HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Anyone know if there is a...

Tue Nov 12, 2019, 11:57 AM

Anyone know if there is a burden of proof standard in impeachment trials?

Cuz the GOP looks like they are going to apply a criminal standard.

11 replies, 581 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Anyone know if there is a burden of proof standard in impeachment trials? (Original post)
Thomas Hurt Nov 2019 OP
PRETZEL Nov 2019 #1
tinrobot Nov 2019 #2
Shrike47 Nov 2019 #3
comradebillyboy Nov 2019 #4
2naSalit Nov 2019 #8
comradebillyboy Nov 2019 #9
2naSalit Nov 2019 #10
onenote Nov 2019 #5
beachbumbob Nov 2019 #6
jberryhill Nov 2019 #7
2naSalit Nov 2019 #11

Response to Thomas Hurt (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2019, 11:59 AM

1. Not that I'm aware of

this in not a criminal trial.

The burden of proof will only be as sufficient as the number of votes to pass or fail any particular Article of Impeachment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2019, 12:01 PM

2. Well, they're all standard criminals.

Not a hard burden to reach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2019, 12:03 PM

3. No, there isn't. The Senate decides what the burden should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2019, 12:05 PM

4. It's whatever Nancy Pelosi and Steve Schiff want it to be.

There aren't any rules or procedures specified in the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comradebillyboy (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 12, 2019, 01:17 PM

8. Do you mean Adam Schiff, perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 12, 2019, 01:19 PM

9. Yeah, the late Steve Schiff was my representative way back

in the 90s before his untimely death. Morning brain fart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comradebillyboy (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 12, 2019, 01:23 PM

10. It's fine, I was just wondering if I had missed someone

at some point in this complex saga. But from context... I had to ask. I get brain farts all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2019, 12:06 PM

5. There is no appeal from an impeachment verdict

The standard of proof (if any) is whatever each individual Senator chooses to apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2019, 12:18 PM

6. The impeachment inquiry is NOT a trial, once it's conducted

Articles of impeachment are written and the standard of impeachment offenses are up to those writing articles of impeachment and then the house votes. 51% in favor, trump is impeached by the House.

The articles pass to the Senate and then it's up to McConnell to do what he will.

The house GOP has little say in this except obstruct and deflect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2019, 12:23 PM

7. Which of course is insane

 


The burden of proof in a criminal proceeding is to protect the individualís rights against the power of the state.

Consequently, it is a feature of the system that many actually guilty persons will be let go, on account of procedural denial of due process rights.

To apply that in the context of impeachment is absurd. Impeachment is a mechanism to protect the state itself against being corrupted by criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2019, 02:00 PM

11. I have never been on

nor involved in a GJ but those who have been explaining the process, some who have been involved in and conducted GJs, say that an impeachment process is very much like that of a GJ only this is in a different branch of the gov't (not DOJ) but is conducted as a fact finding and charge making process which is then handed to another entity for trial and judgement. And that is how I understand it to be.

So look at what has happened here.

Official commits crime(s)
Process begins under one-sided control in Congress who does nothing about using their authority to do anything about it. Same with DOJ, although they did allow the Mueller investigation to investigate. But then there's an election and the House, who holds impeachment and oversight control, changes hands to control by the other political party who are willing to honor their oath of office and conduct appropriate oversight only to realize they must impeach the officer in the Executive branch especially since another set of crimes have been revealed.

Since yet another set of crimes has been discovered, and DOJ has been ultimately corrupted therefore stifling all investigations from that entity, the House must conduct the investigation itself. This is what is happening with the closed door hearings/depositions in the basement. An investigation via rules of the offender's party.

With the information gathered in the closed hearings the actual public hearings begin with a case including all relevant and available statements and documents such that the public can know, without a pile of irrelevant red herrings to distract from sharing, the truth.

It is at this point where We the People can speak up and let our pubic servants whom we elected know that without a doubt we want this guy out of office.

When the House has made the information available to the public and hear the public's input, Articles are issued if they feel they need to be issued and voting takes place. If it is decided that a trail is warranted, they hand their decision (Articles of Impeachment) and evidence to the Senate who holds a trial and decides whether to remove the offender from office.

I know it's a simple summary but that's the best I can do right now.

If the offender's party is trying to protect the offender, they will try whatever they think they can throw in the way. An impeachment proceeding is not a frivolous undertaking, therefore, proof will be shown within the hearings and at trial. How could anyone consider such a proceeding without proof? Which is why the claim being made that criminality needs to be proven is a red herring. Proof will be shown and what the proof show is that it was criminal and a violation of the Constitution and Oath of Office. Can there something more than the trifecta of violations to the rule of law?

I think the claims coming from the other side are hair-on-fire hail-Mary theatrics. Cornered rats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread