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

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

I wasn't splitting hairs at all... I was telling you the law.

You haven't provided law, only legal opinion.

To you, there is a difference between a law and a legal guideline?

And I'm splitting hairs?

LOL

This isn't Soviet Russia, FFS.

That why the Constitution, and impeachment, is a glorious thing.

It's called Congressional oversight and checks and balances. Something Dear Leader hates.

I think when you were reading the Constitution you skipped over the part about co-equal branches of government.

Speak for yourself.

Congress is co-equal. Oversight, Checks and balances, the power of impeachment. Holding the executive to account. Something Dear Leader hates.

What law is Congress violating?

Allowing anyone to say anything that doesn't fit what the Democratic Party, liberals and progressives think is correct speech or correct thinking, that refuses to toe the liberal line and never deviates. That is something the Democratic Party won't tolerate (i.e. secret, closed door investigations designed specifically to convict and jail someone who doesn't toe the progressive line: i.e. Gleefully beating anyone who wears anything that could be interpreted as conservative political ideology, a hat or t-shirt for example.)

What is Congress violating? The right of the accused to defend him self, the right to have legal representation for witnesses and the accused, the right to a public trial, when the entire point of the "investigation" is a trial in that the intent and purpose is to convict someone of a crime and send them to jail. They have twisted the law by saying this is not a secret trial, when it really is as they have openly said the purpose is to get someone convicted and sent to jail. Don't tell me you haven't heard multiple Democratic Congresspeople express this sentiment.

a reply to: The2Billies

Look, I'm not sure which Billy I'm addressing, but:

What is Congress violating? The right of the accused to defend him self, the right to have legal representation for witnesses and the accused, the right to a public trial,when the entire point of the "investigation" is a trial

The accused can, if it comes to trial in the senate. Until then, this is not a trial. It's an investigation. So what law is violated?

Read the thread. Try to keep up.

hey have twisted the law by saying this is not a secret trial

What law is twisted? This is not a trial.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: dfnj2015

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

The question was about what law is violated by Congress in its current impeachment investigation, not what laws Trump may or may not have violated.

No law was broken. Congressional committees can subpoena anyone they want to testify in any investigation.

Which is quite true.

However, their own committee rules state that they must VOTE in committee to do so.

Schiff isn't actually writing subpoenas right now... he is writing carefully worded requests for voluntary assistance.

They are not subpoenas.

You do understand that, yes?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Lumenari

You can split hairs all you want so Trump is innocent in your eyes. But no one in their right mind is interpreted what Trump was doing in the way you are.

It's not about guilt or innocence. It's about preserving a fair process for everyone.

Don't you think we ought to adjudicate every legal proceeding the same way rather than allowing people to suddenly change the process to suit their aims and agendas?

The House Democrats are currently deviating from past impeachment process to create a political impression or dig for a crime they can impeach. They are cutting all defense for the accused out of the process in so doing. I believe this is covered in the Bill of Rights somewhere ...

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

Those are legal arguments. Not law.

From your quote/link:

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee.

Witnesses are interrogated. As part of the investigation. Just like with any investigation. Cross examination occurs during a trial, not an interrogation. But the minority members can ask questions/interrogate. The accused (or the person being investigated/impeached) has no say. Because not a trial.

Please quote for me where it says that a committee can investigate without a vote of the committee to proceed.

What law says they can't?

Their own House rules... I gave you a link that you obviously didn't read.

I think the actual problem here is that an ever-growing number of our population that just can't comprehend the founding principles of our country, much less reading a rather simple set of rules.

You are a pretty good example of it... it's like talking to my cat.

Have fun hun and keep thinking like you do.

a reply to: Lumenari

Their own House rules... I gave you a link that you obviously didn't read.

I'm still asking for the law. Which you can't provide.

I think the actual problem here is that an ever-growing number of our population that just can't comprehend the founding principles of our country

The constitution helps. Including oversight, checks and balances, and the things you seem to hate.

You are a pretty good example of it... it's like talking to my cat.

I always find personal attacks endearing.

a reply to: Liquesence

Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure

I responded already... you just don't understand it, I guess.

Unless you are thinking that the Intelligence Committee is now the Judiciary Committee...

Hard to tell with you.

And that wasn't a personal attack... it was an observation.

An entirely different thing which I don't expect you to understand either.

a reply to: Lumenari

That link is legal opinion. Not law.

Under current rules,

Does it say under current law?

Show me the law.

Unless you are thinking that the Intelligence Committee is now the Judiciary Committee...

What law says the Judiciary has to initiate an investigation? Just because they've done it doesn't make it law they have to.

Show a law, not an opinion or interpretation.

An entirely different thing which I don't expect you to understand either.

Another shot.

Show the law.

Looks like The House Rules may be unconstitutional !!!!!!!!!

Ironic and no wonder top Democrats have been "citing" The Constitution lately Hmmm 😃

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Lumenari

You can split hairs all you want so Trump is innocent in your eyes. But no one in their right mind is interpreted what Trump was doing in the way you are.

right mind? was that suposed to be a joke?? 🤣🤣

I'm listening to a Havard Law Professor that says YOU are wrong. 😲😲

I bet he knows something more about than you. 🕵️‍♀️🕵️‍♀️

only left handed people are in their right mind....😀👀🐱‍👤

a reply to: dfnj2015

I see the lawsuit filed with the FEC is using the schiff version with the lie of pressure against ukraine. Thought you were going to slip by huh?

originally posted by: dfnj2015

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.

However there is a problem here. This Treaty with Ukraine.



Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major
types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including
taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing
documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or
identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring
persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing
requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings
related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets,
restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other
form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested
State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal
offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters,
which may be civil or administrative in nature.
Article 1(3) states that assistance shall be provided
without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute
an offense under the laws of the Requested State.
Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not
intended to create rights in private parties to obtain,
suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution
of a request.


Looks like the treaty makes it perfectly legal for American officials to request Ukrainian assistance for investigating criminal matters. As opposed to the crime Joe Biden committed by threatening to cancel a billion dollars of US aid if the investigation into the oil company that his son was working for as a consultant wasn't stopped immediately.

Quid pro Joe?

a reply to: ntech

However there is a problem here. This Treaty with Ukraine.

Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major
types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including
taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing
documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or
identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring
persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing
requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings
related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets,
restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other
form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested
State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal
offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters,
which may be civil or administrative in nature.
Article 1(3) states that assistance shall be provided
without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute
an offense under the laws of the Requested State.
Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not
intended to create rights in private parties to obtain,
suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution
of a request.


Looks like the treaty makes it perfectly legal for American officials to request Ukrainian assistance for investigating criminal matters. As opposed to the crime Joe Biden committed by threatening to cancel a billion dollars of US aid if the investigation into the oil company that his son was working for as a consultant wasn't stopped immediately.

Quid pro Joe?

Finally!

Someone who both understands and gets it.

Maybe there really is an ATS God...

a reply to: Liquesence

It is a trial.

If it looks like a trial - calling witnesses to testify under oath, threatening to jail anyone who refuses to testify

If it acts like a trial - the purpose is to convict someone of a crime and then to turn over the sentencing to a "judge" (the senate)

If it sounds like a trial - the Democrats are saying publicly and in soundbites this will put Trump in jail

Then however you want to dolly it up and paint lipstick on a pig, it is a secret, behind closed doors, trial that violates the 6th Amendment - if not the only other option is a coup.

So I'll start calling it a coup if you like.

a reply to: The2Billies

While you bring up interesting points, this is not a criminal proceeding and the 6th Amendment as you quoted it wouldn’t apply.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: The2Billies

While you bring up interesting points, this is not a criminal proceeding and the 6th Amendment as you quoted it wouldn’t apply.

If it's not a criminal proceeding, then what is it? They are using all the rhetoric of a criminal proceeding in their language when they talk to the press about it.

And if it's not, they have no call to be whining about obstruction of justice when no one complies with their attempts.

a reply to: darkbake

It is not technically a trial. It just looks like a trial, acts like a trial and sounds like a trial, the Democrats have been quite open about these proceedings being designed specifically to convict someone of a crime and then to pass on the conviction to the "judge"/Senate for sentencing. Ok, not a trial then, how about a secret, behind closed doors, coup? Especially with the planning that was done to arrest and jail Cabinet members who refused to testify without counsel present and in secret with no Republicans allowed. www.politico.com...

But it is fascinating to watch Democrats applaud and cheer denying people their rights to self-defense, their rights to an attorney. Democrats are cheering behind closed doors secret testimony that doesn't give anyone the right to a lawyer and forbids any testimony that might be considered exculpatory. Not a trial, the only other thing it could be is a coup.

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...

Except for the tiny little factoid that, he is not doing that.

a reply to: The2Billies

My goodness, they're even working closely with a group called the Lawfare Institute if that name doesn't tell you all you need to know about how this is supposed to go, nothing else will. Deep Staters all the way.

originally posted by: Lumenari

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 first 4 words of the 6th Amendment make it absolutely clear that it is inapplicable to impeachment. It says, " In all criminal prosecutions...." Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution. Although many would wish otherwise, Trump doesn't go to prison or get fined if he is impeached. He doesn't even lose his job, unless "convicted in the Senate.