The Right to a Fair Trial

American Thinker.com ^ | January 31, 2020 | John Leonard

[Kaslin]

In theory, every citizen in the United States is equal under the law. In reality, far too often money has been able to buy rich people immunity from justice. We are all supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty, but the way it usually works is that the accused are often judged guilty by the media before the trial ever starts.

The President of the United States is responsible for enforcing laws passed by Congress. As such, he is considered the chief law enforcement officer in America. Should you or I ever be accused of breaking federal law, Donald Trump is at the very top of the food chain of people responsible for seeing justice is fairly adjudicated in a court of law. After he has been accused of wrongdoing and impeached, doesn’t President Trump also have the right to a fair trial? He certainly didn’t get one.

In a civilized society, disagreements are supposed to be fairly and equitably resolved through debate, either in the public arena or a court of law. Never by violence. One of my all-time favorite movie quotes came from a relatively unknown movie called Time After Time, in the scene where H.G. Wells (Malcolm McDowell) realized his friend (played by David Warner) was Jack the Ripper and had escaped to our future, where his crimes would draw less attention because violence had become so much more commonplace. Jack insists that Wells can never stop him unless he abandons his nonviolent philosophy and Wells brilliantly replied, “The first man to raise his fist is the man who has run out of ideas.” That said, when the other guy is Jack the Ripper and he’s coming your way with a long, sharp knife, you’d better think fast.

[Leaning Right]

The author is confusing criminal trial with a political trial. In a criminal trial, rules must be followed in order to protect the rights of the defendant.

But in a political trial like impeachment, those rights don’t apply. All that matters is that the House - and then the Senate - follow the few impeachment rules found in the Constitution. And so far they have.

[lepton]

In a criminal trial we have worked out specific mechanisms to guarantee due process and rights. You are correct that this not being a criminal trial being held in the courts means the exact mechanisms don’t need to apply, but the concepts of due process and basic rights do need to be followed. That’s just fundamental. Further, unlike ambassadors for the President, Presidents don’t serve at the pleasure of Congress.

[Leaning Right]

> the concepts of due process and basic rights do need to be followed <

I won’t disagree with that. But who is to judge whether or not those basic rights are being followed in an impeachment? The Constitution is clear about that. It is the House, and then the Senate. No court has any say in the matter.

And no court should have any say in the matter. Because if they did, a tyrannical president would be very difficult to remove (such a president could just appeal to some judge that he had appointed).

By the way, that idiot Pelosi is now saying that Trump’s acquittal would be invalid if no witnesses are called. She is more wrong than is the author of this article. The Constitution says nothing about the necessity of witnesses.

[ETCM]

The author is confusing criminal trial with a political trial.

No, pretty much everyone with a brain, including the author, understands that this is a political event. He is just pointing out that in their desperation to destroy Trump, that Pelosi, Schiff, et al, completely abandoned our legal and societal norms of justice and fairness, and now the entire process is widely regarded as illegitimate. The credibility of our entire legislative branch has been damaged by their actions.

[lepton]

I won’t disagree with that. But who is to judge whether or not those basic rights are being followed in an impeachment?

---

Well, us - rather than allowing the House and Senate to get away with the sophistry that it is not required.

You are correct that there is no inherent enforcement mechanism for their behavior, but we absolutely should not let them get away unchallenged with openly stating they have no such obligation.

[JimRed]

Wasn’t it last week the RATs were whining that Republican senators wee incapable of being impartial jurors?

Funny, they didn’t mention that the RATs in the house were incapable of being impartial in bringing the charges!