DIYbanter - View Single Post

Dave Bugg

wrote:
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.

But that wasn't your point. You stated that evidence to support an
impeachment did not appear until *after* the impeachment hearing began. You
were incorrect. The hearings of the judiciary committees WERE NOT an
impeachment hearing. My point still stands that Articles of Impeachment must
contain relevant facts and evidence to support itself when presented to the
House for passage.

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?

Look at the Constituitonal description of Impeachement.

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.

That was not what I said, nor is it what you stated. You stated that
Articles of Impeachment could be a period of evidenturary discovery, which
of course, they cannot be. The Articles of Impeachment must contain the
rationale -- through facts in evidence -- to provide support for bring a
motion of impeachment before the House. To arrive at the facts in evidence
to develop the Articles, fact finding hearings and other methods of
discovery are usually undertaken. But, unlike what you had stated, discovery
of facts are not undertaken *after* the Articles are presented to the House.
After the Articles are presented, the facts in evidence are judged by the
House members to either support or not support impeachment.

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.

You seem to lack knowledge of what Articles of Impeachment are and the
purpose that they serve. Any investigation to determine if facts are in
evidence is put into play PRIOR to the Articles being drafted, because the
Articles are all about facts in evidence to support the alleged reasons for
impeachment.

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.

No, facts in evidence do not have to come from congressfolk. That's not what
I was talking about. But it would take a member of the House to form the
evidence into Articles of Impeachment, which is what I *was* talking about.
And if you would have taken the time to read my post prior to responding,
you would have seen that I properly covered who has responsibility to
determine impeachment vs which house is responsible for the trial.

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.

Please cite the House rules which allow the majority to do this. Quite the
contrary, the minority has procedural abilities to conduct whatever hearings
and factfinding is necessary in cases of misdeeds by the Executive branch.

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.

This has happened during many administrations and regardless of who holds
power in Congress. Usually it is proffered when the scope of an
investigation is not the witness called.

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.

I'm listening; go ahead and state the evidence and those provable facts.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com