[POLL] Trump Impeachment Poll: Who's Fault Is It?

[TwitchySeal]

"A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption."

You are explicitly saying here that elected officials don't get due process, yet you just got done telling me about how its not ok to ignore the rule of law.

I was actually using the term 'due process' wrong, my bad.  I thought it just meant a generally considered fair process.

I just looked it up:

noun
noun: due process; noun: due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

So yeah, a sitting president isn't entitled to due process regarding impeachment under this definition.

Remember , congress doesn't have any power to charge anyone with a crime.  They are just people that got elected to represent Americans from each District/State.  Ideally their vote should be based on what the people they represent think.


Just because you can be impeached for committing a crime, doesn't make you guilty in the eyes of law.  Everyone, even the former president that was just impeached, has a right to due process as soon as someone else has assumed the role of president.  They will absolutely be considered innocent until proven guilty in an actual court or law.

You should probably link your source, plagiarism is a bannable offense, but not for special people like you who don;t need to follow the rules I am sure. How many definitions did you have to cherry pick before you found one vague enough to confirm your bias? No matter, lets look at a LEGAL dictionary.

"Introduction

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process


So in summary, your assumptions are absolutely wrong, again. Speaking of being wrong again, how about those non-subpoena subpoenas? Still no comment?

That's a good article on due process.  It helped me organize what I'm trying to say a bit.

Life, Liberty and Property are things that only an official court of law can deprive another human of.

Congress does not have the power to deprive anyone of their life, liberty or stuff.

They don't need it though, because Impeachment does not threaten the Presidents life, liberty or property - therefore due process of law is not required.

[TwitchySeal]

It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.

He absolutely has rights as an individual citizen.

But not when it comes to an impeachment investigation.

[Spendulus]

It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.

He absolutely has rights as an individual citizen.

But not when it comes to an impeachment investigation.

I hear you saying something you like to say, but I'm not interested any more than whether you like oranges or apples. You made a fairly crazy, illogical assertion and the result was that I refuted it.

If you want to produce a logical argument to support your belief, go do it, otherwise, don't waste peoples' time.

[TwitchySeal]

It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.

He absolutely has rights as an individual citizen.

But not when it comes to an impeachment investigation.

I hear you saying something you like to say, but I'm not interested any more than whether you like oranges or apples. You made a fairly crazy, illogical assertion and the result was that I refuted it.

If you want to produce a logical argument to support your belief, go do it, otherwise, don't waste peoples' time.

Looking back at my posts I def wasn't doing the best job at explaining my stance.  Let me try again:

'Due Process in the Court of Law' is for when the government decides whether to take someones property, throw them in jail or execute them.  

Congress can not provide due process because they do not have the power to decide these things.  (They make the laws, it would go against the whole idea of our system if they also had the power to enforce them)

Congress is not trying to take away the presidents life, liberty or property.  They're just deciding whether to fire him from his job or not.

He isn't owed any more 'due process' than a CEO that gets voted out by the shareholders/board of a company.

[TECSHARE]

It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.

He absolutely has rights as an individual citizen.

But not when it comes to an impeachment investigation.

I hear you saying something you like to say, but I'm not interested any more than whether you like oranges or apples. You made a fairly crazy, illogical assertion and the result was that I refuted it.

If you want to produce a logical argument to support your belief, go do it, otherwise, don't waste peoples' time.

Looking back at my posts I def wasn't doing the best job at explaining my stance.  Let me try again:

'Due Process in the Court of Law' is for when the government decides whether to take someones property, throw them in jail or execute them.  

Congress can not provide due process because they do not have the power to decide these things.  (They make the laws, it would go against the whole idea of our system if they also had the power to enforce them)

Congress is not trying to take away the presidents life, liberty or property.  They're just deciding whether to fire him from his job or not.

He isn't owed any more 'due process' than a CEO that gets voted out by the shareholders/board of a company.

"Introduction

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

The constitution is clear. No one said anything about just courts, it clearly says ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT and DUE PROCESS OF LAW with FAIR PROCEDURES, not "due process of court". So now carrying out his duties as a duly elected president is not part of his liberty now is it? What about the people who elected him? Fuck their liberty too right? Careful with all that stretching, you are about to break your back bending over backwards to justify totalitarianism.

By the way, still no comment on those non-subpoena subpoenas? You would think you would want to defend your position from such a clear example demonstrating the Democrat and the media's willingness to totally lie to the American people to get their narrative pushed, as well as their willingness to operate completely outside the due process of law, but I guess not.

[BADecker]

Now they are admitting that they are the Deep State. Isn't government supposed to be controlled right out in the open? But here a bunch of people are admitting that they are trying to control government covertly. That's the way that crooks and criminals do things.


"Thank God For The Deep State": Intel Agents Admit They Want To "Take Out" Trump

Two former intelligence heads bragged about how the deep state is engaged in a coup to remove President Trump Thursday, with one even praising God for the existence of the deep state.

During an interview with Margaret Brennan of CSPAN, former CIA head John McLaughlin along with his successor John Brennan both basically admitted that there is a secretive cabal of people within US intelligence who are trying to 'take Trump out'.

"Thank God for the 'Deep State,'" McLaughlin crowed as liberals in the crowd cheered.

..........
Tom Elliott @tomselliott

Former CIA director John McLaughlin on Trump’s impeachment: “Thank God for the deep state”


..........

"I mean I think everyone has seen this progression of diplomats and intelligence officers and White House people trooping up to Capitol Hill right now and saying these are people who are doing their duty or responding to a higher call." he added.

"With all of the people who knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something about it, which was the trigger that then unleashed everything else," McLaughlin said, referring to the unnamed 'whistleblower', who it seems worked for Obama, Biden And Brennan.

[Spendulus]

It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.

He absolutely has rights as an individual citizen.

But not when it comes to an impeachment investigation.

I hear you saying something you like to say, but I'm not interested any more than whether you like oranges or apples. You made a fairly crazy, illogical assertion and the result was that I refuted it.

If you want to produce a logical argument to support your belief, go do it, otherwise, don't waste peoples' time.

Looking back at my posts I def wasn't doing the best job at explaining my stance.  Let me try again:

'Due Process in the Court of Law' is for when the government decides whether to take someones property, throw them in jail or execute them.  

Congress can not provide due process because they do not have the power to decide these things.  (They make the laws, it would go against the whole idea of our system if they also had the power to enforce them)

Congress is not trying to take away the presidents life, liberty or property.  They're just deciding whether to fire him from his job or not.

He isn't owed any more 'due process' than a CEO that gets voted out by the shareholders/board of a company.

I'm back to my original assessment of your opinion.

It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.

Because you are just basically wrong in what you said. Due process is an integral part of many aspects of society. In administrative law, promulgated regulations are required to have extensive comment periods, and if one is assessed a penalty, there is an appeals process (WITH DUE PROCESS). The lack of due process is a valid defense in many matters, taking a simple example, when an individual pays rent.

Or when a civil servant is about to be terminated for cause. His contract most certainly requires due process.

Essentially, now, and because you are following, and defending, the actions of the Democratic House, you are trying to come up with justifications / rationalizations for their actions. But when those justifications and rationalizations seem unhinged and crazy (and crazier and crazier) that's when one has to step back and just say, "maybe this is all wrong. maybe it's just a power grab regardless of the ethics."

And that's really where we are, isn't it? Just a power grab, by whatever means they want.

I guess what I'm saying is please don't defend stupid, and don't double down on stupid.

[TwitchySeal]

Because you are just basically wrong in what you said. Due process is an integral part of many aspects of society. In administrative law, promulgated regulations are required to have extensive comment periods, and if one is assessed a penalty, there is an appeals process (WITH DUE PROCESS). The lack of due process is a valid defense in many matters, taking a simple example, when an individual pays rent.

Or when a civil servant is about to be terminated for cause. His contract most certainly requires due process.

Yes, there are laws in place that make it very difficult to fire a federal employee.  Tons of paperwork, tons of evidence.

Politically appointed federal employees are different though.  They can be fired at any time for pretty much any reason (I'd guess it's still illegal to fire them because of their gender race or religion though).  No due process required since the reason can literally be "i don't like you" or "I disagree with your opinions" or "I want someone else to have your job".  If a non-politically appointed federal employee was fired for any of these reasons, they'd easily win a lawsuit for a very nice pay day.

[Spendulus]

Because you are just basically wrong in what you said. Due process is an integral part of many aspects of society. In administrative law, promulgated regulations are required to have extensive comment periods, and if one is assessed a penalty, there is an appeals process (WITH DUE PROCESS). The lack of due process is a valid defense in many matters, taking a simple example, when an individual pays rent.

Or when a civil servant is about to be terminated for cause. His contract most certainly requires due process.

Yes, there are laws in place that make it very difficult to fire a federal employee.  Tons of paperwork, tons of evidence.

Politically appointed federal employees are different though.  They can be fired at any time for pretty much any reason (I'd guess it's still illegal to fire them because of their gender race or religion though).  No due process required since the reason can literally be "i don't like you" or "I disagree with your opinions" or "I want someone else to have your job".  If a non-politically appointed federal employee was fired for any of these reasons, they'd easily win a lawsuit for a very nice pay day.

Due process is a very well understood concept and ingrained in culture, institutions, law, and common law.

Let me know if you want to continue arguing that the President of the United States is not entitled to due process. If you do, please present case history and similar facts. Otherwise I will ignore postings, I don't think your "opinion" matters in something like this.

[TwitchySeal]

Because you are just basically wrong in what you said. Due process is an integral part of many aspects of society. In administrative law, promulgated regulations are required to have extensive comment periods, and if one is assessed a penalty, there is an appeals process (WITH DUE PROCESS). The lack of due process is a valid defense in many matters, taking a simple example, when an individual pays rent.

Or when a civil servant is about to be terminated for cause. His contract most certainly requires due process.

Yes, there are laws in place that make it very difficult to fire a federal employee.  Tons of paperwork, tons of evidence.

Politically appointed federal employees are different though.  They can be fired at any time for pretty much any reason (I'd guess it's still illegal to fire them because of their gender race or religion though).  No due process required since the reason can literally be "i don't like you" or "I disagree with your opinions" or "I want someone else to have your job".  If a non-politically appointed federal employee was fired for any of these reasons, they'd easily win a lawsuit for a very nice pay day.

Due process is a very well understood concept and ingrained in culture, institutions, law, and common law.

Let me know if you want to continue arguing that the President of the United States is not entitled to due process. If you do, please present case history and similar facts. Otherwise I will ignore postings, I don't think your "opinion" matters in something like this.

Yeah, that's what we're discussing right?

Are we on the same page at least that politically appointed federal employees (not including the President) can be fired for any reason at any time, without due process?

It's relevant because I'm trying to make the point that getting fired without due process is not just a right that every American has.

[suchmoon]

Are we on the same page at least that politically appointed federal employees (not including the President) can be fired for any reason at any time, without due process?

They can be fired by their boss (e.g. by the President when applicable) but they can also be subject to impeachment - yes, a cabinet member can be impeached - so not sure how that analogy helps here. These are two different ways to remove someone from a job.

Extending this to the President's job basically means the he can be voted out by his "boss" (the people) or be impeached. Voters don't really engage in any due process, they can vote any way they want for any reason or no reason at all, so that's fine. But the House is not President's boss so they have to follow the constitutionally prescribed impeachment procedure, which to be fair is sufficiently vague for everyone to find something to complain about. But there is at least the "high crimes and misdemeanors" thing.

[Spendulus]

...

Are we on the same page at least that politically appointed federal employees (not including the President) can be fired for any reason at any time, without due process?

It's relevant because I'm trying to make the point that getting fired without due process is not just a right that every American has.

Yes, I have fired people without due process. And there's a long tradition of a new administration bringing, essentially thousands of new employees in with it, and the old employees giving up their jobs for those new ones.

As for what the House can theoretically do, that's certainly a very broad matter. If they act outside reasonable bounds, the Senate can just basically laugh at what they said or did.

In this case at hand, the people of the USA voted Trump in, so speaking for myself, I see the House as needing to respect due process. The House is not Trump's boss, the people are.

[TwitchySeal]

Are we on the same page at least that politically appointed federal employees (not including the President) can be fired for any reason at any time, without due process?

They can be fired by their boss (e.g. by the President when applicable) but they can also be subject to impeachment - yes, a cabinet member can be impeached - so not sure how that analogy helps here. These are two different ways to remove someone from a job.

Extending this to the President's job basically means the he can be voted out by his "boss" (the people) or be impeached. Voters don't really engage in any due process, they can vote any way they want for any reason or no reason at all, so that's fine. But the House is not President's boss so they have to follow the constitutionally prescribed impeachment procedure, which to be fair is sufficiently vague for everyone to find something to complain about. But there is at least the "high crimes and misdemeanors" thing.

Found an interesting paper that goes into detail of exactly what we've been debating : High Crimes Without Law.

Part 1 goes into detail of Johnsons Senate Trial.  During the Trial, his lawyer based his entire defense on one of the same arguments that TECSHARE and Spendulus have been making, and it worked:  

nullum crimen sine lege “There can be no crime, there can be no misdemeanor without a law.”

The principle of no crime without law has been described as one of the most “widely held value-judgments in the entire history of human thought.”

Part 2 is Modern Counterarguments to the idea of nullum crimen sine lege

The consensus among law nerds over the past 150 years is pretty clear that when the constitution was written, the founders would not have considered nullum crimen sine lege to be a valid defense during the Senate Trial of an impeached official.

One point I hadn't heard or considered before was that 'high crimes' are crimes naughty actions that only a President (or someone in power) can be held accountable for.  If a civilian did the same thing, they wouldn't be in any trouble with the government, because it's not against the law.  There is no official extensive list of things a President can be impeached for.  There for, the assumption is that it's up to Congress to decide whether it's naughty enough to remove him from office - not whether or not it's a crime.  

A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute.

Another interesting point is that since the Constitution explicitly states that after being impeached/removed, a President can still be charged criminally for the same thing that got him removed.  This contradicts the Double Jeopardy clause, unless being convicted by the Senate isn't the same as being convicted of a crime.


And then you get to the end of the paper and realize none of it even really mattered:

In the end, however, it doesn’t really matter how logical Benjamin Curtis’s argument may have been considering how often it has been ignored in practice. In the century-and-a-half since 1868, six federal judges have been convicted and removed from office for conduct that wasn’t necessarily a crime when they committed it — a clear violation of Curtis’s conclusion.

[Spendulus]

Are we on the same page at least that politically appointed federal employees (not including the President) can be fired for any reason at any time, without due process?

They can be fired by their boss (e.g. by the President when applicable) but they can also be subject to impeachment - yes, a cabinet member can be impeached - so not sure how that analogy helps here. These are two different ways to remove someone from a job.

Extending this to the President's job basically means the he can be voted out by his "boss" (the people) or be impeached. Voters don't really engage in any due process, they can vote any way they want for any reason or no reason at all, so that's fine. But the House is not President's boss so they have to follow the constitutionally prescribed impeachment procedure, which to be fair is sufficiently vague for everyone to find something to complain about. But there is at least the "high crimes and misdemeanors" thing.

Found an interesting paper that goes into detail of exactly what we've been debating : High Crimes Without Law.

Part 1 goes into detail of Johnsons Senate Trial.  During the Trial, his lawyer based his entire defense on one of the same arguments that TECSHARE and Spendulus have been making, and it worked:  

nullum crimen sine lege “There can be no crime, there can be no misdemeanor without a law.”

The principle of no crime without law has been described as one of the most “widely held value-judgments in the entire history of human thought.”

Part 2 is Modern Counterarguments to the idea of nullum crimen sine lege

The consensus among law nerds over the past 150 years is pretty clear that when the constitution was written, the founders would not have considered nullum crimen sine lege to be a valid defense during the Senate Trial of an impeached official.

One point I hadn't heard or considered before was that 'high crimes' are crimes naughty actions that only a President (or someone in power) can be held accountable for.  If a civilian did the same thing, they wouldn't be in any trouble with the government, because it's not against the law.  There is no official extensive list of things a President can be impeached for.  There for, the assumption is that it's up to Congress to decide whether it's naughty enough to remove him from office - not whether or not it's a crime.  

A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute.

Another interesting point is that since the Constitution explicitly states that after being impeached/removed, a President can still be charged criminally for the same thing that got him removed.  This contradicts the Double Jeopardy clause, unless being convicted by the Senate isn't the same as being convicted of a crime.


And then you get to the end of the paper and realize none of it even really mattered:

In the end, however, it doesn’t really matter how logical Benjamin Curtis’s argument may have been considering how often it has been ignored in practice. In the century-and-a-half since 1868, six federal judges have been convicted and removed from office for conduct that wasn’t necessarily a crime when they committed it — a clear violation of Curtis’s conclusion.

That is interesting but really, it has zero relation to my argument about a need for due process.

In fact if you are going to argue for impeaching a President for things that are not a crime, that's all the more reason to require strict due process.

[nutildah]

Relevant meme:



True story.

[styca]

Relevant meme:

-snip-

True story.

I know. It's a big problem that all the nut-job psychos are always on the side of the ultra-rich Republicans/Conservatives/right-wingers.
There were plenty of people wanting to assassinate Obama because of outrageous policies like providing basic healthcare to poor people. You know, human rights stuff.
But no-one wants to assassinate Trump, because all the gun-totin' crazies are big Trump fans. Yee-haw.

[TECSHARE]

Relevant meme:

-snip-

True story.

I know. It's a big problem that all the nut-job psychos are always on the side of the ultra-rich Republicans/Conservatives/right-wingers.
There were plenty of people wanting to assassinate Obama because of outrageous policies like providing basic healthcare to poor people. You know, human rights stuff.
But no-one wants to assassinate Trump, because all the gun-totin' crazies are big Trump fans. Yee-haw.

Funny how all the gun crime seems to happen in Democrat controlled districts if all the crazy right wingers are the violent ones.

[TECSHARE]

Well, except for the mass shootings, which are done pretty exclusively by right-wing 8chan-ing incels. 8chan changed their name recently... Wonder why they did that...

FBI & DOJ Statistics > claims about a post on 8chan

[TwitchySeal]

FBI & DOJ Statistics > claims about a post on 8chan

Funny how all the gun crime seems to happen in Democrat controlled districts if all the crazy right wingers are the violent ones.

Do the FBI and DOJ have a statistic on where all the gun crime seems to happen?

[TECSHARE]

FBI & DOJ Statistics > claims about a post on 8chan

Funny how all the gun crime seems to happen in Democrat controlled districts if all the crazy right wingers are the violent ones.

Do the FBI and DOJ have a statistic on where all the gun crime seems to happen?

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chicago-gun-violence-per-capita-rate/

Looks pretty blue to me. There is more if you want to argue the point.