Should Trump be impeached?

[BeBMan]

U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment text from https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...amendment.html

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

(emphasis mine)


Which part of the US constitution extends this to civil cases or political procedures like impeachment?

[Kidlicious]

U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment text from https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...amendment.html



(emphasis mine)


Which part of the US constitution extends this to civil cases or political procedures like impeachment?

Your logic is bad. You're saying that since the Constitution says that the government can't violate the rights of the individual when the individual is accused of a crime the government can violate your rights when you aren't accused of a crime. The government can never violate the rights of the individual.

You aren't providing any evidence that the government can ever violate an individual's rights. The very idea that individuals would make a social contract which allows the government to violate their rights in a case like this is absurd.

[rah]

But, but, our culture

[BeBMan]

Your logic is bad. You're saying that since the Constitution says that the government can't violate the rights of the individual when the individual is accused of a crime the government can violate your rights when you aren't accused of a crime. The government can never violate the rights of the individual.

You aren't providing any evidence that the government can ever violate an individual's rights. The very idea that individuals would make a social contract which allows the government to violate their rights in a case like this is absurd.

I don't think you understand your constitution when you do not realize that the same constitution which grants you said rights defines clearly areas where they do and do not apply, and ergo cannot be violated if the latter is happening.

[BeBMan]

My right to an attorney got violated throughout this debate

[Kidlicious]

I don't think you understand your constitution when you do not realize that the same constitution which grants you said rights defines clearly areas where they do and do not apply, and ergo cannot be violated if the latter is happening.

No. No. Rights come from God. The government recognizes rights. Individuals have rights that aren't denied by the law. There is no law denying the President to due process therefore the government has no right to deny him due process.

[Kidlicious]

My right to an attorney got violated throughout this debate

No. Get one. It would be a big help.

[BeBMan]

No. No. Rights come from God..

Screenshot or it didn't happen

[Berzerker]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

[Kidlicious]

Screenshot or it didn't happen

It's the way our legal system works.

[FlameFlash]

Without government we're in a state of nature. God established the state of nature. Man established rights.

[Kidlicious]

The Bill of Rights do not take away individual rights. They specify individual rights that the government can not take away. That does not give the government the right to take away rights that aren't specified. This is the context in which the Bill of Rights were written into the Constitution.

One of the many points of contention between Federalists, who advocated a strong national government, and Anti-Federalists, who wanted power to remain with state and local governments, was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

Literally no one involved in the creation of the Bill of Rights believed that that it gave the government the right to violate rights not specified by law.

[BeBMan]

How would anyone violate a right or just know about said right when it is nowhere specified?

[Berzerker]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment

[Lorizael]

If fairness were a doctrine the US abided by where it concerns the president, it wouldn't be DOJ policy that the president and the president alone cannot be indicted.

[Berzerker]

Not a legal expert here - but afaik this goes for criminal cases primarily - is the Trump impeachment at this level yet? I have read again and again it's mostly a political procedure, which why Rep support (or lack thereof) matters that much.

I'm not either, but High crimes and misdemeanors sounds like something worse than campaign finance violations. Sicking foreign governments on potential opponents for the next election might qualify, but in this case the opponent was part of the last administration that not only spied on Trump, they 'justified' it based on the Clinton campaign's opposition research solicited and purchased from foreigners.

That's the Democrat's excuse for impeaching Trump, he cant ask foreigners for help. They were doing it first in Ukraine and the Bidens are involved, Joe was in charge of our policy and even bribed/extorted them with a billion $ to fire their prosecutor while his son was being paid millions by a Ukrainian energy co suspected of crimes.

We're told this was all on the up and up, Biden cared so much about Ukrainian democracy and wanted to combat corruption. No, that was the cover story. We were funding the new government and the activists and reformers, the west was pouring money into the country and we didn't want any prosecutors investigating the money. That billion $ to fire the prosecutor was a message - dont piss off the big money, dont investigate us and our friends. We fought corruption in Ukraine by paying a billion $ bribe to fire the guy following the money, thats Machiavellian.

This is the Deep State conspiring with the media and Democrats, the latter's motive is obvious - power, but why the Deep State? They're invested in the status quo. The weapons makers dont want something like peace breaking out, 'isolationists' are the enemy, they dont want to be nicey nice with Russia or start leaving the Middle East or S Korea or Germany or Japan or... If we cant invent enemies what will justify spending trillions on 'defense'?

[pchang]

There are some subtleties in the timelines that berz references which make me suspect his sources.

[Berzerker]

sadly yes, Chuck Schumer admitted it - the intel community was mad at Trump and they had all sorts of ways of getting him back

John Brennan is a paid msnbc 'contributor', the former head of the cia is telling us what to believe

[Dinner]

You realize none of that conspiracy nonsense you wrote there is factually true, right?

[Proteus_MST]

It's the way our legal system works.

I don't see god (or gods) mentioned in the Bill of Rights