Hoyer reverses the burden of proof standard on impeachment

[dukkha]

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

[Walt]

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.

[dukkha]

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

[Walt]

"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.

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.

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?

[Darth Omar]

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.

[dukkha]

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

[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]

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

[Celticguy]

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.

[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.

[domer76]

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.

[dukkha]

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

[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

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.