Reply With Quote
True, it’s not like anything has happened in the intervening 3 years since.
White House staffers ‘lying low’ and
eyeing the exits as Trump faces impeachment:
‘Popping your head up leads to bad things’
White House staffers are paralyzed by a leadership crisis as President Donald Trump faces impeachment.
The president has insisted on handling the response himself, and his strategy has changed on a day-to-day basis, which
leaves staffers and chief of staff Mick Mulvaney unsure of their roles, reported Politico.
“Mick is lying low, but everyone is lying low,” a former senior administration official told the website.
“White House aides are hoping the president deals with this himself, and
everyone is trying to keep their heads down.”
Mick seems to be in the same shelter-in-place posture everyone is in.”
Mulvaney’s job was safe because no one else would want to be chief of staff to a president facing impeachment, and because
Mulvaney was too entangled in the Ukraine scandal to be forced out of the White House.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/white-house-staffers-lying-low-and-eyeing-the-exits-as-trump-faces-impeachment-popping-your-head-up-leads-to-bad-things/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1679
==========================
Mulvaney sidelined as Trump’s impeachment crisis rages
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...t-trump-041138
True, it’s not like anything has happened in the intervening 3 years since.
Wasn’t aware the confrontation clause applied in a non-criminal impeachment proceeding. Maybe you can give us some authority that supports that claim?
Dems accepted the stolen election of Trash
They look like, not sure at all, that they don't accept Trash violating his oath.
Due process isn’t protected by the cons ution?
Never made that claim.
What's in the Cons ution is irrelevant, ignored in many cases. eg, separation of church and state, expectation of privacy, right to speedy trial are all violated frequenty, without enforcement.
co-equal branches of govt is being violated right now by Trash, his mafiya, Repugs.
The Cons ution assumed mostly good faith with some checks and balances. Today the Repug/oligarchy/Christians operate in mostly BAD FAITH, wanting to uncheck the Exec into a theocratic, oligarchical authoritarianism.
The letter from Dear Leader's lawyer, which you obviously didn't read, did.
Madison's statement was a final blow to the theory that criminal provisions of the Bill of Rights necessarily applied to impeachment. In fact, very few members of the Framers' generation were in favor of the jury trial measure; most went on record as solidly against it. The debate and decision upon this issue-a full discussion followed by a lopsided, overwhelming vote against Tazewell's motion should destroy any intent-based argument that impeachment is a criminal process. The Framers' original intent, furthermore, contradicts the lower federal courts' recent tendency to apply some degree
of due process and other Bill of Rights guarantees to impeachment.' 7 Members of the 1787 Convention, members of the Congress that framed the Bill of Rights, and the author of the original
amendments opposed without qualification the idea that impeachment was a criminal process subject to cons utional criminal
provisions.
The Senate, however, is free to decide that such provisions should apply to impeachment, for each house of Congress determines its rules of proceedings.' Senators could thus voluntarily extend such rights to an impeachment defendant if they wished. But this decision must be that of the Senate alone. Any judicial effort to overrule the Senate's decision on this point would go against a compelling decision of the authors and ratifiers of the Cons ution and the Bill of Rights.
https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland...67&context=mlr
This is a stupid position to take. One of the stronger arguments for impeachment is DJT and the GOP's disdain for the rule of law. Which is exactly what you're suggesting here.
Last edited by vy65; 10-09-2019 at 11:11 AM.
How dare he question your messiah.
cons ution bad now
It's The Great Bouton's typically BRILLIANT take.
Impeachment will be only an irrevocable stain on Trash's legacy (and he knows it),
since Pure Bad Faith MoscowMitch and the Senate Repugs will disdain, ignore the Dems' A of I and not convict Trash, not even "try" Trash, proving my point and take.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-09-2019 at 11:01 AM.
Who said cons ution bad?
The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations.8
Indeed, it has been recognized that the Due Process Clause applies to impeachment proceedings.9
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...10.08.2019.pdf
Is Pelosi running a confessional investigation? Yes or no.
People who cannot answer honest, fair questions are dishonest sophists.
TSA cannot answer answer honest, fair questions.
TSA is a dishonest sophist.
QED
The early manifestation of Dunning-Kruger.sophist[ sof-ist ]SHOW IPA
EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR sophist ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
(often initial capital letter) Greek History.
any of a class of professional teachers in ancient Greece who gave instruction in various fields, as in general culture, rhetoric, politics, or disputation.
a person belonging to this class at a later period who, while professing to teach skill in reasoning, concerned himself with ingenuity and specious effectiveness rather than soundness of argument.
a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly.
Why are you dishonest here?
No, you couldn't be more wrong. The Supreme Court has explicitly held that impeachment is a non-justiciable political question - and that basic due process protections like judicial review don't apply. The one case cited in the letter as support for the claim that due process protections do apply was subsequently overturned:
Hastings v. US, 837 F. Supp. 3, 5 (Dist. D.C. 1993)The Supreme Court held that the power to try impeachments is granted by the Cons ution to the Senate, and the Senate's use of that power presents nonjusticiable political questions. Nixon v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 732, 122 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). Thus, the Senate's procedures for trying an impeached individual cannot be subject to review by the judiciary. Notwithstanding concerns about fundamental fairness, the Senate may appoint a committee comprised of less than the full Senate to hear evidence in an impeachment proceeding and report such evidence to the full Senate.
It may be worth noting that the facts involved in this case are different from those in Nixon. Plaintiff in this case was indicted in 1981 on charges of conspiracy to solicit and accept a bribe. On February 4, 1983, he was acquitted by a jury on all criminal charges brought against him. Six years later, in 1989, the Senate voted to convict plaintiff on eight articles of impeachment which substantially paralleled the charges on which he was acquitted in his criminal trial. In effect, the Senate was called upon to conduct a de novo trial of the plaintiff based upon the same facts which a jury concluded were not criminal. Instead of "trying" Judge Hastings before the full Senate, under Senate Rule XI testimony against Judge Hastings was received by a committee of twelve senators. In the final vote by the full Senate, less than two-thirds of the twelve senators comprising this committee voted to convict plaintiff on any of the articles of impeachment.
The Supreme Court's holding in Nixon precludes plaintiff from pursuing his case further. Given the distinction in facts and outcomes between this case and Nixon, it is indeed unfortunate that Hastings did not precede Nixon. As strongly as this Court believes that Judge Hastings' fundamental rights were violated, the Court recognizes that the Nixon decision compels that Judge Hastings' case be dismissed.
This Court believes that the events surrounding plaintiff's impeachment and conviction are an unfortunate chapter in the history of this country. A jury of plaintiff's peers voted unanimously to acquit him of all criminal charges in a trial presided over by one of this nation's ablest jurists.[3] Despite his acquittal, Judge Hastings was convicted on articles of impeachment by vote of the full Senate, although eighty-eight out of one hundred senators did not hear the evidence against him. It is clear that the guilt or innocence of Judge Hastings was treated simply as another piece of legislation. In no sense of the word was Judge Hastings "tried" by the full Senate. That having been said, because of the Nixon decision, there is no further relief that can be afforded Judge Hastings.
Cases dealing with private citizens who testify before congress in quasi-criminal matters, where their right against self-incrimination is at stake, are irrelevant. Impeachment is a political act left to the Congress. Maybe next time try to learn something other than what DJT's lawyer wants you to think
TSA here is rather like someone who has been sold the delusion of invulnerability in a cult before some sort of battle. The cult leaders give him cardboard weapons and a thin sheet for armor, and tell him that they are magic swords and armor. In the depths of this delusion they convince themselves that the lie is real, and go off to battle real soldiers with real weapons, and are shocked when those real weapons kill them.
What a hill to die on. It is a little sad to watch.
Also lol that conservative icon Rehnquist was the one who authored the Nixon opinion.
Where is your god now?
I did, what's your problem?
Looks like you may be correct on footnote 9. But you ignored my question about footnote 8.
Is Pelosi running a confessional investigation? Yes or no.
No, she's running an impeachment inquiry. Which is treated differently than a congressional investigation. That's Nixon and the Hasting decision I quoted. That's why Watkins and Quinn are inapplicable.
But I'm actually glad you recognize DJT's lawyer is quoting bad law for a rejected premise. At least we're getting somewhere.
I already told you I’m not interested in playing your game of hypotheticals just to circle back to your original false claim.
Whoever said it's irrelevant. Like some posters here and talking heads on tv
This is a stupid position to take.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
