Should Trump be impeached?

[rah]

Trump has already commented/threatened on whistle-blowers. If I was one, I'd want to remain anonymous also. That's what the whistle-blower rules are all about. To protect them from all the things that Trump claims happens to them. And this isn't the Senate Republican's issue yet. When it becomes theirs, they will get to do the sham acquittal thing. That's why I hope it drags out in the house for another 12 months to do the most damage. Maybe if Trump cooperated, it would go quicker, but as long as he drags his feet, the house should retaliate by dragging it out.

[Donegeal]

Here we are worring about big serious things, but did you know that two of the articles of Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson was for making speeches with the intent to "bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States", and "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions.". Has precedence already been set?

[Kidlicious]

Here we are worring about big serious things, but did you know that two of the articles of Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson was for making speeches with the intent to "bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States", and "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions.". Has precedence already been set?

Yeah. Congress passed a law preventing him from firing Cabinet officials In order to limit his power. Seems like a similar case.

[Berzerker]

When Trump submitted written answers he was the accused, not the accuser. The accused has a fundamental right to face their accuser if at all possible. I dont need to see the whistleblower testify, we have the transcript. Trump wanted Ukraine to look into the 2016 election for evidence the Democrats conspired with foreigners to defeat him, to identify who hacked the DNC emails and why Crowdstrike was given the task of identifying the hackers instead of the FBI, and he wanted the Bidens investigated. Whats the problem? Dont Americans deserve to know?

I voted no but I would consider changing to yes if the DoJ opens investigations into all the Democrats and Republicans who asked foreigners for help in elections. Until then, who among you is without sin?

[Kidlicious]

Exactly Berz. The media is covering for Biden. It's sad though that so many people have to have information shoved down their throat to get something.

[BeBMan]

The accused has a fundamental right to face their accuser if at all possible.

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.

[Kidlicious]

He's talking about a principle of fairness.

[BeBMan]

The accused has a fundamental right to face their accuser if at all possible.

Bolded for fun.

[Kidlicious]

Bolded for fun.

They are inalienable rights. That's why we declared our independence in this country. We didn't just say, "We only have rights that the government has given us."

[rah]

And the constitution specifically give the House the right which Trump is trying to quash.

[BeBMan]

Maybe you can make up your mind if you want to present it as a matter of mere fairness or as one of explicit rights, Kid. But just in case you tend to the latter:

They are inalienable rights.

Which only matter if the case falls into a category where those rights come into play, and it is precisely the US constitution which states where they do or just not.

[Broken_Erika]

Only now do i realize i should have poasted dis hear!
Hear is where it belongs!

[Kidlicious]

Maybe you can make up your mind if you want to present it as a matter of mere fairness or as one of explicit rights, Kid. But just in case you tend to the latter:



Which only matter if the case falls into a category where those rights come into play, and it is precisely the US constitution which states where they do or just not.

I don't think you understand our culture. The government is expected to treat people fairly, not just obey the legalistic interpretation of the law. There's a reason why when someone is accused of a crime that they get due process. It's not just because the law says so. It's because not doing so is not fair. The government must treat people fairly.

[BeBMan]

There's a reason why when someone is accused of a crime that they get due process.

There's a reason why the "right to meet your accuser" is limited to criminal matters by the same US constitution that grants inalienable rights where applicable.

[Kidlicious]

There's a reason why the "right to meet your accuser" is limited to criminal matters by the same US constitution that grants inalienable rights where applicable.

It actually isn't. In civil cases the defendants have the right to meet their accuser. They are afforded almost all of the same rights as if they were accused of a crime. The reason is that the government can not take a citizen's rights away.