1} "Due process" is a flexible concept. Precisely what procedures the Due Process Clause requires in any given case is a function of context. In the judicial context, the US has hundreds of years of caselaw defining the limits of procedural DP afforded defendants.
@NBCPolitics
@NBCPolitics
2} By contrast, presidential impeachments have little historical precedent for guidance: Only 19 impeachments ever! Plus, the House has the sole, exclusive power to impeach, so it has the power to determine its own rules.
@NBCNews
@NBCNews
3} The House resolution adopting rules for the impeachment inquiry could be seen as providing and denying due process to the president, depending on how the language is interpreted.
@NBCNewsNow
@NBCNewsNow
4} For example, the Resolution appears to give minority members broad subpoena power, but that power appears subject to the approval of the Committee chairs and democrats.
@msnbc @EmilyTFord
@msnbc @EmilyTFord
5} Should this be compared to prior impeachments? It's hard to say. Binding precedent is a concept used in the judicial branch. It's not clear that impeachments (congressional, not judicial proceedings) are "bound" by precedent.
6} In fact, our impeachment history is filled with apparent inconsistencies, unanswered questions, and departures from "precedent". For example, it's widely believed that Senators cannot be impeached. Yet, the country's first attempted impeachment was of...a Senator.
@Popehat
@Popehat
7} People still disagree on the definition of impeachable offenses. Some scholars (like @AlanDersh) make strong constitutional arguments that impeachable offenses must be crimes. Yet, prior impeachments have been for non-crimes, like "abuse of power."
@NBCLatino
@NBCLatino
