Is the Speaker of the House of Representatives Violating the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution?

CPO Nate S. — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:49:09 -0500

Update - 09 Mar 2020: Again, the impeachment is over. The nation has other important issues to address. Some who have recently responded here are using language not indicative of their maturity. In fact such language is immature.

Please, if you are going to insert emotion vs facts and language that demonstrates your lack of thought, I'd rather not read words like "NAZI" and other thoughtless attacks on people's opinions who have provided well written responses here. There are many that have written well on both sides of this question and I was informed well on both sides. To you I want to say - Thank you!

Keep in mind that people have the right to their opinions and I respect that. I may not agree, but I respect that. What I don't respect are those who believe that using vulgar and disrespectful language as a last resort for their weak counter arguments by tossing around epithets.

Again, I want to thank those RIGHT, CENTER and LEFT that responded in a responsible manner to each other and this question in general. To those who used language that draws your professionalism and maturity into question please get a drink, clam down and take a deep breath! If needs be please get some counseling!

The whole intent of this post was to pose a question and seek differing opinions to gain a deeper perspective, which has been achieved. Lets move on!
--------------------------------------
Update - 01 Mar 2020: The 'trial' is over. Now a new set of issues exist that we as a nation have to handle. Continue to feel free to respond!
--------------------------------------
For the sake of clarity here is the wording to the 6th Amendment (aka 1st 10 Amendments otherwise known as - Bill of Rights):

"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."

The operative wording is "...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..."

By threatening to delay forwarding the recent Articles of Impeachment to the US Senator it would appear that the Speaker is in "Contempt of the American People" (roughly 320 million, men, women and children) regardless of citizenship status.

By asking for "confirmation" of a "...fair trial..." in advance, it would appear to be yet another "linguistic trap" that was not offered in any two prior impeachments or the one imminent impeachment. A sub-question might be - why? It also, seems that every murder, rapist, burglar, arsonist, thief, etc. could then demand as president set by Speaker of the House that a "written guarantee" be offered by every jury for the same. This would seem to undermine our jurisprudence system of "innocent until proven guilty" system.

Even those indicted in a normal court process have the right to a trial to confirm innocence or guilt. If no one is "...above the law..." does it also not stand to reason that "...no person is below the dignity of law of which that person is being accused?"

The question is then:

Is the Speaker of the House in contempt of the US Senate to fulfill the Senate's Article 1, Section 3 responsibilities specific to the 6th Amendments guarantee for a speedy trial?

----------
Follow-up: To those that have responded so far. Thank you! This is the kind of lively, yet professional (so far), response I was hoping to get. It is import we as Americans derive our own understandings of this process. I would rather as such a question and seek the insights of the RP family in all their diversity, than to listen to just one source to gain perspective. Thank you in advance for your responses. Collectively, as the Founders knew and spoken by Jefferson these words ring true:

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278

AND

"The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779. FE 2:221, Papers 2:526

FINALLY

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:207 (PLUS) "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384 (AND) "Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.

The Founders, especially Jefferson, understood that healthy debate comes from being informed. My goal is always to stimulate conversation that gives me an others to discern for ourselves on balance what is or is not true, or a best truthful! Again, I appreciate each member of the RP family!

---------------
Follow-up (2) - 16 Jan 2020:

I want to thank everyone for the responses to this post. It has been and continues to be an interesting discussion. But, it brings up one more issue. Some have considered that it is time, given the antics on both sides that a Constitutional Impeachment Amendment be developed to further codify the impeachment process to begin to remove it from the political to the criminal and set higher standards and processes for this process.

But, that question of whether or not a constitutional impeachment amendment should or should not be pursued will be created in a separate post, but linked to this post. I find it interesting that some voices are beginning to rise in favor of this.

Once the Senate Trial is finished and a "cooling off period" as it were insues, it would not surprise me if this topic of a constitutional impeachment amendment were addressed. I think the nation completely understood the need for Nixon's impeachment in a very bi-partisan manner. But, I believe the population as a whole (right-center-left) who are thinking "independently" is getting tired tit-for-tat politics.

So, this new issue of an amendment to better manage the impeachment process as we emerge to begin another 250 yrs of independence will be interesting.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Dec 19 at 2019 9:58 AM

MSG Stan Hutchison — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:58:59 -0500

There has been no trial yet. Impeachment is like indictment. It is just the leveling of charges. Trump will have the opportunity to defend himself. In fact he already has. He was invited, even encouraged to participate in the House inquiry, by written or actual appearance.
This clamor about the process is nothing more than continued diversion.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 19 at 2019 9:59 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:59:48 -0500

Not even a little bit. So far the proceedings have been on live TV (public), happened in less than 4 months (speedy) and the President has been invited repeatedly to attend and testify and voluntarily declined legal counsel.

They have gone completely out of their way to ensure that this has been 100% above board.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Dec 19 at 2019 10:07 AM

CW4 Guy Butler — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:07:36 -0500

Since impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, the 6th amendment doesn’t apply at all.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2019 10:22 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:22:23 -0500

The 6th Amendment is not applicable, at least in the narrow context of the question, because impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.
The Senate will set rules for how the trial will be conducted. Trump or his attorneys can make motions as to what they'd like, subject to rulings from the Chief Justice or majority vote of the members present.

Response by SGT Robert Pryor made Dec 19 at 2019 10:35 AM

SGT Robert Pryor — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:35:14 -0500

Impeachment is covered elsewhere in the constitution.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Dec 19 at 2019 10:35 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:35:17 -0500

Impeachment and trial is an administrative political action, not a criminal trial. The Constitution has no time requirement for transfer. I suspect Pelosi is working things for maximum political advantage vs. anything to do with fairness. Interesting thing. If criminal law is violated which results in a removal from office, then the person can be arrested, tried, and punished accordingly. Since no criminal trial previously occurred, then there is no double jeopardy. That was the case for Nixon for which Ford jumped in right away with the pardon. It cost Ford the next election because too many people wanted their pound of flesh. However time has shown there was a significant benefit for the Country being able to move on. BTW there are no 5th Amendment protections either on administrative actions.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Dec 19 at 2019 10:35 AM

LTC Kevin B. — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:35:20 -0500

The President is not facing criminal prosecution, so that amendment is immaterial to the impeachment.

Response by SrA John Monette made Dec 19 at 2019 10:42 AM

SrA John Monette — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:42:07 -0500

if Speaker Pelosi is in violation of the 6th Amendment, then so is Senator McConnell, who has publicly declared that he will not be impartial. same with Senator Graham and every other Senator who has been so vocal about their support for trump

Response by Patricia Overmeyer made Dec 19 at 2019 10:50 AM

Patricia Overmeyer — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:50:52 -0500

The Sixth Amendment only applies in criminal proceedings and was fully made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. (Many USSC cases regarding various issues of the Sixth Amendment were not followed by the states due to federal/state laws. Thus subsequent USSC cases were made applicable to the states.) One cannot be in contempt of the Sixth Amendment in an Impeachment proceeding as it does not apply. The Congress sets the rules for both the impeachment inquiry (House) and the impeachment trial (Senate).
Your extrapolation of the Sixth Amendment to Impeachment proceedings being used by criminals to demand a written guarantee of a fair trial is completely misplaced. The Sixth Amendment already sets forth the right to a fair trial and there are scads of USSC and state court opinions regarding what is a fair trial. There is no need for a written guarantee to be offered by a jury to a criminal defendant. The criminal defendant has several types of motions which can be argued to guarantee a fair trial, given the facts and circumstances of each case.
If anything is weird about the "fair trial" request from Speaker Pelosi to Speaker McConnell, it is that she even has to ask for that to be done. The fact that McConnell is already working with the White House attorneys and the president (and he has stated that several times in interviews to the media, including Fox) as to what will and won't be allowed in the trial is akin to my asking the jury to come into my office prior to the trial to discuss the case and determine what will and won't be allowed for evidence, etc. just to ensure that my client gets the "not guilty" verdict.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Dec 19 at 2019 10:54 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:54:19 -0500

None of the above, impeachment is a political remedy and the House Majority controls the rules. They use anything they please to define charges. Republicans oversaw many real criminal actions by the Democrats during the Obama administration, only to take it like a whipped puppy.

Response by 1SG Cj Grisham made Dec 19 at 2019 12:39 PM

1SG Cj Grisham — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:39:28 -0500

I voted no only because the House is not where the trial takes place; the Senate is. The House is kind of like a grand jury that refers charges.

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made Dec 19 at 2019 3:15 PM

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 15:15:48 -0500

I've heard this argued both ways...

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made Dec 19 at 2019 4:05 PM

Capt Gregory Prickett — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:05:45 -0500

Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution, and the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2019 5:08 PM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:08:13 -0500

No, but your thread prompted some excellent dialogue.

Response by SP5 Dennis Loberger made Dec 19 at 2019 9:31 PM

SP5 Dennis Loberger — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 21:31:32 -0500

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, it is a political process. By the way, the right to a speedy trial does not exist for many in this country today.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2019 10:01 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:01:30 -0500

A lot of good discussion and thought. I believe too many are trying to attribute standard grand juries and trials to Impeachments. Attached is the best article I could find; it discusses what historically has happened with a good discussion of possible interpretations.
https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw

The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history. The only legal way such can be accomplished is by the impeachment process. This article discusses the legal standard to be properly applied by members of the United States House of Representatives when voting for or against Articles of Impeachment, and members of the United States Senate when voting whether or not to convict and remove from...

Response by SPC Kevin Ford made Dec 20 at 2019 1:10 AM

SPC Kevin Ford — Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:10:17 -0500

No, this isn’t a criminal trial, full stop.

Response by A1C Eric Skaggs made Dec 29 at 2019 10:56 AM

A1C Eric Skaggs — Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:56:52 -0500

No. Speaker Pelosi is not violating the 6th Amendment. McConnell and Graham, however, are violating the Constitutional provision: Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7, which says:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.

The oath Senators take is; “I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [Donald Trump], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.”

Pelosi wants a fair trial because it is in the oath Senators take and at least McConnell and Graham have publicly stated they will defy their oath of office and the Constitution and have an unfair trial favoring Trump.

McConnell said:

“I'm not an impartial juror,” McConnell said. “This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision . . . I'm not impartial about this at all.”

Graham said:

“This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly,” Graham said Saturday in an interview at the Doha Forum in Qatar. “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

The second article of impeachment, "obstruction of Congress, which Trump and others clearly committed at least by ignoring subpoenas, is a criminal offense called "contempt of Congress" which sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not more than $100,000 or less than $100.

In 1857, Congress enacted a law that made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States.

The first article of impeachment, abuse of power, is the epitome of an impeachable offense.

In order to preserve the integrity of American Democracy and our country, It is clear that we must impeach, remove and try and imprison Trump.

Agreed?

Response by CPL Cadrew Strickland made Dec 29 at 2019 6:45 PM

CPL Cadrew Strickland — Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:45:58 -0500

This is a discussion that could go back and forth. The problem is that our founding fathers never put a time on what a speedy trail is . Is it a week or even a year or two. People in the legal field have always used this to their advantage, either one way or the other. And it seems to me that is what the Speaker ofThe House is doing. I feel she is holding our rights to serve her needs and not ours.

Response by PO1 David Trent made Dec 29 at 2019 8:18 PM

PO1 David Trent — Sun, 29 Dec 2019 20:18:58 -0500

The speaker is justified based on the need for an impartial jury which does not exist at this time

Response by SPC(P) Andrew Smith made Dec 29 at 2019 8:20 PM

SPC(P) Andrew Smith — Sun, 29 Dec 2019 20:20:07 -0500

I just want this all over! Good old President Clinton gave the world the Lewinsky and he walked away Scott free, President Trump has given us a perfect phone call and he is being railroaded cause the left hates him, and can’t beat him!

Response by PFC Rick Schuetz made Dec 31 at 2019 11:43 PM

PFC Rick Schuetz — Tue, 31 Dec 2019 23:43:34 -0500

I don’t believe so. The full impeachment has not taken place. The Dems despise the Constitution. They pick and choose and distort the parts they like in order to achieve there political objectives of “Transforming America.” If you love something you don’t seek to Transform it. This is a baseless sham aimed at removing a duly elected president because they hate him and what he stands for. Furthermore to prevent his re-election.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2020 2:06 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2020 02:06:29 -0500

Regarding the term “ fair trial”. The President cannot get a fair trial in the current situation. There are at least 4 of the jurors currently running for his job and have ( by no fault of their own other than them being candidates) demonstrated bias against the president. Interestingly if there is a trial they have to be present for the whole trial ( 6 days/ week)and they are not allowed to speak. It will be interesting.

Response by SSG Rick Miller made Jan 1 at 2020 2:57 PM

SSG Rick Miller — Wed, 01 Jan 2020 14:57:02 -0500

The Speaker is not in violation of the 6th Amendment, even though it APPEARS she is. Remember, impeachment I'd a purely political act. The Constitution doesn't prescribe any time limit to refer charges to the Senate. She is, however, in violation of the sole power provisions. The House shall have sole power of impeachment, the Senate shall have sole power to remove from office. She has no standing to demand anything, since each chamber determines its own rules. This is political theater, nothing more. I think I'd take this impeachment much more seriously had the Democrats in Congress not started talking impeachment the very day of the election, as soon as it became obvious that their chosen one lost.

Response by AN Wilfred Davis made Jan 2 at 2020 12:49 PM

AN Wilfred Davis — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 12:49:54 -0500

The President, despite his lifelong history of distortions,lies & Deceptions,is at least verbalizing he wants a trial and he wants the person who started the whole mess to appear.(Against the LAW to identify).The Speaker is NOT violating the 6th amendment. It is the Senate Majority Leader who is violating the 6th amendment by A) Siding with the Defense and not wanting Witnesses to appear. That is a clear cut case of Obstructing Justice and removing any sense of Fairness.

Response by SFC Robert Walton made Jan 2 at 2020 1:20 PM

SFC Robert Walton — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 13:20:52 -0500

I see Many people here saying the 6th amendment does not apply in this case because he has not went to court yet.
I say that is wrong. Once you are accused all articles apply.

Articles of impeachment are accusations of wrong doing so the Sixth amendment would be applicable, However there could be a very fine line between the accusation and movement to trial either way if your accused verbally or in writing rights under the constitution apply. Remember if you are arrested by the police you are read your rights. That is an unproven accusation. Articles of impeachment are an unproven accusation. Once you are the accused you have rights.

By not sending the Articles of impeachment forward (unproven accusations) you are impeding the accused of a speedy trial. If your going to accuse someone then you should be willing to pass the accusations forward Immediately so the accused gets a chance to prepare his or her defense. You don't hold the articales until you get a deal with the defense. CAN We say quid pro quo?

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Jan 2 at 2020 4:24 PM

MSgt Michael Smith — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 16:24:05 -0500

Nice Try. The trial is the job of the Senate. An impeachment is an indictment. As Speaker Pelosi has the authority to dictate what the House sends to the Senate. Like it or not, it's Nancy's house and she can do what she pleases.

Response by LtCol Paul Bowen made Jan 2 at 2020 5:09 PM

LtCol Paul Bowen — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 17:09:15 -0500

The Speaker of the House is a “Shock Entertainer” and needs to be employed as a Shock Reality TV Host instead of pretending to be a real leader in the American Congress.

Everything that is going on in the House of Representatives has nothing to do with governance and everything to do with really bad TV entertainment.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2020 9:17 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 21:17:06 -0500

The Schiff led farce would be dismissed by any judge without a political agenda. However, it’s gone from laughable to dangerous and seditious.

Response by SSG Dave Johnston made Jan 3 at 2020 10:22 AM

SSG Dave Johnston — Fri, 03 Jan 2020 10:22:10 -0500

The larger question should be addressed:
1. Is this "impeachment" politically motivated?
2. When and who first called for his impeachment?
3. What other efforts have been made to remove the president from office?
4. Were members of the "Electoral Collage" offered "Bribes" to change their vote?
5. What is being "covered up" by these efforts: Uranium One, Iranian Payout, et.al/ad nauseam...

Response by MSG Christopher McCord made Jan 3 at 2020 11:29 AM

MSG Christopher McCord — Fri, 03 Jan 2020 11:29:12 -0500

The " by an impartial jury.... Piece is why she is holding out....for Senate to already say they won't find the POTUS guilty is not impartial

Response by LCDR Larry Holman made Jan 4 at 2020 1:51 AM

LCDR Larry Holman — Sat, 04 Jan 2020 01:51:14 -0500

No. Crimes need not be involved in an impeachment. Thus, it is not a criminal proceeding, but rather a political one. Therefore, the 6th Amendment does not apply.

Response by PO2 Paul Dempsey made Jan 4 at 2020 1:42 PM

PO2 Paul Dempsey — Sat, 04 Jan 2020 13:42:39 -0500

No the Senate is due to stating they work with the presidents team to coordonate actions. Members of a jury should not be working with the defendant. Hardly fair. What point is there to a speedy trial when those who have to judge are working with the defendant

Response by SPC Richard Zacke made Jan 4 at 2020 10:45 PM

SPC Richard Zacke — Sat, 04 Jan 2020 22:45:13 -0500

This is not a 6th admendment issue since no crimes occured. And as for your statement of the speaker of the house being in CONTEMPT OF THE PEOPLE... what a beautiful way of saying it, because that is exactly what it is "CONTEMPT OF THE PEOPLE". I hope you don't mind but I'm gonna use your phrase in future debates with pin heads. Our forefathers never invisioned elected officials acting like kids peeing in each others sand boxe's. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they suppose to try to work together for the good of the COUNTRY? Plain and simple this impeachment should have been conducted like all the rest have been.
And for Jefferson's quote of an ignorant nation...The democrates have always relied on ignorance because the dummer the electerat the better chance to snowball them and get away with it. The nation should be a little bit more like Martin Luther King Jr. and attempt to change the way things are being done in DC. "DRAIN THE SWAMP" should be our new battle cry!! These people in DC are not working for us anymore their too busy peeing on each others legs!!
Please excuse the terrible spelling and grammer. God bless.

Response by CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana made Jan 5 at 2020 2:30 AM

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana — Sun, 05 Jan 2020 02:30:41 -0500

Good question.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not provide any specific timeline for the transfer of the Impeachment, from the House to the Senate, for trial. The House wants to be sure that the Senate will embark on this trial of the POTUS without bias or prejudice before it transfers the case to the Senate. The House wants the Republican controlled Senate to calls those witnesses that did not adhere to subpoenas from the House; however, the Senate Majority Leader prefers an acquittal of the POTUS without trial, which shows partiality or favoritism of the Republican controlled Senate towards the POTUS. Evidence is clear and present, so the Speaker of the House is only trying to ensure impartiality in the Senate Trial and that is her duty as the People's congressional representative.

I trust the powers of politics in Congress will unleash a flurry of political sparring, but eventually the truth shall prevail and the most appropriate action will be taken.

Response by MAJ Kevin Kells made Jan 5 at 2020 2:01 PM

MAJ Kevin Kells — Sun, 05 Jan 2020 14:01:14 -0500

According to the senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, an impeachment hearing is not a prosecution of a crime, it is a political function designed to remove or not an elected official. You can not have it both ways!

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2020 8:39 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jan 2020 20:39:09 -0500

This trial as mentioned before hand is not a Criminal trail, but a administrative one.

Response by CSM Clifford Fargason made Jan 5 at 2020 10:35 PM

CSM Clifford Fargason — Sun, 05 Jan 2020 22:35:32 -0500

CPO Nate S. As others, such as CAPT Kevin B. have correctly stated impeachment is not a criminal trial, so the 6th Amendment is not applicable. But your question has another fallacy. The Constitution does not say anything about the Speaker forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Here are the three clauses that speak to impeachment.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
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.

In short, the Speaker is not violating the 6th Amendment. Her responsibility regarding impeachment ends as soon as the House votes to impeach the President. The Senate conducts the trial, and if 2/3 of the Senate votes yes, the President is out. After that, he could be indicted and tried IAW clause 7.

Response by SCPO Jolita Brazzano made Jan 6 at 2020 11:01 AM

SCPO Jolita Brazzano — Mon, 06 Jan 2020 11:01:02 -0500

Isn’t an impeachment based upon “high crimes and misdemeanors?” If so, the President first is innocent until proven guilty. Also, with the contrived proof of “he said, she said “, I only hope that those hateful leftist, socialists see Karma I their rear view mirrors

Response by PVT Caitie Riley made Jan 6 at 2020 12:09 PM

PVT Caitie Riley — Mon, 06 Jan 2020 12:09:48 -0500

I know that there is a specific verbiage regarding impeachment protocol, regulation, and overall tact. That being said, I did notice there were a few who stated she is not violating the law due to the impeachment process not being of criminal variety because it hasn't reached trial. However, the claims staked against the president are being brought to the attention of the House and the Senate in the form of criminal matter and the House is pushing action to remove the president. She is withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate who perform the actual trial. It's like filing a lawsuit against a company and taking a sham defendant to court and refusing to provide the proof that this person had interference with the situation between you and the company which you staked your entire case on. Ultimately, Trump is like a sham defendant in this case and the House is the plaintiff refusing to provide evidence to the court. Constitutional law mandates specific rights that, in such case, should duly be noted in the impeachment process. Regardless the plaintiff and defendant in any case, including impeachment, the Bill of Rights still applies as accusations are being made and acted upon in a legal manner to be taken to trial; which she is holding up the process. So, to sum it up, my personal opinion is that there are violations here and I see this as one of them but, it is an extremely thin fence line that can sway either way. I'm not well versed in law and federal procedures so I can't say much other than what I think personally. I think this is however a great topic to get great minds thinking and conversing over.

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made Jan 6 at 2020 5:13 PM

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Mon, 06 Jan 2020 17:13:17 -0500

At this point McConnell should just say we are using the rules that were used during Bill Clinton's impeachment. Send over the articles or we will go without them. Have a nice day Nancy.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2020 6:43 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jan 2020 18:43:56 -0500

This is not a criminal proceeding. Those rules don't apply.

Response by SSgt Paul Parish made Jan 8 at 2020 8:32 AM

SSgt Paul Parish — Wed, 08 Jan 2020 08:32:50 -0500

Response by Sgt Jude Eschete made Jan 9 at 2020 4:28 AM

Sgt Jude Eschete — Thu, 09 Jan 2020 04:28:08 -0500

I feel the options are rigged. As many others have said, this is not a criminal trial.
Mitch McConnell and other republics have actively said that they will not even pretend to be impartial and will coordinate with the White House.

When they took their oath of office, they swore to defend and uphold the constitution of the United States. Not the office of the president.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.[...]

By stating openly that they will not be impartial, they are violating their oath. So I do think it is best to wait.

Response by SSG Dale London made Jan 15 at 2020 2:31 AM

SSG Dale London — Wed, 15 Jan 2020 02:31:04 -0500

A few things come to mind on this:
1 - impeachment is not a criminal proceeding but a political one;
2 - impeaments have traditionally followed criminal trial process;
3 - Speaker Pelosi's stated goal of wanting a fair trial runs completely against the concept. She wants to ensure the prosecution can tie the hands of the defence the same way they did in committee.
What this all oil's down to is that while Nancy is not technically breaking the letter of the law she is trampling all over it's spirit. She is essentially trying to put a great big thumb on the scales of justice.
And they call US deplorable!

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jan 23 at 2020 9:19 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:19:43 -0500

Along with the presumption of innocence, one of the cornerstones of our judicial system. Minority Report is an example of where this could go.

Response by SN Kristi Kalis made Jan 24 at 2020 7:03 AM

SN Kristi Kalis — Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:03:47 -0500

So many dumb people responding to this. It just points to a total lack of civics education and some Kool-Aid drinking trumpians. This is NOT a criminal prosecution as defined by the Constitution in state and federal matters, therefore there is no right to a speedy and public trial. Only state and federal courts can hold a trial for criminal conduct as defined by state and federal laws. The impeachment, which lasts forever and cannot be overturned, is a political process to remove a criminal from office. He IS impeached. There is no timeline in the Constitution for turning over of Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Therefore, no foul. Now, what the Senate majority is doing IS against the rules of the Senate. Each and every one of them who have acted against the rules should be excused as a juror by the Chief Justice for violating Senate rules. The Founding Fathers never imagined a time when the co-equal branches of government would be so kompromat as to allow a criminal enterprise, the likes of which are deep and never seen before, to continue despite the majority of citizens calling for justice. The Senate, House and SCOTUS are filled with members who are under Russian influence. Putin is enjoying this very much. He spent a lot of money to buy people. So did the Koch brothers and Murdoch family. Finally, if you don't think selling our country to a foreign power counts as criminal activity, you are not a true patriot.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jan 25 at 2020 1:32 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Sat, 25 Jan 2020 01:32:58 -0500

The House violated the Constitution and made a mockery of the Impeachment Hearings. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled! The House Democrats set the bar very low and relaxed the standards of evidence to allow hearsay; this could come back to haunt them.

Response by LTC Lee Bouchard made Jan 25 at 2020 9:15 PM

LTC Lee Bouchard — Sat, 25 Jan 2020 21:15:10 -0500

GREAT question and post. Responders have expressed their views based on interpretation and semantics. Both valid. I'll wait and see if this point is brought up by the Trump's atty's next week.

Response by SSG Michael Doolittle made Feb 1 at 2020 12:28 AM

SSG Michael Doolittle — Sat, 01 Feb 2020 00:28:15 -0500

The yes votes are voting their emotions and NOT the Constitution, I doubt they know anything about the Constitution beyond the Second Amendment

Response by SPC Ed Logan made Feb 3 at 2020 4:24 PM

SPC Ed Logan — Mon, 03 Feb 2020 16:24:47 -0500

I learned in law school that impeachment was a political and not a legal proceeding. The President cannot be jailed or fined if he is convicted so this is not a violation of speedy trial. In fact very few actual criminal defendants get a "speedy trial" in the criminal realm.

Response by PO1 Todd B. made Feb 3 at 2020 5:09 PM

PO1 Todd B. — Mon, 03 Feb 2020 17:09:13 -0500

AS far as I am concerned, every single democrat is in violation of the Constitution in this hoax impeachment coup attempt. What gets me is how they can stand before the Senate AND chief justice and get away with blatant outright false accussations and lies without repercussions.

They have shown or listed NO ACTUAL crime that was committed to justify impeachment. Not only that, it is clear to anyone listening, reading and paying attention, their ENTIRE case is based on HEARSAY. Nothing more.. There is no evidence at all.. Except the liberals keep claiming the HEARSAY is somehow evidence.

I am independent. Not liberal, not conservative. I have voted for both parties and others in my lifetime. But one thing has changed for me. For the rest of my life, I will NEVER again vote in any election for democrat/liberal candidates. And I am middle age now so that means a lot of elections left in my life time..

For me, since the day President Trump was elected, all I have seen in a concerted effort and attempt to overthrow a duly elected President by ANY means necessary.. And truthfully, I fully expect liberals to go even farther across the line when he wins re-election this fall.. to the point, they very well could destroy our republic.

What hurts even more is listening to these same people spout about the oath they took and the Constitution. And even worse are those military and veterans that side with them. To me, it is clear none are in any shape or form worthy of the positions they hold nor have a bone in their body that is adhering to the oath they took. They are the least patriotic people I have seen to date in my life time.

Response by FN Charlie Spivey made Feb 5 at 2020 9:34 PM

FN Charlie Spivey — Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:34:24 -0500

Okay in another matter involving her tearing up the SOTU Speech, this as come up and may be true, if so somebody better grow a set and do what they are supposed to do:
"The signed address delivered into Pelosi’s custody wasn’t hers to destroy. Behold the consequence:
18 U.S.C. § 2071(b)— specifically directed at custodians of public records. Any custodian of a public record who "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys (any record) shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States." While the range of acts proscribed by this subsection is somewhat narrower than subsection (a), it does provide the additional penalty of forfeiture of position with the United States.
Let justice be done."

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Feb 6 at 2020 4:38 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 06 Feb 2020 16:38:02 -0500

No, the impeachment IS a political remedy, not a criminal procedure. That’s why a statute or regulation isn’t necessary. Lots of loopholes for Congress to exploit.

Response by SPC John Corley made Feb 6 at 2020 8:59 PM

SPC John Corley — Thu, 06 Feb 2020 20:59:40 -0500

Just know she's, a crggy,lying ,ultra stupid b***h

Response by CPT Agustin Latorre made Feb 8 at 2020 1:03 AM

CPT Agustin Latorre — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 01:03:09 -0500

Pelosi should be tried for waisting taxpayers money. Also for her past history of membership in comunist party, and in memory of servicemen kia fighting comunism should be consider a traitor.

Response by PVT Steven Hoffman made Feb 8 at 2020 11:47 AM

PVT Steven Hoffman — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 11:47:17 -0500

I voted "unsure" because I'm ignorant in the Regulations & Laws governing the Impeachment of a sitting President, Does the Right to a speedy trial even apply to a Presidential Impeachment? Of this I'm not sure, but if so, then Yes it seems the Speaker of the House is in Violation of that.

Response by PO2 Gary Bakka made Feb 8 at 2020 12:34 PM

PO2 Gary Bakka — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 12:34:22 -0500

For what ever reason the president is guilty

Response by Cpl William OHara made Feb 8 at 2020 8:00 PM

Cpl William OHara — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 20:00:36 -0500

I think an amendment should be passed that the house would need a super-majority vote of 2/3rds Minimum of the the House to Approve and Pass the articles of Impeachment.

Response by SSG(P) Danielle Birtha made Feb 9 at 2020 2:41 PM

SSG(P) Danielle Birtha — Sun, 09 Feb 2020 14:41:08 -0500

Yes, she IS guilty of violating the 6th... BUT... not JUST the 6th... these are our Legal Rights, and all were taken from President Trump, and therefor... ALL OF U.S. ... first, as defined directly in the Constitution...
Article One, Section 9, clause 3:
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

(ex post facto law: (after the fact Law) A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or CHANGES THE RULES OF EVIDENCE to make conviction easier.) example: changing the rules of evidence to declare that hearsay is admissable as evidence, to convict without factual evidence, is an ex post facto law...
aka 'Trump'ed up charges".

(Bill of Attainder: A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is AN ACT OF A LEGISLATURE DECLARING A PERSON, OR GROUP of persons GUILTY of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial, WITNESSES, OR EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME. Bills of attainder are banned because they violate the Constitution's Separation of Powers. ONLY the JUDICIAL BRANCH is allowed to determine whether or not someone has violated a law and assess an appropriate punishment.)
ALL OF THE 'EVIDENCE' presented is no less than 3rd hand hearsay... that's ex post facto law.
And, as defined, this was NOT a Bill of Impeachment, it IS a Bill of Attainder >(

Article Two, Section 3: "The President... SHALL TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED, ..." --> He is doing his Job, AS HE PROMISED, AND AS COMMANDED BY THE LAW.

Article Three, Section 2, clause 3: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
--> Federal (Capital) Crimes are defined as Class A, B, or C FELONIES... ONLY!

Article Four, Section 2:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." --> AND THAT INCLUDES THE PRESIDENT.

***** 14TH AMENDMENT Section 1... DEFINES: WHEN CITIZEN'S RIGHTS MAY BE DENIED:
--> NEVER <--
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
--> AND THAT MEANS EVERY CITIZEN... INCLUDING TRUMP.

Article Six, clause 2:
"THIS CONSTITUTION, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and ALL TREATIES made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Article Six, clause 3:
"The SENATORS and REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the Members of the several STATE LEGISLATURES, and ALL EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL OFFICERS, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL be BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

THEY SWORE THEIR ALLEGIANCE TO U.S. ... AND THE SUPREME LAW OF OUR LAND >(

OUR LEGAL RIGHTS:
The second paragraph to the Preamble give U.S. the Amendments... they are PART of the Constitution, NOT a separate Document... and they cannot change any of them, without a vote of 75% of we the people... (Article 5)

AMENDMENT IV
The RIGHT of the people to be SECURE in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall NOT be violated, and NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
--> A Grand Jury MUST be convened by a FULL VOTE of the House... not by Nancy.
--> A Grand Jury is the Warrant Authority... NOT Nancy.
Fear, Imagination, and Accusation, are NOT grounds for Probable Cause.

AMENDMENT V
NO PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, UNLESS on a presentment or indictment of a GRAND JURY, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the SAME OFFENSE to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, NOR BE DEPRIVED of life, liberty, or property, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
***** 14TH AMENDMENT Section 1... COMPELS STATES TO COMPLY WITH 5TH AMENDMENT:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
OUR PRESIDENT WAS COMPELLED, BY AN ILLEGAL WARRANT, TO WAIVE ALL HIS RIGHTS, AND TESTIFY AS THEY DICTATE, OR HE IS GUILTY???

6TH AMENDMENT... already covered?

AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE others retained by the people.
--> NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT MAY BE DENIED LEGAL RIGHTS, OR BE COMPELLED TO WAIVE THEIR RIGHTS... regardless of Name, or Political Party >(

The Treaties... are negotiated by...
Article Two, Section 2: "The President shall be COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, ... he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,... He shall have Power, BY AND WITH THE ADVICE OF THE SENATE, to MAKE TREATIES, ... APPOINT AMBASSADORS, ... JUDGES of the Supreme Court, and ALL OTHER OFFICERS of the United States, ... "
AGAIN --> "He shall have Power, BY AND WITH THE ADVICE OF THE SENATE, to MAKE TREATIES, ..." --> NOT the VICE President... NOT Pelosi... NOT Ambassadors... THE PRESIDENT... with the advice and consent of the SENATE... NOT Pelosi >(

The Treaties that apply...
--> The Foreign Assistance Act OF 1961: among other things, ""The Act also provides that no assistance is to be provided to any Communist country. ... that the assistance will promote the country's independence from international Communism. "

--> UKRAINE LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY 1999 (106-16): Aids them to create a Police Force, and Democratic Government.

--> H.R. 4278 - UKRAINE SUPPORT ACT 2014: "(Sec. 203) Authorizes the imposition of asset blocking and and visa/entry sanctions against: (1) any government official of the Russian Federation, or a close associate or family member of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in directing acts of significant corruption in the Russian Federation, including the expropriation of private or public assets for personal gain, government contract corruption, or the extraction of natural resources, bribery, or the facilitation or transfer of the proceeds of corruption to foreign jurisdictions;
--> and (2) ANY INDIVIDUAL who has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for such acts."
--> that includes: Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hunter Biden, and Kerry's step son Archer... not just for Russian Collusion (treason), but also for Felony Class A Fraudulent use of U.S. Tax Funds, Money Laundering, Obstructing Justice, and IMPERSONATING THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA >(

AND... THE BIG ONE... THAT TRUMP SUPPOSEDLY BROKE BY DEMANDING THOSE INVESTIGATIONS...
--> Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 - (Sec. 4) Makes available to Ukraine for loan guarantees specified funds under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 and funds under prior Acts for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs.
--> (Sec. 9) AUTHORIZES AND ENCOURAGES THE PRESIDENT to impose asset blocking and U.S. exclusion sanctions against: (1) any government official of the Russian Federation, or a close associate or family member of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in directing acts of significant corruption in the Russian Federation, including the expropriation of private or public assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, bribery, or the facilitation or transfer of the proceeds of corruption to foreign jurisdictions;
--> and (2) any individual who has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for such acts.
--> AGAIN... THAT INCLUDES BIDEN'S GANG OF CORRUPTION >(

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GUILTY... OF DOING HIS JOB AS COMMANDED...

--> NANCY PELOSI, AND ALL WHO PARTICIPATED... HAVE BURNED OUR LAWS... FOR THEIR PERSONAL PLEASURES >(
--> IMO... IT'S TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO STEP UP AND INVOKE THE UCMJ'S REQUIREMENTS WHEN OUR NATION IS UNDER ATTACK... FROM WITHIN >(
DRAG THEM OUT OF THEIR OFFICES, AND INVOKE ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 3, AND U.S. TREASON LAW...
--> U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381 TREASON: "Whoever, OWING ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES, levies war against them OR ADHERES TO THEIR ENEMIES, giving them AID AND COMFORT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ELSEWHERE, IS GUILTY OF TREASON AND SHALL SUFFER DEATH, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Using Public Servant Office to commit Treason is High Treason, and STILL punishable by HANGING BY THE NECK UNTIL DEAD >(

Response by PO3 Paul Lowrey made Feb 10 at 2020 9:24 AM

PO3 Paul Lowrey — Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:24:37 -0500

My only comment is that I'm tired of seeing my tax dollars paying for the House Democrats wages and outrageous benefits and lifestyles when all they do is Bitch and complain about how bad our President and Country is doing. If any of them smiled there face would crack. I get depressed just watching and listening to them. I can't see where they are doing anything good for our country. All they have done since President Trump took office is hold conspiracy shams, obstruct, resist, spread lies, deceptions and major hate and discontent and backed by our true enemy of the people the MSM and the perversion and debauchery of Hollywood. This is America and we deserve to hear the truth weather it be good bad or ugly not a bunch of non stop 24/7 BS. I hope people wake up at the 2020 general elections and vote these political freeloaders out. President Trump is just a man and like all President's he will come and go but our beautiful Country will still be here and if the Godless and Socialist Democrats takeover at the 2020 general elections we'll never recover and our beautiful Country's worst nightmares will come true. Regardless of what the Democratic leaders say we are the greatest Country in the World. We're not perfect but we're still the best and I'd sure hate to see our beautiful Country regress probably forever a kid to an Obama Democratic type era of time. May God bless America and keep us all safe.

Response by CPL Steve Freeman made Feb 10 at 2020 3:42 PM

CPL Steve Freeman — Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:42:41 -0500

I actually believe the speedy trial part is inconsequential. I think it means one can't be detained for a crime more than 365 days prior to trial or something relative. There were a lot of worse crimes committed by Petty Pelosi, Shifty Shiff, Chuck You Schumer and Penguin Nadler than than violation of speedy trial. If you watched the tril, such as it was, on CSPAN2 you would have seen Trump's attorneys lay it all out more eloquently than I could. Upon 1st appearances that 1 guy looked like you could knock him over with a slight BOO, but that guy, whatever his name is, was pretty kick ass with the laws. I'd want that guy defending me if I ever needed legal counsel. I think it was Cipaloni (???) who made the comment about "when you stand well, stand still." Those guys were all statues in that regard by the end of their defense.

Response by SSgt Daniel d'Errico made Feb 12 at 2020 12:40 AM

SSgt Daniel d'Errico — Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:40:20 -0500

The speaker of the house, chose to delay impeachment procceedings, so she might build up more supposive evidence and wittness'. Speaker Pelosi broke several of the Bill of Rights. Including her Oath of elected office as a congresswoman.

Response by SSG Byron Howard Sr made Mar 2 at 2020 12:50 AM

SSG Byron Howard Sr — Mon, 02 Mar 2020 00:50:47 -0500

And now news of the 1st Amendment.
https://abc13-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/abc13.com/amp/5976113?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh= [login to see] 906&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fabc13.com%2F5976113

Texas Department of State Health Services warns of rabid cow at San Antonio Stock Show and Rodeo...

Response by SSG Brian G. made Mar 2 at 2020 1:23 AM

SSG Brian G. — Mon, 02 Mar 2020 01:23:23 -0500

Impeachment and the Trial that is forced thereof in the Senate Chambers is wholly Political and not criminal even though the articles of impeachment may stem from actual crimes. The verdicts ONLY mean one of two things. One, if acquitted then the person goes about their job as if Impeachment never occurred. Two, if impeached then the person is removed from said office and banned for life from seeking and holding public office. The 10th Amendment ONLY applied to Criminal trials and does not apply to civil and political trails, which is what Impeachment is.

Response by SPC Wendy Parsons made Mar 3 at 2020 4:35 PM

SPC Wendy Parsons — Tue, 03 Mar 2020 16:35:24 -0500

Not exactly on topic here, but one thing I hear all the time that drives me crazy is someone saying a person was found innocent. A trial does not find someone innocent; only guilty or not guilty. There is a difference between innocent and not guilty.

Response by PFC Kenneth Cochrane made Mar 4 at 2020 12:40 PM

PFC Kenneth Cochrane — Wed, 04 Mar 2020 12:40:27 -0500

Impeachment isn’t a criminal proceeding.
Impeachment is a legal proceeding in the sense it occurs according to law, but Calabresi’s premise conflates a legal proceeding — which could include civil and administrative cases or a divorce — with a criminal proceeding, where the right to confront witnesses applies. Trump is not a defendant in a criminal case, he’s a president amid an impeachment inquiry.

Alan Baron, former special impeachment counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, called impeachment “a remedial process designed to protect the public by removing from federal office people who, by their conduct, have shown they’re unworthy of holding that office.”
Other details further highlight that impeachment is neither a civil nor criminal proceeding:
An impeachment does not follow the burden of proof standards from criminal or civil cases. Although the rules of evidence, like precluding hearsay, can apply, the Senate is not bound by them.
The result of an impeachment trial “conviction” is loss of a federal job and possibly being barred from holding a future federal position. The Constitution allows a separate vote that would bar the person whose been convicted, and therefore removed from office, from holding a federal office under American laws.

Response by PFC Kenneth Cochrane made Mar 4 at 2020 12:42 PM

PFC Kenneth Cochrane — Wed, 04 Mar 2020 12:42:20 -0500

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/12/questions-we-still-need-answered-impeachment-inquiry/

questions-we-still-need-answered-impeachment-inquiry

Response by CPO Leonard Orth made Mar 7 at 2020 3:35 AM

CPO Leonard Orth — Sat, 07 Mar 2020 03:35:16 -0500

trump is a TRAITOR and for the life of me I dont understand why people intelligent enough to write in complete sentences have their tongues up his ass.

Response by PVT William Smith made Mar 7 at 2020 6:56 PM

PVT William Smith — Sat, 07 Mar 2020 18:56:23 -0500

The premise: Speaker of the House, violation, speedy trial has no linkage. She cannot be in violation because she has no control over the Senate, where the trial took place. If the question is 'was the month that elapsed between the vote to impeach and the presentation of the Articles of Impeachment to the senate so excessive that she violated the 'speedy' aspect of the accused trial rights'? I don't know of many (if any) trials which actually begin one month after the Grand Jury issues a True Bill. I think that, in practice, one month would be hyper 'speedy'. The House's roll was akin to a Grand Jury investigation and the Senate performed the duties as to the trial. All be it, a trial with no witnesses allowed. Maybe the first trial prosecuted with no witnesses allowed. So be it. This sadly is where we are at this time.

Response by SPC Terence Q Burns made Mar 10 at 2020 8:44 PM

SPC Terence Q Burns — Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:44:54 -0400

NOT into politics. Great read all!

Response by SSG Shawn Mcfadden made Mar 18 at 2020 9:41 AM

SSG Shawn Mcfadden — Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:41:54 -0400

Now that the president of the United States of America has officially been acquitted, I have the following things to say about this ordeal. To the members of the GOP, every single one of you, are COWARDS, TRAITORS, CORRUPT, COMPROMISED, PIECES OF TRASH, SCUM, etc. You chose to acquit this president, who beyond a shadow of doubt, BROKE THE LAW when he gave the order to freeze the money going to Ukraine. You chose to acquit this president despite the fact the Office of Management and Budget, and the Government Accountability Office stated that this president’s actions were indeed ILLEGAL.

Because of the actions you have chosen, the following events have transpired. First, your vote to acquit this president has allowed himself, and every president AFTER him to be ABOVE THE LAW. No longer can the words of Richard Nixon be used to describe how the people of this Country should function under the rule of law. The president should now be considered to be in the same realm as a Monarch, however, if you think I will ever call this so-called president” your majesty”, you are sorely mistaken. Second. When you acquitted this president, you failed to realize that when the president violated the Impoundment Control Act, he also gave every single member of the Legislative Branch the finger. Under the Impoundment Control Act, if the president is ever to intervene in the issuing of funds from Congress to a designated entity, the president has to inform Congress of his intentions. This is something he clearly did not do. Yet despite this fact, you voted to acquit him. Third, when you voted to acquit this president, you forever forfeited the ability to hold a SITTING PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE OF ANY WRONG DOING! Now that the current president is untouchable, the next president, and the one after, etc, will be as well. So let’s say, in the future, Hillary Clinton becomes president, and you go all out in your attempt to have her removed from office. You even go as far as to bring back previous cases from the dead(the emails, Benghazi, the server, Uranium One, all of which she was cleared of by the way). The end result will be that YOU WILL NOT SUCCEED!!! WHY? Because when you acquitted the current president, you also established a historical PRECEDENT that can and will be challenged in the Supreme Court if necessary.

Your decision to acquit this president set events in motion that either you failed to contemplate, or you simply do not care of any existing consequences. Whatever the case may be, understand that is far from over. The reason this president has been acquitted, is because every single member of the GOP has been in one way or another COMPROMISED by the NRA, the Russians, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and possible other organizations and Country’s persons like myself are not currently aware of. That and your COWARDICE allowed you to cringe in fear of the president, who is also a COWARD, a RACIST, a BULLY, and a NEOLITHIC INCOMPETENT DOTARD. Your actions on that day you decided to cast your vote to acquit this president DESTROYED DEMOCRACY to the tune of your THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE. Make no mistake, the AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL MAKE YOU PAY FOR THE ATROCITY YOU HAVE COMMITTED, SO HELP US GOD!!!!!

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Apr 5 at 2020 5:47 PM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Sun, 05 Apr 2020 17:47:41 -0400

Was she manipulating things for a political advantage? Yes. Was she stacking the deck to ensure the desired outcome? Definitely. Were the results predetermined? Absolutely. Did she violate the Constitution? No. Some things were devious, some underhanded and unfair, but the Constitution leaves a lot of latitude in the conduction of impeachment proceedings.

Response by SGT Herbert Bollum made Apr 6 at 2020 1:18 PM

SGT Herbert Bollum — Mon, 06 Apr 2020 13:18:02 -0400

The main point here should be Fair and Impartial Jury.
There was little chance of a fair or impartial jury being put together in that case.
In civilian cases, they get to choose a jury out of the pool of citizens, and both sides get a say in who gets on the jury.In this case we had Senators saying before hand ythat they would vote one way or the other without hearing any testimony.

Response by SPC Nancy Greene made May 13 at 2020 3:10 PM

SPC Nancy Greene — Wed, 13 May 2020 15:10:00 -0400

Outstanding political & constitutional question CPO Nate Szejniuk!
I find it extremely unsettling you would have to remind Military RP is NOT FB, snap chat, Twitter, tic tic,,,
If someone cannot express themselves without profanity; then, maybe they really do Need theraphy!
I thought your question was Spot On & I am interested in the results!
Thank You for posting an excellent & thought-provoking question!
Nancy

Response by 1SG James Kelly made May 25 at 2020 1:26 AM

1SG James Kelly — Mon, 25 May 2020 01:26:56 -0400

The bitch has violated all the others why not this one.

Response by MSG Felipe De Leon Brown made May 29 at 2020 11:20 PM

MSG Felipe De Leon Brown — Fri, 29 May 2020 23:20:45 -0400

There seems to be very few members of the Rally Point community, from what I am able to discern, who are students of History and very knowledgeable about the Constitution. Speaker Pelosi, in my opinion, had every authority to withhold the articles of Impeachment from the Senate until after the Holiday Season. The notion that she violated the 6th Amendment is informed with only a very superficial understanding of the Constitution at best. I also suspect that there are certain influences that have very little to do with rational and well informed thought. Some are wont to question my authority and I am more than happy to back up my argument with validity.
First, I had the good fortune of having been raised by a History and Social Science Professor who also guided me in studying the Constitution during my adolescence. By the time I graduated from High School, I had completed the Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books of the Western World, a collection of 54 tomes that prepared me to participate in conversations with Ph.Ds in History, Political Science, Economics and all their related fields. The program is somewhat dry but my dad made it interesting because he was hoping that I would choose to become an educator. I have, thus, approached the question of the three impeachments that have taken place in my lifetime as someone knowledgeable of the Constitution that I swore to support and defend.
Also Like many who had been instilled with a Code of Ethics that entails duty, honor, integrity and the Rule of Law, I expected that everything leading up to the trial would be on the up and up. That the judgement would be impartial. I was very disappointed.
However, it quickly became obvious to Constitutional Scholars that the Senate was already planning to acquit the defendant even before the articles of impeachment were presented to the Senate. The trial, in every sense of the word, was a sham. The "fix" was in. Even before the evidence showing that the defendant was guilty was presented, several members of the Senate had already decided that they were not going to adjudicate impartially.

Response by SSG Shawn Mcfadden made Jun 28 at 2020 6:51 AM

SSG Shawn Mcfadden — Sun, 28 Jun 2020 06:51:07 -0400

I will go with no. First, the president was impeached for violating the Impoundment Control Act. Pure and simple. Cut and dry. Next. Pelosi acted the way she did because she knew McConnell did NOT want to got through the hoopla of a Senate trial. The following is from an earlier comment I posted when the Impeachment was in its earlier stages:"McConnell has already declared that he's going to acquit trump! I don't blame Pelosi for what she's doing. McConnell has admitted he's coordinating with the White House on this!!! He needs to recues himself NOW!!!!"
Also, after trump was acquitted, McConnell ADMITTED that trump broke the law and violated the Impoundment Control Act. However, people want to ask if Pelosi violated the 6th Amendment? People SHOULD be asking why McConnell bent over backwards to save trump knowing FULL WELL that what he did was wrong?

Response by SP5 Paul Renard made Jul 2 at 2020 2:00 PM

SP5 Paul Renard — Thu, 02 Jul 2020 14:00:03 -0400

The House of Representatives "indict" withers articles of impeachment. The Senate conducts the trial under their own rules. The Speaker can make recommendations for the trial, but the final rules are the purview of the Senate Majority Leader.