Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:
If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.
Actually, Nixon resigned PRIOR to the House even beginning to consider the
merits of the articles of impeachment. So there was no impeachment hearing.
To be precise, the House Judiciary comittee held hearings on the
Watergate break in and cover up and thereby discovered the
evidence needed to support articles of impeachment. While no
'impeachment hearings' oper se were held, articles of impechment
had been introduced and had Nixon not resigned, one or more would
surely have been pased by the comittee. E.g. no 'impeachment
hearing' per se would have been held.
Articles of Impeachment have to have a valid basis for consideration *prior*
to presenting them to Congress. This means that there must be evidence in
existence. The basis for Impeachment must already be in-place.
Could you cite somethign to support this? I am unaware of
any requirement stated in or implied by the Constitution that
prohibits the House from investigating allegations and discovering
evidence of an impeachable offense on its own intitiative. Indeed,
historically, that seems to have been the norm. Prior to the
creation of the Office of the Independent Counsel, which no longer
exists, impeachment investigations were conducted by the House
independently of any criminal investigations on the part of the
Justice Department.
If there is evidence that "Bush Lied", and if the lie is considered by
members of Congress to rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, or Other
Crimes or Misdemeanors, then the basis and facts supporting an impeachment
are drawn up into Articles of Impeachment. Any group of congressfolk can do
this. Democrats can do so right now, if they have the facts to support the
Articles.
They don't even have to be Congress folk nor do they need a factual
basis. But to be acted upon by the Congress an article of impeachment
must first be introduced into the House or Representatives by a member
of the House. That is probably what yo meant, but keep in mind that
the Senate has no authority to impeach, only the House.
The Articles are then presented to the House of Representatives for
acceptance and passage by a simple majority. This is where a Republican
controlled house can quash an impeachment of Bush, regardless of how
compelling the facts in evidence are.
That is but one such opportunity. The House Republicans, and this is
precisely the point I was making, have the power to quash any
investigation
by the House that might produce evidence of an impeachable offense by
first voting against holding a hearing that might produce such evidence
and then by voting against calling witnesses who might reveal such
evidence at any hearings that are held.
Finally, and this is something I had never heard of prior to the
present
administration, the Republicans can (and have) voted to allow witnesses
to 'testify' while NOT under oath or affirmation.
So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting the
Articles to the House.
I modify my point slightly:
If there is insufficient evidence to support the introduction
of articles of impeachment it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives
to conduct the hearings that could discover that
evidence.
However, I do not claim that there is insufficient evidence to
support articles of impeachment, quite the contrary.
--
FF