Democrats admit they haven't used due process

[Foxfyre]

With recent reports that the FBI is unfairly and unjustly targeting conservatives/Patriots, especially those associated with Trump, and downplaying or ignoring misconduct on the left, it almost goes without saying that Patriots are well aware of misconduct by Democrats in the impeachment processes and January 6 Commission.

And according to the linked article, prominent Democrats like Jerry Nadler admit they didn't use due process and what they did and/or are doing is unconstitutional.

How long can our constitutional republic stand with one party effectively at war against the other? Why do so many seem to tolerate it? Or they just don't believe it is happening?

Democrats admit they abandoned precedent, denied Trump due process in impeachment

Pelosi, Schiff steamrolled objections about lack of witnesses violating Trump's constitutional rights during impeachment trial, according to a new book.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Foxfyre]

Disclaimer: I am not saying all Democrats are party to the dangerous situation that exists re the current misconduct in government. I know many who are honest, decent people and should not be tarred with the same brush as the guilty.

But the situation is truly alarming, most especially since the Democrats also control the message in most of the MSM, social media etc.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Disclaimer: I am not saying all Democrats are party to the dangerous situation that exists re the current misconduct in government. I know many who are honest, decent people and should not be tarred with the same brush as the guilty.

But the situation is truly alarming, most especially since the Democrats also control the message in most of the MSM, social media etc.

Try doing some more research instead of relying on a site which constantly, gratefully not always, wants to make Democrats look bad, unpatriotic, destructive, etc, etc.

Then, we can get to the truth about the FBI, etc.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

With recent reports that the FBI is unfairly and unjustly targeting conservatives/Patriots, especially those associated with Trump, and downplaying or ignoring misconduct on the left, it almost goes without saying that Patriots are well aware of misconduct by Democrats in the impeachment processes and January 6 Commission.

And according to the linked article, prominent Democrats like Jerry Nadler admit they didn't use due process and what they did and/or are doing is unconstitutional.

How long can our constitutional republic stand with one party effectively at war against the other? Why do so many seem to tolerate it? Or they just don't believe it is happening?

Democrats admit they abandoned precedent, denied Trump due process in impeachment

Pelosi, Schiff steamrolled objections about lack of witnesses violating Trump's constitutional rights during impeachment trial, according to a new book.

www.foxnews.com

Not really sure what 'Due Process' means in this case. Abandoned precedent I get. But Due Process? There are no rules..in law..that govern how an impeachment is conducted.
I recall the Senate in the first Trump impeachment choosing not to call any witnesses at all. Is that a violation of Due Process?

Unconstitutional? Just reread the relevant sections--not seeing any lack of Constitutionality.

I think many conflate impeachment with a criminal trial. It is not and the rules we are all familiar with don't apply, IMO.
That includes what we think of as Due Process, IMO~

Your larger question regarding our parties at war with each-other. I think that's a symptom of the underlying disease..our bitter and ongoing culture war.

Politics has become the battlefield of the fringes. Extremists rule and mandate that nothing get done by compromise. Thus, very little gets done.

Why do so many not care? I believe it's because most of us know the game is rigged, and not in our favor. We all assume that both sides lie--and the media chums the waters for ratings and advertising revenue.

 

[Sixties Fan]

With recent reports that the FBI is unfairly and unjustly targeting conservatives/Patriots, especially those associated with Trump, and downplaying or ignoring misconduct on the left, it almost goes without saying that Patriots are well aware of misconduct by Democrats in the impeachment processes and January 6 Commission.

And according to the linked article, prominent Democrats like Jerry Nadler admit they didn't use due process and what they did and/or are doing is unconstitutional.

How long can our constitutional republic stand with one party effectively at war against the other? Why do so many seem to tolerate it? Or they just don't believe it is happening?

Democrats admit they abandoned precedent, denied Trump due process in impeachment

Pelosi, Schiff steamrolled objections about lack of witnesses violating Trump's constitutional rights during impeachment trial, according to a new book.

www.foxnews.com

[And, as I usually tend to do I get some information about the writer of the article]



Well, that. And encouraging election fraud. And recklessly endangering Congress, its staff, the Capitol Police, and his own Vice President (who Trump allegedly said “deserves” to be executed). And lying to the public to commit campaign finance graft.

By leaning into the talking point that this is all just mean talk about Trump, Turley’s relying on what can at best be characterized as “legalish” thinking. Generally casting aspersions on the election process isn’t a crime! Conspiring with fake slates of electors and trying to convince the Vice President to hijack the Constitution… would be. Criminal liability for incitement is, correctly, a wildly high hill to climb! Using public office to obstruct a response that put lives at risk… makes for a different story. Campaigns can use all sorts of puffery without being illegal! Making up “funds” to raise money for lawsuits while always intending to funnel the money to yourself and your cronies… well, you get the idea.

Jonathan Turley Sums Up January 6 Hearings Like He Didn't Watch January 6 Hearings - Above the Law

Could he really be this bad at legal analysis?

abovethelaw.com

 

[pknopp]

Try doing some more research instead of relying on a site which constantly, gratefully not always, wants to make Democrats look bad, unpatriotic, destructive, etc, etc.

Then, we can get to the truth about the FBI, etc.

Time has shown that the Democrats had nothing to impeach Trump over the first time. One can make an argument the second time but it seemed pretty redundant at that point.

 

[MisterBeale]

If the establishment elites are the ones that really think they get to decide for the American people who is, and who is not qualified to be an elected official, then we don't have a democratic republic, we have an oligarchy.

In the end, that is really all this is about. A neophyte that did not always do what the establishment wanted him to do, or act in the way he was supposed to.

And we saw that in the way all precedent was thrown out the window to try to bring down, and stymie his entire term in office.

 

[Foxfyre]

Try doing some more research instead of relying on a site which constantly, gratefully not always, wants to make Democrats look bad, unpatriotic, destructive, etc, etc.

Then, we can get to the truth about the FBI, etc.

I do my homework before I post. Thank you.

 

[Magnus]

With recent reports that the FBI is unfairly and unjustly targeting conservatives/Patriots, especially those associated with Trump, and downplaying or ignoring misconduct on the left, it almost goes without saying that Patriots are well aware of misconduct by Democrats in the impeachment processes and January 6 Commission.

And according to the linked article, prominent Democrats like Jerry Nadler admit they didn't use due process and what they did and/or are doing is unconstitutional.

How long can our constitutional republic stand with one party effectively at war against the other? Why do so many seem to tolerate it? Or they just don't believe it is happening?

Democrats admit they abandoned precedent, denied Trump due process in impeachment

Pelosi, Schiff steamrolled objections about lack of witnesses violating Trump's constitutional rights during impeachment trial, according to a new book.

www.foxnews.com

White House lawyers distorted the facts on the impeachment process and other issues during the Jan. 21 Senate trial:

• White House counsel Pat Cipollone falsely suggested Republicans were barred from the closed-door depositions conducted by the House intelligence committee. But members of three committees — both Democrats and Republicans — participated.
• Jay Sekulow, President Donald Trump’s attorney, falsely said, “During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses … the right to access evidence and … the right to have counsel present at hearings.” The committee chair invited Trump and his lawyers to participate, but they declined.

False and Misleading Claims at Impeachment Trial - FactCheck.org

White House lawyers distorted the facts on the impeachment process and other issues during the Jan. 21 Senate trial.

www.factcheck.org

 

[Foxfyre]

Not really sure what 'Due Process' means in this case. Abandoned precedent I get. But Due Process? There are no rules..in law..that govern how an impeachment is conducted.
I recall the Senate in the first Trump impeachment choosing not to call any witnesses at all. Is that a violation of Due Process?

Unconstitutional? Just reread the relevant sections--not seeing any lack of Constitutionality.

I think many conflate impeachment with a criminal trial. It is not and the rules we are all familiar with don't apply, IMO.
That includes what we think of as Due Process, IMO~

Your larger question regarding our parties at war with each-other. I think that's a symptom of the underlying disease..our bitter and ongoing culture war.

Politics has become the battlefield of the fringes. Extremists rule and mandate that nothing get done by compromise. Thus, very little gets done.

Why do so many not care? I believe it's because most of us know the game is rigged, and not in our favor. We all assume that both sides lie--and the media chums the waters for ratings and advertising revenue.

In the first impeachment, the Senate properly voted based on the lack of due process. The Democrats in the House did not produce a single witness that could say they saw or heard President Trump say or do ANYTHING improper or illegal. And each one was asked that specifically and every single one said no. There was no basis for the Senate to use to even consider conviction and removal because there was no crime.

In the second impeachment they didn't bother with witnesses at all.

In the January 6 Commission process they have used selectively edited video, allowed zero witnesses who would speak up for President Trump, no cross examination of witnesses, no introduction of exculpatory evidence, and denied the Republicans the representatives of their choice to serve on the Commission.

No due process.

 

[Foxfyre]

White House lawyers distorted the facts on the impeachment process and other issues during the Jan. 21 Senate trial:

• White House counsel Pat Cipollone falsely suggested Republicans were barred from the closed-door depositions conducted by the House intelligence committee. But members of three committees — both Democrats and Republicans — participated.
• Jay Sekulow, President Donald Trump’s attorney, falsely said, “During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses … the right to access evidence and … the right to have counsel present at hearings.” The committee chair invited Trump and his lawyers to participate, but they declined.

False and Misleading Claims at Impeachment Trial - FactCheck.org

White House lawyers distorted the facts on the impeachment process and other issues during the Jan. 21 Senate trial.

www.factcheck.org

The evidence shows that those Republicans who tried to be there during those depositions were summarily ejected. Your fact check isn't doing much fact checking.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Time has shown that the Democrats had nothing to impeach Trump over the first time. One can make an argument the second time but it seemed pretty redundant at that point.

Of course the first impeachment was a fake. When is it ever illegal to ask the President of a foreign country to say that they have information about one of your opponents during an election?

It is very common to do that, although I cannot think of another time when it may have happened.

Can you?

 

[Magnus]

The evidence shows that those Republicans who tried to be there during those depositions were summarily ejected. Your fact check isn't doing much fact checking.

Prove me wrong. Go.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Part 1

Washington, D.C. –Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following closing remarks for the hearing on "The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment":

"George Washington’s farewell address warns of a moment when 'cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.'

"President Trump placed his own personal and political interests above our national interest, above the security of our country, and most importantly above our most precious right: the ability of each and every one of us to participate in fair elections, free of corruption.

"The Constitution has a solution for a president who places his personal or political interests above those of the nation—the power of impeachment.

"As one of my colleagues pointed out, I have articulated a three-part test for impeachment.

"Let me be clear: all three parts of that test have been met.

"First: Yes, the President has committed an impeachable offense.

"The President asked a foreign government to intervene in our elections, then got caught, then obstructed the investigators. Twice.

"Our witnesses told us in no uncertain terms that this conduct constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, including abuse of power.

"Second: Yes, the President’s alleged offenses represent a direct threat to the constitutional order.

"Professor Karlan warned: 'Drawing a foreign government into our election process is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself.'

"Professor Feldman echoed: 'if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy, we live in a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship.'

"And Professor Gerhardt reminded us: 'If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable.'

"President Trump’s actions represent a threat to our national security and an urgent threat to integrity of the next election.

"Third: Yes, we should not proceed unless at least some of the citizens who supported the President in the last election are willing to come with us. A majority of this country is clearly prepared to impeach and remove President Trump.

"Rather than respond to the unsettling and dangerous evidence, my Republican colleagues have called this process 'unfair.'

"It is not.

"Nor is this argument new. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle – unable to defend the behavior of the President – have used this argument before.

Chairman Nadler Closing Statement at First Impeachment Hearing

nadler.house.gov

 

[pknopp]

Of course the fist impeachment was a fake. When is it ever illegal to ask the President of a foreign country to say that they have information about one of your opponents during an election?

It is very common to do that, although I cannot think of another time when it may have happened.

Can you?

If anyone has information about a candidate, we all should want to know what it is.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Part 2

"First, they said that these proceedings were not constitutional because we did not have a floor vote. We had a floor vote.

"Then, they said that our proceedings were not constitutional because they could not call witnesses.

"Republicans called three of the witnesses in the live hearings and will have an opportunity to request witnesses in this Committee, as well.

"Next, they said that our proceedings were not constitutional because the President could not participate.

"But when the Committee invited the President to participate in this hearing, he declined.

"The simple fact is that these proceedings have all the protections afforded prior presidents.

"This process follows the constitutional and legal precedents.

"So, I am left to conclude that the only reason my colleagues rush from one process complaint to the next is because there is no factual defense for President Trump.

"Unlike any other President before him, President Trump has openly rejected Congress’s right as a co-equal branch of government.

"He has defied our subpoenas. He has refused to produce any documents. And he directed his aides not to testify.

"President Trump has also asked a foreign government to intervene in our elections.

"And he has made clear that if left unchecked, he will do it again.

"Why? Because he believes that, in his own words: 'I can do whatever I want.'

"That is why we must act now.

Chairman Nadler Closing Statement at First Impeachment Hearing

nadler.house.gov

 

[bripat9643]

Disclaimer: I am not saying all Democrats are party to the dangerous situation that exists re the current misconduct in government. I know many who are honest, decent people and should not be tarred with the same brush as the guilty.

But the situation is truly alarming, most especially since the Democrats also control the message in most of the MSM, social media etc.

If they voted for Biden, they aren't honest or decent.

 

[Sixties Fan]

If anyone has information about a candidate, we all should want to know what it is.

But the problem is that Zelinski did not have anything on Biden. Trump wanted that President to fabricate something.

And THAT is what got Trump indicted/impeached.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Part 3

"In this country, the President cannot do whatever he wants.

"In this country, no one – not even the President – is above the law.

"Today, we began our conversation where we should, with the text of the Constitution.

"We have heard clearly from our witnesses that the Constitution compels action.

"Indeed, every witness, including the witness selected by the Republican side, agreed that if President Trump did what the Intelligence Committee found him to have done after extensive and compelling witness from Trump Administration officials, he committed impeachable offenses.

"While the Republican witness may not be convinced that there is sufficient evidence that the President engaged in these acts, the American people and the majority of this Committee disagree.

"I also think the Republican witness, Mr. Turley issued, a sage warning in 1998, when he was a leading advocate for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He said:

"'If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct.'

"That was the caution of Professor Turley in 1998.

"That caution should guide all of us today. And by any account, that warning is infinitely more applicable to the abuses of power we are contemplating today.

"Because as we all know, if these abuses go unchecked, they will only continue, and only grow worse.

"Each of us took an oath to defend the Constitution. The President is a continuing threat to that Constitution, and to our democracy. I will honor my oath.

"And as I sit here today – having heard consistent, clear, and compelling evidence that the President has abused his power, attempted to undermine the constitutional role of Congress, and corrupted our elections – I urge my colleagues: Stand behind the oath you have taken.

"Our democracy depends on it."

Chairman Nadler Closing Statement at First Impeachment Hearing

nadler.house.gov

 

[pknopp]

But the problem is that Zelinski did not have anything on Biden. Trump wanted that President to fabricate something.

And THAT is what got Trump indicted/impeached.

If you say so.