Impeachment

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed committees investigating President Trump to “proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry,” but the House has never authorized such an inquiry. Democrats have been seeking to impeach Mr. Trump since the party took control of the House, though it isn’t clear for what offense. Lawmakers and commentators have suggested various possibilities, but none amount to an impeachable offense. The effort is akin to a constitutionally proscribed bill of attainder—a legislative effort to punish a disfavored person. The Senate should treat it accordingly.

The impeachment power is quasi-judicial and differs fundamentally from Congress’s legislative authority. The Constitution assigns “the sole power of impeachment” to the House—the full chamber, which acts by majority vote, not by a press conference called by the Speaker. Once the House begins an impeachment inquiry, it may refer the matter to a committee to gather evidence with the aid of subpoenas. Such a process ensures the House’s political accountability, which is the key check on the use of impeachment power.
The House has followed this process every time it has tried to impeach a president. Andrew Johnson’s 1868 impeachment was predicated on formal House authorization, which passed 126-47. In 1974 the Judiciary Committee determined it needed authorization from the full House to begin an inquiry into Richard Nixon’s impeachment, which came by a 410-4 vote. The House followed the same procedure with Bill Clinton in 1998, approving a resolution 258-176, after receiving independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s report.

Mrs. Pelosi discarded this process in favor of a Trump-specific procedure without precedent in Anglo-American law. Rep. Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee and several other panels are questioning witnesses in secret. Mr. Schiff has defended this process by likening it to a grand jury considering whether to hand up an indictment.
But while grand-jury secrecy is mandatory, House Democrats are selectively leaking information to the media, and House Republicans, who are part of the jury, are being denied subpoena authority and full access to transcripts of testimony and even impeachment-related committee documents. No grand jury has a second class of jurors excluded from full participation.
The Founders considered allowing impeachment on the broader grounds of “maladministration,” “neglect of duty” and “mal-practice,” but they rejected these reasons for fear of giving too much power to Congress. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes abuses of power that do not constitute violations of criminal statutes. But its scope is limited."

Reminder. The Ukrainian Pres has said several times he felt NO Pressure.
 
If this is an impeachment proceeding allowed under our Constitution why are the Dems ignoring the procedure as allowed under it?

Thus far the House has not authorized an impeachment inquiry but have held secret meetings.

The House doesn't have to launch anything. The House has the "sole power of impeachment." That is the only guidance the Constitution gives on how it conducts impeachment. They can formally launch an inquiry, but they don't have to. They can conduct hearings in public, but they don't have to. In fact, they don't have to conduct hearings at all. They could simply draft articles of impeachment and send them straight to the floor for a vote. How they choose to conduct an impeachment proceeding would be deemed a "political question" by the Supreme Court, which means the Court would decide that a political branch of government (the House) has the only authority to decide the matter and that the Court effectively lacks jurisdiction to decide it.

There is some legal authority to back this up. Back in the early '90s, the House impeached Judge Walter Nixon. In accordance with Senate rules, a Senate committee heard the evidence against Judge Nixon. The committee referred the evidence to the full Senate, which convicted and removed Judge Nixon. He sued arguing that the Constitution gave the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." He argued that the hearing of evidence should have been before the full Senate, not a committee and that his conviction was therefore invalid. The Court applied the political question doctrine and refused to intervene. See Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

Frankly, Judge Nixon had a stronger case. The Constitution does seem to give the power of trying impeachments only to the Senate - not a committee of the Senate, the full Senate. The Court still didn't care.

I kinda sorta disagree with Husker on the 2015 rules change. The rules change was intended to apply to oversight hearings (like the Benghazi hearings), not impeachment hearings. However, whether holding secret hearings and leaking is a smart or not (I think it's politically stupid and chickenshit.), it's not unconstitutional. They can do it, and if the House doesn't like it, they don't have to vote for impeachment. Frankly, the real error is in Pelosi framing the hearings as impeachment hearings (which she almost surely did to appease the hard-left in her caucus). They are actually functioning more like oversight hearings. I assume that the evidence they uncover will go to the Judiciary Committee, which would conduct real impeachment hearings.
 
Yes, the House. Not a "few democrats" but the while House will vote in order to get the charges over to the Senate.

So what are the goods they have on President Trump? It must be really good if it involves impeachment. Like Fisa Abuse, NSA Spying, wiretapping journalist, Iran ransom, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, IRS scandal, VA scandal, or Benghazi. You know like all the stuff that happened under Obama that could have been a witch hunt by the Republicans but didn’t.
 
MrD
So are you saying the House can vote for an inquiry and then hold all meetings in secret? Not giving the minority party subpoena authority or full access to transcripts?
 
So what are the goods they have on President Trump? It must be really good if it involves impeachment. Like Fisa Abuse, NSA Spying, wiretapping journalist, Iran ransom, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, IRS scandal, VA scandal, or Benghazi. You know like all the stuff that happened under Obama that could have been a witch hunt by the Republicans but didn’t.
As in the Russian collusion hoax, if there was evidence of any wrongdoing, the media would have its hands on it.
 
MrD
So are you saying the House can vote for an inquiry and then hold all meetings in secret? Not giving the minority party subpoena authority or full access to transcripts?

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I'm not saying that's the right thing to do. It's foolish and wildly against precedent, but they can do it.
 
I wonder what Durham is finding in his investigation into DNC etc collusion with Ukraine etc in 2016 election collusion?
 
However, whether holding secret hearings and leaking is a smart or not (I think it's politically stupid and chickenshit.), it's not unconstitutional. They can do it, and if the House doesn't like it, they don't have to vote for impeachment.

This also means the any opposition party can break into secret hearing and make a media stunt of it. Might not be smart.

But the issue at hand isn't legal or ethical. It is political. Does the action make their party and stance more popular or not? That is the only question that should be considered for things like this. Don't do anything illegal or unethical, but don't erect meaningless barriers to fighting your political fight either.
 
So what are the goods they have on President Trump?
Given neither of us are sitting in the hearings might I suggest we let the inquiry finish and evidence presented? As @Mr. Deez suggested the leaked evidence to date is damning but only a partial view.

Like Fisa Abuse, NSA Spying, wiretapping journalist, Iran ransom, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, IRS scandal, VA scandal, or Benghazi. You know like all the stuff that happened under Obama that could have been a witch hunt by the Republicans but didn’t.

Why do you think the House rules were changed in 2015? It was to investigate many of the topics you point to without the interference of the minority party into the desired narrative. Investigations and hearings were had for virtually all the topics you mention.
 
Here is what Vindman's concern was
""I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained," his statement adds. "This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel."
 
Here is what Vindman's concern was
""I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained," his statement adds. "This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel."

Don't worry. I'm sure Vindman's character will be impugned shortly. Paging mchammer...
 
Don't worry. I'm sure Vindman's character will be impugned shortly. Paging mchammer...
I have a different take. This guy has seen how the Dems and never trumpers have hurt relations with Russia cause orange man bad, and he doesn’t want it repeated with the Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
thanks mc
If the President of Ukraine( and or the previous Pres) did not know he was being QPQ'd is it quid pro quo?

I wonder if I research I would find any example of overt quid pro quo by other Presidents
 
thanks mc
If the President of Ukraine( and or the previous Pres) did not know he was being QPQ'd is it quid pro quo?

I wonder if I research I would find any example of overt quid pro quo by other Presidents
Here’s the nut of it: Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate 2016 election interference and Biden corruption. He pressured them, but it falls short of quid pro quo. This is a nothing burger except for the Dems leaking one-sided testimony, the deep state outwardly encouraging others to get on board with the coup, and the media cheering them on. I think everyone of importance is on record now. There will be nothing new from here on except derivative versions of the same.
 
This also means the any opposition party can break into secret hearing and make a media stunt of it. Might not be smart.

But the issue at hand isn't legal or ethical. It is political. Does the action make their party and stance more popular or not? That is the only question that should be considered for things like this. Don't do anything illegal or unethical, but don't erect meaningless barriers to fighting your political fight either.

I agree with you. I think the Democrats are making a mistake. The media is doing what it can to protect their narrative, but they're handing the GOP a big drum to beat. Having said that, I think the leaks make them look worse than the secret hearings do.
 
Here’s the nut of it: Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate 2016 election interference and Biden corruption. He pressured them, but it falls short of quid pro quo. This is a nothing burger except for the Dems leaking one-sided testimony, the deep state outwardly encouraging others to get on board with the coup, and the media cheering them on. I think everyone of importance is on record now. There will be nothing new from here on except derivative versions of the same.

There it is. I've been waiting for the moment the defense went from 'he didn't do anything' towards 'he did it but it wasn't wrong'. Eventually we'll move onto 'it was wrong but not worthy of impeachment' when the Senate actually votes.
 
Did Sondland testify again today?

He was in D.C. yesterday to review his testimony and 'sign' it. After signing it he'd be open to perjury so it's possible he ammended his statement in light of the conflicts between his and Taylor's reported testimony. I don't have a WSJ subscription and so far no other news service has picked up the story that I can tell.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top