Dave Bugg wrote:
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.

Yet you contradict that below, when you say that impeachment
hearings follow the introduction of Articles of Impeachment.


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"*.

And, for the fourth time, I state that I mistakenly referred to the
Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings 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.

No ****! And you don't?

Investigation and fact-finding are (ostensibly) the function
of all Congressional hearings.

Seriously, why do you suppose the House commitees hold
hearings and call witnesses to testify if not to investigate and
find facts?

BTW,
I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.


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.

It still appears that you didn't read it at all.

I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.

Now I see that.

You see what, exactly?

I hope you see:

I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.

But since three times were not sufficient to get that through to you,
I have repeated it four more times.

Do you get it yet?


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.

What do you mean by heard?

Are you seriously suggesting that if the House Judiciary committee
had voted to send Articles of Impeachment to the floor the House
would have sent them back to committee for more hearings?
Why would they not have proceeded to debate the Articles based
on the evidence developed durig the Watergate hearings?


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.

What do mean by 'filed'?

One of the many things you don't get, is that hearings of any sort
are not required. It is possible for an Article of Impeachment to be
introduced to the floor of the House, the measure debated, and
then passed, without ever any hearings being held. Hell, even
debate is optional, if no one in the House cares to speak on the
matter it could go straight to a vote. Depending on the rules of
procedure, a vote per se may not even be needed. The person
introducing the Article of Impeachment could request that it
be passed by unanimous consent, and if no one objects,
it would. Unwise and improbable, but possible.

However if hearings are held, they are held to develop the evidence
upon which Articles of Impeachment are based. The Articles
of Impeachment are developed during or after the hearings, not
before.




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.

We disagree. Three Articles of Impeachment were intoduced into the
House Judiciary Committee, debated and passed by that Committee
by votes of 27-11, 28-10, and 27-17, respectively.

The full text may be read he
http://watergate.info/impeachment/im...articles.shtml


Nixon resigned.

Right. He resigned prior to any Articles being developed.

What do you mean by 'developed'?

Three Articles of Impeachment were passed by the House Judiciary
Committee.

I don't know if being passed by the committe qualifies as
being heard, filed, or developed, nor do I care. They were passed
by the committee and sent to the floor of the House for
debate.


Had Nixon not resigned then the follwoing sequence is likely:


Actually, I was wrong again, that which follows below DID happen.

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

THEN Nixon resigned mooting the issue
prior to the House intiating the 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.

Wrong. Once a measure is on the floor the time for hearings
has ended and the time for debate has begun. The House
COULD send the matter back to committee which then COULD
hold more hearings but that would be the exception and not
at all likely in the posited hypothetical.

Why would one set of hearings be held to develop the evidence
needed to write the Aritcles of Impeachment and then a second
set of hearings held to re-confirm that same evidence?


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.

That is because you keep contradicting yourself.




...

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.

How so?


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.

They cannot subpoena witnesses nor compel testimony under oath.

THAT is the difference between conducting an investigation and
blowing smoke.

--

FF

PS, in case you didn't notice:

I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.