.

 

[Ouroboros]

many other legal scholars maintain that the words of the Constitution are perfectly clear and mean exactly what they say. Otherwise impeachment becomes even more of a political hit job, based solely on the subjective judgement of political enemies applying a non codified standard based upon their opinions.

The impeachment clause isn't clear.

According to the Senate's own description of impeachment (this is in regard to impeachment of judges, but I believe the wording in the constitution is basically the same and the same issues exist):

Since 1789, one principal question has persisted—how to define “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This question has been debated by members of Congress, defense attorneys, and legal scholars from the first impeachment trial to the most recent. Were misdemeanors lesser crimes, or merely misconducts? Did a high crime or misdemeanor have to be a violation of written law? In an unsuccessful attempt to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in 1970, Representative Gerald Ford declared: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." This constitutional phrase remains a subject of continuing debate, pitting those who view impeachment as a response to an official’s perceived violation of the public trust against those who regard impeachment as being limited to indictable offenses.

U.S. Senate: Impeachment

It really is a moot point however, since this President will not be removed from office, no President ever has and none ever will.

That I can agree with. Trump won't be removed, he will run again, and he will win for a second term. I have no doubt about that.

It is just political folderol that will hurt the democrats, I welcome it.

I believe it will hurt the democrats as well. I dislike Trump quite a bit, but I don't think the dems are coming up with any good alternatives either. The system is broken, and the flood gates are open. There's no going back to an election or parties we can trust.

 

[Ouroboros]

Many, many legal scholars disagree with this interpretation.

This interpretation makes the Constitution bizarre.

It is bizarre. But think of impeachment, not as a criminal trial, but as a trial of fitness to be a CEO or President of a company. Look at what sometimes happens with CEOs/Presidents of large corporations. Some affair gets out, and they're removed from their position. It's like that. It's when a CEO/President fails to live up to the promise they've given to lead the company, both on a legal level, but also on an ethical level.

The president of USA can't be tried for a crime while he's in office. The impeachment is a trial of fitness for staying as a president, and it doesn't have to be a crime per se, but just being unfit, like doing something unethical.

It states that treason, a crime, a felony, bribery, a crime, a felony and other HIGH Crimes, doesn´t mean an actual crime, but whatever political enemies decide is bad about you, to impeach. Stupid.

That's why the inquiry is done by the house, after a majority vote, and any "penalty" or action based on the results from the House is done in Senate, also after a majority vote. It's a check-and-balance scenario to ensure it's not too villy-nilly.

 

[Ouroboros]

Evidence must be tested. Witnesses must be tested, and cross examined for lying or underlying biases.

Releasing testimony without these makes the testimony just more democrat manipulated propaganda.

It is now moving into the public hearings, and the previous interviews are being published as we speak. Two yesterday, and another two or three today, and more to come.

 

[columbus]

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

Here's two big differences.
A)Both Nixon and Clinton were suspected of domestic crimes. And both were under threat of impeachment for obstruction, not the actual behavior. Nixon lied about Watergate burglary, Clinton lied about banging his secretary. But both were under the gun for obstruction, not what they were lying about.
B) Trump is suspected of treason. That's a whole lot more important than partisan hardball or cheating on your wife.
So, do you think that Trump could be put under oath, like Clinton was, and asked hardball questions like Pelosi would ask, and not perjure himself? Trump can hardly get through a single tweet without saying something demonstrably false. If banging an intern is important enough to result in a Congressional inquiry, under oath, I certainly think that Trump's behavior merits the same.
But I doubt that he can stop lying long enough to survive an impeachment proceedings.
Tom

 

[fantome profane]

Due process counts in civil matters too.

I really don’t know what is going to happen with the impeachment, but one thing I can predict wth high confidence. It is not going to be civil.