Impeachment of Trump would be an unconstitutional attainder

[jmdrake]

Whatever specific legal term applies doesn't matter because none of them exist for the "impeachment" of Trump.

If you want to make legal arguments you need to accurately use the legal terms. And the reasonable suspicion for an impeachment inquiry is there. If Trump's reason to ask for an investigation into Biden was solely for political purposes then that is a crime. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Trump had a reasonable suspicion to want Biden investigated. Here is the "smoking gun" that I am 99% sure does not exist. If there was a Trump campaign strategy session where Trump said "We need to find some way to go after this guy Joe Biden because he might beat me" and then someone said "Hey. I read this book called Secret Empires that suggests Joe Biden might have done something wrong with regards to Ukraine" and then Trump said "Great! Let's get on it!" Well...that would be illegal. But without that, it is just as likely that Trump came across the Biden information randomly, decided "This looks swampy" and tried to get it investigated.

[acptulsa]

The President has the right to take the office from him for any or no reason as the head of the Executive branch, that's entirely different.

And the American people are about to decide whether or not to take the office from Trump for any or no reason. Not so different.

Certainly not different enough to make the concept of ownership of a political office any less silly.

[Swordsmyth]

If you want to make legal arguments you need to accurately use the legal terms. And the reasonable suspicion for an impeachment inquiry is there. If Trump's reason to ask for an investigation into Biden was solely for political purposes then that is a crime. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Trump had a reasonable suspicion to want Biden investigated. Here is the "smoking gun" that I am 99% sure does not exist. If there was a Trump campaign strategy session where Trump said "We need to find some way to go after this guy Joe Biden because he might beat me" and then someone said "Hey. I read this book called Secret Empires that suggests Joe Biden might have done something wrong with regards to Ukraine" and then Trump said "Great! Let's get on it!" Well...that would be illegal. But without that, it is just as likely that Trump came across the Biden information randomly, decided "This looks swampy" and tried to get it investigated.

Until someone comes forward and claims such a conversation took place they don't have reasonable suspicion.
And it still wouldn't be a crime, Trump's motive can't change a legitimate investigation (which it was) into a crime.

[Swordsmyth]

And the American people are about to decide whether or not to take the office from Trump for any or no reason. Not so different.

WRONG.
That will happen at the next election.
Congress is not empowered to remove Trump from office for any or no reason and may not violate his rights.

Certainly not different enough to make the concept of ownership of a political office any less silly.

It is exactly correct.

[jmdrake]

Until someone comes forward and claims such a conversation took place they don't have reasonable suspicion.
And it still wouldn't be a crime, Trump's motive can't change a legitimate investigation (which it was) into a crime.

SMH. No! You are mistaking probable cause with reasonable suspicion. You do not need evidence for reasonable suspicion. That is why Donald Trump has a right to investigate Joe Biden without evidence that Biden actually committed a crime.

[acptulsa]

Until someone comes forward and claims such a conversation took place they don't have reasonable suspicion.

Interesting thing about partisans. Only their suspicions are reasonable.

And it still wouldn't be a crime, Trump's motive can't change a legitimate investigation (which it was) into a crime.

No? So a person standing to inherit money can't change ramming someone with a car from manslaughter to murder?

I know prosecutors who would disagree. Actually, they'd laugh.

WRONG.
That will happen at the next election.
Congress is not empowered to remove Trump from office for any or no reason and may not violate his rights.

That's not about Trump's rights. It's about our right to have the person we elect serve for as long as his conduct is worthy of the office we elected him to.

The Constitution is much more interested in the rights of the population than in the rights of politicians. Read it some time.

[Swordsmyth]

SMH. No! You are mistaking probable cause with reasonable suspicion. You do not need evidence for reasonable suspicion. That is why Donald Trump has a right to investigate Joe Biden without evidence that Biden actually committed a crime.

Biden bragged about committing the crime.
There is no crime to investigate regarding Trump and it isn't reasonable to suspect there is even if his motive could make it one.
A government official pursuing a legitimate investigation simply isn't suspicious unless you have something that says it is.

[Swordsmyth]

Interesting thing about partisans. Only their suspicions are reasonable.

A government official pursuing a legitimate investigation simply isn't suspicious unless you have something that says it is.

No? So a person standing to inherit money can't change ramming someone with a car from manslaughter to murder?

I know prosecutors who would disagree. Actually, they'd laugh.

The rammed person was harmed either way and the act was prosecutable either way, that is a motive changing one kind of crime into a worse kind of crime.
Trump's investigation was legitimate and harmed nobody (a crook like Biden can't claim to be harmed by an investigation) and his motive can't transform a non-crime into a crime.

[acptulsa]

A government official pursuing a legitimate investigation simply isn't suspicious unless you have something that says it is.

You don't consider ordering an investigation into someone running against you suspicious? Then why did you make so much noise about Obama "investigating" GOP candidates during 2016?

Nobody cares about your double standard.

[Swordsmyth]

You don't consider ordering an investigation into someone running against you suspicious? Then why did you make so much noise about Obama "investigating" GOP candidates during 2016?

Nobody cares about your double standard.

There was ample reason to investigate Biden, O'Bummer had none at all and that made it suspicious.
You are the one with a double standard.

[acptulsa]

Listen to the Republicans howl about being hoist by Ken Starr's petard!

If only we'd back the Read the Bills Act, this impeachment circus might keep Congress busy enough to spare us their ministrations.

[jmdrake]

Biden bragged about committing the crime.
There is no crime to investigate regarding Trump and it isn't reasonable to suspect there is even if his motive could make it one.
A government official pursuing a legitimate investigation simply isn't suspicious unless you have something that says it is.

Biden did not brag about committing a crime. Biden bragged about getting a prosecutor fired. It's only a crime if Biden's intent for getting the prosecutor fired was to benefit his son. Biden claims that wasn't his intent. I think Biden is lying but I don't have the evidence to prove that. Neither does Trump. That's why Trump asked for an investigation. By the same token if Trump asked for the investigation for political reasons, as opposed to his having a reasonable suspicion that Biden committed a crime, the Trump would have committed a crime. Either possible crime can be investigated. An investigation is not a trial or even a preliminary hearing. This whole thread is based on a wrong premise. A bill of attainder is removing someone without a trial? Well we haven't even gotten to the trial part yet! We haven't gotten to the indictment yet which is the impeachment! And it's pretty much a guarantee that Trump will not be removed! The "trial" takes place in the Senate. Republicans have a majority in the senate. This is all political theater. Unless some real "smoking gun" evidence comes out, which isn't going to happen, there will be a trial and no removal which is the opposite of a bill of attainder. (Punishment by legislature without a trial).

[Zippyjuan]

Biden did not brag about committing a crime. Biden bragged about getting a prosecutor fired. It's only a crime if Biden's intent for getting the prosecutor fired was to benefit his son. Biden claims that wasn't his intent. I think Biden is lying but I don't have the evidence to prove that. Neither does Trump. That's why Trump asked for an investigation. By the same token if Trump asked for the investigation for political reasons, as opposed to his having a reasonable suspicion that Biden committed a crime, the Trump would have committed a crime. Either possible crime can be investigated. An investigation is not a trial or even a preliminary hearing. This whole thread is based on a wrong premise. A bill of attainder is removing someone without a trial? Well we haven't even gotten to the trial part yet! We haven't gotten to the indictment yet which is the impeachment! And it's pretty much a guarantee that Trump will not be removed! The "trial" takes place in the Senate. Republicans have a majority in the senate. This is all political theater. Unless some real "smoking gun" evidence comes out, which isn't going to happen, there will be a trial and no removal which is the opposite of a bill of attainder. (Punishment by legislature without a trial).

Biden and many European leaders complained about the prosecutor not being tough on corruption and wanted him removed. If Biden's son was in a corrupt business, having a tougher on corruption investigator could have been harmful- not helpful- to Hunter Biden.

A Bill of Attainder is when Congress passes a law declaring somebody guilty of a crime without a trial. Congress has not passed any laws declaring anybody guilty of a crime. There is no Bill of Attainder. He is just trying to keep things confused even though he knows he is wrong. It is in his playbook to stir up confusion and conflict.

[acptulsa]

Unless some real "smoking gun" evidence comes out, which isn't going to happen, there will be a trial and no removal which is the opposite of a bill of attainder. (Punishment by legislature without a trial).

Absolutely true, and dripping with irony.

[Swordsmyth]

Biden did not brag about committing a crime. Biden bragged about getting a prosecutor fired. It's only a crime if Biden's intent for getting the prosecutor fired was to benefit his son. Biden claims that wasn't his intent. I think Biden is lying but I don't have the evidence to prove that. Neither does Trump. That's why Trump asked for an investigation. By the same token if Trump asked for the investigation for political reasons, as opposed to his having a reasonable suspicion that Biden committed a crime, the Trump would have committed a crime.

No, getting the prosecutor fired is not the same as conducting an investigation that you admit had reasonable suspicion.
The latter can't be a crime no matter what was in Trump's mind.
It wasn't Biden's possible intent that made his act suspicious, it was his son being paid by the company that was being investigated by the prosecutor, if you can find someone paying Trump's family to investigate Biden then it might be similar but it still wouldn't be identical because it wasn't Biden's job to get the prosecutor fired.

And Trump can't be suspicious for investigating because HE WAS REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO SO:

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La) told ABC's "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos that Trump had a legal requirement to ensure that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was rooting out corruption before Trump could legally send foreign aid to Ukraine. Rep. Scalise said the National Defense Authorization Act passed last year requires the president to certify a country is rooting out corruption before the president can send taxpayer money to that country.

"Well, first of all on that call [President Trump] was not talking about the 2020 election or political opponents, he was talking about corruption relating to the 2016 elections. By the way, when Russia tried to interfere, George, when Russia tried to interfere with our election, it was Barack Obama who was president, not Donald Trump. President Trump has a legal requirement to ensure that the country given foreign aid, in this case Ukraine, is taking steps to root out corruption. And he and President Zelensky talked about that. Zelensky, in fact, was asked, did he think it was inappropriate, was there pressure put on him, and President Zelensky said he wasn't pressured. And he got the money ultimately. He got the money."

Rep. Scalise says Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky was not about Trump's 2020 political rivals, but about the past actions of former Vice President Joe Biden. Biden has admitted to pressuring the Ukrainian government into firing a prosecutor that was investigating Burisma, a company that Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, served as board member. Hunter Biden lacked the experience for the board position, but nevertheless drew a monthly salary of $50,000 or more. Rep. Scalise says it was these actions of former Vice President Joe Biden that Trump had a legal obligation to discuss with Zelensky.

More at: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...ption-n2555807

Either possible crime can be investigated.

Trump's action was NOT a possible crime without additional information to make it one.

An investigation is not a trial or even a preliminary hearing.

An impeachment is not an investigation, Congress may investigate without impeaching.
And an investigation still can't be conducted without any reason, Trump couldn't investigate Biden for no reason just as O'Bummer couldn't investigate Trump for no reason.

This whole thread is based on a wrong premise. A bill of attainder is removing someone without a trial? Well we haven't even gotten to the trial part yet! We haven't gotten to the indictment yet which is the impeachment! And it's pretty much a guarantee that Trump will not be removed! The "trial" takes place in the Senate. Republicans have a majority in the senate. This is all political theater. Unless some real "smoking gun" evidence comes out, which isn't going to happen, there will be a trial and no removal which is the opposite of a bill of attainder. (Punishment by legislature without a trial).

This non-impeachment is an attainder because it is designed to harm Trump without Due Process or a trial, the harm is not the removal (which probably won't happen) but the unjust and unfounded accusation of wrongdoing.

[Swordsmyth]

Biden and many European leaders complained about the prosecutor not being tough on corruption and wanted him removed. If Biden's son was in a corrupt business, having a tougher on corruption investigator could have been harmful- not helpful- to Hunter Biden.

Don't be ridiculous, the company wanted the prosecutor removed because he was investigating them, everyone knew the replacement would drop the investigation and that was the point.

A Bill of Attainder is when Congress passes a law declaring somebody guilty of a crime without a trial. Congress has not passed any laws declaring anybody guilty of a crime. There is no Bill of Attainder. He is just trying to keep things confused even though he knows he is wrong. It is in his playbook to stir up confusion and conflict.

A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossa.../attainder.htm


If the House declares Trump guilty of a crime while violating all the Due Process that would be involved with a real impeachment then it is an attainder.

[Swordsmyth]

Listen to the Republicans howl about being hoist by Ken Starr's petard!

This is nothing like the Clinton impeachment and Starr deliberately protected Clinton from the real crimes he should have been impeached and removed for.

[Zippyjuan]

Don't be ridiculous, the company wanted the prosecutor removed because he was investigating them, everyone knew the replacement would drop the investigation and that was the point.


A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossa.../attainder.htm


If the House declares Trump guilty of a crime while violating all the Due Process that would be involved with a real impeachment then it is an attainder.

Link to the bill Congress passed finding Trump guilty of a crime and punishing him?

Repeating BS over and over and over and over doesn't make it any truer. But it does get your post count higher so your paycheck should be good this month.

[Swordsmyth]

Link to the bill Congress passed finding Trump guilty of a crime and punishing him?

Repeating BS doesn't make it any truer.

It hasn't happened yet, read the title of the thread, it says "would be", read what I said, I said "IF the House declares Trump guilty of a crime while violating all the Due Process that would be involved with a real impeachment then it is an attainder."

[Zippyjuan]

It hasn't happened yet, read the title of the thread, it says "would be", read what I said, I said "IF the House declares Trump guilty of a crime while violating all the Due Process that would be involved with a real impeachment then it is an attainder."

So this is not a Bill of Attainder issue. The Senate will decide if Trump is guilty of a crime or not. If it happens, that will be following a trial, so yet again, not a Bill of Attainder.

Thread title is wrong and should be changed.

[Swordsmyth]

So this is not a Bill of Attainder issue. The Senate will decide if Trump is guilty of a crime or not. If it happens, that will be following a trial, so yet again, not a Bill of Attainder.

Thread title is wrong and should be changed.

NO.
This is an attainder because it isn't impeachment.
The title is correct and should remain as it is.

[Zippyjuan]

NO.
This is an attainder because it isn't impeachment.
The title is correct and should remain as it is.

Impeachment is not a Bill of Attainder because it does not declare any guilt. Impeachment is the filing of charges- not a determination of guilt or innocence. Title is wrong.

[Swordsmyth]

Impeachment is not a Bill of Attainder because it does not declare any guilt. Impeachment is the filing of charges- not a determination of guilt or innocence. Title is wrong.

This is not impeachment, the only way the title might be changed would be to quote marks around "impeachment".

[jmdrake]

No, getting the prosecutor fired is not the same as conducting an investigation that you admit had reasonable suspicion.
The latter can't be a crime no matter what was in Trump's mind.

Reading is fundamental and once again you fail. I didn't say they were the same. Speeding isn't the same as running a red light either. Biden claims he got the prosecutor fired for legitimate reasons. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Getting a prosecutor fired isn't a crime. Getting a prosecutor fired for illegitimate reasons is. Pushing for an investigation isn't a crime. Pushing for one for illegitimate reasons is. If the reason Trump pushed for an investigation of Biden was political then that is a crime even if the investigation was otherwise legit.

[Sonny Tufts]

This is not impeachment, the only way the title might be changed would be to quote marks around "impeachment".

It's obvious you either don't know the meaning of impeachment or that you're like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass -- you're imposing your own meaning on the word and turning it into something that it isn't in order to claim that it's forbidden by the Constitution. Nice try, but no cigar.

There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

[TheCount]

Nobody cares about your double standard.

Swordsmyth would have to have standards at all in order to have double standards.

[TheCount]

It's obvious you either don't know the meaning of impeachment or that you're like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass -- you're imposing your own meaning on the word and turning it into something that it isn't in order to claim that it's forbidden by the Constitution. Nice try, but no cigar.

The latter. It's his primary tactic when defending the indefensible.

I tried once to nickname him Humpty Dumpty but it never caught on.

"The word recovery," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "Means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The word recession," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "Means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

[Chester Copperpot]

A bill of attainder is a finding of criminal guilt without trial that inflicts punishment. An IRS determination that someone has a tax deficiency is a civil matter that can be reviewed by a court.

Doesnt matter much if the IRS has taken all of your money before then does it. How do you pay for the lawyer? They are in effect the judge, jury and executioner. Their tax court is a kangaroo court.. The entire system is bereft of any due process of law. So again I say that Zippy should be all for rounding these people up and arresting them by his own definition... Yet he is completely silent on the issue.

[Sonny Tufts]

Doesnt matter much if the IRS has taken all of your money before then does it. How do you pay for the lawyer? They are in effect the judge, jury and executioner. Their tax court is a kangaroo court.. The entire system is bereft of any due process of law. So again I say that Zippy should be all for rounding these people up and arresting them by his own definition... Yet he is completely silent on the issue.

You appear to know very little about the Tax Court. First of all, if you dispute the IRS's determination of a tax deficiency you can file suit in the Tax Court; if you do, all collection efforts stop. Got that? You don't have to pay the deficiency before the court determines the issue. That's why most people who contest deficiencies go to the Tax Court.

Second, the Supreme Court has held that due process is satisfied so long as someone against whom the IRS has determined a tax deficiency can go to court to contest it, even if the tax is collected first and the taxpayer has to file for a refund. See Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247 (1935).

Third, if the Tax Court really were as bad as you claim the government would never lose a case; but it does. Here's just one example, in which the IRS sought over $500,000 in back taxes and over $100,000 in penalties. But the petitioner won. Guess the judge didn't get the memo that the government was supposed to win. https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/....aspx?ID=12035

[Swordsmyth]

Reading is fundamental and once again you fail. I didn't say they were the same. Speeding isn't the same as running a red light either. Biden claims he got the prosecutor fired for legitimate reasons. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Getting a prosecutor fired isn't a crime. Getting a prosecutor fired for illegitimate reasons is. Pushing for an investigation isn't a crime. Pushing for one for illegitimate reasons is. If the reason Trump pushed for an investigation of Biden was political then that is a crime even if the investigation was otherwise legit.

There are good reasons to be suspicious of Biden's actions, there are not any to be suspicious of Trump's.
You would need to come up with a reason to be suspicious of Trump's.