The ‘Whistleblower’ and the President’s Right to Present a Defense By Andrew C. McCarthy

[mystery-ak]

   The ‘Whistleblower’ and the President’s Right to Present a Defense
By Andrew C. McCarthy

November 9, 2019 6:30 AM

If Trump is impeached, he can build a strong case against conviction — but he might be wiser not to.

Right church, wrong pew, as we Catholic types are wont to say.

As I tried to explain in Thursday’s column, Rand Paul is wrong to insist that the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause demands that the so-called whistleblower be unmasked and publicly questioned. That does not mean, though, that Senator Paul’s general idea (that the “whistleblower” should testify) is wrong; nor does it mean that the Constitution’s guarantee of trial rights is irrelevant.

The right to present a defense, also vouchsafed by the Sixth Amendment, is the guarantee on which Paul and the rest of the president’s supporters should focus.

This comes with the same caveats elaborated on Thursday. The Constitution vests the House and Senate with plenary authority over their respective impeachment proceedings (the House to decide whether to file articles of impeachment, the Senate to try the case). No court has the power to make either legislative chamber afford a particular quantum of due process.

more
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-impeachment-inquiry-whistleblower-presidents-right-to-present-a-defense/

[PeteS in CA]

No court has the power to make either legislative chamber afford a particular quantum of due process.

WRT the House, that is true. In the Senate, however, the Chief justice of the Supreme Court will preside and can impose that degree of due process. But there is another "court" that can at least punish the Dems if they try to railroad Donald Trump, the "court" of public opinion, which will be "ruling" in November, 2020. So the Rs should make due process a huge issue if it is denied, and make full use of it to present their case if it is afforded.