Remodeling Maidiac
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
Is this process specifically outlined or are these people just making it up as they go?
Serious question.
Serious question.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
YesIs this process specifically outlined or are these people just making it up as they go?
Serious question.
Not sure,
Under current rules, Yes, The HoR also needs to appoint Managers that will act as the prosecutors in the Senate Trial and present the evidence supporting the Articles of Impeachment.Is this process specifically outlined or are these people just making it up as they go?
Serious question.
Seems the Dems are having second thoughts. They are hoping to get the most impact they can out of the mess they have made.
Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLawI read about what the Constitution said about the impeachment process. It did not outline what happens if the articles of impeachment are not sent to the Senate. It did mention that two (?) managers from the House will assist in the Senate Trial. But what if they didn't send them or the articles.
The Constitution clearly states that the articles of impeachment are to be sent to the Senate. No question. There is a point where the Supreme Court can be involved, but it's murky.
I will try to find what I read so you can determine what it means in this situation.
Under current rules, Yes, The HoR also needs to appoint Managers that will act as the prosecutors in the Senate Trial and present the evidence supporting the Articles of Impeachment.Is this process specifically outlined or are these people just making it up as they go?
Serious question.
Of course an unreasonable delay might be brought to the Judicial Branch under the argument (I would assume) that the HoR is attempting to subvert the Senate's Constitutional Authority to try impeachments and the accused right to due process and a speedy trial.
We'll see I suppose.
Funny that not only do you advocate for denying someone a speedy trial. A big part of the bill of rights which shows that things like the constitution only matter to crazy Dems when it fits their side.Seems the Dems are having second thoughts. They are hoping to get the most impact they can out of the mess they have made.
Dems should hold the Articles of Impeachment until Trumps legal challenges of releasing evidence have cleared the courts
Should take about a year unless Trump drops his challenges
Under current rules, Yes, The HoR also needs to appoint Managers that will act as the prosecutors in the Senate Trial and present the evidence supporting the Articles of Impeachment.Is this process specifically outlined or are these people just making it up as they go?
Serious question.
Of course an unreasonable delay might be brought to the Judicial Branch under the argument (I would assume) that the HoR is attempting to subvert the Senate's Constitutional Authority to try impeachments and the accused right to due process and a speedy trial.
We'll see I suppose.
In this case, the accused has filed court challenged to allow him to withhold evidence.
Once those challenges are resolved, the case should move forward
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.
The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.
The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.
The trial in the Senate is handled by "Managers" from the House of Representatives, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case. The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
f the President is convicted by a vote of the Senate, and removed from office, yet another grave constitutional crisis is then presented. Does the President have a right of appeal, and if so, to whom? Article I § 3 of the Constitution states:
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments..."
However, if there is an impeachment standard (and there can be no doubt that there is as the Constitution specifically establishes one -- "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"), then it is only logical that it is possible for that standard not to be correctly followed. If such is the case, who is responsible for saying that the standard was not correctly followed? There can only be one answer -- the courts. As there has never been a successful impeachment and removal of a sitting President, there is no authority "on all fours" for the proposition either way. However, there is authority which would shed some light on this complicated question.
Is this process specifically outlined or are these people just making it up as they go?
Serious question.
Not sure, but it seems oddly conspicuous not to allow the 4 folks who could each seemingly exonerate the President in full... to testify.
I understand he wants the Trial so that the partisan vote can happen and he can SAY that he was exonerated...but it's quite telling that he doesn't want to actually BE exonerated.
He said, the House has impeached. The Senate should just go ahead, set a trial date, and if no one shows
up to prosecute the case, the case is dismissed.
Thank you for that. It seems reasonable. The faster this is done, the better. Maybe Trump should call them all back in over Christmas to get it done. lol No, everybody would vote to remove him if he did that!Is this process specifically outlined or are these people just making it up as they go?
Serious question.
I'll give you an opinion that I heard last night from a former special prosecutor/constitutional scholar.
He said that the sole impeachment power belongs to the House and the sole power to try the case
belongs to the Senate.
Now he said it would probably be challenged in the courts, but it would be an intra branch squabble and,
constitutionally speaking, the courts my not be able to interfere.
He said, the House has impeached. The Senate should just go ahead, set a trial date, and if no one shows
up to prosecute the case, the case is dismissed.
He remarked a couple of times that it would be challenged but he believed that the Senate would be on firm
ground. The House impeached. They have Zero to do with any trial except for prosecuting the case. If they
don't show up, it's over.
That's not a firm answer for you, but this is all unchartered waters and everything would set precedent..
That's all besides the point of it being overtly suspicious to any functional human that he's fighting tooth and nail for the nearest fact witnesses not to be able to testify. Smells like a duckNot sure, but it seems oddly conspicuous not to allow the 4 folks who could each seemingly exonerate the President in full... to testify.
I understand he wants the Trial so that the partisan vote can happen and he can SAY that he was exonerated...but it's quite telling that he doesn't want to actually BE exonerated.
Maybe the Dem Congress should have taken the time to overcome "executive privilege" through the legal process. They did it with Nixon. They didn't so the Senate has nothing to base it's decision on except for Innuendo, third party testimony, and partisan interpretations of what someone may or may not have actually said. You can indict a "Ham Sandwich" and when you go to trial sometimes you have to eat it before it stinks up the room!
In a year the old congress will expire and the articles of impeachment along with itSeems the Dems are having second thoughts. They are hoping to get the most impact they can out of the mess they have made.
Dems should hold the Articles of Impeachment until Trumps legal challenges of releasing evidence have cleared the courts
Should take about a year unless Trump drops his challenges
I'm not sure if this is right, but my interpretation is that there are no indictments in an impeachment, just articles of impeachment replaces the need for indictments.He said, the House has impeached. The Senate should just go ahead, set a trial date, and if no one shows
up to prosecute the case, the case is dismissed.
That's an interesting theory, however how do you set a trial date before an indictment is filed?