Will Speaker Pelosi withhold articles of impeachment from Senate until guaranteed a fair trial?

[Lakhota]

Speaker Pelosi is my hero! We will learn a lot more from her in the coming weeks. Go Nancy!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Speaker Pelosi is my hero! We will learn a lot more from her in the coming weeks. Go Nancy!

Talk about no dignity and no self respect.

Nancy Pelosi all the way.

 

[WEATHER53]

So 2 years of no impeachment

 

[WEATHER53]

Pelosi’s Holdip of Articles Spans Decades.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Speaker Pelosi is my hero! We will learn a lot more from her in the coming weeks. Go Nancy!

What we will learn is that she has a yeast infection that is causing her to act stupid.

She's the laughingstock of most of the country.

 

[Faun]

LOL

It'd not "Lib 101." It's the Constitution. It's just that Liberals understand it where sooo many conservatives cannot. The Constitution states impeachment occurs in the House, not in the Senate. The trial occurs in the Senate. And the outcome of the trial, regardless of what that is, does not mean an impeached individual is no longer impeached.

You are kidding right ? So you mean to tell me that we have a system that can say a man is guilty without him being able to defend himself in a trial ? He already said he wanted a trial, but the Democrats knowing that they railroaded Trump, want to control the outcome of the trial as so to keep the pressure on until the election. It's all political, and it's a perverse usage of our justice system in this country for political outcomes instead of justice. The Democrats stand as the violaters of this system currently, and everyone knows it.

"So you mean to tell me that we have a system that can say a man is guilty without him being able to defend himself in a trial ?"

Holy shit, you cultist zombies are fucking ignorant.

No, we don't have a system like that..... being impeached does not assign guilt.

It doesn't assign guilt eh ? Rotflmbo.... Did you actually get baited into saying that ? Bawahawahawahawahahahawaha. Now that's some funny stuff right there.

LOL

^^^ another dumbfucking conservative who doesn't understand only the Senate can assign guilt of an impeachment. All the House can do is impeach.

Good grief, then what is an impeachment, a method to take the skin tone out of a white man, and turn him orange ?

No, Impeached Trump was aleady orange even before being impeached.

 

[Faun]

Dumbfucking conservative...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.​

You rightarded freaks have proved to be insanely ignorant and misguided. <smh>

The Senate 'SHALL HAVE SOLE POWER TO TRY ANY IMPEACHMENT".


Unless, and until, the House delivers their charges to the Senate to try, there is no impeachment ya fucking moron.

Credible proof?

Go read the Constitution for the first time, Troll.

Why? You already proved YOU don't understand the Constitution.

It states the House has sole power of Impeachment...

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.​

... and the Constitution states the House makes up it's own rules ...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

... and the House rules state an individual is impeached when the articles of impeachment are adopted by the House...

​

That happened on 12.18.2019 yet here you are, moronically claiming none of that is true.

You know, I used to be of that thought as well, that impeachment happened as soon as the house adopted the resolution. However, lately it has me wondering, because that school of thought comes with some complications.

We've already established that the house has power to impeach, and the senate has power to try. We have also established that each body makes it's own rules, and one body cannot dictate to the other how they are to conduct their business.

Now, the complication comes in that, if pelosi holds the articles, she is basically dictating to the senate that they cannot begin the trial, which is solely in their pervue to do. She is interfering with the duties of the senate.

I've not seen anywhere where it states that the senate has to wait for the house to physically transmit the articles before the trial begins. If it IS written somewhere, then where is it written? Is that a house rule? If it is, then it doesnt matter because the house cannot dictate rules to the senate. If it's a senate rule, then its viable.

Since the senate cant, or wont, start the trial without the articles, this leads to two conclusions:

1: the transmission of the articles to the senate is irrelevant, and the senate can just start the trial any time they want, and basically just tell the house "X is the start date, have your people ready"

Or

2: the impeachment process isnt complete until the house actually transmits the articles, whereby the senate can start on their constitutional duty.

Your conclusions are erroneous.

1. House rules dictate a person is impeached when the House adopts the articles of impeachment. That occurred on 12.18.2019

2. Senate rules dictate they don't start the trial until the House names their impeachment managers and the House sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

 

[Faun]

• Members of the House serve as “managers” in the Senate trial. Managers serve a similar role as prosecutors do in a criminal trial, they present evidence during the procedure.

How does impeachment work? Here is the step-by-step process

From your article:

Impeachment was established by the framers of the Constitution as a way to accuse a president of a crime and to hold a trial to determine if he is guilty of that crime.

It is saying that the impeachment process is just an accusation, the Senate decides he is guilty.

The Constitution lays out two specific actions, treason and bribery, that could lead to impeachment and removal of a president from office.

Treason and bribery are the two reasons for removal. Neither of those were stated in the articles of impeachment.

The system also allows for a broader category to accuse a president of crime, although that category is more vague.
A president can also be charged with and found guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” What exactly constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors is not defined in the Constitution, making impeachment on that basis more difficult.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis.

The procedure then moves to the Senate where a “trial” is held to determine if the president committed a crime. There is no set procedure for the trial. How it is conducted would be set by the Senate leadership.

The senate determines if the president has committed a crime, they also determine how the trial is conducted.

So, let's say the president is actually impeached. An impeachment is simply an accusation levied against him. It is up to the senate to determine if he actually committed a crime.

"High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis."

That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

Origins

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

 

[Faun]

Absolutely correct that Trump has merely been accused. The senate decides if he’s impeached

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, regardless of what the Senate finds, Impeachment Trump is already impeached and will remain impeached.

 

[22lcidw]

Speaker Pelosi is my hero! We will learn a lot more from her in the coming weeks. Go Nancy!

People who shoot up many others are becoming heroes to a growing amount of people also. Unlike Nancy, to bad the 500 cable TV stations never tell us the stories of these brave souls.

 

[ranfunck]

Trump is already impeached and will remain impeached.

Until reelected

 

[Faun]

Trump is already impeached and will remain impeached.

Until reelected

Nope, Impeached Trump will still be impeached should that happen.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Senate 'SHALL HAVE SOLE POWER TO TRY ANY IMPEACHMENT".


Unless, and until, the House delivers their charges to the Senate to try, there is no impeachment ya fucking moron.

Credible proof?

Go read the Constitution for the first time, Troll.

Why? You already proved YOU don't understand the Constitution.

It states the House has sole power of Impeachment...

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.​

... and the Constitution states the House makes up it's own rules ...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

... and the House rules state an individual is impeached when the articles of impeachment are adopted by the House...

​

That happened on 12.18.2019 yet here you are, moronically claiming none of that is true.

You know, I used to be of that thought as well, that impeachment happened as soon as the house adopted the resolution. However, lately it has me wondering, because that school of thought comes with some complications.

We've already established that the house has power to impeach, and the senate has power to try. We have also established that each body makes it's own rules, and one body cannot dictate to the other how they are to conduct their business.

Now, the complication comes in that, if pelosi holds the articles, she is basically dictating to the senate that they cannot begin the trial, which is solely in their pervue to do. She is interfering with the duties of the senate.

I've not seen anywhere where it states that the senate has to wait for the house to physically transmit the articles before the trial begins. If it IS written somewhere, then where is it written? Is that a house rule? If it is, then it doesnt matter because the house cannot dictate rules to the senate. If it's a senate rule, then its viable.

Since the senate cant, or wont, start the trial without the articles, this leads to two conclusions:

1: the transmission of the articles to the senate is irrelevant, and the senate can just start the trial any time they want, and basically just tell the house "X is the start date, have your people ready"

Or

2: the impeachment process isnt complete until the house actually transmits the articles, whereby the senate can start on their constitutional duty.

Your conclusions are erroneous.

1. House rules dictate a person is impeached when the House adopts the articles of impeachment. That occurred on 12.18.2019

2. Senate rules dictate they don't start the trial until the House names their impeachment managers and the House sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Could you please provide a link to the senate rules that state they have to wait for the articles?

 

[ThisIsMe]

• Members of the House serve as “managers” in the Senate trial. Managers serve a similar role as prosecutors do in a criminal trial, they present evidence during the procedure.

How does impeachment work? Here is the step-by-step process

From your article:

Impeachment was established by the framers of the Constitution as a way to accuse a president of a crime and to hold a trial to determine if he is guilty of that crime.

It is saying that the impeachment process is just an accusation, the Senate decides he is guilty.

The Constitution lays out two specific actions, treason and bribery, that could lead to impeachment and removal of a president from office.

Treason and bribery are the two reasons for removal. Neither of those were stated in the articles of impeachment.

The system also allows for a broader category to accuse a president of crime, although that category is more vague.
A president can also be charged with and found guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” What exactly constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors is not defined in the Constitution, making impeachment on that basis more difficult.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis.

The procedure then moves to the Senate where a “trial” is held to determine if the president committed a crime. There is no set procedure for the trial. How it is conducted would be set by the Senate leadership.

The senate determines if the president has committed a crime, they also determine how the trial is conducted.

So, let's say the president is actually impeached. An impeachment is simply an accusation levied against him. It is up to the senate to determine if he actually committed a crime.

"High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis."

That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

Origins

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

From your link:

The founders also addressed what crimes constituted grounds for impeachment. Treason and bribery were obvious choices, but George Mason of Virginia thought those crimes did not include a large number of punishable offenses against the state. James Madison of Virginia objected to using the term “maladministration” because it was too vague. Mason then substituted “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in addition to treason and bribery. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a technical term—again borrowed from British legal practice—that denoted crimes by public officials against the government. Mason’s revision was accepted without further debate. But subsequent experience demonstrated the revised phrase failed to clarify what constituted impeachable offenses.

Madison objected to "maladministration" because it was too vague, so he substituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" which was a British legal term for crimes against the government.

 

[Faun]

Credible proof?

Go read the Constitution for the first time, Troll.

Why? You already proved YOU don't understand the Constitution.

It states the House has sole power of Impeachment...

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.​

... and the Constitution states the House makes up it's own rules ...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

... and the House rules state an individual is impeached when the articles of impeachment are adopted by the House...

​

That happened on 12.18.2019 yet here you are, moronically claiming none of that is true.

You know, I used to be of that thought as well, that impeachment happened as soon as the house adopted the resolution. However, lately it has me wondering, because that school of thought comes with some complications.

We've already established that the house has power to impeach, and the senate has power to try. We have also established that each body makes it's own rules, and one body cannot dictate to the other how they are to conduct their business.

Now, the complication comes in that, if pelosi holds the articles, she is basically dictating to the senate that they cannot begin the trial, which is solely in their pervue to do. She is interfering with the duties of the senate.

I've not seen anywhere where it states that the senate has to wait for the house to physically transmit the articles before the trial begins. If it IS written somewhere, then where is it written? Is that a house rule? If it is, then it doesnt matter because the house cannot dictate rules to the senate. If it's a senate rule, then its viable.

Since the senate cant, or wont, start the trial without the articles, this leads to two conclusions:

1: the transmission of the articles to the senate is irrelevant, and the senate can just start the trial any time they want, and basically just tell the house "X is the start date, have your people ready"

Or

2: the impeachment process isnt complete until the house actually transmits the articles, whereby the senate can start on their constitutional duty.

Your conclusions are erroneous.

1. House rules dictate a person is impeached when the House adopts the articles of impeachment. That occurred on 12.18.2019

2. Senate rules dictate they don't start the trial until the House names their impeachment managers and the House sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Could you please provide a link to the senate rules that state they have to wait for the articles?

Is there a reason you couldn't find the Senate rules on impeachment yourself?

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

 

[Faun]

• Members of the House serve as “managers” in the Senate trial. Managers serve a similar role as prosecutors do in a criminal trial, they present evidence during the procedure.

How does impeachment work? Here is the step-by-step process

From your article:

Impeachment was established by the framers of the Constitution as a way to accuse a president of a crime and to hold a trial to determine if he is guilty of that crime.

It is saying that the impeachment process is just an accusation, the Senate decides he is guilty.

The Constitution lays out two specific actions, treason and bribery, that could lead to impeachment and removal of a president from office.

Treason and bribery are the two reasons for removal. Neither of those were stated in the articles of impeachment.

The system also allows for a broader category to accuse a president of crime, although that category is more vague.
A president can also be charged with and found guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” What exactly constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors is not defined in the Constitution, making impeachment on that basis more difficult.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis.

The procedure then moves to the Senate where a “trial” is held to determine if the president committed a crime. There is no set procedure for the trial. How it is conducted would be set by the Senate leadership.

The senate determines if the president has committed a crime, they also determine how the trial is conducted.

So, let's say the president is actually impeached. An impeachment is simply an accusation levied against him. It is up to the senate to determine if he actually committed a crime.

"High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis."

That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

Origins

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

From your link:

The founders also addressed what crimes constituted grounds for impeachment. Treason and bribery were obvious choices, but George Mason of Virginia thought those crimes did not include a large number of punishable offenses against the state. James Madison of Virginia objected to using the term “maladministration” because it was too vague. Mason then substituted “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in addition to treason and bribery. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a technical term—again borrowed from British legal practice—that denoted crimes by public officials against the government. Mason’s revision was accepted without further debate. But subsequent experience demonstrated the revised phrase failed to clarify what constituted impeachable offenses.

Madison objected to "maladministration" because it was too vague, so he substituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" which was a British legal term for crimes against the government.

It refers to a violation of public trust or abuse of power or office.

 

[ThisIsMe]

• Members of the House serve as “managers” in the Senate trial. Managers serve a similar role as prosecutors do in a criminal trial, they present evidence during the procedure.

How does impeachment work? Here is the step-by-step process

From your article:

Impeachment was established by the framers of the Constitution as a way to accuse a president of a crime and to hold a trial to determine if he is guilty of that crime.

It is saying that the impeachment process is just an accusation, the Senate decides he is guilty.

The Constitution lays out two specific actions, treason and bribery, that could lead to impeachment and removal of a president from office.

Treason and bribery are the two reasons for removal. Neither of those were stated in the articles of impeachment.

The system also allows for a broader category to accuse a president of crime, although that category is more vague.
A president can also be charged with and found guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” What exactly constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors is not defined in the Constitution, making impeachment on that basis more difficult.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis.

The procedure then moves to the Senate where a “trial” is held to determine if the president committed a crime. There is no set procedure for the trial. How it is conducted would be set by the Senate leadership.

The senate determines if the president has committed a crime, they also determine how the trial is conducted.

So, let's say the president is actually impeached. An impeachment is simply an accusation levied against him. It is up to the senate to determine if he actually committed a crime.

"High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis."

That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

Origins

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

From your link:

The founders also addressed what crimes constituted grounds for impeachment. Treason and bribery were obvious choices, but George Mason of Virginia thought those crimes did not include a large number of punishable offenses against the state. James Madison of Virginia objected to using the term “maladministration” because it was too vague. Mason then substituted “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in addition to treason and bribery. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a technical term—again borrowed from British legal practice—that denoted crimes by public officials against the government. Mason’s revision was accepted without further debate. But subsequent experience demonstrated the revised phrase failed to clarify what constituted impeachable offenses.

Madison objected to "maladministration" because it was too vague, so he substituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" which was a British legal term for crimes against the government.

It refers to a violation of public trust or abuse of power or office.

Well, that's just it, it doesnt say that. It says a crime against the government. I dont know if that means public trust or not.

While violation of public trust is bad, for sure, in the actual text and intent of the wording, it seems to indicate crimes against the government. I would assume that means things like treason, sedition, espionage, and terrorism.

 

[colfax_m]

• Members of the House serve as “managers” in the Senate trial. Managers serve a similar role as prosecutors do in a criminal trial, they present evidence during the procedure.

How does impeachment work? Here is the step-by-step process

From your article:

Impeachment was established by the framers of the Constitution as a way to accuse a president of a crime and to hold a trial to determine if he is guilty of that crime.

It is saying that the impeachment process is just an accusation, the Senate decides he is guilty.

The Constitution lays out two specific actions, treason and bribery, that could lead to impeachment and removal of a president from office.

Treason and bribery are the two reasons for removal. Neither of those were stated in the articles of impeachment.

The system also allows for a broader category to accuse a president of crime, although that category is more vague.
A president can also be charged with and found guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” What exactly constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors is not defined in the Constitution, making impeachment on that basis more difficult.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis.

The procedure then moves to the Senate where a “trial” is held to determine if the president committed a crime. There is no set procedure for the trial. How it is conducted would be set by the Senate leadership.

The senate determines if the president has committed a crime, they also determine how the trial is conducted.

So, let's say the president is actually impeached. An impeachment is simply an accusation levied against him. It is up to the senate to determine if he actually committed a crime.

"High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis."

That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

Origins

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

From your link:

The founders also addressed what crimes constituted grounds for impeachment. Treason and bribery were obvious choices, but George Mason of Virginia thought those crimes did not include a large number of punishable offenses against the state. James Madison of Virginia objected to using the term “maladministration” because it was too vague. Mason then substituted “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in addition to treason and bribery. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a technical term—again borrowed from British legal practice—that denoted crimes by public officials against the government. Mason’s revision was accepted without further debate. But subsequent experience demonstrated the revised phrase failed to clarify what constituted impeachable offenses.

Madison objected to "maladministration" because it was too vague, so he substituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" which was a British legal term for crimes against the government.

It refers to a violation of public trust or abuse of power or office.

Well, that's just it, it doesnt say that. It says a crime against the government. I dont know if that means public trust or not.

While violation of public trust is bad, for sure, in the actual text and intent of the wording, it seems to indicate crimes against the government. I would assume that means things like treason, sedition, espionage, and terrorism.

Incorrect. When you understand what the context of the phrase means from the founders perspective, this means much more.

A high crime means it can only be committed by a highly seated official. Those individuals are given tremendous amounts of power and therefore require the trust of the people in order to properly govern. If an official abuses that power it betrays the trust of the people and therefore is suitable grounds for removal by impeachment.

 

[edward37]

Trump's* SOTU speech could take place during his Senate impeachment trial. Speaker Pelosi may be planning it that way. Go Nancy!

You generally keep a corrupt thinking mind when it comes to politics ? Talk of setting someone up like that is corrupt thinking, and a corrupt mind. It's no wonder people don't trust Democrats.

You support the most corrupt the biggest scumbag EVER to step into our WH Live with it traitor

He-he, you're killing me, Eddie! Please stop the hilarity and insanity! On second thought, keep it up. Your comedy routine is fabulous tonight!

Almost sack time Maybe tomorrow after I hear more of trumps tweets

Yeah go dream about it, and then read those tweets tommorow.. TDS is real.

Mr Bluz how about this??

 

[Faun]

• Members of the House serve as “managers” in the Senate trial. Managers serve a similar role as prosecutors do in a criminal trial, they present evidence during the procedure.

How does impeachment work? Here is the step-by-step process

From your article:

Impeachment was established by the framers of the Constitution as a way to accuse a president of a crime and to hold a trial to determine if he is guilty of that crime.

It is saying that the impeachment process is just an accusation, the Senate decides he is guilty.

The Constitution lays out two specific actions, treason and bribery, that could lead to impeachment and removal of a president from office.

Treason and bribery are the two reasons for removal. Neither of those were stated in the articles of impeachment.

The system also allows for a broader category to accuse a president of crime, although that category is more vague.
A president can also be charged with and found guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” What exactly constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors is not defined in the Constitution, making impeachment on that basis more difficult.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis.

The procedure then moves to the Senate where a “trial” is held to determine if the president committed a crime. There is no set procedure for the trial. How it is conducted would be set by the Senate leadership.

The senate determines if the president has committed a crime, they also determine how the trial is conducted.

So, let's say the president is actually impeached. An impeachment is simply an accusation levied against him. It is up to the senate to determine if he actually committed a crime.

"High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis."

That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

Origins

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

From your link:

The founders also addressed what crimes constituted grounds for impeachment. Treason and bribery were obvious choices, but George Mason of Virginia thought those crimes did not include a large number of punishable offenses against the state. James Madison of Virginia objected to using the term “maladministration” because it was too vague. Mason then substituted “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in addition to treason and bribery. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a technical term—again borrowed from British legal practice—that denoted crimes by public officials against the government. Mason’s revision was accepted without further debate. But subsequent experience demonstrated the revised phrase failed to clarify what constituted impeachable offenses.

Madison objected to "maladministration" because it was too vague, so he substituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" which was a British legal term for crimes against the government.

It refers to a violation of public trust or abuse of power or office.

Well, that's just it, it doesnt say that. It says a crime against the government. I dont know if that means public trust or not.

While violation of public trust is bad, for sure, in the actual text and intent of the wording, it seems to indicate crimes against the government. I would assume that means things like treason, sedition, espionage, and terrorism.

Yes, it does say that..

as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”​