Originally posted by Sam
View Post
I don't think you've been reading what I actually write.
Your argument is that impeachment is a criminal trial and so Trump is afforded 6A protections as a constitutional right. I have demonstrated, by referencing the Congressional Research Service report, the historical record, and your own reliance on White's concurrence in Nixon v. USA that this is false. It's not a poor reading of the Constitution, necessarily, but it is fighting against the historical precedent, scholarly interpretation and case law.
Your second argument is that if the Senate gets to define its own rules then it can do what it wants, waiving or granting constitutional or statutory protections at will. This is also false: it's simply a category error, as I described earlier. Trump's lack of 6A protections as a constitutional right does not stem from the Senate deeming it to be so but because the Senate trial is not a criminal trial and 6A therefore does not apply.
Your argument fails on those two points. To your depiction of my argument:
[1] The court has a place in affirming that Congress has the power to issue lawful subpoenas and that this power is broad. Since this is the case, contempt of a subpoena can be a criminal offense. While the court will not force compliance of a subpoena, the fact that contempt can be a criminal charge means that failure to comply can be prosecuted by this or a subsequent DOJ.
But I imagine we'll have to look toward Congress' power of inherent contempt before this is over.
[2] See above.
[3] See above.
[4] See Paragraph 2 above.
[5] See Paragraph 1.
--Sam
Your argument is that impeachment is a criminal trial and so Trump is afforded 6A protections as a constitutional right. I have demonstrated, by referencing the Congressional Research Service report, the historical record, and your own reliance on White's concurrence in Nixon v. USA that this is false. It's not a poor reading of the Constitution, necessarily, but it is fighting against the historical precedent, scholarly interpretation and case law.
Your second argument is that if the Senate gets to define its own rules then it can do what it wants, waiving or granting constitutional or statutory protections at will. This is also false: it's simply a category error, as I described earlier. Trump's lack of 6A protections as a constitutional right does not stem from the Senate deeming it to be so but because the Senate trial is not a criminal trial and 6A therefore does not apply.
Your argument fails on those two points. To your depiction of my argument:
[1] The court has a place in affirming that Congress has the power to issue lawful subpoenas and that this power is broad. Since this is the case, contempt of a subpoena can be a criminal offense. While the court will not force compliance of a subpoena, the fact that contempt can be a criminal charge means that failure to comply can be prosecuted by this or a subsequent DOJ.
But I imagine we'll have to look toward Congress' power of inherent contempt before this is over.
[2] See above.
[3] See above.
[4] See Paragraph 2 above.
[5] See Paragraph 1.
--Sam
Comment