Here is my "take" on the impeachment inquiry, that it violates the 6th Ammendment

What Nancy launched is not the way any formal impeachment inquiry has ever been held in the past in the entire history of the USA. Traditionally, to be a formal impeachment inquiry you need a vote from the full house to start it. What was launched was an informal impeachment inquiry, if one believes in historical precedent.

A formal impeachment inquiry is basically a trial, it is the evidence collecting and witness testimony part of a trial that is then turned over to the Senate to vote on punishment. Pelsoi insists this is a formal impeachment inquiry, making it a prelude to formal conviction by the Senate. In other words, it IS a trial. The *only thing* that would make it not a trial is if Nancy declares that the information gathered will never be made public and will not be sent to the Senate for conviction.

If someone says it is not a trial that is intended to lead to Senate conviction, then what is it, and what is the purpose?

To have a formal impeachment inquiry (trial) you must have open and public testimony.
Currently, the inquiry is being held behind closed doors with no public or press allowed to attend.

A formal impeachment inquiry (trial) allows all sides to subpoena witness.
Currently, the President’s lawyers and counsel for the “defendant” and the “defendants representatives” are banned from attending the inquiry.
Currently, only Democrats are allowed to subpoena witnesses,
Republicans are banned from subpoenaing witnesses or bringing witnesses.

A formal impeachment inquiry (trial) has publicly available testimony.
Currently, the only testimony that has been released are tweets from Democratic Party members. Which are illegal under closed door, “top secret investigations” like the one being conducted by Pelosi and the Democratic Party.

The Democrats have been holding secret meetings and not even inviting Republican committee members to attend. So there can be absolutely no voice that doesn’t go along with the Democratic Party narrative during this trial in preparation to convict in the Senate.

This is not a formal impeachment because both sides must be allowed equal access and equal opportunity to bring witnesses. It is a set of secret meetings designed to destroy Trump and anyone associated with him. Currently, Democrats have denied President Trump’s counsel the ability to attend depositions, briefings, and interviews.

Currently, the defense is not allowed to bring witnesses, object to testimony, ask questions of the witnesses, or most importantly introduce evidence that contradicts the evidence testified to.

This would be in direct violation of the sixth amendment of the constitution of the U.S. if it were a formal impeachment inquiry.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. 6th Amendment of the Constitution

Pelsoi has in my opinion launched the equivalent of a wild west mob “lynching court”. The reason is to get rid of Trump, and to find reason to get rid of as many people associated with Trump as possible.

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib is saying members of the Trump administration who refuse to testify before Congress can be arrested and held in her district and she will ensure they appear. So the Democratic Party is pre-planning on jailing the Presidential cabinet? For not wanting to testify without lawyers present, without counsel, without representation, in front of only people who hate them and want to destroy them? Hmmmmmm........Secret planning for a coup?

Why do I think Nancy is holding this inquiry whose sole purpose is to send information to the Senate to convict Donald Trump? This has been the one and only thing the Democratic Congress has focused on and attempted to do in the past year and a half since they took control. They know if they fail at this, they will have failed at the absolutely only thing they have done since Trump was elected.

I find it curious that many if not most Democrats are wholeheartedly supporting:
1. a closed door secret investigation with no Republicans invited, no witnesses for the accused, no lawyers for the accused allowed
2. a secret closed door meeting where people are openly plotting in advance to arrest and jail people they subpoena
3. violation of long standing tradition of taking a vote of the House to start an investigation that is promised to lead to conviction
4. only Democrats have leaked what is happening in the secret meetings with no censure or punishment
5. an investigative process that is designed to lead to a criminal conviction being held in secret, without the defense present or a representative of the defense, and the press and public forbidden to hear or even read the testimony

I guess I should not find it curious at all. After all it is the new normal to declare someone guilty (of any PC thought/word crime) and then destroy their life, their livelihood, their reputation, all without allowing them to tell their side of what happened. All it takes these days is the Democrats or progressive-liberals to decide someone in guilty, and voila! They are treated as such, not given an opportunity to defend themselves, tried and convicted in the court of liberal public opinion.

This is the exact way the Democratic Party is behaving today, except they don't plan to just dox, cyberbully, or beat up someone with a MAGA hat this time, this time they plan to jail simply based on their side and not allowing anyone to hear any other version of events or "facts".

That's the progressive/liberal/left/Democrats for you, throw constitutional rights out the window when they find them inconvenient so totalitarianism and behind closed doors and secret trials can be held to jail people who hold a different political ideology than they do.

a reply to: The2Billies

We had reviewed this earlier today.


Here is the deal.

The House did vote on an impeachment inquiry for Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.


They are trying to not have a vote so that Republicans cannot call witnesses. By not voting, they attempt to block witnesses for the "defense".

That is it in a nutshell.


theconservativetreehouse.com... of-house-judiciary/comment-page-1/

Speaker Pelosi, with forethought and planning by the Lawfare Alliance, is intentionally using non-jurisdictional committees because she is manipulating the process. It’s the same reason why the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight committees cannot legally send out “Impeachment-based Subpoenas“; they have no impeachment jurisdiction. [Go Deep] and [Go Deep] to understand why.

The “impeachment” subpoenas’ are not technically subpoenas because the basis for the requests, impeachment, is not within the jurisdiction of either committee. So the committees are sending out demand letters, calling them subpoenas (media complies with the narrative), and hoping the electorate do not catch on to the scheme.

Note: If they want to impeach him, then why not do it by rules and precedent? We know why and it is shady to say the least.

The irony of ranting about totalitarianism in defense of a President who is trying to legally argue that he's above the law...

a reply to: The2Billies

Here is my "take" on the impeachment inquiry, that it violates the 6th Ammendment

No, it doesn't.

If someone says it is not a trial

"impeachment" is not the trial. That happens in the Senate, after the investigation and evidence is gathered by the House and formal charges are introduced.

Btw: You spelled Amendment wrong.

Pelsoi has in my opinion

I'm sure you've heard what they say about opinions...

a reply to: The2Billies

People supporting Pelosi never lived in a socialist country and think a socialist government will give them all for free without taking anything in exchange. Not even in the movies is like that.

originally posted by: underwerks
The irony of ranting about totalitarianism in defense of a President who is trying to legally argue that he's above the law...

The irony of this inquisition not following the law at all and you side with the lawless because "By Any Means Necessary"...

As a proud American are you going to stand up for our laws and traditions?

The OP made a case... the 6th Amendment is being violated.

I would argue the 5th, 6th and 14th, but that's another thread.

You OK with that?

The ends justify the means......

To protect our democracy of course.

a reply to: Lumenari

The irony of this inquisition not following the law

What "law" is being violated?

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The OP made a case... the 6th Amendment is being violated.

No, it isn't. Witnesses are not cross-examined in investigations. That's why it's an investigation.

originally posted by: underwerks
The irony of ranting about totalitarianism in defense of a President who is trying to legally argue that he's above the law...

Wait. backup. How is he above the law. What law is he breaking. He's not trying to argue anything. The law states he does not have to comply with their informal request at this time. Obama did it all the time and I applaud him for doing so.

If they want it they have to formally vote on the inquiry. At that point the otherside can also obtain documentation on Biden and Hunter, Ukraine officials. They don't want that happening.

originally posted by: underwerks
The irony of ranting about totalitarianism in defense of a President who is trying to legally argue that he's above the law...

And that makes it acceptable to:
1. have a closed door secret investigation with no one sympathetic to the accused allowed, no witnesses for the accused, no lawyers for the accused allowed
2. have a secret closed door meeting where people are openly plotting in advance to arrest and jail people they subpoena
3. violate long standing tradition of taking a vote of the House to start an investigation that is promised to lead to conviction
4. allow only Democrats to leaked what is happening in the secret meetings with no censure or punishment
5. have an investigative process that is designed to lead to a criminal conviction being held in secret, without the defense present or a representative of the defense, and the press and public forbidden to hear or even read the testimony

It's ok because it is Trump, right?

I get it.

What happens when this is done to the next Democratic President? Nancy has set the precedent, to begin investigations before a new President takes office, then to have closed door impeachment hearings that violate the 6th Amendment. Don't kid yourself, that will be the new normal from now on.

Nancy also set the precedent for all future Presidents - they must now submit to Congress all diplomatic conversations with foreign leaders. Killing the ability of the President of the US to conduct diplomacy without the foreign leader worrying their conversation will be made public. Yes, this is a new precedent that all subsequent Presidents, even Democratic Party ones, will be subject too.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

What "law" is being violated?

First off, the laws of the House itself.

Secondly, I could easily argue the Due Process clause in the 5th and 14th Amendments are clearly being violated for political gain by Pelosi and Schumer.

Third and finally, not a law but a precedent (which I'm assuming the left loves because of Roe V Wade).

This "official Impeachment Inquiry" is not following set precedent.

But you knew that, of course.

BAMN, amIright?

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

That's "choose", btw.

The House of Representatives has not voted to begin Articles of Impeachment.

Thought you knew that.

No, it isn't. Witnesses are not cross-examined in investigations. That's why it's an investigation.

In the House, an investigation is NORMALLY performed by a sub-committee of the House.

Meaning that both sides of the committee will investigate, questions are asked by both Democratic and Republican representatives.

THAT is considered a cross-examination.

Anything else?

a reply to: The2Billies

You will notice that they will not address the shady crap going down from the article, the historical departure of an impeachment inquiry vote, nor the bogus subpoenas previously mentioned in the article.

It is real shady and dirty and they know it.

a reply to: Liquesence


Sure, so I get it. The Democratic Party's idea of justice, if Trump or any conservative is being investigated.

No one is allowed to say or present any information that contradicts the Democratic Party line and all testimony must be incriminating.

Hmmmm.

Investigations are to only be one sided, the progressive liberal way of thinking. All other voices, or evidence is wrong, evil and to be banned from the investigation.

That's ok, it is what I expect from people who try people regularly in the court of public opinion for a misspoken word or an action done decades ago. Dox, cyber bully, demand they be fired, close their business down. Never for one moment allow the "accused" to defend themselves. Just like it is acceptable and applauded when someone, no matter how young or old is beat up badly for wearing a hat the Democrats don't like.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: The2Billies

You will notice that they will not address the shady crap going down from the article, the historical departure of an impeachment inquiry vote, nor the bogus subpoenas previously mentioned in the article.

It is real shady and dirty and they know it.

I AGREE, they Democrats to the last member, are defending these horrifically abusive and dirty tactics and practices as necessary to "get Trump". Just as they agree it is necessary to beat up anyone with a hat or t-shirt that even implies support for Trump.

a reply to: Lumenari

First off, the laws of the House itself.

What "law" is being violated? Waiting.

I could easily argue the Due Process clause in the 5th and 14th Amendments are clearly being violated for political gain by Pelosi and Schumer.

Impeachment is a bit different.

This "official Impeachment Inquiry" is not following set precedent.

What LAW is being violated? Still waiting.

That's "choose", btw.

Tell that to the founders.

In the House, an investigation is NORMALLY performed by a sub-committee of the House.

Again, show me the law. The legal, Constitutional requirement for such.

Anything else?

I'll wait.

a reply to: The2Billies

I completely disagree. I agree with these arguments. I think this is more in line with how our Constitution is supposed to be interpreted:

"Trump’s letter and his overall stonewalling is an assault on the Constitution. As any armchair constitutional law expert knows, Congress is a co-equal branch of the government and was empowered by the framers to be a check on presidential power. Trump, Barr, and the president’s legal team have contended that Trump cannot be indicted on federal charges while he is president. Mueller accepted that argument in his final report. But that report clearly said that this does not mean a president can get off scot-free. Mueller noted it was up to Congress to examine the allegations of obstruction he outlined. And he implied (strongly) that the possible punishment for a presidential violation of the law would be impeachment. "

"That’s in keeping with the Constitution that awards Congress the right to indict the president, bring him to trial, and then boot him out of office, should he engage in serious wrongdoing. And if Congress has that task, it seems that it also has the right to investigate before doing so. And if it has that right, then it has the right to demand information necessary for such an investigation.

"Yet Trump declines to recognize this power. In fact, he has insisted that Article II of the Constitution “allows me to do whatever I want.” That’s obviously nonsense. The authors of the Constitution clearly worried that an authoritarian with alliances with foreign interests might one day inhabit the White House and—good for them!—presciently included provisions to be used in such a dire instance. But Trump is waging a war on the Constitution, and all those congressional Republicans who are riding along with him are collaborators. Yes, we are no longer supposed to play this game, but imagine what they would have shouted had President Barack Obama blocked Hillary Clinton from appearing before the Benghazi committee. Imagine if the Clinton White House had refused to hand over documents to the Republicans who controlled Congress and who investigated every -gate they could find. "

Here’s Another Impeachable Offense: Trump’s War on the Constitution

remember folks

"they" said "only white people are racist"

"they" said "borders are racist"

now

"they" say "Impeachment is what we say it is"

"they" have a pattern

"they" Hate President Trump because he says

NO!

originally posted by: The2Billies

originally posted by: underwerks
The irony of ranting about totalitarianism in defense of a President who is trying to legally argue that he's above the law...

And that makes it acceptable to:
1. a closed door secret investigation with no one sympathetic to the accused allowed, no witnesses for the accused, no lawyers for the accused allowed
2. a secret closed door meeting where people are openly plotting in advance to arrest and jail people they subpoena
3. violation of long standing tradition of taking a vote of the House to start an investigation that is promised to lead to conviction
4. only Democrats have leaked what is happening in the secret meetings with no censure or punishment
5. an investigative process that is designed to lead to a criminal conviction being held in secret, without the defense present or a representative of the defense, and the press and public forbidden to hear or even read the testimony

It's ok because it is Trump, right?

I get it.

What happens when this is done to the next Democratic President? Nancy has set the precedent, to begin investigations before a new President takes office, then to have closed door impeachment hearings that violate the 6th Amendment. Don't kid yourself, that will be the new normal from now on.

An impeachment inquiry is not a trial. Articles of impeachment, which are written AFTER an impeachment inquiry, are the "charges" sent to the Senate for trial. At that time, the President can put on a full defense.

An impeachment inquiry is more like the convening of a Grand Jury. The defense has no place there. They can't attend, confront accusers or cross examine witnesses. It's all done in secret. What comes out of a Grand Jury can be an indictment, or not.

However, during an impeachment inquiry, all members of the committees, Dems and Repubs, are allowed to question the witness and to request documents and witnesses of their own.

a reply to: dfnj2015

So you are supportive of the idea it is fully acceptable to:

1. have a closed door secret investigation with no one sympathetic to the accused allowed, no witnesses for the accused, no lawyers for the accused allowed

2. have a secret closed door meeting where people are openly plotting in advance to arrest and jail people they subpoena

3. violate long standing tradition of taking a vote of the House to start an investigation that is promised to lead to conviction

4. allow only Democrats to leaked what is happening in the secret meetings with no censure or punishment

5. have an investigative process that is designed to lead to a criminal conviction being held in secret, without the defense present or a representative of the defense, and the press and public forbidden to hear or even read the testimony


I have yet to have a single Democrat reply to this, maybe you will be the first!

Is the theory "He was bad, so we can do something worse?"

or is it like the progressive/liberal theory - "We beat the cr#p out of him for wearing a MAGA hat, to teach him a lesson, so we are moral, and justified in beating him senseless."

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

First off, the laws of the House itself.

What "law" is being violated? Waiting.

No matter how much you ignore, it is quite clear Trump broke Federal election laws.

"The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA, Pub.L. 92–225, 86 Stat. 3, enacted February 7, 1972, 52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.) is the primary United States federal law regulating political campaign spending and fundraising. The law originally focused on increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns."

"Today, Common Cause filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that President Donald Trump, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, and other political operatives illegally solicited a political contribution from a foreign national—by urging Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials to investigate Hunter Biden and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden. The allegations were first published in The Wall Street Journal, and subsequently President Trump admitted that during a July 25th phone call he pressured President Zelensky to pursue the investigation of his political rival and his son.

Federal law prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election. Federal law also prohibits a person from soliciting or providing substantial assistance in the solicitation of such a contribution from a foreign national. Federal law defines “contribution” to include “any gift … of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” And the FEC by regulation defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”"

DOJ & FEC Complaints Filed Against President Trump, Rudy Giuliani and Others for Illegal Solicitation of Contribution from Ukrainian President

These Watergate era laws exist for a reason.