Impeachment Inquiry for Dummies (Me)

[COTO]

Some basic questions from an outsider looking in on American federal politics regarding the impeachment affair. None of these are rhetorical questions.

1. Is Pres. Trump alleged to have broken any laws as part of his (alleged) quid pro quo deal with the Ukrainians? If so, what laws are alleged to have been broken? If not, what is the Democrats' legal basis for seeking to impeach Pres. Trump?
2. My basic understanding of the impeachment process is that the US HoR votes on whether to impeach Pres. Trump, and then the US Senate votes whether or not to "confirm" the House impeachment vote. If both votes carry, it seems logical to me that Pres. Trump will have been convicted of impeachable offenses (i.e. "high crimes and misdemeanours"). However, I've seen many instances where members have insisted that the Senate vote is not a vote to convict. Is my understanding wrong? How do we reconcile these two points?
3. Some posts I've read seem to suggest that a Senate vote to "confirm" means that Pres. Trump will either have to resign the presidency or be forced out. Others seem to suggest that the Senate vote is non-binding, and that other things would have to happen in order for Pres. Trump to be ousted. Which is true?
4. Another confusion: some posts I've read seem to suggest that if Pres. Trump is impeached, he can run again as the Republican candidate for 2020. Other posts seem to indicate that he can't run again in 2020 on the Republican ticket, that he's no longer legally able to. Which is true?
5. The Republicans are going to considerable lengths to allege/demonstrate that Joe Biden and his son engaged in corrupt and shady dealings in the Ukraine. This might be solely to tarnish Mr. Biden's reputation, but it seems to me they're relying on it more as a defense for Pres. Trump's horse trading with Pres. Zelensky. That is, Pres. Trump's wheeling and dealing is somehow "less impeachable" if it turns out Mr. Biden and his son are crooks. If Pres. Trump is being impeached for breaking the law, I don't see how this strategy makes sense. If you break the law, it doesn't matter if you did it for "the right reasons". My question is: does Pres. Trump's "impeachability" depend in any way on whether the allegations against Mr. Biden and son are ultimately affirmed or refuted?
6. I've read in many places that Sen. Schiff had various staffers and go-betweens meet with the principal whistleblower months before the allegations surfaced. I've also read in many places that Sen. Schiff has denied under oath ever meeting with or advising the whistleblower. How deep does this denial go? By this I mean: does Sen. Schiff a) deny that any staffers or go-betweens met with the whistleblower, b) acknowledge staffer/go-between meetings but deny any personal meetings, or c) acknowledge personal meetings but deny discussing anything related to the allegations? Has his position remained consistent over time?
7. In order for the Senate to vote to "confirm" impeachment, is a supermajority required?
8. I've read that there's a grand jury involved in this impeachment inquiry. Some posts I've read suggest that this inquiry is just political theater and isn't legally required for impeachment. Other posts suggest that the inquiry plus a vote by a grand jury is required for the House to proceed with impeachment. Two questions therefore: What exactly is the grand jury voting on? Is this vote legally required for the Democrats to proceed with impeachment?

For responses that hinge on contentious legal/constitutional issues, I'd welcome links to legal analysis. But please bear in mind that I have limited time to work through 20+ -page legal tracti or sprawling websites. Excerpts or documents of limited length are much preferred.

Also, my apologies in advance but I won't be able to reply to this thread much today. Any and all serious, objective answers are much appreciated.

Feel free to add your own questions. Normally I'd compile them and add them to the OP as time went on, but... DP. :shrug:

 

[PLizzy]

1. Is Pres. Trump alleged to have broken any laws as part of his (alleged) quid pro quo deal with the Ukrainians? If so, what laws are alleged to have been broken? If not, what is the Democrats' legal basis for seeking to impeach Pres. Trump?
2. My basic understanding of the impeachment process is that the US HoR votes on whether to impeach Pres. Trump, and then the US Senate votes whether or not to "confirm" the House impeachment vote. If both votes carry, it seems logical to me that Pres. Trump will have been convicted of impeachable offenses (i.e. "high crimes and misdemeanours"). However, I've seen many instances where members have insisted that the Senate vote is not a vote to convict. Is my understanding wrong? How do we reconcile these two points?
3. Some posts I've read seem to suggest that a Senate vote to "confirm" means that Pres. Trump will either have to resign the presidency or be forced out. Others seem to suggest that the Senate vote is non-binding, and that other things would have to happen in order for Pres. Trump to be ousted. Which is true?
4. Another confusion: some posts I've read seem to suggest that if Pres. Trump is impeached, he can run again as the Republican candidate for 2020. Other posts seem to indicate that he can't run again in 2020 on the Republican ticket, that he's no longer legally able to. Which is true?
5. The Republicans are going to considerable lengths to allege/demonstrate that Joe Biden and his son engaged in corrupt and shady dealings in the Ukraine. This might be solely to tarnish Mr. Biden's reputation, but it seems to me they're relying on it more as a defense for Pres. Trump's horse trading with Pres. Zelensky. That is, Pres. Trump's wheeling and dealing is somehow "less impeachable" if it turns out Mr. Biden and his son are crooks. If Pres. Trump is being impeached for breaking the law, I don't see how this strategy makes sense. If you break the law, it doesn't matter if you did it for "the right reasons". My question is: does Pres. Trump's "impeachability" depend in any way on whether the allegations against Mr. Biden and son are ultimately affirmed or refuted?
6. I've read in many places that Sen. Schiff had various staffers and go-betweens meet with the principal whistleblower months before the allegations surfaced. I've also read in many places that Sen. Schiff has denied under oath ever meeting with or advising the whistleblower. How deep does this denial go? By this I mean: does Sen. Schiff a) deny that any staffers or go-betweens met with the whistleblower, b) acknowledge staffer/go-between meetings but deny any personal meetings, or c) acknowledge personal meetings but deny discussing anything related to the allegations? Has his position remained consistent over time?
7. In order for the Senate to vote to "confirm" impeachment, is a supermajority required?
8. I've read that there's a grand jury involved in this impeachment inquiry. Some posts I've read suggest that this inquiry is just political theater and isn't legally required for impeachment. Other posts suggest that the inquiry plus a vote by a grand jury is required for the House to proceed with impeachment. Two questions therefore: What exactly is the grand jury voting on? Is this vote legally required for the Democrats to proceed with impeachment?

Here goes nothing.

1. Bribery and extortion are the possible crimes being investigated. Abuse of power is another 'crime', but it is not one that isn't listed in the federal statutes.
2. The House determines whether there is enough evidence to try the President (or other cabinet members) for 'high crimes', while the Senate determines whether those offenses have been proven as true, AND whether they warrant removal from office. They are answering two different questions.
3. No, if the Senate votes to convict the President, then his presidency is over, and the Secret Service may remove him.
4. If the articles of impeachment specify that Trump is barred from running again and the articles are agreed to in the Senate, then he is disqualified from seeking office of any kind going forward.
5. No, impeachable acts are still impeachable, even if the act was to expose some other illicit conduct by another individual.
6. I believe that it was Schiff's staff that met with the WB's attorneys, but not the WB themselves.
7. Yes.
8. Any member of the House can bring an article of impeachment at anytime. There does not have to be an investigation, it's just that the House historically has done such in order to give the process a more judicial set of ground rules, so that the charges against the cabinet member are more carefully considered.

 

[COTO]

Here goes nothing.

1. Bribery and extortion are the possible crimes being investigated. Abuse of power is another 'crime', but it is not one that isn't listed in the federal statutes.
2. The House determines whether there is enough evidence to try the President (or other cabinet members) for 'high crimes', while the Senate determines whether those offenses have been proven as true, AND whether they warrant removal from office. They are answering two different questions.
3. No, if the Senate votes to convict the President, then his presidency is over, and the Secret Service may remove him.
4. If the articles of impeachment specify that Trump is barred from running again and the articles are agreed to in the Senate, then he is disqualified from seeking office of any kind going forward.
5. No, impeachable acts are still impeachable, even if the act was to expose some other illicit conduct by another individual.
6. I believe that it was Schiff's staff that met with the WB's attorneys, but not the WB themselves.
7. Yes.
8. Any member of the House can bring an article of impeachment at anytime. There does not have to be an investigation, it's just that the House historically has done such in order to give the process a more judicial set of ground rules, so that the charges against the cabinet member are more carefully considered.

Thank you very much.

Some follow-up questions:

1. Just to confirm: the House will present the Senate with a specific set of laws they allege have been broken (e.g. section 2.8 of Act XYZ) by Pres. Trump, then the Senate will make two votes: the first on whether the allegations are true (i.e. the laws have been broken), and the second on whether the breaking of the laws warrants removal from office?

(I assume that the two Senate votes always go the same way. That is, guilty = remove him. Is there any chance of this not happening?)

2. Is a possibility that the Democrats won't allege any laws have been broken and will simply submit "abuse of power" as a cause for impeachment to the Senate? Does the Senate's consideration have to rest on whether a law is broken, or is "abuse of power" sufficient?

3. Do you know if the Democrats are seeking to block Pres. Trump from running again?

4. If the grand jury vote isn't required to proceed with impeachment, why have the grand jury? Why not just have the inquiry and then make a go/no-go decision afterwards? Will the Democrats not proceed with the articles of impeachment if the grand jury votes 'nay'? Is the grand jury even related to this inquiry, or do I misunderstand?

 

[Visbek]

Is Pres. Trump alleged to have broken any laws as part of his (alleged) quid pro quo deal with the Ukrainians? If so, what laws are alleged to have been broken? If not, what is the Democrats' legal basis for seeking to impeach Pres. Trump?

Impeachment is not a criminal process; Trump does not need to have explicitly violated US law to be impeached.

The Constitution refers to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." When it was written, "high" referred to the political position of the alleged offender, and "impeachment" for centuries meant removing someone because they abused their power. (What Does ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ Actually Mean? - The Atlantic)

Ultimately though, since this is a political process, as Gerald Ford said: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history."

Trump is likely to be impeached for abuse of power (using US foreign policy to extort a foreign government into interfering in US elections) and obstruction of justice (thwarting Congress' investigations, and perhaps now intimidating witnesses). Technically it is possible that he violated US campaign law by soliciting a "thing of value" from a foreigner (namely, a mechanism to attack the Bidens), but it is not necessary to make a criminal case. Nor is it clear that Trump would face a separate prosecution for violating election laws if he were removed from office.

My basic understanding of the impeachment process is that the US HoR votes on whether to impeach Pres. Trump....

The House vote is to impeach. If the POTUS is impeached, then the Senate holds a trial on the articles specified in the impeachment. The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS presides.

Think of the House role more like a grand jury proceeding, and impeachment as an indictment.

Some posts I've read seem to suggest that a Senate vote to "confirm" means that Pres. Trump will either have to resign the presidency or be forced out. Others seem to suggest that the Senate vote is non-binding....

It's binding. If the Senate convicts, he's out.

Another confusion: some posts I've read seem to suggest that if Pres. Trump is impeached, he can run again as the Republican candidate for 2020.

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend
further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to
hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under
the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless
be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and
Punishment, according to Law."

If Pres. Trump is being impeached for breaking the law, I don't see how this strategy makes sense. If you break the law, it doesn't matter if you did it for "the right reasons". My question is: does Pres. Trump's "impeachability" depend in any way on whether the allegations against Mr. Biden and son are ultimately affirmed or refuted?

No. It's just a smokescreen. The allegations are fabricated BS, and pretty much everyone knows it. Again, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, it's a political process. Republicans will find any excuse not to vote to impeach him or convict him.

I've read in many places that Sen. Schiff had various staffers and go-betweens meet with the principal whistleblower months before the allegations surfaced...

The whistleblower contacted the House Intelligence Committee, asking how to move his report forward. A staffer told the whistleblower to contact an attorney. Schiff never met with him, and has no idea who he is, and has never denied the account I described. This has been consistent since the start. Republicans are puffing this up as another conspiracy theory smokescreen.

In order for the Senate to vote to "confirm" impeachment, is a supermajority required?

Yes.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on
Oath or Affi rmation. When the President of the United
States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no
Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present.

I've read that there's a grand jury involved in this impeachment inquiry.

There is no grand jury. The House performs a similar role, and impeachment is similar to an indictment.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Here's an explanation of the impeachment process going on currently:

An Impeachment Defense Primer
(or: Schrodinger's Cat ad Absurdum) -
What the president did was just fine
And also it didn't happen
But also it's no big deal because he does it all the time.
Everyone does it
But he had to do it because nobody else did.
And it obviously wasn't criminal
Because he's too smart to carry that out
And too incompetent to pull it off.
Besides, trump knew nothing about it
But his aides were just following his orders.
We should dismiss the whole thing because it's all based on only the thirdhand hearsay of one indirect witness
But all those other direct witnesses were deep state never-trumpers
(especially if he appointed them)
Besides, they testified in unfair secret hearings
That were unconstitutionally pulled from the constitution.
Which excluded all Republicans
And the 50ish that were allowed refused to go because it was unfair that they weren't allowed.
And all regulated by policy that's being unfairly applied
To the party that crafted that policy.
We know the whistleblower is a historically partisan anti-trumpite
But we're not gonna continue til you tell us who it is.
So we're not gonna look at your evidence until you provide us with some evidence
And we won't read that evidence because we know there's no evidence.
Besides, this should be all about the corruption
That we certainly didn't ask them to investigate
That was already investigated years ago.
And the Russian hoax
Which already showed that trump is innocent of everything
In a report we otherwise want you to completely ignore.
So stop making a mockery of our system!
Which is definitely broken,
Or we wouldn't be held accountable
When you follow it.

 

[PLizzy]

Thank you very much.

Some follow-up questions:

1. Just to confirm: the House will present the Senate with a specific set of laws they allege have been broken (e.g. section 2.8 of Act XYZ) by Pres. Trump, then the Senate will make two votes: the first on whether the allegations are true (i.e. the laws have been broken), and the second on whether the breaking of the laws warrants removal from office?

(I assume that the two Senate votes always go the same way. That is, guilty = remove him. Is there any chance of this not happening?)

2. Is a possibility that the Democrats won't allege any laws have been broken and will simply submit "abuse of power" as a cause for impeachment to the Senate? Does the Senate's consideration have to rest on whether a law is broken, or is "abuse of power" sufficient?

3. Do you know if the Democrats are seeking to block Pres. Trump from running again?

4. If the grand jury vote isn't required to proceed with impeachment, why have the grand jury? Why not just have the inquiry and then make a go/no-go decision afterwards? Will the Democrats not proceed with the articles of impeachment if the grand jury votes 'nay'? Is the grand jury even related to this inquiry, or do I misunderstand?

1. I think you misunderstood. The articles of impeachment themselves address two different matters, in whether the President and guilty and whether he deserves to be removed from office, but they are apart of the same vote. So, members might conclude the President did commit the offenses, but nevertheless vote 'Not Guilty' because they determine the conduct is not worthy of removal from office.

2. Yes. Abuse of power is basically general corruption of the Presidency. Such articles were drafted against Nixon and Clinton - although only Clinton's came up for a floor vote, where it didn't pass.

3. The articles haven't been drafted, but I'd assume so.

4. There is no grand jury - so to speak. What we have are committees. The articles of impeachment will be drafted in the Judiciary committee, where they will have a vote on whether the President should be impeached. If the committee votes to 'adopt the resolution' (which would likely be a party line vote as it was in Clinton), then the articles will go to the full House for a vote.

There the presiding officer (speaker) will ask those in favor of impeachment to say "I" and those that don't "Nah". The speaker then may determine that a roll call vote is necessary, where if a simple majority vote to adopt the article, the President becomes impeached, and the Senate then takes up a removal trial.

An example of the committee vote.



The full impeachment vote, which start at 18.30. At 31.00 minutes is when Clinton becomes officially impeached (218 is a majority), and at 34.00 the newscasters discuss it.

 

[COTO]

There the presiding officer (speaker) will ask those in favor of impeachment to say "I" and those that don't "Nah". The speaker then may determine that a roll call vote is necessary, where if a simple majority vote to adopt the article, the President becomes impeached, and the Senate then takes up a removal trial.

Understood. Hence Pres. Trump becomes impeached if the House vote passes, but can't be removed unless the Senate votes to remove him.

Just by way of terminology: if the Senate declines to oust Pres. Trump, what is this called? A "not guilty verdict"? Do you have any idea why some members state so adamantly that the Senate vote is not a vote to convict?

What is the difference between indictment and impeachment? - Quora

Yes. Abuse of power is basically general corruption of the Presidency. Such articles were drafted against Nixon and Clinton - although only Clinton's came up for a floor vote, where it didn't pass.

To the best of your knowledge, are the Democrats going with "laws were broken" or are they going with "general corruption of the Presidency"?

I'll say one thing: Whether or not Pres. Trump is removed, I'm glad to hear that conviction requires a supermajority. I wouldn't want to see America the day after a party line vote to convict that carried with a simple majority. At least with the supermajority, the Democrats can claim there's support from both parties and it's not a soft coup.

 

[jnug]

I have a helpful hint for those trying to make their way through the Impeachment hearings and their offshoots, the News Channel takes:
Pay no attention whatsoever to the Impeachment Hearing Polls. It is all gibberish intended to feed the beast, the beast being this insane, "up to the second" taking of pulse, dog pile on the carpet BS the News Channels peddle constantly.

I actually no longer can determine if the News Channels believe in these idiot polls or if they just don't care since their real motivation is ratings.

These are people we are talking about, not a product you can take home, use and determine if you would use it again. People giving testimony. People making the inquiries. People viewing the results. If they want to put a +/- 50% margin for error on these idiot polls, go for it. Of course a +/- 50% would mean they have no clue which is in fact the case. THEY HAVE NO CLUE.

These polls are even less useful than Election polling, never mind product research because candidates for elective office rarely change their platform planks over the course of a campaign to effect polling. Changing Candidate recognition is about the only thing that moves election polls to any degree.

An Impeachment Hearing builds evidence from the foundation up. Much depends on the evidence itself and in the skill of those building the case at developing a through-line from the first building block to the last. There is simply no way for polling data to be helpful in that environment. If anything it is hurtful.

Watch as much as you can as a citizen because its your duty as a citizen. Make your own judgements free of all of this opinion crap floating around and most definitely free of this idiot polling data. Judge for yourself.

 

[Torus34]

The constitutional process of impeachment provides the Congress of the United States of America with a legal means to remove a president from office. The members of the Senate decide what is, and equally important, what is not a sufficient reason for removal. In the case of the impeachment of Mr. William Clinton, it was determined that dalliance with an aide and lying to the Congress of the United States about it did not constitute sufficient reason.

The trial gave, in essence, future presidents permission to do the same thing without fear of removal from office.

Please read that last sentence again. Thank you.

Now consider the on-going effort by our political parties to push the boundaries of their power in government. How will this work out, going forward, should the current Senate find the current President did not commit an offense which requires removal from office? How will this extend the boundaries of presidential power with respect to his/her political party or his/her own drive toward dictatorial control? What new areas of non-impeachable action does this open?

 

[JackA]

Understood. Hence Pres. Trump becomes impeached if the House vote passes, but can't be removed unless the Senate votes to remove him.

Just by way of terminology: if the Senate declines to oust Pres. Trump, what is this called? A "not guilty verdict"? Do you have any idea why some members state so adamantly that the Senate vote is not a vote to convict?

What is the difference between indictment and impeachment? - Quora


To the best of your knowledge, are the Democrats going with "laws were broken" or are they going with "general corruption of the Presidency"?

I'll say one thing: Whether or not Pres. Trump is removed, I'm glad to hear that conviction requires a supermajority. I wouldn't want to see America the day after a party line vote to convict that carried with a simple majority. At least with the supermajority, the Democrats can claim there's support from both parties and it's not a soft coup.

Impeachment is a majority vote by the House for removal from office. The Senate then acts on the House vote by either removing or not removing; there is not a question of "guilt" or "innocence", only one of removal from office or not.

 

[PLizzy]

Understood. Hence Pres. Trump becomes impeached if the House vote passes, but can't be removed unless the Senate votes to remove him.

Just by way of terminology: if the Senate declines to oust Pres. Trump, what is this called? A "not guilty verdict"? Do you have any idea why some members state so adamantly that the Senate vote is not a vote to convict?

During the Senate trial the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court will preside over the Senate. At the end, he will have the clerk take a roll call vote of senators of 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty'.

Given that two thirds of the Senate most vote to remove, if 34 senators vote not to remove the President, then the Chief Justice will rule the President 'Not Guilty' of the charge at the end of the roll call.

Here it is.

Watch from about 9.00-23.00.

To the best of your knowledge, are the Democrats going with "laws were broken" or are they going with "general corruption of the Presidency"?

Both.

I'll say one thing: Whether or not Pres. Trump is removed, I'm glad to hear that conviction requires a supermajority. I wouldn't want to see America the day after a party line vote to convict that carried with a simple majority. At least with the supermajority, the Democrats can claim there's support from both parties and it's not a soft coup.

This has happened in US history before.

Bill Clinton was impeached for false testimony in a civil suit by the House, with only four Democrats (in the House) voting with the Republicans. When it got to the Senate, he was obviously acquitted.

 

[Dittohead not!]

1. I think you misunderstood. The articles of impeachment themselves address two different matters, in whether the President and guilty and whether he deserves to be removed from office, but they are apart of the same vote. So, members might conclude the President did commit the offenses, but nevertheless vote 'Not Guilty' because they determine the conduct is not worthy of removal from office.

2. Yes. Abuse of power is basically general corruption of the Presidency. Such articles were drafted against Nixon and Clinton - although only Clinton's came up for a floor vote, where it didn't pass.

3. The articles haven't been drafted, but I'd assume so.

4. There is no grand jury - so to speak. What we have are committees. The articles of impeachment will be drafted in the Judiciary committee, where they will have a vote on whether the President should be impeached. If the committee votes to 'adopt the resolution' (which would likely be a party line vote as it was in Clinton), then the articles will go to the full House for a vote.

There the presiding officer (speaker) will ask those in favor of impeachment to say "I" and those that don't "Nah". The speaker then may determine that a roll call vote is necessary, where if a simple majority vote to adopt the article, the President becomes impeached, and the Senate then takes up a removal trial.

An example of the committee vote.



The full impeachment vote, which start at 18.30. At 31.00 minutes is when Clinton becomes officially impeached (218 is a majority), and at 34.00 the newscasters discuss it.

That describes the process very well. Now, what will happen is that the Republicans in the house will try to obfuscate the facts of the case by bringing up Hunter Biden and by other means. They will still lose the vote as there are more Democrats than Republicans in the House.

Then, the Democrats in the Senate will review the facts that have been discussed in the House. When the vote to remove Trump from office is held, the president won't be removed because there are more Republicans than Democrats in the Senate.

Facts don't matter. Only partisanship really matters.

If the House does not vote to impeach, or if the Senate does vote to remove the president from office, then this will be a shining example of one time my innate cynicism proved wrong. I will be very surprised, as my cynicism proves correct most of the time.