Invite Friends

Topic: US Politics

Results in this view: Y-face Accuser 11% - Convince Me 22% - N-wrong/protect 67%
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
  • 41
Picture?type=square
By Don Lee It's not an opinion, it's the law in the Constitution, and unless you are Antiamerican you have to defend the president on this.
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris There is nothing n the Constitution about revealing or not revealing a whistle blower. You need to go back to civics class.
Anonymous-user
by anon-11bb LOL, you have the right to confront your accusers, go back to where ever you came from and leave America to us, civilized people who wrote laws to protect us from tyrants like you.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris LOL anon, I am not a tyrant. I am against tyrants, dude. You might be the tyrant. The Constitution recognizes that ALL people in a criminal trial have the right to face their accusers. Civilized people know this. The Constitution was written to protect us from tyrants like you.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Sorry anon, I misunderstood and thought you were talking to me. My bad. But, in impeachment you have no such right, ONLY in a criminal trial.
Anonymous-user
by anon-11bb Impeachment inquiries involve criminality, so it's the same thing.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Wrong!! Do your research. The House does not have to find criminal activity to impeach a person. And IF the charge is an actual crime, then the impeached person will face NO criminal penalties like jail, fines or death. Even IF convicted in the Senate.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Impeachment is similar to a grand jury where they collect evidence and decide rather to charge a person. The House collects info and then votes on rather to impeach a person aka charge him. You have no right to face anyone until the trial (the Senate).
Anonymous-user
by anon-11bb You lost and are changing the subject. We were talking about the right to face your accusers in the constitution. your a lost soul
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I did not lose. I did not change the subject. I explained the whole process of Impeachment from the words of the Constitution and showed you that it does not give the person who is the focus of the Impeachment the right to face an accuser.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I posted the words of the Constitution to explain it below.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris The Constitution does not give the one who is under impeachment the right to face their accuser in the impeachment part (House) or the trial part (Senate), because it is a political process not a criminal one.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Now, the Senate always allows the impeached to face their accuser, even though the Constitution does not say the House impeachment inquiry or the Senate Removal trial has to allow the subject of the impeachment or the impeached the right to face their accuser.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris I woud not call a person a lost soul, when you don't know what you are talking about and you can't counter my argument, but only call me names.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman said the coward who hasnt the guts to show himself
you sir are lost
i am a man
what are you
oh yes you sir are a worm
and a cowardly worm at that
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman there are exceptions, you must know that when the witness is under threat, or has been threatened there is no such right, you do know that dont you?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings. The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye.
Confrontation Clause - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Confrontation_Clause
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Forfeiture by wrongdoing
Where the defendant makes the witness unavailable for the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying, the defendant forfeits the right to confront the witness.[14] This exception only applies to circumstances where the defendant acts with the purpose of preventing the testimony, but not to other circumstances where the defendant may nonetheless be blameworthy. For example, the testimonial statements of an uncross-examined murder victim are not admissible against the person who committed the murder unless the murder was committed for the purpose of preventing the victim from testifying.[15]

It is the prosecution's burden to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the defendant secured the witness's unavailability for the purpose of preventing the witness to testify
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Witness tampering is the act of attempting to improperly influence, alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings.
Witness tampering - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Witness_tampering
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Ted Alvin Klaudt (born April 9, 1958) is a convicted rapist, farmer, rancher, and former Republican member of the South Dakota House of Representatives (1999–2006)[1] from Walker, South Dakota, United States. In November 2007 he was convicted of four counts of raping his two foster daughters.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Not sure if all the exceptions William lists are constitution, since the Constitutions guarantees the accused to face their accuser. But it does not apply to impeachment or removal, since they are not a criminal proceeding.
Picture?type=square
By Grover T Syck When it gets to the trial phase in the senate, then he can stand and accuse Trump. Until them, "no way in hell".
Picture?type=square
Anonymous-user
by anon-11bb Nope, that is not how the amendment is written.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Wrong!! 1) it isn't an amendment. 2) Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides: The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris 3) Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provides: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris 4) 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.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris 5) 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; ,,
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris ...but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (This means that once removed from office they can be charged and convicted in a criminal trial for those offenses and it not be considered double jeopardy)
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris 6) 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.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Impeachment is similar to a grand jury where they collect evidence and decide rather to charge a person. The House collects info and then votes on rather to impeach a person aka charge him. You have no right to face anyone until the trial (the Senate).
Anonymous-user
by anon-11bb You are still wrong..you have to face your accusers. You want to play cat and mouse with the Constitution you are not American.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris You are ignorant . You are not American.The Constitution guarantees our right to face our accusers in a criminal trial. It does NOT guarantee any government official the right to face his accuser in the impeachment or in the removal trial.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Get an education. Learn the facts.
Anonymous-user
by anon-11bb That's your rules, the rules of tyranny. It doesn't say that in the Constitution...therefore you are not an American anymore then Benedict Arnold was.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman the witness protection program supercedes any of this attempt by you gangsters to intimidate of kill the witness
Anonymous-user
by anon-11bb Witness protection program? Not sure if it is constitutional, but gangsters falll under the 5th amendment, and it's not constitutional to to prosecute organize armies, ie gangs in civil court. It's curently just a politicaal ploy to allow dems to get out of jail card It's how you have undermind America,
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris You have the right to face your accusers in a criminal trial, and anything that prevents that is unconstitutional. But the subject of an impeachment inquiry or a removal trial does NOT have that right in the Constitution.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Klaudt also pleaded guilty to witness tampering, and was sentenced to an additional ten years' imprisonment.[1]
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Witness tampering is the act of attempting to improperly influence, alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings.

Witness tampering and reprisals against witnesses in organized crime cases have been a difficulty faced by prosecutors; witness protection programs were one response to this problem.[1]

Contents
1 United States
2 England and Wales
3 International Criminal Court
4 Economic analysis
5 See also
6 References
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman ever hear of witness protection? and what part of the constittution do you speak of?