Posted on 10/29/2019 1:35:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
impeachment resolution that calls for public hearings in which both the chair and ranking Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence can call and question witnesses and subpoena documents.
The eight-page resolution appears to address at least some of the complaints GOP lawmakers have raised since the effort began by allowing Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the committee, nearly as much authority as Chairman Adam Schiff.
Nunes and Schiff “shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the chair. The time available for each period of questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member,” the resolution reads.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The Nixon stuff isn’t online, much. It predates the internet by a few years.
The Clinton stuff is online.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/105th-congress/house-report/795/1
For members of Congress the process is “Expel” - go read the Constitution please.
i read the Constitution you read the link?
Hey if the Dems can ignore or twist
the Constitution so can we.....
September 11, 1998. Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall review the communication received on September 9, 1998, from an independent counsel pursuant to section 595(c) of title 28, United States Code, transmitting a determination that substantial and credible information received by the independent counsel in carrying out his responsibilities under chapter 40 of title 28, United States Code, may constitute grounds for an impeachment of the President of the United States, and related matters, to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced. Until otherwise ordered by the House, the review by the committee shall be governed by this resolution.
The argument following was two fold. First, that the felonies of perjury, false statements, and witness tampering were not proven, and the charges were defective for various reasons (vague, overbroad, etc.). The other line of attack was that the charges don't amount to impeachable offenses even if they are true.
The facts uncovered by Starr were not in much dispute, and the vote to send the Starr report to Judiciary passed 363 - 63.
Contrast with the instant case where a leaker disagrees with Trump's foreign policy because it might hurt Ukraine, and dealing with Biden's potentially corrupt business in Ukraine is off limits because Biden is running for office.
Clinton had all sorts of access to process - most of his lawbreaking was in the context of PUBLIC trials wehre he had the ability to defend his actions.
Thanks.
The only factual error I recall in the Starr Report was an error in the year of one of the footnotes. Written under tremendous pressure has held up amazingly well as far as accuracy.
The Constitution disagrees with both of you.
Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Members of the House or Senate may be expelled with a 2/3 vote. There is no impeachment process for either Senators or Members of the House.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/To_Arrest_An_Impeached_Senator.htm
....On July 7, 1797, while the Senate pondered what to do about Blount, the House of Representatives, for the first time in history, voted a bill of impeachment. The following day, the Senate expelled Blount—its first use of that constitutional power—and adjourned until November. Prior to adjourning, the Senate ordered Blount to answer impeachment charges before a select committee that would meet during the recess. Blount failed to appear. He had departed for Tennessee with no intention of returning...
Iinntteerresstting... I’d never heard of Blount... after doing some digging, it appears it is a partially open Constitutional question as to whether a Senator can be impeached or not...
“his impeachment trial began in the Senate on December 17, 1798, and quickly focused on the Senate’s right to try an expelled senator. In a narrow vote, the Senate defeated a resolution that asserted William Blount was an impeachable officer. In this vote, the Senate failed to make clear whether its decision stemmed from a belief that no senator could be impeached or from the belief that someone who ceased to hold a “civil office” also ceased to be impeachable.”
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/expulsion_cases/Blount_expulsion.htm
According to this Law Library: https://www.lectlaw.com/def/c236.htm
“A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.”
Though this is almost certainly a reference to the Blount case, though some debate whether they meant ALL Senators could not be impeached, or simply Blount as he had already been expelled.
The House’s archive has this to say:
“Blount’s impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers.”
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/
I have a suspicion the precedent was set with the ambiguous wording in the Blount decision, that Members of Congress are not “Civil Officers”
This legal website: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/48-persons-subject-to-impeachment.html
Agrees “and the precedent was early established that it does not apply to members of Congress. This point was established by a vote of the Senate holding a plea to this effect good in the impeachment trial of Senator William Blount in 1797.”
So, it seems the precedent is that expulsion is the way to deal with Congrescritters. I doubt this Senate would overturn what is considered to be precedent on a matter of interpretation.
Thanks for sending me down that internet rabbit hole!
yes very interesting indeed, but fact is in 1797 a US senator was impeached...Blount was a signer of the the US Constitution and the time period was much closer than now to the ratification of the Constitution. It was questionable at the time not unlike whether Schiff has a legitimate impeachment inquiry.
Then again it is not the first mistake (probable mistake) the early Congress made..the other one I am aware of had to do with natural born citizens-1790 Naturalization Act and 1795 Naturalization Act. The 1795 Act replaced 1790 wording :
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 1795 took out natural born citizens and replaced it with : and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:
thus the argument about natural born citizens vs citizens.
I just bought a new computer
I think I am going to sell it.
It doesn't do what I want it too
It does what I tell it. 😀
Let’s say Trump wins in 2020 and Dems still have not voted on articles of impeachment, and they lose the House. The still existing Dem majority could pass articles of impeachment in December 2020. Would there still be a trial in the Senate? They might have hopes of more votes among senate seats flipped to blue or flipped to RINOs in the 2021 congress. Of course seats can flip the other way too.
Yes, but the form of the "trial" could be effectively summary dismissal, if the Senate finds the articles aren't well taken.
The impeachment process is not stopped if one Congress presses articles on the last day - the next congress follows through. It's not like legislation or nominations, which die when the Congress adjourns sine die.
Thanks, sounds good. If they thought the senate would do a summary dismissal and were hoping for a more anti-Trump new senate they could do it on the last day of the old congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.