So now subpoenas for witnesses and evidence are anti-Constitutional?
LMAO
Yeah try using that line in court.
By all means Savannah, post a link where it says subpoenas are anti-Constitutional.
The desperation to defend Trump at the expense of our Constitution and legal system is utterly baffling to me.
Quote: @"SFVikeFan" said:
So now subpoenas for witnesses and evidence are anti-Constitutional?
LMAO
Yeah try using that line in court.
By all means Savannah, post a link where it says subpoenas are anti-Constitutional.
The desperation to defend Trump at the expense of our Constitution and legal system is utterly baffling to me.
When subpoenas for witnesses INVOLVE THE CONFLICTION OF 2 CO-EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT?
GOD DAMN RIGHT, THEY ARE.
GET OFF MY CONSTITUTION!
Quote: @"A1Janitor" said:
At the bold...
The mere fact that you have to state that tells you all you need to know about Barr.
Quote: @"savannahskol" said:
Not only will Trump not testify, he has instructed numerous other people not to testify. Think about that for a moment -- he could have the Republican Congressman call a bunch of people to refute the allegations but he won't.
That's a fundamentally unfair ask. You seem to be asking he (Trump) prove his innocence.
That's anti-due process, anti-criminal procedure, and anti-civil procedure, and most importantly, anti-constitutional.
The burden of proof of malfeasance is NOT on the accused, it's on the accuser(s).
Again, even Trump says he has the right to defend himself and he has chosen not to defend himself with substantive witnesses that refute what the witnesses have stated to date. Yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecution but that does not mean a defendant does not have the right to present countering evidence. In criminal trials, defendants have the opportunity to present evidence , that does not mean that the burden of proof shifts.
Quote: @"VikingOracle" said:
@"savannahskol" said:
Not only will Trump not testify, he has instructed numerous other people not to testify. Think about that for a moment -- he could have the Republican Congressman call a bunch of people to refute the allegations but he won't.
That's a fundamentally unfair ask. You seem to be asking he (Trump) prove his innocence.
That's anti-due process, anti-criminal procedure, and anti-civil procedure, and most importantly, anti-constitutional.
The burden of proof of malfeasance is NOT on the accused, it's on the accuser(s).
Again, even Trump says he has the right to defend himself and he has chosen not to defend himself with substantive witnesses that refute what the witnesses have stated to date. Yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecution but that does not mean a defendant does not have the right to present countering evidence. In criminal trials, defendants have the opportunity to present evidence , that does not mean that the burden of proof shifts.
1. Right to cross examine the witnesses. To present evidence to them.
2. He doesn’t have to present witnesses.
3. Innocent until proven guilty. Burden of proof always remains with prosecution and never shifts.
Quote: @"savannahskol" said:
(con't)
The "due process" you are talking about will occur at his actual trial (if Congress votes to impeach). Right now, the House is simply deciding whether there is enough evidence for the Senate to hold a trial. And as the House has decided to use both the grand jury model and the preliminary hearing model to make this determination, President Trump is actually being treated much better than a person being investigated for most felonies.
"Due process" also has an equal corollary in law...... precedent.
It is unprecedented that the President's counsel not be allowed in impeachment inquiry hearings.
Not only is the President's counsel not allowed...Schiff has gaveled down many House members comments/questions. Unprecedented.
Hmmm, again you are forgetting this is just the investigatory phase in the House, This the (now open) investigation of Trump's action by the Intelligence committee. If the Intelligence Committee thinks it deserves a referral, the matter is turned over to the Judiciary Committee (which is responsible for drafting the actual articles of impeachment). Here are rules for that additional layer of impeachment:
[*]The President’s counsel will receive copies of any statements of information and related documents and other evidentiary material (including staff reports) furnished to the Members of the Judiciary Committee.[*]The President and his counsel may attend the presentation of evidence by Majority and Minority committee counsel and the President’s counsel may ask questions during the presentation.[*]The President’s counsel may respond to the presentation of evidence. [*]The President’s counsel may submit written summaries of additional testimony or evidence the President wishes the Judiciary Committee to consider. [*]The President and his counsel may attend all hearings of the Judiciary Committee, including any held in executive session.[*]The President’s counsel may question witnesses called before the Judiciary Committee and may raise objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence.[*]The President’s counsel may be invited to offer a concluding presentation.[*] https://judiciary.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-nadler-statement-judiciary-committee-impeachment-procedures
So, guess what, before the House votes, Trump gets to do everything you complain he can't do!!!
Quote: @"savannahskol" said:
@"SFVikeFan" said:
So now subpoenas for witnesses and evidence are anti-Constitutional?
LMAO
Yeah try using that line in court.
By all means Savannah, post a link where it says subpoenas are anti-Constitutional.
The desperation to defend Trump at the expense of our Constitution and legal system is utterly baffling to me.
When subpoenas for witnesses INVOLVE THE CONFLICTION OF 2 CO-EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT?
GOD DAMN RIGHT, THEY ARE.
GET OFF MY CONSTITUTION!
You mean the part that gives the Congress oversight OVER the executive branch?
Are you saying Congress has zero authority and can no longer subpoena anyone in the executive branch??
LMAO
Go ahead and post links to prove it, then I can laugh about what an utter dipshit comment that is when most of us learned about Congressional oversight guaranteed in the Constitution and having the authority to conduct oversight on the executive branch in 9th grade civics class.
It's hilarious watching you circle the drain with A1 ... for a guy screaming about get off your Constitution you might try to read it first
LOLOLOLOLOL
|
