Impeachment attempts by Democrats is malicious prosecution

[Swordsmyth]

That actually would be a bill of attainder. You did a good job of illustrating the difference between that and impeachment.

It's very much what is happening now except that the harm inflicted is different.

[jmdrake]

That actually would be a bill of attainder. You did a good job of illustrating the difference between that and impeachment.

You are correct.

[dude58677]

No it isn't. High crimes and misdemeanors include any kind of misconduct Congress deems worthy of impeachment, regardless of its criminality under statutory law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_c...d_misdemeanors

And if an impeachment is for some violation of statutory law, the Constitution explicitly restricts the power of Congress to removal from office. The criminal prosecution of that crime would require an additional criminal trial. And this would not be double jeopardy precisely because the hearings in Congress leading to removal from office would not have been that.

That actually would be a bill of attainder. You did a good job of illustrating the difference between that and impeachment.

What’s wrong with doing this? You don’t want a fair impeachment hearing for Donald Trump so why does it need to be fair with anyone else? The impeachment is not a legal process so whoever has the votes can do whatever it wants. This is the game we want to play. Screw facts and due process.

[Swordsmyth]

What’s wrong with doing this? You don’t want a fair impeachment hearing for Donald Trump so why does it need to be fair with anyone else? The impeachment is not a legal process so whoever has the votes can do whatever it wants. This is the game we want to play. Screw facts and due process.

According to the trolls impeachment is exempt from all the other parts of the Constitution and is whatever the House says it is so you can do anything including executing someone on the floor of the House as long as you hold a vote to label it impeachment.
The Senate can try the body and remove it from office afterwards.

[Sonny Tufts]

The landlord isn't a branch of Government, Congress IS bound by due process, nothing in the Constitution exempts impeachment from due process requirements.

What you continue to ignore is the fact that even if the presidency were Trump's property (an utterly absurd idea), the House proceedings cannot result in his being removed; that's the job of the Senate. It's been pointed out to you that grand jury proceedings aren't subject to due process requirements, so why in the world should they apply to the House proceedings, which are functionally equivalent to a grand jury investigation? Indeed, the House proceedings will be even more Trump-friendly than a grand jury proceeding: they will be public, and the Trump toadies and enablers will get a chance to do their political-posturing act to try to divert attention away from Trump's actions.

You keep blathering about the "rules of impeachment" not being followed, yet you fail to specify what they are or where they are to be found in the Constitution.

[dude58677]

What you continue to ignore is the fact that even if the presidency were Trump's property (an utterly absurd idea), the House proceedings cannot result in his being removed; that's the job of the Senate. It's been pointed out to you that grand jury proceedings aren't subject to due process requirements, so why in the world should they apply to the House proceedings, which are functionally equivalent to a grand jury investigation? Indeed, the House proceedings will be even more Trump-friendly than a grand jury proceeding: they will be public, and the Trump toadies and enablers will get a chance to do their political-posturing act to try to divert attention away from Trump's actions.

You keep blathering about the "rules of impeachment" not being followed, yet you fail to specify what they are or where they are to be found in the Constitution.

You can’t prove how bill of attainder would apply to a future Democrat President for impeaching accusing them on false pretenses such as child molestation. The impeachment process is political as you say so how is it bill of attainder? You don’t demonstrate how this is the case.

[Sonny Tufts]

You can’t prove how bill of attainder would apply to a future Democrat President for impeaching accusing them on false pretenses such as child molestation. The impeachment process is political as you say so how is it bill of attainder? You don’t demonstrate how this is the case.

I never claimed it was a bill of attainder, because it isn't. That's Swordsmyth's delusion.

[dude58677]

I never claimed it was a bill of attainder, because it isn't. That's Swordsmyth's delusion.

You haven’t proven anything on how it isnt wrong to falsely impeach a Democratic President or how it is a bill of attainder.

[devil21]

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

Easy peasy. The liberty to live prosperously on the fruits of property stolen from -you-

You know the Trump clan is making out like bandits manipulating the stock markets via tweet, for example.

[Superfluous Man]

What’s wrong with doing this? You don’t want a fair impeachment hearing for Donald Trump so why does it need to be fair with anyone else? The impeachment is not a legal process so whoever has the votes can do whatever it wants. This is the game we want to play. Screw facts and due process.

First of all, when did anyone say they didn't want a fair impeachment hearing for Trump?

As to the second part, ultimately yes, if we the people want to unelect a president we elected, through our representatives in Congress, that is our right, and the Constitution gives us a means to do that. And we have no obligation to be held to the same standards as criminal trials, just like most employers who have the right to fire their employees don't.

But this would not extend to us having the additional right to use Congress to pass a bill of attainder, punishing the president with more than simple removal from office for crimes without a judicial trial following due process, which is what you described in your previous post suggesting that Congress could pass a law requiring the president to register as a sex offender.

And as to mere removal from office and the determination of what constitutes a fair process, you still have to recognize the different roles of the House and the Senate in that. As has been pointed out already, it's the Senate's role that resembles a trial, and the House's role is only making the accusation that it's up to the Senate to try.

[Superfluous Man]

You haven’t proven anything on how it isnt wrong to falsely impeach a Democratic President or how it is a bill of attainder.

Impeaching of any president regardless of party could never under any circumstances constitute a bill of attainder. Impeachment and bills of attainder are two separate things. And the difference has nothing to do with whether or not due process is followed. There is no loophole in the prohibition of bills of attainder that says that Congress can pass bills of attainder as long as if follows due process. It simply can't pass bills of attainder at all, no matter what. But that's not what impeachment is.

If impeachment without due process were a bill of attainder, then impeachment with due process would still be a bill of attainder. But bills of attainder are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution and impeachment is explicitly sanctioned by it.

[Sonny Tufts]

An impeachment is a criminal prosecution.
"High CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS"

Hopelessly wrong. Just because removal from office is based upon the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors doesn't make the process a criminal prosecution. An attorney can be disbarred and his license to practice revoked for embezzling from his clients, but that doesn't make the disbarment procedure a criminal one.

If impeachment were really a criminal proceeding, one who is is acquitted in a criminal trial couldn't be later impeached and removed because of double jeopardy. Yet that's exactly what happened to Alcee Hastings, a federal judge acquitted of bribery and perjury but later impeached and removed for the same acts. He argued, among other things, that his acquittal barred his later impeachment, but the court rejected his double jeopardy claim:

Plaintiff also has no legal foundation for his claim that double jeopardy bars his impeachment. Impeachment is a wholly separate proceeding from a criminal trial, and it has an entirely different purpose, that is to remove from office those judges who have failed to serve during good behavior. Impeachment is sui generis. Double jeopardy no more bars an impeachment trial following a criminal trial than it does a civil trial following a criminal trial. It is long settled law that "Congress may impose both a criminal and a civil sanction in respect to the same act or omission; for the double jeopardy clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense." Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399, 58 S.Ct. 630, 633, 82 L.Ed. 917 (1937) (addition to taxes not prohibited by double jeopardy because it is civil penalty). A penalty is considered punishment when it serves the "twin aims of retribution and deterrence." United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989) (liability for disproportionate penalties under False Claims Act violates double jeopardy when defendant has already been sentenced to jail term and fine). While Judge Hastings may feel personally that his impeachment was intended as retribution against him, the primary purpose of a judicial impeachment is to protect the integrity of our federal court system. Hastings v. U.S., 802 Fed. Supp. 490 (D. D.C. 1992) (emphasis added).

Although the Hastings court found that the Senate's use of an impeachment trial committee violated the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to "try" an accused, its judgment was later vacated after the Supreme Court ruled in the Nixon case that Senate proceedings were unreviewable by the courts. Hastings v. U.S. 837 Fed. Supp. 3 (D. D.C. 1993).

[Swordsmyth]

What you continue to ignore is the fact that even if the presidency were Trump's property (an utterly absurd idea), the House proceedings cannot result in his being removed; that's the job of the Senate. It's been pointed out to you that grand jury proceedings aren't subject to due process requirements, so why in the world should they apply to the House proceedings, which are functionally equivalent to a grand jury investigation? Indeed, the House proceedings will be even more Trump-friendly than a grand jury proceeding: they will be public, and the Trump toadies and enablers will get a chance to do their political-posturing act to try to divert attention away from Trump's actions.

You keep blathering about the "rules of impeachment" not being followed, yet you fail to specify what they are or where they are to be found in the Constitution.

Grand Juries are subject to due process, the process due may be different than that due in a trial but it is still there.
The same goes for an impeachment.

[Swordsmyth]

Hopelessly wrong. Just because removal from office is based upon the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors doesn't make the process a criminal prosecution. An attorney can be disbarred and his license to practice revoked for embezzling from his clients, but that doesn't make the disbarment procedure a criminal one.

If impeachment were really a criminal proceeding, one who is is acquitted in a criminal trial couldn't be later impeached and removed because of double jeopardy. Yet that's exactly what happened to Alcee Hastings, a federal judge acquitted of bribery and perjury but later impeached and removed for the same acts. He argued, among other things, that his acquittal barred his later impeachment, but the court rejected his double jeopardy claim:



Although the Hastings court found that the Senate's use of an impeachment trial committee violated the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to "try" an accused, its judgment was later vacated after the Supreme Court ruled in the Nixon case that Senate proceedings were unreviewable by the courts. Hastings v. U.S. 837 Fed. Supp. 3 (D. D.C. 1993).

That was a bad ruling but it still doesn't make impeachment not a criminal proceeding, it just makes it a different kind of criminal proceeding.

[Swordsmyth]

Impeaching of any president regardless of party could never under any circumstances constitute a bill of attainder. Impeachment and bills of attainder are two separate things. And the difference has nothing to do with whether or not due process is followed. There is no loophole in the prohibition of bills of attainder that says that Congress can pass bills of attainder as long as if follows due process. It simply can't pass bills of attainder at all, no matter what. But that's not what impeachment is.

If impeachment without due process were a bill of attainder, then impeachment with due process would still be a bill of attainder. But bills of attainder are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution and impeachment is explicitly sanctioned by it.

If due process isn't followed then it isn't an impeachment.
And if it isn't an impeachment then it becomes an attainder.

[Swordsmyth]

First of all, when did anyone say they didn't want a fair impeachment hearing for Trump?

As to the second part, ultimately yes, if we the people want to unelect a president we elected, through our representatives in Congress, that is our right, and the Constitution gives us a means to do that. And we have no obligation to be held to the same standards as criminal trials, just like most employers who have the right to fire their employees don't.

But this would not extend to us having the additional right to use Congress to pass a bill of attainder, punishing the president with more than simple removal from office for crimes without a judicial trial following due process, which is what you described in your previous post suggesting that Congress could pass a law requiring the president to register as a sex offender.

And as to mere removal from office and the determination of what constitutes a fair process, you still have to recognize the different roles of the House and the Senate in that. As has been pointed out already, it's the Senate's role that resembles a trial, and the House's role is only making the accusation that it's up to the Senate to try.

The founders specifically didn't give Congress the power to remove a President for any or no reason.
Impeachment must follow rules or it isn't legitimate and those rules aren't being followed.

[Sonny Tufts]

Grand Juries are subject to due process, the process due may be different than that due in a trial but it is still there.

Be specific. What does due process require of grand jury proceedings?

Does the person under investigation have the right to appear in person and/or by counsel? NO.
Does the person under investigation have the right to have counsel appointed for him if he is indigent? NO.
Does the person under investigation have the right to have evidence in his behalf submitted? NO.
Do witnesses have the right to have their counsel present? NO.
Does the exclusionary rule apply to prevent illegally-seized or otherwise inadmissible evidence from being submitted submitted to the grand jurors? NO.
Must the grand jury proceedings be made public? NO.
See https://constitution.findlaw.com/ame...otation01.html

So aside from compelling testimony violative of the 5th Amendment's self-incrimination provision or common-law evidentiary privileges (e.g., attorney-client), or compelling the production of documents in violation of the 4th Amendment, what due process restrictions apply to grand juries?

In other words, what procedures in the House are being denied to Trump that are not also denied in grand jury proceedings?

Be very specific and cite applicable legal authority instread of your usual uninformed and unsubstantiated opinions.

[Swordsmyth]

Be specific. What does due process require of grand jury proceedings?

Does the person under investigation have the right to appear in person and/or by counsel? NO.
Does the person under investigation have the right to have counsel appointed for him if he is indigent? NO.
Does the person under investigation have the right to have evidence in his behalf submitted? NO.
Do witnesses have the right to have their counsel present? NO.
Does the exclusionary rule apply to prevent illegally-seized or otherwise inadmissible evidence from being submitted submitted to the grand jurors? NO.
Must the grand jury proceedings be made public? NO.
See https://constitution.findlaw.com/ame...otation01.html

So aside from compelling testimony violative of the 5th Amendment's self-incrimination provision or common-law evidentiary privileges (e.g., attorney-client), or compelling the production of documents in violation of the 4th Amendment, what due process restrictions apply to grand juries?

In other words, what procedures in the House are being denied to Trump that are not also denied in grand jury proceedings?

Be very specific and cite applicable legal authority instread of your usual uninformed and unsubstantiated opinions.

Impeachment isn't a Grand Jury so discussing the specifics of a Grand Jury is not to the point.
I have already posted many articles discussing what's being done wrong.

[devil21]

Impeachment isn't a Grand Jury so discussing the specifics of a Grand Jury is not to the point.
I have already posted many articles discussing what's being done wrong.

Define the legal term "due process".

[Swordsmyth]

Define the legal term "due process".

Define the word "define".

[acptulsa]

Define the word "define".

Why don't you tell us what the meaning of " is" is?

You keep acting like the impeachment process will harm Trump even if he's acquitted and cleared of everything. Do you have reason to believe he's guilty, or what?

[Swordsmyth]

Why don't you tell us what the meaning of " is" is?

That's the game devil was playing.

You keep acting like the impeachment process will harm Trump even if he's acquitted and cleared of everything. Do you have reason to believe he's guilty, or what?

He's innocent but the process is being rigged to defame him, that's why the Demoncrats aren't following the rules of every other impeachment so far.
Schiff even just flat made up lies about the phone call that would have gotten him legal trouble if he hadn't done it in Congress.

[acptulsa]

That's the game devil was playing.


He's innocent but the process is being rigged to defame him, that's why the Demoncrats aren't following the rules of every other impeachment so far.
Schiff even just flat made up lies about the phone call that would have gotten him legal trouble if he hadn't done it in Congress.

So lay out the evidence that Amash is complicit in that. All I've seen so far is you throw a hissy because he didn't denounce it before Schiff set anything up.

[Sonny Tufts]

Impeachment isn't a Grand Jury so discussing the specifics of a Grand Jury is not to the point.
I have already posted many articles discussing what's being done wrong.

I knew you couldn't back up your claims. All you've posted is "due process" and "rigged proceeding" without any specifics and without any constitutional or other legal requirements. You're pathetic.

[Swordsmyth]

So lay out the evidence that Amash is complicit in that. All I've seen so far is you throw a hissy because he didn't denounce it before Schiff set anything up.

He has endorsed the impeachment based on bogus charges that are false.

[Swordsmyth]

I knew you couldn't back up your claims. All you've posted is "due process" and "rigged proceeding" without any specifics and without any constitutional or other legal requirements. You're pathetic.

Try reading the articles I have posted that deal with it.

You can find many here:

Impeachment of Trump would be an unconstitutional attainder

[devil21]

Define the word "define".

You keep talking about due process so tell me what the term means. I can provide the link to Black's Law definition if you'd like.

[acptulsa]

He has endorsed the impeachment based on bogus charges that are false.

He has stated he was open to an investigation. You're the one trying to blame Amash for things that Schiff did weeks later.

[Swordsmyth]

He has stated he was open to an investigation. You're the one trying to blame Amash for things that Schiff did weeks later.

No, he called for Trump to be impeached on bogus charges, Schiff's actions since only make the farce worse.

[acptulsa]

No, he called for Trump to be impeached on bogus charges, Schiff's actions since only make the farce worse.

Got proof?

Did Amash have proof at the time?

Did you condemn Amash at the time because you knew then what you know now, or just because...