Hoyer reverses the burden of proof standard on impeachment

[cancel2 2022]

Here is the truth of why Trump is guilty.

Trump "ignored Congressional subpoenas for documents and for testimony by White House officials and ordered his subordinates not to cooperate."

That is hiding.

No, that's is showing disdain for trumped up charges (pun intended), the shit shower is pure unadulterated bullshit and will be kicked out soon enough.

[jimmymccready]

No, that is hiding documents and not following the Constitution.

Trump has no authority to show "disdain" for Congress, which is an impeachable offense if Congress so decides.

He will pay the price this fall, first, when he is defeated, and, then, again, when the fed and state AG's start indicting him.

[Walt]

Congress firing the president in this instance subverts the will of 63 million voters.

When it was Clinton, we had to listen to the Republicans in Congress, because they were elected by a minority of the American people. Now that it is trump, we cannot listen to the Democrats in Congress, who were elected by the majority of the people, but only trump, who was elected by a minority of the people.

The fact is that everyone involved was elected by the American people. Live with it.

[Earl]

Congress firing the president in this instance subverts the will of 63 million voters.

Indeed.

Fortunately, the effort will fail.

[dukkha]

it's bogus garbage ( abuse of power article). Nixon's 'Abuse of Powers' ( 1 of 3 Articles ) were crimes. Trumps are not

10 Crimes of the Nixon Administration
Richard Nixon’s crimes went far beyond Watergate. His abuse of power, his use of the IRS, FBI and CIA against his perceived enemies, his obstruction of justice, payment of hush money, maintenance of an enemies list, are just a few of the crimes he committed while President and while trying to become President. Most of his criminal activities are forgotten, other than the Watergate scandal, itself not one crime, but a lengthy series of criminal behavior by the President and his underlings.

[Earl]

If elections were won with a majority of the people, the president would have run a “majority of the people” campaign. He would have only campaigned in the large metropolitan cities.

He ran an “Electoral” campaign and won. Imagine that.

[Earl]

it's bogus garbage ( abuse of power article). Nixon's 'Abuse of Powers' ( 1 of 3 Articles ) were crimes. Trumps are not

10 Crimes of the Nixon Administration
Richard Nixon’s crimes went far beyond Watergate. His abuse of power, his use of the IRS, FBI and CIA against his perceived enemies, his obstruction of justice, payment of hush money, maintenance of an enemies list, are just a few of the crimes he committed while President and while trying to become President. Most of his criminal activities are forgotten, other than the Watergate scandal, itself not one crime, but a lengthy series of criminal behavior by the President and his underlings.

Precisely.

[Eagle_Eye]

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, so beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard of proof. In fact, the Bill of Rights does not say what the standard of proof is.

But traditionally, it would be an even lower standard of proof than a civil trial, where it is only a preponderance of the evidence.

Let me put it to you like this, can you cite where in the Bill Of Rights it says you are allowed to keep a job until you are proven guilty? Usually, to keep a job, you need to prove yourself innocent. If there are questions about where money entrusted to you went, you need to prove where it went. If you say, "you can't prove I stole the money", they might not be able to convict you in criminal court, but you will definitely be fired, and will probably lose any case in a civil court.

OK sport The 6th amendment states.

The 6th Amendment also enables an individual to have legal assistance, regardless of the charge, and the right to confront adverse witnesses and notice of accusations. These rights are given to all men or women under trial for any sort of wrongdoing.

As I see it Trump's rights were denied all during the House inquiry and impeachment. Trump was never allowed to confront adverse witnesses such as the whistle blower, Hunter Biden and others I cannot think of at this time. But rest assured the Republicans will remedy that transgression.

[Walt]

OK sport The 6th amendment states.

Odd that you write the 6th Amendment states, and then you do not write what it states.

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.

This is not a criminal prosecution, so none of this applies. You would be better off going for the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment, because they give "due process". The problem with that is that would include a right for both sides to call witnesses, which is the last thing trump wants.

trump has a pretty good deal here, with Putin's good buddy Moscow Mitch running the system.

[Walt]

Ever hear of asset forfeiture laws? Basically, the police can seize your possession that may have come from illegal enterprise, or may have come from a completely legal source. Then YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE MONEY IS INNOCENT. So if you drive across the USA with $20k in cash, and you could have that money seized in a Red State in the middle of the country. Then it is on you to prove that money is innocent.

So yes, in America, sometimes you have to prove yourself innocent... Or technically your money innocent.

But trump is different, he was elected by a minority of the people, so the Constitution says that cannot be reversed, right?

Actually, the Constitution says just the opposite. The Constitution says a President can be removed from office, even if he were elected. It sets the legal bar extremely low, making it very vague as to why. It sets the political bar high, needed two thirds of the Senate to remove.

Does trump need to prove himself innocent... That is for two thirds of the Senate to decide. They can use his refusal to put forward any defense against him. That is completely constitutional.

[FastLane]

When it was Clinton, we had to listen to the Republicans in Congress, because they were elected by a minority of the American people. Now that it is trump, we cannot listen to the Democrats in Congress, who were elected by the majority of the people, but only trump, who was elected by a minority of the people.

The fact is that everyone involved was elected by the American people. Live with it.

So were the Senators so live with it.

[Nordberg]

Hoyer, the number-two Democrat in the House, defended the House's impeachment inquiry last month by remarking that Trump was afforded "every opportunity to prove his innocence."

"Instead, he ignored Congressional subpoenas for documents and for testimony by White House officials and ordered his subordinates not to cooperate. This itself is unprecedented," Hoyer claimed.

Collins told host Mark Levin that no American has to prove their innocence -- in fact, the burden of proof falls on the opposite party.

"Mr. Hoyer from Maryland ... made a very revealing statement for anybody who's concerned about Constitutional rights -- and especially for me -- even those of my Democratic counterparts who worry about their communities, where they discuss police action and rights being violated," he said.

"It's amazing to me how they're willingly setting that aside to come up to this -- Steny Hoyer actually said 'we allowed him every opportunity to come prove his innocence,'."

Collins said the comment was mindblowing in that it seemed that Congress must have "taken a vacation and le[ft] the United States."

Did we all of a sudden suspend the Bill of Rights?" Collins asked. "Did we suspend any modicum of due process?"

Collins said Democrats like Hoyer are creating a dangerous precedent in that people can effectively accuse other people of offenses and force them to "prove your innocence."

"I don't care if you think this president ought to be impeached or not. This is irrelevant. This should bother everybody," he said.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-...oyer-innocence

Wow, are you lost. The fact is in any court case you are allowed to have a lawyer if you can afford one. If you cannot a one will be appointed to you. You do try and prove your innocence. That is our system. You answer a charge with whatever proof you have.
Impeachment is a process where the house gathers evidence to determine if there is an impeachable act that was committed. The president was given every opportunity to present a defense to show how they were wrong. If he had proof or knowledge that could refute it, it would have all gone away. Levin does not understand our system. You did not fall for it, did you?