DIYbanter - View Single Post

Dave Bugg

wrote:

Regardless, it appears that you are aguing that one or more Articles
of Impeachment must be introduced before the House could hold hearings
to investigate allegation of impeachable acts.

No, that's not what I am saying.

That is just plain wrong.

The House could, and should, investigate and gather evidence before
any Articles of Impeachment are introduced.

That is what I said.

Indeed, that is just
what the House Judiciary Committee did during Watergate.

Yes. But again you had stated, "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear *until after the impeachment hearing had
begun"*.

... 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.

I did not state that "discovery of facts are undertaken *after* the
Articles are presented to the House. " Nor did I state anything
that reasonably could be interpretted as such.

When you stated "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of
Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had
begun", I reasonably interpreted such.

That interpretation is unreasonable because it presuposes that
Articles
of Impeachment MUST be introduced before the House could hold hearings
to investigate allegations of impeachable acts.

No, it implied that you believed investigations and fact-finding were part
of an impeachment hearing.

My statement was erroneous, because the House never conducted
'impeachment hearings' per se, for the impeachment of Richard Nixon.
E.g. I incorrectly called the Watergate hearings, Impeachment
hearings.
I corrected that error in my next article, and then in the next
article after
that pointed out to you that I had done so. Here we are three (3)
articles
later and you are still writing as if I had never corrected that
error.

You may have thought you corrected the error, but it didn't read that way.
Now I see that.

Regardless, had Nixon not resigned, the House Judiciary Committee
undoubtrable would have voted to send one or more Articles of
Impeachment
to the House for debate.

Even if Nixon had not resigned and had been impeached, there is no
reason to suppose that 'impeachment hearings' would ever have been
held. The Watergate hearings were sufficient to produce the evidence
needed for Articles of Impeachment.

Sigh... Articles of Impeachment ARE what impeachment hearings are based on.
There is NO impeachment unless the Articles of Impeachment are heard in the
House, and the House members vote, by a simple majority, to *accept* the
Articles of Impeachment.

Moreover the historical
example I presented, that of the House Judiciary Comittee's
Watergate hearings, is an example of Articles of Impeachment being
introduced
after evidence was discovered, not befor

But, Articles of Impeachment were NOT introduced to the House. Nixon
resigned prior to that event

Three articles were introduced into the committee, without
'impeachment hearings' per se, being held. There is no reason to
suppose that the committee would have adjourned the Watergate
investigation and then
held impeachment hearings before sending the Articles to the House
for debate.

What don't you get about the fact that there IS no impeachment hearing UNTIL
Articles of Impeachment are filed into the House.

The sequence of events was:

Watergate hearings by the House judiciary committee.

Articles of Impeachment introduced into the House Judiciary Committee

Wrong. Articles of Impeachment were NEVER introduced into the House
Committee.

Nixon resigned.

Right. He resigned prior to any Articles being developed.

Had Nixon not resigned then the follwoing sequence is likely:

Articles of Impeachment sent from teh Judiciary Committee to
the floor of the House for debate.

One or more Articles of Impeachment passed by the House.

No 'impeachment hearings' per se.

Huh? Do the Articles just hang around? After Articles are introduced, there
HAS to be a hearing in order for the House to procede to a vote on the
matter.

Articles of Impeachment do not precede investigation, they are written
(or not) based on evidence developed during the investigation.

Now you are trying to lecture me on what I have already told you.

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.

You seem to have not read my example of how the House Judiciary
Comittee did just that, in that order.

I did, but I think you need to re-read the thread.

Perhaps you need to do so, noted where I admitted having
incorrectly referred to the Watergate Hearings as impeachmetn
hearings.

...
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.

I thought "congressfolk" was ambiguous.

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.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
to conduct hearings before a House committee, when the majority
of committee members vote against doing so.

...snip of requests for citations

Sure. I'll show you mine when you show me yours.

Mine is consistent with the general principle of majority rule.

Yours is consitent with, what?

Executive Branch oversight by congress.

A minority can meet in caucus and conduct 'hearings' of their own
and indeed, the Democrats have done just that. But those hearings
are no way comparable to hearings held by House committees.

Correct, and that is what I am referring to. Regardless, they can still
develop the facts and evidence needed as the basis for Articles of
Impeachment. So, nothing is stopping the Democrats from developing the
evidence they need for impeachment, except for the fact that they don't have
a rational basis of fact. If they did, they would procede.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com