Impeachment attempts by Democrats is malicious prosecution

[acptulsa]

Read this Einstein! https://www.cato.org/publications/co...t-not-politics

Okay, I did. Just for you.

All it says is the Senate should set aside partisanship and any other considerations, and examine the evidence as though they were a proper jury.

[Zippyjuan]

It doesn't say so because it isn't necessary, everyone knew what it was.
But it does contain words that prove it is one:

6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

7: 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Still misleading on the process. Your goal is to confuse people or you are just confused yourself since you keep repeating the same things over and over even after being shown they are wrong.

The House has the power to impeach- that is to file charges. That is the impeachment part. Then comes the Senate Trial. They try the impeachment. The House of Representatives does not conduct any trial or judicial proceedings.

[dude58677]

Okay, I did. Just for you.

All it says is the Senate should set aside partisanship and any other considerations, and examine the evidence as though they were a proper jury.

That’s not what’s happening though. They appointed a Special prosecutor over the Russian hoax. When that didn’t turn out they made up the Ukraine hoax. They hold the meetings behind close doors. They also know that Donald Trump will not be removed from office. They are doing it to defame him for the upcoming election.

[TheCount]

Suppose the House Agriculture Committee has $#@! on their boots?

Didn't you know? There's a farm in the rotunda. Congress grows their own food.

[Swordsmyth]

Still misleading on the process. Your goal is to confuse people or you are just confused yourself since you keep repeating the same things over and over even after being shown they are wrong.

The House has the power to impeach- that is to file charges. That is the impeachment part. Then comes the Senate Trial. They try the impeachment. The House of Representatives does not conduct any trial or judicial proceedings.

You are the one misleading and trying to confuse.
Impeachment in the House is a judicial proceeding like a Grand Jury indictment and just as subject to due process requirements.
And even an investigation is subject to some due process requirements.

[TheCount]

That’s not what’s happening though. They appointed a Special prosecutor over the Russian hoax. When that didn’t turn out they made up the Ukraine hoax. They hold the meetings behind close doors. They also know that Donald Trump will not be removed from office. They are doing it to defame him for the upcoming election.

Whether or not you agree with what they're doing makes no difference as to whether or not what they're doing is constitutional or legal.

[Swordsmyth]

Whether or not you agree with what they're doing makes no difference as to whether or not what they're doing is constitutional or legal.

But it isn't.

[dude58677]

Does the Judicial Branch do it? Yes or no.

Does anyone get fined or jailed at the end? Yes or no.

Are the net results substantially different from anyone strongly suspected of committing a crime getting fired? Yes or no.

Getting removed from office is still a punishment. It doesn’t have to be jail time. A civil action does not involve a criminal punishment but if you file frivolous lawsuits to harass someone that is still malicious prosecution. If you preside over someone’s guilt or innocence or liability and you follow with punishment that is judicial behavior and it doesn’t matter who is doing it.

[TheCount]

But it isn't.

Like any of your other magical statements, saying so doesn't make it so.

[Swordsmyth]

Like any of your other magical statements, saying so doesn't make it so.

That applies to you, the Constitution is on my side.

[dude58677]

Like any of your other magical statements, saying so doesn't make it so.

Like any of your other magical statements, saying so doesn’t make it so.

[TheCount]

Like any of your other magical statements, saying so doesn’t make it so.

The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

[TheCount]

That applies to you, the Constitution is on my side.

The things you say are nowhere in the Constitution.



Maybe the Post Office should control impeachment because impeachment sends a message to those who are impeached? You should try that one out.

[Zippyjuan]

Getting removed from office is still a punishment. It doesn’t have to be jail time. A civil action does not involve a criminal punishment but if you file frivolous lawsuits to harass someone that is still malicious prosecution. If you preside over someone’s guilt or innocence or liability and you follow with punishment that is judicial behavior and it doesn’t matter who is doing it.

That is in the Senate during the trial phase. The impeachment is in the House. That is filing of charges. The House does not have any trial or punishment. The Senate hears evidence and votes on whether or not the charges have merit. They decide (by two thirds vote) if the person should be removed from office or not. There is no criminal penalty.

[dude58677]

The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

You are arguing they have a right to abuse their power to impeach.

[Swordsmyth]

The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Which doesn't mean that their power isn't bound by Due Process rights.

[Swordsmyth]

The things you say are nowhere in the Constitution.



Maybe the Post Office should control impeachment because impeachment sends a message to those who are impeached? You should try that one out.

What I say is found in the Constitution, the sections dealing with the rights being violated have no exception for impeachment.

[dude58677]

That is in the Senate during the trial phase. The impeachment is in the House. That is filing of charges. The House does not have any trial or punishment. The Senate hears evidence and votes on whether or not the charges have merit. They decide (by two thirds vote) if the person should be removed from office or not. There is no criminal penalty.

It is still a judicial act. This is so stupid getting into an endless debate over semantics. You are just wasting my time with frivolous arguments and I’m going to block you and all the others. I advise others here to block you as well.

[Swordsmyth]

That is in the Senate during the trial phase. The impeachment is in the House. That is filing of charges. The House does not have any trial or punishment.

Sort of like an Indictment by a Grand Jury, which is also a judicial proceeding and bound by due process.
And since they are not following the rules this is a case of malicious prosecution and an attainder.

[Swordsmyth]

As Rep. Adam Schiff’s “sentence first, trial later” show trial of President Donald J. Trump reaches a so-called public hearing phase, we find the weaver of fables dictating what witnesses the GOP will be permitted to call based on a set of three qualifying question they must answer in advance. These questions ask, essentially, if the witnesses believe President Trump is guilty of pressuring Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Bidens in exchange for military aid. The GOP, it seems, will not be allowed to call witnesses who have testimony or evidence to the contrary, that there was no pressure and no quid pro quo. Nor will the GOP be allowed to present witnesses or evidence that confirms that the “dirt” is accurate, that the crime of threatening to withhold aid for a personal and political favor, a crime Biden has already confessed to, was committed by Biden, not Trump, on behalf of Biden’s son Hunter. Nor will the GOP be allowed to make the case that any Trump inquiry of the Ukrainians was mandated by a treaty signed by President Bill Clinton. This is, dare I use the term Democrats used during the impeachment of Bill Clinton for a real crime, a phrase used by Joe Biden himself, a political lynching. As reported by the New York Post:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Thursday released a tightened set of guidelines over what potential witnesses can be called in the impeachment hearings, saying Republicans must justify their relevance according to a three-point criteria…

The narrowed-scope of the questions, first obtained by Politico, are:
• Did the president request that a foreign leader and government initiate investigations to benefit the president’s personal political interests in the United States, including an investigation related to the president’s political rival and potential opponent in the 2020 US presidential election?
• Did the president -- directly or through agents -- seek to use the power of the Office of the President and other instruments of the federal government in other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and government of Ukraine to advance the president’s personal political interests, including by leveraging an Oval Office meeting desired by the president of Ukraine or by withholding US military assistance to Ukraine?
• Did the president and his administration seek to obstruct, suppress or cover up information to conceal from the Congress and the American people evidence about the president’s actions and conduct?

Republicans must justify the relevance of their witnesses in an impeachment hearing triggered by a so-called whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge of the phone call. The whistleblower’s relevance was never justified. This is a whistleblower coached by Adam Schiff and who colluded with Schiff, a deep-state CIA agent whom we are told might wet his pants out of fear if his identity was publicly acknowledged. The statute says a whistleblower’s job, if they are a genuine whistleblower, must be protected but there’s no requirement for anonymity. Ironically, in a major goof-up, Schiff forget to redact the name of the whistleblower -- Eric Ciaramella -- as noted by Gateway Pundit -- in a posted PDF of the transcript of Amb. Bill Taylor’s testimony. Duh.
Does Schiff intend to allow testimony concerning the fact that when President Trump inquired of Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky about Ukraine’s investigations into the Bidens, Burisma, and possible corruption he was actually required to do so by treaty:

Yes, there is an actual treaty between the U.S. and Ukraine which obligates the leaders of both countries to cooperate fully and together on investigations of corruption, particularly criminal matters and corruption that involves both the United States and the Ukraine. The phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy, and it’s[sic] content, were not only legal, but the discussion and requests are actually mandated.

So now it is grounds for impeachment by Congress to enforce a treaty ratified by Congress? The signpost up ahead says we have entered the Schiff Zone, a parallel universe where you are guilty until judge, jury, and executioner Schiff says you are innocent. As BPR Business and Politics notes:

A 1999 treaty with Ukraine, signed by Bill Clinton, provides a rock-solid basis for President Trump’s request for Ukrainian President Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden for alleged corruption.
The Bidens are in up to their armpits with regard to a potential renewed Burisma Holdings natural gas probe… an overdue investigation that was in fact initially stopped by VP Biden while he was in office… a fact that he subsequently bragged about.
So, there is a firm legal underpinning to the request, the commander-in-chief to a country, an ally who we have a treaty with about criminal procedure to say, ‘Hey, can you look into some potential corruption allegations involving a U.S. Citizen?'” he added.

It is not obstruction of Congress, justice, or anything else for a President to exercise his legal and constitutional authority. The facts and the lack of an actual crime will not stop Schiff, just as it did not stop former Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Schiff, like Mueller, is following in the proud tradition of Stalin’s chief of the secret police, Lavrentiy Beria. Just show him the man, and he will show you the crime.
We may be thankful to Alan Dershowitz for reminding us of the delicious irony of Schiff and his investigations and so-called impeachment inquiries, one which began with a whistleblower who is not a whistleblower and another which started with fake “reports” of collusion with the Russians by Team Trump and charges of Russian hacking of our elections, now reverting to the tactics of Russia’s most murderous tyrant, Josef Stalin. As Dershowitz writes in the Washington Examiner:

Federal prosecutors generally begin by identifying specific crimes that may have been committed -- in this case, violation of federal statutes. But no one has yet identified the specific statute or statutes that constrain Mueller's investigation of the Russian matter. It is not a violation of any federal law for a campaign to have collaborated with a foreign government to help elect their candidate…
From McCarthyism to the failed prosecutions of Sen. Ted Stevens, Rep. Thomas DeLay, Gov. Rick Perry and others, we have seen vague criminal statutes stretched in an effort to criminalize political differences.

Now it seems you don’t even need real crimes defined by statute. You can invent them, as Dershowitz charged Democrats with doing in an appearance with former U.S. Atty Guy Lewis on the November 7 edition of “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News.
One of the proposed Schiff articles of impeachment is something called “Obstruction of Congress.” As Dershowitz asks, just where is the statute defining this? Congress and the President are co-equal branches of government. If a Trump administration official refuses to comply with a subpoena based on executive privilege of other grounds, you take them to court. You don’t impeach the President and charge him with an invented crime.

Somewhere Josef Stalin and Lavrentiy Beria are smiling.


https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ll_stalin.html

[Zippyjuan]

As Rep. Adam Schiff’s “sentence first, trial later” show trial of President Donald J. Trump reaches a so-called public hearing phase,

What sentence has been imposed? If there is a trial, that will be in the Senate. Schiff will not conduct it. The Senate will determine if there is any guilt or not.

[Sonny Tufts]

Impeachment in the House is a judicial proceeding like a Grand Jury indictment and just as subject to due process requirements.

Grand jury proceedings aren't subject to the due process requirements that apply to trials. They are held in secret without the presence of the accused or his attorney, and the only evidence presented is from the prosecution, which isn't required to present evidence favorable to the accused. The evidence presented may even consist of hearsay that would be inadmissible at trial.

But neither the Fifth Amendment nor any other constitutional provision prescribes the kind of evidence upon which grand juries must act. The grand jury is an English institution, brought to this country by the early colonists and incorporated in the Constitution by the Founders. There is every reason to believe that our constitutional grand jury was intended to operate substantially like its English progenitor. The basic purpose of the English grand jury was to provide a fair method for instituting criminal proceedings against persons believed to have committed crimes. Grand jurors were selected from the body of the people and their work was not hampered by rigid procedural or evidential rules. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956)

So what is the House doing that's any different from what a prosecutor and a grand jury do? I know... they're having public hearings.

[EBounding]

What life, liberty, or property would Trump be deprived of if he were removed from government office?

[TheCount]

You are arguing they have a right to abuse their power to impeach.

There is no limit to their power to impeach.

[Swordsmyth]

Grand jury proceedings aren't subject to the due process requirements that apply to trials. They are held in secret without the presence of the accused or his attorney, and the only evidence presented is from the prosecution, which isn't required to present evidence favorable to the accused. The evidence presented may even consist of hearsay that would be inadmissible at trial.



So what is the House doing that's any different from what a prosecutor and a grand jury do? I know... they're having public hearings.

Impeachment isn't a Grand Jury and has more requirements but even a Grand Jury has some due process requirements that are not being followed.
Just one example is that in a Grand Jury some Jurors aren't restricted by other Jurors.
Another is that there is no reasonable suspicion let alone probable cause nor is there any actual crime.

[Swordsmyth]

There is no limit to their power to impeach.

Yes there is, the Constitution doesn't exempt impeachments from it protection of the rights of the accused.

[Swordsmyth]

What life, liberty, or property would Trump be deprived of if he were removed from government office?

His term in office is his property given him by the voters unless it is taken by due process.

[Zippyjuan]

His term in office is his property given him by the voters unless it is taken by due process.

A political office is not property. However, elections are a due process. Impeachment is a due process. Though to remove him would require 2/3 of the Republican controlled Senate to agree following the Senate trial.

[Swordsmyth]

A political office is not property.

A term in one is, just as a lease on an apartment you don't own is also property, just as any thing of value is property.

[Swordsmyth]

Impeachment is a due process. Though to remove him would require 2/3 of the Republican controlled Senate to agree following the Senate trial.

This isn't impeachment, it isn't following the rules of impeachment, a mob voting to have a lynching isn't a trial even if it is composed of lawyers and judges.