Rand Paul Blows the Roof off Rally Last Night

Unless he's can prove it, he's better off not throwing out any name.

 

You and hawgs are trying to make the same argument.

 

After he's been formally accused.

 

What would Rand Paul be accused of?

 

Hehe.

Oops!

I dunno how that happened. I thought tha I was responding to you.

Thanks!

 

In my book, of being a complete idiot. However, I was referring to Trump's right to due process. But, actually, even that would only apply to a criminal prosecution, as a result of a criminal indictment AFTER his removal from office. Impeachment isn't a criminal justice process, but a political process.

 

ok, when this goes to the Senate. Do you think the WB protection law trump the USC? The WB will have to be questioned, or this will go nowhere. I think it's going nowhere anyway.

 

No, the Due Process protection of "facing your accuser" does not apply to the Senate Trial because that protection only applies to a criminal proceeding. Moreover, like I just tried to illustrate with the drug operation analogy, the WB testimony does not appear to be necessary or relevant to any criminal proceeding against Trump given that we have first hand testimony from those directly involved. Trump will have a right to face those accusers in such a criminal proceeding.

 

Why? Why would the Whistleblower have to be questioned? The WB only reported his/her concerns, which the IG and DNI found both credible and urgent. It will be the House and the House's passed articles of impeachment that will be tried in the Senate. IF Trump were to be removed from office and THEN indicted for a crime, THAT is when his due process rights would become applicable.
Remember, that is one reason Mueller drew no conclusions on the charges against Trump on obstruction of justice. To infer the President was indictable, but not prosecutable, would have been a denial of his due process rights to a speedy trial.

 

The whistleblower, and those who created his Rat Nest.

https://www.hunker.com/12002760/how-to-remove-a-rat-nest

 

ok, I see your point and disagree. I think the 6th Amendment will be applied, and should be.

 

You're wrong. Most Constitutional scholars agree that the impeachment process is NOT a "criminal prosecution," but a political one. Removal from office may be for crimes, but not necessarily. Upon removal from office by conviction on impeachment, the person removed MAY be criminally prosecuted, but not necessarily. Read the last paragraph of Article I, Section 3: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." The last phrase does not mandate an indictment, but ensures "due process" only in the event of criminal prosecution "according to Law."
The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was taken from English common law and refers not to "criminal infractions" against citizens of the state, but to the abuses of power against the body politic itself...infractions against the state. It was a substitute for "maladministration," which the writer's found too vague.
Here's the logic: The American Revolution transferred state power from the monarch to the people. As a democratic republic, "the people" exercise their sovereignty through their elected representatives in Congress. Impeachment is justified by either "treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors," which are basically offenses against the people themselves...or the State, which guards the interests of the people through republican government.

 

He is one of the most principled representatives in congress.

Its a stark contrast to democrats.

 

I don't know what you think your link says.

Earlier in this thread I posted a tweet of Rand Paul educating a low info/lazy journalist that claimed he can't release the "whistleblowers" name.

The law is on his side-not the huckster

 

Did you also complain when all those women blew whistles on your hero?

 

You won't see any Republican politician publicly state the name, until other news outlets confirm it. Right now, there's only one source. It's well reasoned, but it's still only speculation.

Paul is right. MSM are deliberately not looking at this. That is because they are Democratic shills.

 

If only we could convince the left to hold their collective breath until this happens.

 

You mean the transparently bogus political stunts that didn't work?

 

They just don't see it coming.

 

On Jan 30, 2017 the first notice of a coup against this president was announced on Twitter by the whistleblowers attorney.

Must transparent domestic violence attack in the history of our country. Dems will be made to pay.

 

Historically, the punishment for an attempted coup have been severe.

Examples will have to be made.

 

Right there with you. He has been a colossal disappointment. Another Maester Pycelle who just wants to remain in the garden.

 

He's scared. And, he's been convinced that his only two choices are Trump or AOC.

 

That seems eerily similar to the threat if execution that trump lobbied against the whistleblower.

 

Who becomes President if Trump is impeached and removed?

The people who call impeachment a coup demonstrate a hatred the US Constitution.