I Agree with Trump and the GOP

[haymarket]

There is no investigative phase.

There sure is and the committees are now involved in doing just that.

 

[akyron]

Then there is no Constitution either. That document gives the House responsibility for acquiring the evidence to draw up the articles of impeachment which is then submitted to the Senate for trial.

And "the house" has made no unified move in this direction. For good reason.

"It is the intention of the Committee that its investigation
will be conducted in all respects on a fair, impartial and
bipartisan or nonpartisan basis. In this spirit, the power to
authorize subpoenas and other compulsory process is committed
by this resolution in the first instance to the Chairman and
the Ranking Minority Member acting jointly. If either declines
to act, the other may act alone, subject to the right of either
to refer the question to the Committee for decision prior to
issuance, and a meeting of the Committee will be convened
promptly to consider the question."

Both parties have equal subpoena power.

"On October 5, 1998, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported the resolution printed herein by a vote of 21
to 16, a quorum being present.
Need for the Resolution
Because the issue of impeachment is of such overwhelming
importance, the Committee decided that it must receive
authorization from the full House before proceeding on any
further course of action. Because impeachment is delegated
solely to the House of Representatives by the Constitution, the
full House of Representatives should be involved in critical
decision making regarding various stages of impeachment. With
the passage of H. Res. 525, the full House has already directed
the release of the Referral from the Independent Counsel, set
the parameters for public release of other related materials,
and directed the Committee to review the Referral and
accompanying materials in order to make a recommendation to the
House.
Also, a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry into
the conduct of a president is consistent with past practice.
According to Hind's Precedents, the ``impeachment of President
Johnson was set in motion by a resolution authorizing a general
investigation as to the execution of the laws.'' When the first
attempt to impeach President Johnson failed, the House
``referred to the Committee on Reconstruction the evidence
taken by the Judiciary Committee in the first attempt to
impeach President Johnson.'' 3 Hind's Precedents, Sec. 2408.
The impeachment investigation of President Nixon was
explicitly authorized by the full House. During debate of H.
Res. 803 in 1974, Congressman Rodino, then chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, stated:

We have reached the point when it is important that
the House explicitly confirm our responsibility under
the Constitution.
We are asking the House * * * to authorize and direct
the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate the
conduct of the President of the United States * * *.

* * * * * * *

Such a resolution has always been passed by the
House. The Committee has voted unanimously to recommend
that the House of Representatives adopt this
resolution. It is a necessary step if we are to meet
our obligations * * *."

"the Committee adopted, by voice vote, a number of protections
for the President. The President and his counsel shall be
invited to attend all executive session and open committee
hearings. The President's counsel may cross examine witnesses.
The President's counsel may make objections regarding the
pertinency of evidence. The President's counsel shall be
invited to suggest that the Committee receive additional
evidence. Lastly, the President or the President's counsel
shall be invited to respond to the evidence adduced by the
Committee at an appropriate time. The provisions will ensure
that the impeachment inquiry is fair to the President."

INVESTIGATORY POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WITH RESPECT TO ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY October 7, 1998

 

[haymarket]

You're such a kidder.

Thank you. :lol:

Well there was a very serious point to make that many seemed to be missing. Sometimes humor is the best way to get that across.

 

[Jay59]

How is there no intent to be fair?

Read the OP. There are three items listed. The reason they are listed is that all three are necessary for a fair hearing--not sufficient, but necessary--and none of them are occurring. Hence there is not even the pretense of fair hearings.

What makes it interesting is that their own water carrier is noting the unfairness.

 

[j brown's body]

Read the OP. There are three items listed. The reason they are listed is that all three are necessary for a fair hearing--not sufficient, but necessary--and none of them are occurring. Hence there is not even the pretense of fair hearings.

What makes it interesting is that their own water carrier is noting the unfairness.

All three criteria are being met, as has been pointed out.

There are Republicans in the hearings.
They have the right to ask questions.
There is a written record of the hearings.

How did you ever get the idea that they weren't being kept?

 

[akyron]

That is done at the trial phase - right now those in charge of the investigation call ALL the witnesses.

Incorrect.

President's Procedural Rights
Prior to the October 5, Committee meeting, some raised
concerns about ``procedural fairness'' and encouraged the
Committee to adopt rules, similar to those adopted by the
Committee in 1974, which would provide the President with
certain procedural rights. After voting on the Hyde resolution,
the Committee adopted, by voice vote, a number of protections
for the President. The President and his counsel shall be
invited to attend all executive session and open committee
hearings. The President's counsel may cross examine witnesses.
The President's counsel may make objections regarding the
pertinency of evidence. The President's counsel shall be
invited to suggest that the Committee receive additional
evidence. Lastly, the President or the President's counsel
shall be invited to respond to the evidence adduced by the
Committee at an appropriate time. The provisions will ensure
that the impeachment inquiry is fair to the President.
Issues Relating to Defining Standards for Impeachment
The minority and the White House have demanded that the
Committee needs to adopt standards of impeachment before it
proceeds. Standards, however, already exist. They are found in
Article Two, Section Four of the Constitution and include
``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
Our founding fathers did not adopt these words without
debate or forethought. These words are not arbitrary or
capricious. They have meaning to which facts must be applied.
Indeed, the meaning of these words have been applied in the
House of Representatives numerous times, four of which occurred
in the past 25 years. Impeachment precedents, like court
precedents, can be helpful to the Committee as it proceeds and
will help inform the judgment of all Members of the House. It
would be presumptuous of this Committee to state as fact the
manner in which all Members should judge the evidence. All
Members, after a consideration of the facts and the law of
impeachment, must exercise their constitutional responsibility
as they deem appropriate.

Heh. A voice vote was enough.

 

[Moot]

Thank you. :lol:

Well there was a very serious point to make that many seemed to be missing. Sometimes humor is the best way to get that across.

I believe that. It was comic book character that demoralized and destroyed the KKK.

YouTube

 

[iguanaman]

And "the house" has made no unified move in this direction. For good reason.

"It is the intention of the Committee that its investigation
will be conducted in all respects on a fair, impartial and
bipartisan or nonpartisan basis. In this spirit, the power to
authorize subpoenas and other compulsory process is committed
by this resolution in the first instance to the Chairman and
the Ranking Minority Member acting jointly. If either declines
to act, the other may act alone, subject to the right of either
to refer the question to the Committee for decision prior to
issuance, and a meeting of the Committee will be convened
promptly to consider the question."

Both parties have equal subpoena power.

"On October 5, 1998, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported the resolution printed herein by a vote of 21
to 16, a quorum being present.
Need for the Resolution
Because the issue of impeachment is of such overwhelming
importance, the Committee decided that it must receive
authorization from the full House before proceeding on any
further course of action. Because impeachment is delegated
solely to the House of Representatives by the Constitution, the
full House of Representatives should be involved in critical
decision making regarding various stages of impeachment. With
the passage of H. Res. 525, the full House has already directed
the release of the Referral from the Independent Counsel, set
the parameters for public release of other related materials,
and directed the Committee to review the Referral and
accompanying materials in order to make a recommendation to the
House.
Also, a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry into
the conduct of a president is consistent with past practice.
According to Hind's Precedents, the ``impeachment of President
Johnson was set in motion by a resolution authorizing a general
investigation as to the execution of the laws.'' When the first
attempt to impeach President Johnson failed, the House
``referred to the Committee on Reconstruction the evidence
taken by the Judiciary Committee in the first attempt to
impeach President Johnson.'' 3 Hind's Precedents, Sec. 2408.
The impeachment investigation of President Nixon was
explicitly authorized by the full House. During debate of H.
Res. 803 in 1974, Congressman Rodino, then chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, stated:

We have reached the point when it is important that
the House explicitly confirm our responsibility under
the Constitution.
We are asking the House * * * to authorize and direct
the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate the
conduct of the President of the United States * * *.

* * * * * * *

Such a resolution has always been passed by the
House. The Committee has voted unanimously to recommend
that the House of Representatives adopt this
resolution. It is a necessary step if we are to meet
our obligations * * *."

"the Committee adopted, by voice vote, a number of protections
for the President. The President and his counsel shall be
invited to attend all executive session and open committee
hearings. The President's counsel may cross examine witnesses.
The President's counsel may make objections regarding the
pertinency of evidence. The President's counsel shall be
invited to suggest that the Committee receive additional
evidence. Lastly, the President or the President's counsel
shall be invited to respond to the evidence adduced by the
Committee at an appropriate time. The provisions will ensure
that the impeachment inquiry is fair to the President."

INVESTIGATORY POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WITH RESPECT TO ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY October 7, 1998

None of that is contained in the Constitution. Every Congress gets to make their own rules based on their own needs and current situations. Do I need to remind you of the failed Benghazi investigation much of which was held behind closed doors in the House?

 

[Airyaman]

There is no investigative phase.

p. 18: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

Investigation

In all prior impeachment proceedings, the House has examined the charges prior to entertaining
any vote. Usually an initial investigation is conducted by the Judiciary Committee, to which
investigating and reporting duties are delegated by resolution after charges have been presented.
However, it is possible that this investigation could be carried out by a select or special
committee.

 

[Carleen]

The republicans already have a seat at the table. Squirm cons, elections have consequences.

LOCK THEM UP.

It looks like they are panicking by storming the room. Once a vote is taken on impeachment by congress they will have to reveal their information. Until then they are doing anything wrong.

 

[Moot]

And "the house" has made no unified move in this direction. For good reason.

"It is the intention of the Committee that its investigation
will be conducted in all respects on a fair, impartial and
bipartisan or nonpartisan basis. In this spirit, the power to
authorize subpoenas and other compulsory process is committed
by this resolution in the first instance to the Chairman and
the Ranking Minority Member acting jointly. If either declines
to act, the other may act alone, subject to the right of either
to refer the question to the Committee for decision prior to
issuance, and a meeting of the Committee will be convened
promptly to consider the question."

Both parties have equal subpoena power.

"On October 5, 1998, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported the resolution printed herein by a vote of 21
to 16, a quorum being present.
Need for the Resolution
Because the issue of impeachment is of such overwhelming
importance, the Committee decided that it must receive
authorization from the full House before proceeding on any
further course of action. Because impeachment is delegated
solely to the House of Representatives by the Constitution, the
full House of Representatives should be involved in critical
decision making regarding various stages of impeachment. With
the passage of H. Res. 525, the full House has already directed
the release of the Referral from the Independent Counsel, set
the parameters for public release of other related materials,
and directed the Committee to review the Referral and
accompanying materials in order to make a recommendation to the
House.
Also, a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry into
the conduct of a president is consistent with past practice.
According to Hind's Precedents, the ``impeachment of President
Johnson was set in motion by a resolution authorizing a general
investigation as to the execution of the laws.'' When the first
attempt to impeach President Johnson failed, the House
``referred to the Committee on Reconstruction the evidence
taken by the Judiciary Committee in the first attempt to
impeach President Johnson.'' 3 Hind's Precedents, Sec. 2408.
The impeachment investigation of President Nixon was
explicitly authorized by the full House. During debate of H.
Res. 803 in 1974, Congressman Rodino, then chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, stated:

We have reached the point when it is important that
the House explicitly confirm our responsibility under
the Constitution.
We are asking the House * * * to authorize and direct
the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate the
conduct of the President of the United States * * *.

* * * * * * *

Such a resolution has always been passed by the
House. The Committee has voted unanimously to recommend
that the House of Representatives adopt this
resolution. It is a necessary step if we are to meet
our obligations * * *."

"the Committee adopted, by voice vote, a number of protections
for the President. The President and his counsel shall be
invited to attend all executive session and open committee
hearings. The President's counsel may cross examine witnesses.
The President's counsel may make objections regarding the
pertinency of evidence. The President's counsel shall be
invited to suggest that the Committee receive additional
evidence. Lastly, the President or the President's counsel
shall be invited to respond to the evidence adduced by the
Committee at an appropriate time. The provisions will ensure
that the impeachment inquiry is fair to the President."

INVESTIGATORY POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WITH RESPECT TO ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY October 7, 1998

You forgot something...

The resolution is as follows:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a
whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman
for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the
committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and
completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of
Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach
William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of
America. The committee shall report to the House of
Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or
other recommendations as it deems proper.​

 

[Decypher]

You're damn right. And when the GOP runs the House again under a Dems Prez, that Prez is going to go through tons of pain.

Well if the next Democratic president turns out to be as crooked as Trump then that will be appropriate. If there’re not, well I hope you’re not advocating some kind of witch-hunt.

 

[akyron]

p. 18: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

Investigation

In all prior impeachment proceedings, the House has examined the charges prior to entertaining
any vote. Usually an initial investigation is conducted by the Judiciary Committee, to which
investigating and reporting duties are delegated by resolution after charges have been presented.
However, it is possible that this investigation could be carried out by a select or special
committee.

Before all that......

"A simple majority of the House is necessary "

 

[iguanaman]

1. The Clinton impeachment is irrelevant. Toss that deflection in the trash where it belongs.

2 This isn't about protecting Trump. It's about open and transparent Congressional proceedings. That is our history. No star chambers.

3. Plenty of open hearings are conducted and when the answer to questions involve classified information, the person testifying will decline to answer and offer to answer that question in a closed hearing. The unclassified testimony is there for the public to see. Now...if everything in an opening statement can be released, then you KNOW that most of the testimony can...and should...be released.

And it will be. Why are you so impatient to hear ALL the bad news? Wasn't the opening statement enough punishment for you? I will also remind you that much of the Benghazi investigation was held behind closed doors and I didn't hear any claims of impropriety from the right then. It seems that is now coming back to bite you.

 

[Airyaman]

Before all that......

"A simple majority of the House is necessary "

Nope, sorry, that happens after the investigation.

A simple majority of the House is necessary to approve articles of impeachment.

 

[Mycroft]

When the police and DA investigate a crime, they person accused of a crime does not cross examine witnesses or ask for it to be done in public. It is done is private to protect everyone concerned. And if the person what to clear their name, they have ample opportunity to sit down with the police and DA and do by submitting to questions and giving answers and explained their side. But again, this is also done in private.

It is when it gets to the trial phase that it become public - which is where your TV and transcripts come in.

Congress isn't police nor DA. They are elected representatives of the people. And here...we have representatives who are hiding their actions and motivation from the very people who elected them.

 

[haymarket]

Incorrect.

President's Procedural Rights
Prior to the October 5, Committee meeting, some raised
concerns about ``procedural fairness'' and encouraged the
Committee to adopt rules, similar to those adopted by the
Committee in 1974, which would provide the President with
certain procedural rights. After voting on the Hyde resolution,
the Committee adopted, by voice vote, a number of protections
for the President. The President and his counsel shall be
invited to attend all executive session and open committee
hearings. The President's counsel may cross examine witnesses.
The President's counsel may make objections regarding the
pertinency of evidence. The President's counsel shall be
invited to suggest that the Committee receive additional
evidence. Lastly, the President or the President's counsel
shall be invited to respond to the evidence adduced by the
Committee at an appropriate time. The provisions will ensure
that the impeachment inquiry is fair to the President.
Issues Relating to Defining Standards for Impeachment
The minority and the White House have demanded that the
Committee needs to adopt standards of impeachment before it
proceeds. Standards, however, already exist. They are found in
Article Two, Section Four of the Constitution and include
``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
Our founding fathers did not adopt these words without
debate or forethought. These words are not arbitrary or
capricious. They have meaning to which facts must be applied.
Indeed, the meaning of these words have been applied in the
House of Representatives numerous times, four of which occurred
in the past 25 years. Impeachment precedents, like court
precedents, can be helpful to the Committee as it proceeds and
will help inform the judgment of all Members of the House. It
would be presumptuous of this Committee to state as fact the
manner in which all Members should judge the evidence. All
Members, after a consideration of the facts and the law of
impeachment, must exercise their constitutional responsibility
as they deem appropriate.

Heh. A voice vote was enough.

As you may know, each Congress makes it own rules that apply to its activities. What a previous Congress did means nothing if the current Congress wants to do it differently.

I hope you also realize in the Nixon Watergate proceeding the investigation was already done by others outside of Congress. This time the investigation is being done much like a Grand Jury proceeding by Congress itself. If you do not comprehend that important difference, I am afraid you cannot and will never understand.

 

[haymarket]

Congress isn't police nor DA. They are elected representatives of the people. And here...we have representatives who are hiding their actions and motivation from the very people who elected them.

They are fulfilling the same investigate purpose as the police sometimes do or the DA's office does. Nobody is hiding anything since the process is being done with both parties present.

There is a time and a place for everything. Trumps time will come. Simply be patient. You cannot drink at 5PM if it is only 2:30PM. Be patient and all good things come in due time at their appointed hour.

 

[What if...?]

I believe they need to be able to call witnesses as well, and open the proceedings according to established precedent.

That would be the senate part.

The house's role is more like that of a grand jury, deciding if the suspiscions merit a trial.

There is also the element of not casting the appearance of guilt on the innocent during the proceedings. Which is why grand jury proceedings are secret

 

[j brown's body]

Congress isn't police nor DA. They are elected representatives of the people. And here...we have representatives who are hiding their actions and motivation from the very people who elected them.

Since the president can't be indicted by the police or a DA, not even for shooting someone, according to his lawyer, Congress must serve in their role.

Were you this concerned by the closed hearings on Benghazi?

 

[tres borrachos]

I must say that I have to agree with President Trump and the GOP in the House in insisting on basic fairness in the impeachment investigation.

It is right and proper for the GOP to insist and fight for

1 - the Republicans must keep their seats on the investigative Committees and not be shut out of the room.

2 - The Republicans who attend the investigative hearings must have the right to ask questions of witnesses.

3- The Republicans must insist a written record be kept of the proceedings so that it can later be released to the American people.

Let these three things happen and the hearings will then be fair and there would be no rational reason for any partisan complaint.

If only these things had been allowed perhaps the ugly partisan scene today of GOP Congress persons invading the hearing like a bunch of Thirties fascists busting up a meeting would not have taken place.

I'm confused. Numbers 1-3 are already happening. What are you asking for?

 

[haymarket]

I'm confused. Numbers 1-3 are already happening. What are you asking for?

Yes, many posters have been kind enough to inform me of that reality. Makes you wonder what Trump and his GOP enablers are complaining about then?

 

[tres borrachos]

You're damn right. And when the GOP runs the House again under a Dems Prez, that Prez is going to go through tons of pain.

So you're already declaring war on someone who hasn't even won an election yet?

And you say the Democrats are witch hunting Trump? Hell, at least he was a known corrupt entity who was currying favor with all those Democrats all those years he was donating to them. Now the right is witch hunting someone whose name isn't even known yet?

God bless 'Murica.

 

[tres borrachos]

Yes, many posters have been kind enough to inform me of that reality. Makes you wonder what Trump and his GOP enablers are complaining about then?

Sorry, hadn't read past your first post.

What are the morons all complaining about? Nothing. Just throwing red meat to the drooling Trump Fan base, as usual.

 

[haymarket]

Sorry, hadn't read past your first post.

What are the morons all complaining about? Nothing. Just throwing red meat to the drooling Trump Fan base, as usual.

That little hammer keeps striking their knee and it kicks out like a... well ... like a mule being groomed for a Labor Day parade.