What is Unethical, UnConstitutional, and UnAmerican About a Star Chamber Impeachment?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by JimBowie1958, Oct 17, 2019.

  1. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    56,456
    Thanks Received:
    9,068
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +41,386
    I am amazed that so many people are unaware of how impeachments work. IT STARTS with a document drawn up like a bill in the House which outlines and gives extraordinary authority to the impeachment process. It not only defines the process, but also recognizes the rights of the opposition party in the process and the due process rights of the person considered for impeachment.

    And contrary to what some numbskulls today claim that the House can do whatever it wants, the 14th Amendment protects all citizens from processes that are not just and have legal precedent and gaurrantees due process.

    This due process is not defined willy-nilly by the Speaker of the House. The House is not a dictatorship. And until the formal impeachment process is initiated by a duly passed bill that launches the impeachment process this is all nothing more than more political theater by Democrats that are desperate to win next years elections.

    Mark Levin blasts Pelosi, Democrats for delaying impeachment vote, calls any future roll call a 'sham'

    If House Democrats are not ready to hold a full vote on the Trump impeachment inquiry, it proves any future vote will be a "sham," according to radio host Mark Levin.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and her caucus are keeping the American people and the White House largely in the dark about the specifics of the process, Levin claimed Tuesday on "The Mark Levin Show" on Westwood One.

    "If you're not going to have a vote as of now then you don't need to have a vote at all," he said.

    "Because, they're doing all the dirty work now, without the president's counsel available -- without the opposing party being able to call witnesses, without cross-examination, without all those things that are supposed to take place.​

    Gregg Jarrett: Latest Pelosi-Schiff impeachment ‘witch hunt’ is venomous affront to constitutional principles

    There is nothing more chaotic (and mysterious) than the current impeachment inquiry. Evidence of this is undeniably compelling. No one knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The select few who are present or have access to information have been threatened with eviction or an ethics investigation should they disclose to anyone what is happening.

    Witnesses have been threatened with obstruction of justice if they refuse to appear in these secret proceedings. Some have reportedly been told that legal counsel is not allowed. As Democrats selectively leak damaging information, Republicans are prohibited from rebutting it. The minority party is also deprived of subpoena power and forbidden from calling witnesses of its own. This is an abuse of the process and an egregious deprivation of rights.

    Much of this is compounded by the persistent confusion over what constitutes an official inquiry and which committee is really in charge. At first, it was Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler who claimed he was presiding over a “formal impeachment proceeding.” Now, it seems that Schiff is doing the same. Has command been passed? Or are these now dueling inquiries?

    No one seems to know, least of all Pelosi who feels no compulsion to inform the American people -- who are understandably bewildered. Like a ship adrift, who’s the captain here?

    In an effort to rationalize the abiding secrecy, Schiff suggested that his hearings are “analogous to a grand jury proceeding done out of public view.” This is disingenuous, at best. A grand jury is a neutral body. Schiff and his fellow Democrats who control the Intelligence Committee are the antithesis of neutral.

    It now appears that Schiff played a pivotal role in orchestrating the initial whistleblower complaint that led to the impeachment hysteria and then lied about it. Suddenly, he doesn’t want this anonymous informant to testify since that would surely implicate Schiff's own partisan machinations and deceptions. It might expose the “witch hunt.”...

    All of this could have been avoided if Pelosi had called for a full vote of House members to initiate an official impeachment inquiry and identified the controlling committee. If nothing more, it would have established basic rules of conduct and ensured some measure of fairness. Instead, she acted unilaterally and without any real authority beyond her gavel. Mistakenly embracing a monarchy, Pelosi has become the self-appointed Queen.

    As Queens and Kings are wont to do, the business of ruling is conducted by fiat. In turn, “due process” rights of the ruled are erased as if they never existed. But they do exist in a democracy and are enshrined in our own Constitution which is being trampled on with impunity.

    White House Counsel Pat Cipollone pointed this out to Pelosi and Schiff in his October 8 letter on behalf of President Trump. He correctly cited decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in Watkins v. United States (1957) and Quinn v. United States (1955) in which the Justices ruled that the Bill of Rights and “due process” guarantees apply to congressional investigations. They have also been recognized as a requirement in impeachment proceedings. For support, Cipollone quoted the very words of Nadler who stated, “the power of impeachment… demands a rigorous level of due process.” Indeed, it does.​
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    56,456
    Thanks Received:
    9,068
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +41,386
    Watkins vrs United States of 1957 states:

    "Petitioner was not accorded a fair opportunity to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer, and his conviction was invalid under the Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment. Pp. 181-216.
    • (a) The power of Congress to conduct investigations, inherent in the legislative process, is broad; but it is not unlimited. P. 187.
    • (b) Congress has no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of Congress. P. 187.
    • (c) No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress. P. 187.
    • (d) The Bill of Rights is applicable to congressional investigations, as it is to all forms of governmental action. P. 188.
    • (e) A congressional investigation is subject to the command that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or press or assembly. Pp. 196-197. [354 U.S. 178, 179]
    • (f) When First Amendment rights are threatened, the delegation of power to a congressional committee must be clearly revealed in its charter. United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 . P. 198.
    • (g) A congressional investigation into individual affairs is invalid if unrelated to any legislative purpose, because it is beyond the powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 . P. 198.
    • (h) It cannot simply be assumed that every congressional investigation is justified by a public need that overbalances any private rights affected, since to do so would be to abdicate the responsibility placed by the Constitution upon the judiciary to insure that Congress does not unjustifiably encroach upon an individual's right of privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion or assembly. Pp. 198-199.
    • (i) There is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure where the predominant result can be only an invasion of the private rights of individuals. P. 200.
    • (j) In authorizing an investigation by a committee, it is essential that the Senate or House should spell out the committee's jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity to insure that compulsory process is used only in furtherance of a legislative purpose. P. 201.
    • (k) The resolution authorizing the Un-American Activities Committee does not satisfy this requirement, especially when read in the light of the practices of the Committee and subsequent actions of the House of Representatives extending the life of the Committee. Pp. 201-205.
    • (l) Every reasonable indulgence of legality must be accorded to the actions of a coordinate branch of our Government; but such deference cannot yield to an unnecessary and unreasonable dissipation of precious constitutional freedoms. P. 204.
    • (m) Protected freedoms should not be placed in danger in the absence of a clear determination by the House or Senate that a particular inquiry is justified by specific legislative need. P. 205.
    • (n) Congressional investigating committees are restricted to the missions delegated to them - to acquire certain data to be used by the House or Senate in coping with a problem that falls within its legislative sphere - and no witness can be compelled to make disclosures on matters outside that area. P. 206. [354 U.S. 178, 180]
    • (o) When the definition of jurisdictional pertinency is as uncertain and wavering as in the case of the Un-American Activities Committee, it becomes extremely difficult for the Committee to limit its inquiries to statutory pertinency. P. 206.
    • (p) The courts must accord to a defendant indicted under 2 U.S.C. 192 every right which is guaranteed to defendants in all other criminal cases, including the right to have available information revealing the standard of criminality before the commission of the alleged offense. Pp. 207-208.
    • (q) Since the statute defines the crime as refusal to answer "any question pertinent to the question under inquiry," part of the standard of criminality is the pertinency of the questions propounded to the witness. P. 208.
    • (r) Due process requires that a witness before a congressional investigating committee should not be compelled to decide, at peril of criminal prosecution, whether to answer questions propounded to him without first knowing the "question under inquiry" with the same degree of explicitness and clarity that the Due Process Clause requires in the expression of any element of a criminal offense. Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 . Pp. 208-209.
    • (s) The authorizing resolution, the remarks of the chairman or members of the committee, or even the nature of the proceedings themselves, might make the "question under inquiry" sufficiently clear to avoid the "vice of vagueness"; but these sources often leave the matter in grave doubt. P. 209.
    • (t) In this case, it is not necessary to pass on the question whether the authorizing resolution defines the "question under inquiry" with sufficient clarity, since the Government does not contend that it could serve that purpose. P. 209.
    • (u) The opening statement of the Chairman at the outset of the hearings here involved is insufficient to serve that purpose, since it merely paraphrased the authorizing resolution and gave a very general sketch of the past efforts of the Committee. Pp. 209-210.
    • (v) Nor was that purpose served by the action of the full Committee in authorizing the creation of the Subcommittee before which petitioner appeared, since it merely authorized the Chairman to appoint subcommittees "for the purpose of performing any and all acts which the Committee as a whole is authorized to do." Pp. 211-212.
    • (w) On the record in this case, especially in view of the precise questions petitioner was charged with refusing to answer, it cannot [354 U.S. 178, 181] be said that the "question under inquiry" was Communist infiltration into labor unions. Pp. 212-214.
    • (x) Unless the subject matter of the inquiry has been made to appear with undisputable clarity, it is the duty of the investigative body, upon objection of the witness on grounds of pertinency, to state for the record the subject under inquiry at that time and the manner in which the propounded questions are pertinent thereto. Pp. 214-215.
    (y) The Chairman's response, when petitioner objected to the questions on grounds of pertinency, was inadequate to convey sufficient information as to the pertinency of the questions to the "question under inquiry."​

    I can promise you that the House Intelligence committee's charter does NOT include inquiry into impeachment of a President of the USA. Same goes for the Judiciary, as this is why an impeachment committee is necessary and why a vote to authorize such a committee is required under CONSTITUTIONAL law.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    56,456
    Thanks Received:
    9,068
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +41,386
    After doing all this digging and discovering the case law limits to Congressional power and that we all still retain the rights of due process, I really have to wonder:

    WHAT THE HELL IS JUDGE NAPOLITANO SMOKING?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    56,995
    Thanks Received:
    7,557
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +25,640
    Depositions are never given in public.
     
  5. Tijn Von Ingersleben
    Offline

    Tijn Von Ingersleben Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    5,440
    Thanks Received:
    643
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +4,392
    No one know...the fact that the process is being abused is evidence of that. Hopefully after the next civil war they will get around to addressing these matters.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    56,995
    Thanks Received:
    7,557
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +25,640
    The process is not being abused.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Billy_Kinetta
    Offline

    Billy_Kinetta Paladin of the Lost Hour Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    41,657
    Thanks Received:
    8,022
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Ratings:
    +52,182
    He's a nevertrumper from the git-go. They are no better than Democrats.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  8. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    56,456
    Thanks Received:
    9,068
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +41,386
    I am starting to think so.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Congressional committees are restricted in their investigations to those things that their charter was defined for.

    There is no committee that defines its scope of inquiry as being one of investigating the POtUS for impeachment or not.

    Therefore this is unconstitutional according to established case law in Watkins vrs the United States.

    Case closed.

    Pelosi is being a political bully and abusing her office.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Billy_Kinetta
    Offline

    Billy_Kinetta Paladin of the Lost Hour Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    41,657
    Thanks Received:
    8,022
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Ratings:
    +52,182
    Democrats complain that Trump insulted her yesterday.

    He should continue to do so, often and publicly. It's well-deserved, and he might just goad the Democrats into an irrevocable mistake.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  10. TNHarley
    Online

    TNHarley Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    63,974
    Thanks Received:
    9,445
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +65,456
    Yea and they do it to him daily.
    Partisans are so disingenuous
     
    • Agree Agree x 2

Share This Page