The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[coldseat]

First, it's the Senate's job to decide whether or not to even accept or decline the articles provided by the House.

Let's not jump the gun here.

Can you name the times the Senate decided to decline articles of impeachment sent by the House?

 

[samiam5211]

First, it's the Senate's job to decide whether or not to even accept or decline the articles provided by the House.

Let's not jump the gun here.

No, it is their job to decide whether or not the President should be removed from office. That is their only job relative to impeachment.

Everything else is just part of that process. If they didn't accept the articles of impeachment, then they would have decided he should not be removed from office.

 

[Dadsdream]

Can you name the times the Senate decided to decline articles of impeachment sent by the House?

Can you? Please, by all means, go look it up and let everybody know.

They accepted the articles last Thursday. OK, now they're setting the ground rules and people are making comparisons to criminal trial procedures.
Allow me to suggest not drawing any comparisons to criminal trials whatsoever.

 

[coldseat]

Can you? Please, by all means, go look it up and let everybody know.

They accepted the articles last Thursday. OK, now they're setting the ground rules and people are making comparisons to criminal trial procedures.
Allow me to suggest not drawing any comparisons to criminal trials whatsoever.

I'm not going to look it up because I know it has never happened. You claimed that was part of the Senate's prerogative, but there is no backing for you position. So that's why I asked you for evidence of such claim. There is none.

It is a trial, or at least supposed to by according to the constitution. So not all comparisons to criminal trials are invalid. I would say that witnesses testimony and documentary evidence are the required basis for any type of trial.

 

[Dadsdream]

I'm not going to look it up because I know it has never happened. You claimed that was part of the Senate's prerogative, but there is no backing for you position. So that's why I asked you for evidence of such claim. There is none.

It is a trial, or at least supposed to by according to the constitution. So not all comparisons to criminal trials are invalid. I would say that witnesses testimony and documentary evidence are the required basis for any type trial.

Geez. Anything brought before the Senate can be 1. Accepted, 2. Declined, or 3. Pocketed (No Action). That's not just articles of impeachment . . . that's anything brought to the Senate.

Yes, I'd play it safe and throw out any comparisons to criminal trials, because as you can clearly see, the Senate writes its own rules for impeachment trials. There are no constraints to make it conform to criminal trial procedure, other than wishful thinking.

 

[Nebaghead]

Geez. Anything brought before the Senate can be 1. Accepted, 2. Declined, or 3. Pocketed (No Action). That's not just articles of impeachment . . . that's anything brought to the Senate.

Yes, I'd play it safe and throw out any comparisons to criminal trials, because as you can clearly see, the Senate writes its own rules for impeachment trials. There are no constraints to make it conform to criminal trial procedure, other than wishful thinking.

It is about perception. Most people aren't that knowledgeable and will believe this is like a trial. In some ways it is, but like you said the rules are set by the Senate. Chief Roberts is basically a WWE ref with no real power unlike a normal judge.

What people will hear is the GOP won't allow witnesses or evidence introduced. That will not sound good no matter how much they spin it, especially when most polls show a large majority want the evidence submitted even if they don't think Trump should be removed from office. Unlike other trials, public opinion is the crux of an impeachment. Senators will vote what keeps them in office so if the polls go south for competitive races, you will see some give and take. Unless something huge happens that can't be explained away, Trump will not be removed but will there be enough evidence presented that makes him look bad enough to keep some people home on election day or push independents to the Dems. Also, this will happen with some of the Senators.

 

[coldseat]

Yes, I'd play it safe and throw out any comparisons to criminal trials, because as you can clearly see, the Senate writes its own rules for impeachment trials. There are no constraints to make it conform to criminal trial procedure, other than wishful thinking.

I suppose that would be your prerogative if you had the power, but not something I would think the Senate would want to embark on given that ALL Americans have an expectations of what a "TRIAL" is supposed to be and what it should include. And also because they took an oath to do impartial justice.

...

What am I talking about, of course they're going to do exactly what you want them to do, this is after all a Mitch McConnell controlled Senate.

 

[JimEverett]

Yes, the Senate jobs is to have a trial. What trial have you ever heard of or been a part of that didn't have witness testimonies or documents entered into evidence and just rested on opening statements?

But it is not a trial in the ordinary sense. Its an impeachment trial. And the impeachment record consists of far more than opening statements. There are no rules about evidentiary matters in an impeachment trial. It is completely up to the Senate at this phase. It was up to the House before - you know, when there was little to no attention paid to Republican evidentiary concerns.

The idea that the guy who had complete control of the fact-finding phase of the impeachment itself is now crying about trying to get factual evidence in from the Senate should have us all laughing at the absurdity of it all.

 

[Dadsdream]

I suppose that would be your prerogative if you had the power, but not something I would think the Senate would want to embark on given that ALL Americans have an expectations of what a "TRIAL" is supposed to be and what it should include and because they took an oath to do impartial justice.

...

What am I talking about, of course they're going to do exactly what you want them to do, this is after all a Mitch McConnell controlled Senate.

Just sharing some things learned through the years.

I doubt you could get any two people on this board to agree on what a "TRIAL" is supposed to be or what the framers of the Constitution intended for it to be with regard to impeachment. Such things were left deliberately vague to let the political process sort things out.

Yes, as the senior chamber, the Senate does not take orders from the House. Keep that in mind. Any appearance that the House is trying to tell them what to do and the senators tend to close ranks and shut it down.

Just think of the Senate as the House of Lords.

 

[JimEverett]

Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.


That means they can do what they want.

Its the same with Impeachment - the House can do what they want. Surely Schiff knew that. If he didn't, that is his fault.

 

[Dadsdream]

It is about perception. Most people aren't that knowledgeable and will believe this is like a trial. In some ways it is, but like you said the rules are set by the Senate. Chief Roberts is basically a WWE ref with no real power unlike a normal judge.

What people will hear is the GOP won't allow witnesses or evidence introduced. That will not sound good no matter how much they spin it, especially when most polls show a large majority want the evidence submitted even if they don't think Trump should be removed from office. Unlike other trials, public opinion is the crux of an impeachment. Senators will vote what keeps them in office so if the polls go south for competitive races, you will see some give and take. Unless something huge happens that can't be explained away, Trump will not be removed but will there be enough evidence presented that makes him look bad enough to keep some people home on election day or push independents to the Dems. Also, this will happen with some of the Senators.

Excellent take. Now we're talking. This is about political strategy, not what's right or what's best for the country.
Spoken like a realist and I mean that as a compliment.
What's going to freak everybody out is if the Senate, in its infinite wisdom, decides this course of action is unseemly in an election year and tables the whole thing until next year.
Can it happen? Sure. I don't think it will, but it's in the realm of possibilities.

 

[coldseat]

But it is not a trial in the ordinary sense. Its an impeachment trial. And the impeachment record consists of far more than opening statements. There are no rules about evidentiary matters in an impeachment trial. It is completely up to the Senate at this phase. It was up to the House before - you know, when there was little to no attention paid to Republican evidentiary concerns.

The idea that the guy who had complete control of the fact-finding phase of the impeachment itself is now crying about trying to get factual evidence in from the Senate should have us all laughing at the absurdity of it all.

But it's still a trial. Subpoenas are still issued at trials. There are witnesses at trials. There are documents entered into evidence at a trial. There is new evidence entered into a trail.

The Senate's job is not to critique the House's investigation, but to have a trial. If the evidence presented by the House is not sufficient to remove Trump from office, then they can vote that way. But to vote to keep evidence from coming forward is simply blocking the truth from coming out. Which all Republicans really want to do and why they've taken this posture. If they weren't so scared of the direct testimony from witnesses and documents that would support the case for impeachment, they wouldn't be tying themselves into knots with these ridiculous arguments to stop it from coming forward.

 

[Nebaghead]

But it is not a trial in the ordinary sense. Its an impeachment trial. And the impeachment record consists of far more than opening statements. There are no rules about evidentiary matters in an impeachment trial. It is completely up to the Senate at this phase. It was up to the House before - you know, when there was little to no attention paid to Republican evidentiary concerns.

The idea that the guy who had complete control of the fact-finding phase of the impeachment itself is now crying about trying to get factual evidence in from the Senate should have us all laughing at the absurdity of it all.

They are literally not allowing any evidence from the House investigation to be presented as evidence. In the Clinton impeachment, all evidence from the house was allowed in the resolution. They will have to vote it in, after both sides have their opening arguments.

 

[FullMonte]

Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.


That means they can do what they want.

Its the same with Impeachment - the House can do what they want. Surely Schiff knew that. If he didn't, that is his fault.

I'm sure he did. But, it's all about perception. Sure, the Senate can do whatever they want in the trial. But Schiff needs to make a compelling argument that they should allow witnesses and evidence. Then, if they don't, the House can use that to create the perception (probably accurate) that the trial was not a fair and impartial process.

Much like the repeated attempts by republicans during the House hearings to get the whistleblower to testify. Republicans likely didn't want that, because he couldn't actually say anything to clear the president, but could potentially provide more evidence against the president. But, the republicans knew they wouldn't get him/her to testify, but they used that to create a narrative that the democrats were hiding something.

 

[JimEverett]

But it's still a trial. Subpoenas are still issued at trials. There are witnesses at trials. There are documents entered into evidence at a trial. There is new evidence entered into a trail.

The Senate's job is not to critique the House's investigation, but to have a trial. If the evidence presented by the House is not sufficient to remove Trump from office, then they can vote that way. But to vote to keep evidence from coming forward is simply blocking the truth from coming out. Which all Republicans really want to do and why they've taken this posture. If they weren't so scared of the direct testimony from witnesses and documents that would support the case for impeachment, they wouldn't be tying themselves into knots with these ridiculous arguments to stop it from coming forward.

Not true.
The Senate determines if subpoenas (and anything else) are issued. It is right there in the Constitution.

It is why Schiff got to do the things he did in the Impeachment, and there was no need to accept Republican evidentiary concerns - and Schiff did not.

 

[coldseat]

Not true.
The Senate determines if subpoenas (and anything else) are issued. It is right there in the Constitution.

It is why Schiff got to do the things he did in the Impeachment, and there was no need to accept Republican evidentiary concerns - and Schiff did not.

Republican evidentiary concerns? You mean not calling Hunter Biden to testify? Lolololol. Okay.

I know the Senate can decide or not decide if they will issue subpeonas. I already know how they will vote too. You and DD are not educating me, so you can stop trying.

My argument is not about what the Senate has the power to do. It is about what the Senate should be doing to ensure a fair and impartial trial and satisfy American's expectations of what that is supposed to be. None of what McConnell is attempting to (and will be successful at achieving) falls within that expectation. It's pure power play politics at it's finest.

 

[JimEverett]

Republican evidentiary concerns? You mean not calling Hunter Biden to testify? Lolololol. Okay.

You must not have paid much attention to the process.

I know the Senate can decide or not decide if they will issue subpeonas. I already know how they will vote too. You and DD are not educating me, so you can stop trying.

My argument is not about what the Senate has the power to do. It is about what the Senate should be doing to ensure a fair and impartial trial and satisfy American's expectations of what that is supposed to be. None of what McConnell is attempting to (and will be successful at achieving) falls within that expectation. It's pure power play politics at it's finest.

Fine. But if you knew this then it seems weird you would try to make strong analogies to non-impeachment trials.

 

[coldseat]

You must not have paid much attention to the process.



Fine. But if you knew this then it seems weird you would try to make strong analogies to non-impeachment trials.

Not really, because that is the expectation most Americans have of a trial. And that is also how impeachment trials have always been carried out by the Senate. So why change all of that in this impeachment trial? The only reason is to protect Trump.