Trump: Why aren't we entitled to 'learn everything about' the whistleblower?

[akyron]

You can not refute facts. Trump made the call, all you are left with is ass kissing, excuses and deflections.

Do not kiss my azz. please.

 

[akyron]

You can not refute facts.

I would never try to. I respect the fact too much.

 

[akyron]

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. It's a political process.

You really ought to understand that before you continue to post.

So article III section II is what you disagree with. I am ok with that.
It is perfectly fine with me that you are wrong. It is not a permanent mistake. You can recover with a bit of reading.


U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 4

Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III Section II

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."

The process of impeachment is a criminal trial, therefore defendants in an impeachment case are criminal defendants, such defendants would gain the protection of 5th and 6th Amendment Constitutional Rights.

The 5th and 6th Amendments were passed after the original Constitutional text, and take precedence over the original Constitutional text covering the process of impeachment.

That means Congress must afford all defendants the same rights they would have for a Court trial including:

The right to a speedy and public trial

The right to confront and compel witnesses before Congress

The right to Counsel

The right to remain silent

The right to “due process”

The protection against being tried twice for the same crime.

So which parts of the constitution do you disagree with and why?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

There is no "whistleblower". Just a pack of establishment and democrat political operative lawyers angry about Hillary's failure to convince the appropriate millions of necessary Americans she was worth considering to lead the country. Entrenched swamp creatures striving to hold onto power.
It is fascinating to witness demokkkrats aligning with the enemies of the country. China, NK, foreign agents, arms dealers, cartels, drug lords, human traffickers, drug dealers, and on and on.

There is zero evidence to support what you are writing here. Your writing resembles that of a crazy conspiracy theorist.

 

[iguanaman]

False accusations appear to be the leftest progressive democrat way lately. It is convenient that the elimination of the 6th amendment would appear appealing to democrats. The democrat desire to obfuscate, and desire to disenfranchise millions of american voters are quite clear.


Jussie Smollett’s neighbors cast doubt on his attack story
Claims against Kavanaugh Fall Apart
How the Media Covered False Smear of Covington Kids
Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart.

ad infinitum.

Obstruction of justice and ignorance of the Constitution is the Trump administrations "way" since their inception. The 6th amendment calls for speedy trials and that is impossible when evidence is illegally held back. You yourself are ignoring the Constitution when you say things like impeachment is disenfranchising voters. It is the way the founders gave us to remove corrupt and dangerous Presidents who refuse to abide by the law.

 

[Phys251]

Trump: Why aren't we entitled to 'learn everything about' the whistleblower? | TheHill

President Trump on Tuesday reiterated his desire to meet with and question the whistleblower whose complaint about Trump's interactions with the leader of Ukraine ignited an impeachment inquiry.

The president, who in recent days attacked the whistleblower as a "fraud" and attempted to undermine their credibility, questioned why he doesn't have the right to interview the anonymous individual.
===========================================
Uhhh... because it would be breaking Federal law? The Thug-in-Chief knows very little about the Constitution & derivative laws, which is frightening.

See Whistleblower Protection Act - Wikipedia

As a mob boss, the Don has made it clear that he wants the person (people?) who will blow his cover to be taken down...or out.

His followers, who also care nothing whatsoever about justice, fully support this.

 

[MTAtech]

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 4

Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III Section II

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."

The process of impeachment is a criminal trial, therefore defendants in an impeachment case are criminal defendants, such defendants would gain the protection of 5th and 6th Amendment Constitutional Rights.

The 5th and 6th Amendments were passed after the original Constitutional text, and take precedence over the original Constitutional text covering the process of impeachment.

That means Congress must afford all defendants the same rights they would have for a Court trial including:

The right to a speedy and public trial

The right to confront and compel witnesses before Congress

The right to Counsel

The right to remain silent

The right to “due process”

The protection against being tried twice for the same crime.

So which parts of the constitution do you disagree with and why?

You couldn't be more wrong with your assertion that impeachment is a criminal trial. It is not. Impeachment doesn't require criminality. The phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a catch-all for other heinous acts a president might do that is not enumerated in the constitution. Most of the framers knew the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of "high crimes and misdemeanors" were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
Citation

 

[Phys251]

Also:

 

[W_Heisenberg]

So article III section II is what you disagree with. I am ok with that.
It is perfectly fine with me that you are wrong. It is not a permanent mistake. You can recover with a bit of reading.


U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 4

Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III Section II

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."

The process of impeachment is a criminal trial, therefore defendants in an impeachment case are criminal defendants, such defendants would gain the protection of 5th and 6th Amendment Constitutional Rights.

The 5th and 6th Amendments were passed after the original Constitutional text, and take precedence over the original Constitutional text covering the process of impeachment.

That means Congress must afford all defendants the same rights they would have for a Court trial including:

The right to a speedy and public trial

The right to confront and compel witnesses before Congress

The right to Counsel

The right to remain silent

The right to “due process”

The protection against being tried twice for the same crime.

So which parts of the constitution do you disagree with and why?

It's both a political and legal process, and the Senate DURING THE TRIAL would not depart far from our traditional legal values and principles.

But we aren't there yet. The House has to impeach first. It's more like a grand jury indictment. When there is a trial then Trump can make an argument about compelling the whistleblower to testify, not before. And what he shouldn't be doing is accusing Schiff and the Whisteblower of being traitors. It's ridiculous. Trump is not above the law.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Also:

View attachment 67265257

This is great. I love this.

 

[SMTA]

This alleged “whistleblower”, traitor is a better word, should be investigated, his co-conspirators found out and they must all be executed for they have spoken against his excellency and Dear Leader President Trump.

His treasonous lies have assisted other subversive forces in the nation to attack the Great Leadership and Eternal Glory of President Trump who only seeks prosperity and justice in the land.

If these seditious forces, conspiring in the bowels of the deep state do not cease their attacks on the glorious leader of Trump and stop causing great discomfort to his good brain then they should face death, brought forth by the eternal glory and righteousness of his good brain, using his best words, some have said, the bestest words they’ve ever heard.

Hail Trump!

Hail The Dear Leader!

Death to all who speak against him!

Damn straight.
Can’t wait for Trump Youth to form so I can get my kids indoctrinated.
Sig Heil The Moron!

 

[akyron]

It's both a political and legal process.

Accurate. Technically the process has not begun at all. There has been no vote.

Quite a farce.

 

[akyron]

This is great. I love this.

Meh CNN has been trying to kill the president for years by suggesting treason if we really want to go there.

 

[Obscurity]

Because, you obese ****ing twat, Whistleblower laws say so.

My sweet shadow this is our president?

What a shame.

 

[akyron]

You couldn't be more wrong with your assertion that impeachment is a criminal trial.

Better let the Chief justice know he does not have to get out of bed that day then.

It is interesting that you use English law since that is what the founders were getting away from.

“The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts,” said Kinkopf.
“When the Founders wanted to ensure accountability, they mostly relied on elections and the voters to hold government officials responsible for their actions,” said Whittington. “But what might fall into the category of ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ was still quite unclear.”

 

[W_Heisenberg]

You couldn't be more wrong with your assertion that impeachment is a criminal trial. It is not. Impeachment doesn't require criminality. The phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a catch-all for other heinous acts a president might do that is not enumerated in the constitution. Most of the framers knew the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of "high crimes and misdemeanors" were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
Citation

You are correct that an impeachment of the President does not require the charge of an actual crime outlined in the federal statutes, but if there is a trial in the Senate then the Senate would follow a process similar to what happens in courts, they would try to follow the same principles that we are all aware of as outlined by Akryon, but there aren't many hard and fast rules. There haven't been that many impeachment trials. So the Senate would argue about all of the rules as the trial happens.

But we are not there yet. We are in the investigatory stage of the process so all these points Akryon is making aren't valid yet.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Accurate. Technically the process has not begun at all. There has been no vote.

Quite a farce.

They don't need a vote. The committees already have the authority to conduct an investigation without a floor vote. There is nothing in the Constitution, no Supreme Court rulings, that say the House must proceed with an impeachment inquiry on the basis of a floor vote.

 

[Visbek]

So article III section II is what you disagree with.

:roll:

Again: Impeachment is not, in any way shape or form, a criminal proceeding. It is a political process. It was designed that way from the start.

Trump can't ask for a public defender. No one Mirandized him. He didn't have a bail hearing. If convicted, he won't face fines or go to jail. If the POTUS commits an illegal act, that can be the grounds for a successful conviction in the Senate and the basis for a subsequent criminal trial, once out of office. There is no double jeopardy, because impeachment is not a criminal process. The Constitution is explicit on this point.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend
further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to
hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under
the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless
be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and
Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis added)


In fact, the Constitution says very little about the process. It never says that the POTUS is entitled to counsel, or due process, or to confront witnesses, or that it has to be public. If Congress really wanted to remove a POTUS, the House could hold a private impeachment hearings on Monday, and the Senate could privately vote to convict on Friday, and the POTUS could not present a single legal argument against the result. (He or she could appeal to the public, but not to the courts.) In fact, in the very section you quoted, the Constitution explicitly excludes impeachment from criminal proceedings.

(And as I pointed out earlier in this thread: The right to "compel a witness" does not mean that Trump can call witnesses into a room and personally berate them. That is utter nonsense. In most cases, that would almost certainly be a crime -- witness intimidation and/or obstruction. So no, unless this gets to the point where Trump is facing criminal prosecution, does he have the right to know anything about the whistleblower.)

Maybe instead of cutting and pasting and repeating a bunch of irrelevant claims, you should understand the basics of the process. Just a thought.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Meh CNN has been trying to kill the president for years by suggesting treason if we really want to go there.

Any organization and any individual has the right to criticize the President. It's called freedom of speech, or do you not believe in that part of the Constitution?

 

[MTAtech]

Better let the Chief justice know he doesnt have to get out of bed that day then.

The fact that the Chief Justice is required, as per the constitution, to preside over impeachment doesn't make it a criminal trial. Your leaps of logic are bewildering.

 

[akyron]

Any organization and any individual has the right to criticize the President.

Criticizing policies is fine. Criticizing for being orange is not.

Criticizing to death is uncool as well.

 

[akyron]

The fact that the Chief Justice is required, as per the constitution, to preside over impeachment doesn't make it a criminal trial. Your leaps of logic are bewildering.

So exactly what do you think "high crimes" means if you think something other than criminal?

 

[MTAtech]

They don't need a vote. The committees already have the authority to conduct an investigation without a floor vote. There is nothing in the Constitution, no Supreme Court rulings, that say the House must proceed with an impeachment inquiry on the basis of a floor vote.

To further what you wrote, criminal trials require indictment. There is no indictment prior to the House conducting hearings and reviewing evidence. That evidence doesn't have to be evidence of actual criminality. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

 

[MTAtech]

So exactly what do you think "high crimes" means if you think something other than criminal?

Answered in a previous post.

Officials accused of "high crimes and misdemeanors" were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Criticizing policies is fine. Criticizing for being orange is not.

Criticizing to death is uncool as well.

View attachment 67265259

You keep posting all these things that amount to strawman fallacies and non-sequitors. You are just trolling everyone at this point. The vast majority of Trump critics do not agree with what Kathy Griffin did.

Do you agree with Trump continually calling Schiff a traitor? Do you think that's okay?