Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: Hoyer reverses the burden of proof standard on impeachment

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    25,776
    Thanks
    8,386
    Thanked 14,993 Times in 10,389 Posts
    Groans
    178
    Groaned 1,247 Times in 1,182 Posts

    Default Hoyer reverses the burden of proof standard on impeachment

    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

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Celticguy (01-19-2020), Darth Omar (01-19-2020), Eagle-Eye (01-20-2020), Earl (01-20-2020), FastLane (01-21-2020)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    1,471
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 474 Times in 324 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 290 Times in 276 Posts

    Default

    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.

  4. The Following User Groans At Walt For This Awful Post:

    Eagle-Eye (01-20-2020)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    25,776
    Thanks
    8,386
    Thanked 14,993 Times in 10,389 Posts
    Groans
    178
    Groaned 1,247 Times in 1,182 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    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.
    "no American has to prove their innocence -- in fact, the burden of proof falls on the opposite party. "

    It's not a criminal trial,in that the 6th doesn't fully apply, but due process ALWAYS means there has to be proof offered.
    It further means (in context)that Trump is not require to offer a defense, and if he did not, that in no way could be construed as an admission of guilt.

    SCOTUS has ruled due process (Bill of Rights) is applicable to all Congressional hearing

    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.
    there are all kinds of jobs -some are even "at will" -poor ex.

    POTUS IS ELECTED -by the will of the people - impeachment requires "high crimes and misdemeanors"
    not just some vote of no confidence

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Darth Omar (01-19-2020), Earl (01-20-2020), FastLane (01-21-2020)

  7. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    1,471
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 474 Times in 324 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 290 Times in 276 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    "no American has to prove their innocence -- in fact, the burden of proof falls on the opposite party. "
    That is not actually in the Constitution, or any law in the USA (past or present). If you want a job as a school teacher, you need to provide some proof that you probably are not a child molester. If you want to work for the CIA, you need to prove you are not a spy. The burden on proof is really on you, and not the system.

    Or just avoiding being deported. To avoid being deported, you need to prove that you are an American citizen. If you just keep silent, refusing to give them your name, they will deport you.

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    but due process ALWAYS means there has to be proof offered.
    Lets say I want to get a drivers license. The 6th Amendment requires me to get due process in that application. Does that mean the burden of proof is on them to prove whether I can drive or not?

    "Due process" is an amazingly complex term, but it does not always mean that the accused does not have a burden of proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    SCOTUS has ruled due process (Bill of Rights) is applicable to all Congressional hearing
    So lets say Congress wants to fire someone. You are saying that they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person is guilty?

  8. The Following User Groans At Walt For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-20-2020)

  9. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    37,686
    Thanks
    8,109
    Thanked 9,641 Times in 7,267 Posts
    Groans
    40
    Groaned 4,028 Times in 3,375 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    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
    Hoyer used the wrong words, but invoked the correct context. Trump was given every opportunity to prove the House wrong to halt the impeachment process. Instead, he chose to stonewall ond obstruct.

    Just like most other Republicans, Collins has his head up his ass. He's trying to equate impeachment to a criminal trial process. Dumbfuck hack.

  10. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    18,248
    Thanks
    171
    Thanked 8,560 Times in 5,852 Posts
    Groans
    3,003
    Groaned 1,757 Times in 1,635 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    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
    You are plenty confused. If you get accused of something by authorities, do you simply accept their judgment or to you explain it away? Do you offer a defense? Of course, you do. In ant legal case you defend yourself, assuming you have a defense. Trump figured the Senate would heal him and he boycotted the house investigation.
    Defending yourself is a cornerstone of our legal system. He was offered every chance.
    If he had a defense, it would not have reached the Senate. However, he is relying on politics to save him, not evidence and not the law.

  11. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    6,801
    Thanks
    2,469
    Thanked 2,696 Times in 1,846 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 526 Times in 486 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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.
    Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.


  12. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    30,516
    Thanks
    8,462
    Thanked 19,560 Times in 12,984 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 1,005 Times in 961 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    That is not actually in the Constitution, or any law in the USA (past or present). If you want a job as a school teacher, you need to provide some proof that you probably are not a child molester. If you want to work for the CIA, you need to prove you are not a spy. The burden on proof is really on you, and not the system.

    Or just avoiding being deported. To avoid being deported, you need to prove that you are an American citizen. If you just keep silent, refusing to give them your name, they will deport you.



    Lets say I want to get a drivers license. The 6th Amendment requires me to get due process in that application. Does that mean the burden of proof is on them to prove whether I can drive or not?

    "Due process" is an amazingly complex term, but it does not always mean that the accused does not have a burden of proof.



    So lets say Congress wants to fire someone. You are saying that they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person is guilty?
    Congress firing the president in this instance subverts the will of 63 million voters.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    Earl (01-20-2020)

  14. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    25,776
    Thanks
    8,386
    Thanked 14,993 Times in 10,389 Posts
    Groans
    178
    Groaned 1,247 Times in 1,182 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    That is not actually in the Constitution, or any law in the USA (past or present). If you want a job as a school teacher, you need to provide some proof that you probably are not a child molester. If you want to work for the CIA, you need to prove you are not a spy. The burden on proof is really on you, and not the system.
    those are qualifications to GET a job, not the same ( at all as removal of Office) where you are elected

    Or just avoiding being deported. To avoid being deported, you need to prove that you are an American citizen. If you just keep silent, refusing to give them your name, they will deport you.
    you still have the right not to provide a defense.and not providing a defense in never implication of guilt

    Lets say I want to get a drivers license. The 6th Amendment requires me to get due process in that application. Does that mean the burden of proof is on them to prove whether I can drive or not?
    no due process for a drivers liscense -since a DL is considered a privledge yhou either meet tghe expectations or not. Nothing to due wit due process
    "Due process" is an amazingly complex term, but it does not always mean that the accused does not have a burden of proof.
    if you are accused you have due process,with the exception of administrative law

    So lets say Congress wants to fire someone. You are saying that they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person is guilty?
    impeachment is not a firing from a job. It's removal from office and the Constitution is specific on the criteria

  15. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    25,776
    Thanks
    8,386
    Thanked 14,993 Times in 10,389 Posts
    Groans
    178
    Groaned 1,247 Times in 1,182 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Congress firing the president in this instance subverts the will of 63 million voters.
    firing is not the correct word, nor is elected Office a "job". You have duties as an official but elected,not appointed

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Darth Omar (01-20-2020)

  17. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    25,776
    Thanks
    8,386
    Thanked 14,993 Times in 10,389 Posts
    Groans
    178
    Groaned 1,247 Times in 1,182 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Hoyer used the wrong words, but invoked the correct context. Trump was given every opportunity to prove the House wrong to halt the impeachment process. Instead, he chose to stonewall ond obstruct.
    WTF kind of nonsense is this? appealing to the courts on executive priviledge ( resisting the subpoena) is not "stonewalling". It's a legitimate process of looking for relief

  18. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    11,355
    Thanks
    1,362
    Thanked 3,834 Times in 2,893 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 255 Times in 242 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    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.
    The House proceding is not a trial as you say.
    So why should the president need to prove himselv innocent to it ?
    If they thought he broke a law its up to them to gather the evidence to prove it to the Senate (where the trial is held).
    Stenny did worse than reverse burdon of proof, he attempts to sieze power the Senate holds.
    ERIC CIARAMELLA whose name may not be spoken

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Celticguy For This Post:

    Darth Omar (01-20-2020), FastLane (01-21-2020)

  20. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    6,801
    Thanks
    2,469
    Thanked 2,696 Times in 1,846 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 526 Times in 486 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hoyer is correct to call out the President.
    Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.


  21. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    11,355
    Thanks
    1,362
    Thanked 3,834 Times in 2,893 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 255 Times in 242 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    Hoyer is correct to call out the President.
    Hoyer is whining.
    ERIC CIARAMELLA whose name may not be spoken

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Celticguy For This Post:

    FastLane (01-21-2020)

  23. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    6,801
    Thanks
    2,469
    Thanked 2,696 Times in 1,846 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 526 Times in 486 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    No, you are whining, Celticguy, and Hoyer is right to call out the President.
    Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.


Similar Threads

  1. Giuliani: "I have proof impeachment is a Democrat cover-up."
    By Dark Soul in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-19-2019, 12:37 AM
  2. Replies: 61
    Last Post: 10-16-2019, 04:47 PM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-05-2019, 10:14 AM
  4. Steny Hoyer: ‘America Is Not Broke’
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-25-2011, 09:07 AM
  5. The burden of proof
    By Bernie Bro in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-15-2009, 04:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •