you are conflating 2 things. not allowing due process to the defense. and breaking codes of law.
if you are not allowing due process, this is going above the law.

i'm going through some things to link in grounds for actual crimes committed by members of the House in this process. such a claim i feel requires some ground, so it'll take some time to write up.
or... i could just blanketly call "abuse of power"... even you admit

you have not yet given any reason as to "why" the House is granted powers above law and precedent. instead you are now asking what laws they have broken.

There is NO verbiage in the Impeachment definition for the house that refers to "due process" Due process is a legal term the house giving their articles of impeachment to the senate is NOT a legal based thing.. If it was tRump would be out. Right? If it had legal merit on its own, why would there need to be a Senate TRIAL as stated in the constitution. 2 trials? That's not allowed either you cannot have double jeopardy.. I know it doesn't fit exactly but you cannot convict somebody twice. Or acquit them twice.. You keep referring to the house's role as some legal process.. IT isn't

Nobody stopped Trump from bringing witness or defending himself in the House. Nobody did it because the KNOW the guy cannot tell the truth under oath. Not the House's problem. If they had a witness that could prove he was clear. Where was that person?

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Jan 26 2020 01:22pm

I think he was trying to convey irony and a delightful hint of sarcasm

Edit; i wonder if less people would support the current house impeachment knowing that its basically a shit show of gut feeling and emotion rather than an organized display of facts that due process enforces

I really hope crossbones spreads the word so that more people can be aware of this

This post was edited by ssdrmstre on Jan 26 2020 01:28pm

Trump's legal counsel already destroying it.

The legal credibility of the evidence the Dems have presented is so weak.

This impeachment is literally over foreign policy disagreements. Lol.

I really don't get how people are saying the aid being delayed means that Trump was withholding it in exchange for an investigation into Biden. That's such a weak presumption. The evidence of that, has been incredibly weak. Nothing but presumptions that haven't been backed up.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Jan 26 2020 01:29pm

This is why we shit on the news. They just wont shut up about it.

It's not a wise decision for any defendant to directly testify when the chairmen is doing all he can do to misconstruct things out of context to make a false narrative.

No attorney with half a brain would have their client do that.

The pressure is on the prosecutors to prove the guilt.
The pressure is not on a defendent to bring witnesses to prove he's innocent. If this wasn't the case, the system would be so corrupt.

This isn't being trialed for the same case twice, it's a continuation of the process. It's being channeled up the ladder, in impeachment cases, this is how it is supposed to play out in this scenario.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Jan 26 2020 01:53pm

what if the impeachment inquiry hadn't started yet? how are they given powers and authority above other branches?

even if you believe the "powers of impeachment" give the House the authority to disregard due process and write rules that go above law and order, the "impeachment inquiry" was not voted on until half-way through the investigation.

did the House have impeachment powers before voting on the impeachment inquiry? if such is the case, when do they gain powers of impeachment?

Ah then Bill should have ignored requests and not testified? I’m sure you all would accept that.
Your wrong in your explanation of the process they are two separate things not a long singular

I never said I supported Clinton being impeached.
This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

Nope, definitely a singular process.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/national/how-does-impeachment-work-here-the-step-step-process/5wUTeEdEgheqohUL1WA0IJ/amp.html

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Jan 26 2020 02:06pm

I don't know where you were during the House's investigation, but they "voted" and passed an inquiry template, that did not allow the Republicans to call ANY witnesses. And it prevented the Republicans from bringing any legal counsel.
And that doesn't even go into the other rules that the House voted on and changed, that directly "aided" them in their inquiry. It also doesn't go into the BS that Schiff pulled during the inquiry.

I think, if the House were being at all honest, they would NEED to call the inquiry an inquisition, to get anywhere near what actually took place.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jan 26 2020 02:13pm