Stop talking about due process in impeachment

[Osborne Russell]

Stage I -- Articles of Impeachment, House Of Representatives

No one's life, liberty, or property is at stake. It is no kind of trial. If it were, the accused has no right to appear any way, shape or form, in person or by counsel. Because it's not a trial. The House makes the rules. End of story.

Stage II -- Trial and removal in the Senate

No one's life, liberty, or property is at stake. The House makes the rules. End of story.

What kind of trial is required is decided by the Senate. The President and his attorneys can be locked out of the chambers. The Senate can hear witnesses, or not; debate in secret, and vote in secret. What process is due? None.

[Tom Wilkinson]

But you can't have talking points to fool an ignorant base that way.

[John of Phoenix]

But you can't have talking points to fool an ignorant base that way.

Really. It couldn't be any simpler.

It's Deflection 101.

Propaganda 202.

[TomF]

It's booolllllsssppiiittt. And I can't figure how these lying sacks of guano can face themselves, or bear to face their children and grandchildren.

[oznabrag]

It's booolllllsssppiiittt. And I can't figure how these lying sacks of guano can face themselves, or bear to face their children and grandchildren.

Treason is Patriotism.

[Osborne Russell]

It's booolllllsssppiiittt. And I can't figure how these lying sacks of guano can face themselves, or bear to face their children and grandchildren.

We shouldn’t pull punches: This argument is utterly preposterous. More than that, if it were made in a court of law, it would be sanctionable. And if one of my students made it, I’d fail them.

To be more specific, this claim suffers from three independent structural flaws. First, impeachment is not a “criminal prosecution.” Full stop. The House is investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president, nothing more. Indeed, the only thing that comes close to resembling a criminal prosecution here is the actual trial the Senate would conduct if and only if the House approves such articles.

Second, even that “trial” (which, again, is not where we are right now) is not itself a “criminal prosecution.” The Constitution’s text is explicit on this point too: As Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 makes clear, “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Someone who is removed from office “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law,” but that’s a separate proceeding. Were it otherwise, being removed by the Senate would mean a subsequent criminal trial would violate the Constitution’s ban on double jeopardy.

Third, even when all agree that the Sixth Amendment applies, the right to confront witnesses is not an absolute right to confront every single person who ever had anything to do with the case against the defendant; it is a right to confront those directly offering evidence that is introduced against the accused at trial. Thus, I would have no right to confront an anonymous tipster who calls the police to tell them about unlawful activity in which they’ve observed me engaging; I’d only be allowed to confront the police officer who found contraband when he searched my home that is introduced against me at trial.

-- Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) is a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law whose teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, and national security law. Steve is co-editor-in-chief of the Just Security blog (@just_security) and co-host of the National Security Law Podcast (@nslpodcast).

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ns-ncna1082401

Duh, does that mean it's not a trial?

"If you can't call Hunter Biden and you can't call the whistleblower, that's sort of a sham. That's not really even a trial," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on NBC's "Meet the Press."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ny/2554571001/

Can you believe these Republican twits are Senators of the United States? Misrepresentation of the Consitution by them is a high crime. Some are lawyers. They should be disbarred.

Sen. Lindsey Graham has said he will not watch the start of the impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump because "it denies the basics of due process."

On Fox News, the South Carolina Republican with close ties to Trump, reiterated the main complaint of those who oppose the proceedings, which is that the president is being prevented from defending himself by not allowing him lawyers or witnesses at this stage of the inquiry.

He told The Sean Hannity Show that "due process requires the ability of every American to call witnesses on their behalf, except for President Trump," adding that "this couldn't happen in a parking ticket case." He said, "What's happening in the House is basically un-American."

https://www.newsweek.com/impeachment...mp-fox-1471378

[David G]

Ayup. The truth is not in them.

[icyb]

They know the rules ,they have to keep the base fired up they know the base don't know.

[LeeG]

Well what will RP post now?

[Peerie Maa]

I can't figure how these lying sacks of guano can face themselves, or bear to face their children and grandchildren.

Follow the money.

[Too Little Time]

Stage II -- Trial and removal in the Senate

The House makes the rules.

I agree with most of what you say. I think you are wrong in the above.

[David W Pratt]

Isn't that a nursery rhyme?
The House makes the rules
The House makes the rules,
Hi Ho the Derrio,
The House makes the rules

[Garth Jones]

I think the Democrats should work on selling what they are doing as what it is, a job review with a possible recommendation for termination. In this regard, the House is acting, more or less, as a Human Resources review panel. That panel will then make a recommendation to the 'boss,' or board of directors, or whatever you want to call it (the Senate) which will then act, one way or another, on the recommendation. As the OP rightly said, nobody is going to jail, etc. from this process. But the Republicans are doing a good job in selling the idea that an impeachment should proceed (regardless of what the Constitution says) with the same rigor as a criminal trial.

[John Smith]

I just wish more people understood some certain facts. Republicans on the committees had every right to attend those "secret, underground, hearings". Many did attend them.

Senator Kennedy can say Ms Hill is entitled to her opinion, but SHE IS AN EXPERT in the area in which she expressed her opinion, making her opinion more 'fact' than not.

The house, in large part, has been following rules the Republicans put in place when they were in charge, so it's kind of silly for them to now complain about those rules.

Those who believe impeachment is driven simply by partisanship may want to ask themselves what support for Trump is driven by. Hard to believe they support him based on his actual job performance.

I would like to think EVERY American would have a big problem with our president holding secret meetings with Putin, and seeing how virtually all of Trump's decisions, in some shape or form, benefit Putin.

At some point, members of our government need to put their big boy pants on and simply look at the facts, and stand up for the country and the presidency; not the individual who holds the office at the moment.

The future of the USA literally does depend on it.

[LeeG]

Like Lindsey and others have said impeachment is about restoring dignity to the office, it’s a cleansing. Trump is dirty on so many levels.

[Osborne Russell]

I agree with most of what you say. I think you are wrong in the above.

A mistake. Thanks for reading carefully.

[Osborne Russell]

I think the Democrats should work on selling what they are doing as what it is, a job review with a possible recommendation for termination.

It's confusing enough without analogies. They should tell it straight repeatedly. What needs emphasizing is that this is the Constitution in action.

Because they need to say Lindsey Graham et al. are liars, and make it stick.