Trump claims the Constitution is unconstitutional

[homersapien 11,367]

12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How does that reasonably indicate that my position is “Trump is being threatened with deprivation of [a life, liberty, or property interest]” ????

 

 

Because it seems you were applying a due process standard that applies - by your own words - to a legal process that threatens deprivation of "life, liberty, or property interest".

Impeachment doesn't do that.  It's a political process that is addressed independently (from the criminal process) by the constitution

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Sounds to me like you are conflating the process associated with criminal charges with the impeachment process.  They are not the same thing. For one thing, unlike a criminal charge, impeachment carries no risk of depriving the subject of "life liberty or loss of property".

Impeachment is a political process whereby an elected official can be removed from office. This is distinct from the criminal process, which is undoubtedly why the Constitution bestows that power to the House - a popularly elected body - instead of the Courts or Justice Department.  It's kept within the political realm.  

And like it or not, the constitution does not specify any sort of process regarding impeachment.  It leaves it entirely up to the House to set rules and procedure.

And aside from it's constitutional irrelevance, exactly what is the basis of claiming Trump is being denied due process in this impeachment query? 

What is the house doing that would cause anyone to claim he is being denied "due process"?  

It seems to me that Trump is the one violating the constitution by ignoring subpoenas and otherwise obstructing the house's ability to fulfill their constitutional duty of political oversight (which itself constitutes a reason to impeach).

 

No offense buddy, but you think due process only applies to criminal procedure. You’re too far into left field to have this discussion with.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

All you do is play games. I keep thinking you might actually engage in a meaningful way. I think in this case you’ve realized you were wrong, but your ginormous ego won’t let you admit that. But you’ve won a fan in Tiger Sue.  That should tell you you need a course correction.

What was I wrong about? Quit beating around the bush and confront my post head-on instead of pulling unjustified assumptions out of your anus.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

37 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Because it seems you were applying a due process standard that applies - by your own words - to a legal process that threatens deprivation of "life, liberty, or property interest".

Impeachment doesn't do that.  It's a political process that is addressed independently (from the criminal process) by the constitution

Homer, you keep reiterating “criminal process.” My goodness dude, due process isn’t restricted to “criminal process.” Brush up on your knowledge of the Bill of Rights buddy.

[TexasTiger 12,833]

40 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What was I wrong about? Quit beating around the bush and confront my post head-on instead of pulling unjustified assumptions out of your anus.

Doubling down on stupid! Suits you!

[japantiger 4,051]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, it's typical Trump.  Partisan BS and bluster.  Pure deflection.  Just like declaring his political challengers traitors.

He is trying to declare himself above the constitution.

(And try not to be such a jerk, if you can.)

so you still haven't read the letter.  The word "traitor" is not in the letter.  Let me help you...

For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. "

See, very simple.   Look, you hippies created the current concept of due process is the 60's man.  Now you not only want to go to war in Syria; but you guys now want to run kangaroo courts?  What happened man?  All that dope finally short circuit your brains? 

Imagine how this would have played with old Slick Willy...even he got the benefit of seeing his accuser up off her knees.  What do you fear?  Why do you fear affording Trump the same "process" given to any other President?  We all know why you fear it... You can't treat Trump like anyone else; hell, he'll win again (as the famous Congressmen Al Green said) thus proving the point this is a kangaroo court).  Mueller failed; we can't treat him fairly!!!!!  So instead, you bought the ACME Impeachment Guide...good luck.  .  

[homersapien 11,367]

42 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No offense buddy, but you think due process only applies to criminal procedure. You’re too far into left field to have this discussion with.

I was quoting from your own source. 

But you can certainly avoid the discussion if you're not up to it.

[TexasTiger 12,833]

7 minutes ago, japantiger said:

so you still haven't read the letter.  The word "traitor" is not in the letter.  Let me help you...

For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. "

See, very simple.   Look, you hippies created the current concept of due process is the 60's man.  Now you not only want to go to war in Syria; but you guys now want to run kangaroo courts?  What happened man?  All that dope finally short circuit your brains? 

Imagine how this would have played with old Slick Willy...even he got the benefit of seeing his accuser up off her knees.  What do you fear?  Why do you fear affording Trump the same "process" given to any other President?  We all know why you fear it... You can't treat Trump like anyone else; hell, he'll win again (as the famous Congressmen Al Green said) thus proving the point this is a kangaroo court).  Mueller failed; we can't treat him fairly!!!!!  So instead, you bought the ACME Impeachment Guide...good luck.  .  

You’re impervious to facts and reason! It’s amazing! You just forge ahead swatting facts from your path as if they’re gnats! 

[TexasTiger 12,833]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I was quoting from your own source. 

But you can certainly avoid the discussion if you're not up to it.

He’s projecting.

[japantiger 4,051]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re impervious to facts and reason! It’s amazing! You just forge ahead swatting facts from your path as if they’re gnats! 

Look, anytime you start resorting to insults; it's a sure sign you've conceded.  Just go ahead.  You know this is ridiculous.  If any of the above points are wrong; you should have no trouble showing me thru your superior insight, clarity and understanding the error of my ways; and you can certainly refute the presidents lawyers based on your vast constitutional experience.  Go ahead?  Otherwise,  you're just full of Schiff.  

[homersapien 11,367]

40 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Homer, you keep reiterating “criminal process.” My goodness dude, due process isn’t restricted to “criminal process.” Brush up on your knowledge of the Bill of Rights buddy.

Maybe you are the one who needs to "brush up" on the constitution.

The 5th amendment says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I am using "criminal process" as shorthand to describe any process that might deprive one from "life, liberty or property" as stated above.

Please note there is nothing in the 5th amendment regarding impeachment.

 

 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,791]

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-defense-expla/explainer-does-the-impeachment-probe-violate-trumps-civil-rights-idUSKBN1WO11D

But legal experts agreed that giving Trump some basic protections and allowing his lawyers to participate would make the process more fair. That could be a wise political move for Democrats, said Ross Garber, an impeachment lawyer in Washington.

Bypassing due process safeguards that are standard in the U.S. legal system “may make the American people question the legitimacy of the impeachment process,” Garber said.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

21 minutes ago, japantiger said:

so you still haven't read the letter.  The word "traitor" is not in the letter.  Let me help you...

I didn't say or mean to imply he called someone a traitor in the subject letter.  He's done so in press conferences and/or tweets. Sorry, I thought that was obvious

For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. "

None of the rights and/or supposed violations mentioned above are specified in the constitution as required for the impeachment process, much less a preliminary investigation of an impeachment process. 

That is a false premise invented by Trump's lawyers in an attempt to obstruct the house investigation. It won't stand.

 

See, very simple.   Look, you hippies created the current concept of due process is the 60's man.  Now you not only want to go to war in Syria; but you guys now want to run kangaroo courts?  What happened man?  All that dope finally short circuit your brains? 

Imagine how this would have played with old Slick Willy...even he got the benefit of seeing his accuser up off her knees.  What do you fear?  Why do you fear affording Trump the same "process" given to any other President?  We all know why you fear it... You can't treat Trump like anyone else; hell, he'll win again (as the famous Congressmen Al Green said) thus proving the point this is a kangaroo court).  Mueller failed; we can't treat him fairly!!!!!  So instead, you bought the ACME Impeachment Guide...good luck. 

While your insane rants are humorous - in a pitiful sort of way - they aren't relevant to the discussion.  

 

 

[homersapien 11,367]

13 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-defense-expla/explainer-does-the-impeachment-probe-violate-trumps-civil-rights-idUSKBN1WO11D

But legal experts agreed that giving Trump some basic protections and allowing his lawyers to participate would make the process appear more fair even though not required legally. That could be a wise political move for Democrats, said Ross Garber, an impeachment lawyer in Washington.

Bypassing due process safeguards that are standard in the U.S. legal system (but not legally required) “may make the American people question the legitimacy of the impeachment process,” Garber said.

 

Please note my embedded modifications.

Otherwise, I think the Garber makes a valid political concern for the Democrats.

Likewise, being perceived as trying to obstruct justice is a valid political and legal concern for Trump with his letter.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

31 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Look, anytime you start resorting to insults; it's a sure sign you've conceded.  Just go ahead.  You know this is ridiculous.  If any of the above points are wrong; you should have no trouble showing me thru your superior insight, clarity and understanding the error of my ways; and you can certainly refute the presidents lawyers based on your vast constitutional experience.  Go ahead?  Otherwise,  you're just full of Schiff.  

Are you seriously blind to the personal irony here?

(But I will concede that "full of Schiff" is pretty funny.)

[SaltyTiger 7,791]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Please note my embedded modifications.

Otherwise, I think the Garber makes a valid political concern for the Democrats.

Likewise, being perceived as trying to obstruct justice is a valid political and legal concern for Trump with his letter.

 

Just enjoying the exchanges throwing out an article I read earlier this morning. Not a constitutional law expert like you guys.

[japantiger 4,051]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Are you seriously blind to the personal irony here?

(But I will concede that "full of Schiff" is pretty funny.)

There's a difference between us though Homes....my insults, which are many, I admit, and also very accurate, always follow my rationale'.... only when you guys go all "But Trump" do I hurl the insults.  Which unfortunately, is in just about every thread since all you've got is "but Trump".  A bit surprised that you haven't found a 10,000 word VOX article to support denial of due process to a sitting President.  Even they can't make that one up, huh. 

[TexasTiger 12,833]

58 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Look, anytime you start resorting to insults; it's a sure sign you've conceded.  Just go ahead.  You know this is ridiculous.  If any of the above points are wrong; you should have no trouble showing me thru your superior insight, clarity and understanding the error of my ways; and you can certainly refute the presidents lawyers based on your vast constitutional experience.  Go ahead?  Otherwise,  you're just full of Schiff.  

I’ve pointed it out, you ignore facts and reasoned argument. You insulted me from the get go— I’m just pointing out the pointlessness of engaging you. You don’t understand due process. You prove that over and over. @NolaAuTiger reiterate that if he were so inclined.

[homersapien 11,367]

14 minutes ago, japantiger said:

There's a difference between us though Homes....my insults, which are many, I admit, and also very accurate, always follow my rationale'.... only when you guys go all "But Trump" do I hurl the insults.  Which unfortunately, is in just about every thread since all you've got is "but Trump".  A bit surprised that you haven't found a 10,000 word VOX article to support denial of due process to a sitting President.  Even they can't make that one up, huh. 

Interesting, my insults are also very accurate and follow my rationale.

(See how that works?)

And I don't even have to make up crazy stuff about Trump.  Trump does that himself - virtually daily in his tweets and the occasionally impromptu press conference, which are priceless.

That you are so blind to his narcissistic psychopathic insanity says more about you than it does me - or the many other folks who recognize it - including Vox.

You are a gullible myrmidon of the first order:

[japantiger 4,051]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Interesting, my insults are also very accurate and follow my rationale.

(See how that works?)

And I don't even have to make up crazy stuff about Trump.  Trump does that himself - virtually daily in his tweets and the occasionally impromptu press conference, which are priceless.

That you are so blind to his narcissistic psychopathic insanity says more about you than it does me - or the many other folks who recognize it - including Vox.

You are a gullible myrmidon of the first order:

So you're not going to post a Trump "lie" we can engage on?  I'm here...ready to discuss.  Alas, ,yes, I know, Orange Man Bad (narcisistic phychopathic insanity; how original 🙂 

[SaltyTiger 7,791]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

@NolaAuTiger reiterate that if he were so inclined.

Wants his fee to reiterate now that he is a real lawyer Tex.

[japantiger 4,051]

14 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I’ve pointed it out, you ignore facts and reasoned argument. You insulted me from the get go— I’m just pointing out the pointlessness of engaging you. You don’t understand due process. You prove that over and over. @NolaAuTiger reiterate that if he were so inclined.

Please point me to the post where you did anything other than ask a question to deflect from directly engaging on the merits of Due Process in faux impeachment proceedings.  I missed it.  The only point I saw you make was the impeachment clause negated the 5th and 14th Amendments; which I didn't seriously think was a serious argument.  Is that your argument?  In spite of precedent?  That is your argument?

[homersapien 11,367]

1 minute ago, japantiger said:

Please point me to the post where you did anything other than ask a question to deflect from directly engaging on the merits of Due Process in faux impeachment proceedings.  I missed it.  The only point I saw you make was the impeachment clause negated the 5th and 14th Amendments; which I didn't seriously think was a serious argument.  Is that your argument?  In spite of precedent?  That is your argument?

That's a disingenuous miss-characterization.

The 5th and 14th amendments don't apply to impeachment, which is addressed separately by the constitution. There is nothing in those amendments that address impeachment.

That fact doesn't "negate" them where they do apply.

 

[TexasTiger 12,833]

3 hours ago, japantiger said:

Please point me to the post where you did anything other than ask a question to deflect from directly engaging on the merits of Due Process in faux impeachment proceedings.  I missed it.  The only point I saw you make was the impeachment clause negated the 5th and 14th Amendments; which I didn't seriously think was a serious argument.  Is that your argument?  In spite of precedent?  That is your argument?

“A unanimous Court held that the question of whether or not the Senate rule violated the U.S. Constitution was nonjusticiable since the Impeachment clause expressly granted that the "Senate shall have sole Power to try any impeachments." The clause laid out specific regulations that were to be followed and as long as those guidelines were observed the courts would not rule upon the validity of other Senate procedures regarding impeachments. Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed that while the Supreme Court was the "ultimate intrepreter of the Constitution," a matter would be deemed nonjusticiable when there was "a constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department."”

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-740

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

Maybe you are the one who needs to "brush up" on the constitution.

The 5th amendment says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I am using "criminal process" as shorthand to describe any process that might deprive one from "life, liberty or property" as stated above.

Please note there is nothing in the 5th amendment regarding impeachment.

 

 

 

Lol! “I am using ‘criminal process’ as shorthand to describe any process that might deprive one from ‘life, liberty or property’ as stated above.”....uhhh???