General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLet's define our impeachment terminology
Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2019, 11:44 AM - Edit history (6)
Impeachment = a determination by a simple majority vote of House of Representatives that a federal official has committed a high crime or misdemeanor. An impeachment does not remove the official from office. Only the Senate can remove and only after a trial and vote of 2/3 of the bodyImpeachment Inquiry = an official process used to determine whether an official has committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
Impeachment Investigation = a part of the inquiry that gathers evidence to be used as part of the determination of whether an official has committed an impeachable offense.
Impeachment Hearings = proceedings in which the committee conducting the impeachment inquiry takes testimony from witnesses. The witness can be fact witnesses, legal and constitutional experts, special interest representatives (civil rights groups, etc.), and others with information or advice relevant to the inquiry. Hearings can be conducted in public or in private.
Although the terms are often (and inaccurately) used interchangeably, impeachment, impeachment inquiries, impeachment investigations, and impeachment hearings are not synonymous. Hearings can be part of an investigation, but investigations do not require hearings. Investigations and hearings can be components of the inquiry but an inquiry can be conducted without them. In other words, investigations and hearings are specific subsets of an inquiry.
Impeachment is the actual vote that finds the official has committed high crimes or misdemeanors.
There is no such thing as "starting impeachment." Congress is considering whether to open an impeachment inquiry that will likely include an investigation and hearings and could lead to impeachment.
The process for opening an inquiry begins with a majority vote in committee - usually the Judiciary Committee. If the recommendation passes the committee, it is referred to the floor for a full House vote. The House then votes to approve the initiation of an inquiry. Usually the vote is to authorize the Judiciary Committee to open the inquiry, prescribes the scope and depth of the inquiry, and details the powers and authorities the committee shall have to conduct its investigation.
Impeachment inquiries can take different forms. For example, in the Clinton impeachment inquiry, the Judiciary Committee conducted no investigation, but merely accepted the Starr Report and its deliberations concerned only whether the information in the Starr Report was sufficient to justify impeachment. The Nixon impeachment inquiry was broader, however it, too, relied heavily on evidence and findings elicited in previous investigations and hearings.
At the conclusion of the inquiry, the committee votes on Articles of Impeachment. The approved articles are then recommended to the full house for a vote. If the full house votes to approve one or more of the articles, immediately upon and by operation of the vote, the official is impeached.
It will then be up to the Senate to decide whether the official is removed from office.
I hope this is helpful!
NOTE: I reposted this OP with clarifications, updates and corrections here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212150822
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
elleng
(130,895 posts)Useful
csziggy
(34,136 posts)
Turin_C3PO
(13,975 posts)Very helpful. I always learn a lot from your posts, keep up the good work!
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Glad to do it!
unblock
(52,208 posts)Valid reason for impeachment include bribery and treason as well as the aforementioned high crimes and misdemeanors.
Come to think of it, I'm not convinced that bribery and treason aren't themselves high crimes and misdemeanors anyway, but the constitution does list them separately.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)treason and bribery."
But you're right - the Constitution does list them separately - I think for emphasis.
Raise a really interesting point. If the investigations into a Trump's finances, tax records, emoluments, etc. provide conclusive evidence of bribery, congress can have an easier time impeaching him because, unlike with his other wrongdoing, they won't have to argue about whether that particular offense is impeachable. It's per se an impeachable offense...
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)
MFGsunny
(2,356 posts)..... see their overarching, long-game strategy here, specifically in the quest of getting the American people aboard and in-the-know about the overwhelming corruption.
Most of us will focus less on highly nuanced legalistic arguments & trends.
OTOH, all that $GRIFTING$ in and around dirty money, $ laundering, quid-pro-quo-ruski-oligarchs-MF45INC-sanctions-Putin-puppetry WILL ALL COME OUT WITH "RECEIPTS" spoken and seen in kitchen table terms most people "get" in a nanosecond!
Some of the time being chewed up now by MF45 & his MOB is for sure NOT going the way the maggot-idjots thought it would. Cuz here come the judges.
The various courts are already being very expeditious given the legal prima facie aspects of applicable law and the rulings they are making. Such legal-opinion rulings most likely will also SHORTEN appeal times, let alone endangering such appeals of being "accepted" by successive higher courts, including the Supremes.
The courts KNOW we know TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)
Fiendish Thingy
(15,601 posts)That will be more than enough Pelosi rope-a-dope for "self-impeachment" and further acts of obstruction, with enough time to issue inherent contempt citations to those who would defy lawful subpoenas.
Waiting much longer to open an inquiry, and the Billy Barr actual, genuine, Bona fide WITCH HUNTS might steal all the media attention...
The timing of the rest of the steps/elements should be determined as events unfold. I do think that if a floor vote on articles of impeachment passes in late 2019/early 2020, the timing would help William Weld, Amash, and anyone else considering opposing Trump in the primaries.
Wouldn't it be sweet if he didn't even win the nomination? (I can dream, can't I?)
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)You're free to look it up yourself and challenge anything I've written if you find it to be inaccurate. The information is all over the internet.
But one would think that you already knew all of this, given how involved and assertive you've been on the topic of impeachment, since this is fundamental Impeachment 101.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)and I'll be glad to explain it to you.
But if the lack of links or sources in my OP make you less likely to believe anything I've posted, that's your prerogative. Feel free to simply ignore it as you would any other information you deem unreliable.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And for someone who's been pontificating about this topic as much as you have, your demand for sources is pretty funny - if you knew as much as you seem to think you do, you'd be fully conversant with all of this without having to ask for sources or links.
Of course, confirming or gathering information isn't the point of your demand, is it?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)An OP that lectures us on terminology can't even cite a source. That's rich.
In the original version of the OP, it incorrectly claimed "Congress" votes on articles of impeachment when in fact it is only the House. This is an important point, since we have the majority in the House, and with Pelosi's leadership, absolutely can impeach Trump. The poster made the correction when called out, but still refuses to give a source to admittedly incorrect information.
I remember a poster here who was brilliant and provided a link for every assertion, Prosense. I miss her.
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)Further, since the post is simply educational, intended for an audience of fellow forum members, no need to credit a source. It is information that can be found in multiple sources, easily accessed through using the internet. Teachers write up their own guides to terms and concepts all the time without attribution.
The poster is not presenting academic research.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)But this is all basic information that any of us can easily find and verify. The poster, who obviously has deep familiarity with the topic, was nice enough to take the time to put it all together in one place.
But if you would feel more comfortable reading an article on Wikipedia or something, then go ahead.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Why resort to angry attacks just because someone asks for a link? OPs providing links is pretty expected here, especially when asserting fact or law.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And there is absolutely nothing angry about her response.
If you think her post lacks credibility because there aren't links, why not just ignore it rather than try to bait her as you consistently do? (She really gets to you, doesn't she?)
And given the response this OP has gotten, no one else seems to have a problem with the information she provided - in fact, we all find it very useful. And other than the mistake that was pointed out and that she graciously acknowledged and corrected, no one has found any reason to question anything she wrote.
If you have a problem with anything in the OP that you think is inaccurate or wrong, why not point it out and provide a correction?
But your consistent hectoring someone who obviously knows her stuff about "sources and links" and your "let's talk about her amongst ourselves" tactics just highlight the fact that you have nothing constructive or intelligent to add to a very informative and well-received OP.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)She obviously does not know her stuff and had to be corrected. I am not "hectoring" her; I am not even the one who corrected her in this thread.
I have discussed the benefits of commencing formal impeachment investigation hearings on this board on numerous occasions, only to be arrogantly mocked for it by you and your friend StarfishSaver.
Why are you so invested in StarfishSaver's posts?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)You and your buddy seem hell-bent on challenging and baiting her - yet you never seem useful to add.
But I get it ...
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I am not invested in StarfishSaver's posts. I try to ignore them, but there have been a LOT of them on this board since she joined, they're kinda hard to avoid. Her posts are highlighted in the "Left Column." I don't believe in putting people on ignore. This is a discussion board and I want to know what is being discussed.
What I am invested in is justice, and I truly hope House Dems start formal impeachment investigation hearings soon. The few StarfishSaver threads I have posted in have made incorrect assertions about impeachment and have tried to dampen the push for impeachment. I think that hurts our party and the country...and justice.
You, on the other hand, are quick to attack DUers who dare to question StarfishSaver. Why?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But I don't like seeing anyone bullied - especially new members who are trying to offer information and perspective that many of us find helpful (even if you don't).
And I can't help noticing that you insisted that "providing incorrect info without links is" pontificating and you keep harping on a minor but corrected mistake in a post - in the same thread that you declared (without any attribution, sources or links) that "formal impeachment investigation hearings entitle us to grand jury info," which is flat out wrong. Yet, when your error was pointed out to you (with sourcing), you didn't admit your error, but instead back pedaled with a weak "well, they could ARGUE that they're entitled."
In other words, you're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.
And that's not an attack. It's just the simple truth.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)It IS an attack to describe a perfectly reasonable post as "bullying," or "pontificating," or "harping."
It is not harping to point out that the House, not "Congress" votes on articles of impeachment. This is an important point, since we have the majority in the House, and with Pelosi's leadership, absolutely can impeach Trump.
And I am not wrong about the difference between formal impeachment investigation hearings and regular oversight hearings. The former is exempt from grand jury secrecy, the latter is not. We must get Mueller's grand jury info. It's impossible to recreate it through regular oversight hearings, even if we had the time, which we don't.
You and StarfishSaver are quibbling over the meaning of "entitled," while missing the main point, in an apparent attempt to suggest formal impeachment investigation hearings put us in no different legal position than regular oversight hearings, all in what appears to be an angry quest to beat back impeachment talk.
The two types of hearings do not give us the same powers. Formal impeachment investigation hearings are exempt from grand jury secrecy, whereas regular oversight hearings are not. Can we at least agree on that important fact?
I was tag teamed by the same two last week.
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Sometimes, people have personal knowledge of topics. This is one of those times.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)
But this has nothing to do with any desire to obtain "sources and links," as I'm sure you've already figured out ...
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)We have no way of knowing who StarfishSaver is. She could be anybody. That is how this place works.
And even if she was Lawrence Tribe, we still have a right to question/comment on her posts. It smacks of arrogance and condescension to suggest that we should just trust her posts because she supposedly has "personal knowledge." Her posts do not indicate she does.
Karadeniz
(22,513 posts)Personally was being expressed. As I said, questioning and correcting are great and I admire those who do so diplomatically.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)s/he doesn't need to cite links.
There is nothing controversial in what she has written and s/he would have probably had to cite several sources to cover all this material -- if it wasn't something very familiar.
If you question a particular point, then ask about him or her about that.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)One of the errors, that "Congress" votes on articles of impeachment is pretty glaring and consequential to a decision regarding whether Dems can get articles of impeachment passed.
The OP did correct it to "House." This is important since we hold the majority in the House, and with Nancy Pelosi's leadership, can pass articles of impeachment with a simple majority.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)context. It is an informal, informational summary. It is not an interpretation, analysis, argument. Its content can be easily fact-checked. Indeed, the poster graciously corrected in response to feedback.
Your arguing your head off makes no sense to me.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)The OP and her friend were not all that gracious to some of the posters correcting her.
If this was not meant to be "academic" or correct information, then why are you so bummed that people are commenting on it and correcting it?
I'm not "arguing my head off." I'm just responding to posts. Impeachment is an important subject worth responding to posts about. If you disagree, you are free to ignore these threads.
Have a nice evening.
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)like nails raking a chalkboard over and over again. I can’t have a good evening. Your incessant arguing has driven me round the bend. And don’t tell me not to read the thread. Your arguing is
compelling. Next time I read your arguing, I will take a roll of Tums first. I will hand it to you: you
never gave up! 
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)...it's some anonymous poster on a discussion board asking for links that is keeping you from having a good evening?
Ok.
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)they all.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Hang in there!
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)At least two posters in this thread, besides myself, have pointed out the OP incorrectly describes the impeachment process/terms:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12150259
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12146949
The Atlantic has a nice summary of the process:
Procedurally, an impeachment can be brought by a majority vote of the House of Representatives against any civil officer of the federal government. In practice, the House investigates whether impeachment charges would be warranted. If it determines that charges are warranted, articles of impeachment are drafted that specify the various charges against the officer in question and those are voted on by the whole House. Once the Senate receives articles of impeachment from the House, it organizes itself into a court. Senators take an oath to do “impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws” when sitting as judges in that court, and the chief justice of the United States presides over the court in the case of an impeachment of the president. The House appoints managers to prosecute the case before the Senate, and the impeached officer is entitled to present a defense. At the conclusion of the trial, the members of the Senate must vote on each individual article of impeachment. Conviction requires a guilty verdict from two-thirds of the participating senators. Upon conviction, the Senate may impose a punishment of removal from office or disqualification from any future federal office.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/a-primer-on-the-impeachment-power/527052/
Always beware when there is no link.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)given your track record in just this thread alone.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)And regular oversight hearings do not.
Exactly what did I say that was so wrong?
And I provided links, unlike the OP.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Ok
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)For example, I cited Tribe in the Washington Post:
In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no “inherent power” to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.
In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trump’s former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.
In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.
One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.
Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.
But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is “not worth it.” That decision may hamstring Nadler’s quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government “oversight” to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.
For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee — and the public — about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trump’s selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense — unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
Not only would trying to recreate the grand jury testimony be time-consuming and wasteful in a regular oversight hearing, now that the White House has ordered all Trump aides, including McGahn, to not respond to Congressional subpoenas, it will be next to impossible to do it in light of McKeever v. Barr. But not if it is a formal impeachment investigation hearing. That is why we must go this route, and do it immediately. Do you disagree with that?
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)But you also posted several other posts making claims without any sourcing.
The bottom line is that you don't know what you're talking about, we can all see you don't know what you're talking about, you got called out (repeatedly) for not knowing what you're talking about, yet you keep doubling down and and proving how profoundly you don't know what you're talking about. And you do it with a certainty that you're owning people who are running circles around you.
It is what it is.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Three judges said so in McKeever v. Barr. As Tribe put it:
Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
Effie finally agred with that. Why won't you?
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Their words, not mine.
These are YOUR words, not mine.
And when asked for a source for this claim, you repeatedly posted an article that did not say what you said it said. I guess you thought no one could read that, either.
And Effie didn't "finally agreed with that." She never disagreed with what Tribe or the judges said. She just kept reminding you that they didn't say what you kept insisting they said. Finally, you gave up trying to argue BS, admitted that you were misquoting them.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)McKeever used the word exception. Effie did disagree with me at first, and refused to articulate why she thought what I was saying was wrong, until she finally came up with the exception versus exemption thing. Which is fine. When she finally stopped insulting me long enough to discuss the law with me, we finally came to a meeting of the minds.
I was not misquoting Tribe, I quoted him correctly, in bold, using the excerpt button, with link. Here, I'll do it again for you:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
In paraphrasing what he said, I used the word exemption rather than exception, but that does not change the meaning of McKeever nor the point Tribe was making.
Why won't you state whether you agree that impeachment investigation hearings are an exception to grand jury secrecy and oversight hearings are not? That is the important point Tribe was making and that I have been trying to make. That is one of the reasons why the House must commence formal impeachment investigation hearings. The current oversight hearings won't get us the Mueller grand jury info we need.
Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #18)
TwilightZone This message was self-deleted by its author.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)This is common knowledge, legally speaking.
Anyone who wants to can easily check any of the terms that are listed.
Kashkakat v.2.0
(1,752 posts)
James48
(4,435 posts)Impeachment only requires the majority vote of the House, not the full Congress.
Remember, Congress includes both the House (435 members) and the Senate (100 members).
In order to impeach, just like a bill, it needs 218 votes in the House to move forward.
Conviction requires 67 votes in the Senate That is tougher to do.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I made the correction.
FBaggins
(26,731 posts)The process does not begin in committee. No committee has originating authority for such an action. It begins with any member proposing that an inquiry begin... then it's up to the Speaker to determine whether a vote will be held. If it passes, then the speaker assigns a committee to conduct the inquiry. That's usually Judiciary, but she can form a new committee to handle it if she wants to.
3rd error - There's really no point in distinguishing inquiry/investigation/hearings. The assigned committee gets to decide how they will determine whether to recommend impeachment - and it's all part of the inquiry. There's no reason to differentiate... and certainly no reason to say that "investigation" and "inquiry" aren't synonyms in this context.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 3, 2019, 12:10 AM - Edit history (4)
Although it's rarely exercised, the Judiciary Committee chair actually does have "originating authority" for impeachment ("The committee chair could undertake such an activity either on his or her own, in response to an introduced and referred resolution, or in response to a vote of the full House" https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R41110.html#_Toc301785618). For example, the inquiry that led to the impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings originated in the Judiciary Committee. .
But even if the action is based on a resolution introduced on the floor and referred to the committee, if an impeachment inquiry is to begin, the process actually does begin in committee. When an impeachment resolution is introduced, like most other bills, it is immediately referred to committee where it is acted upon or dies. Until the committee acts on it, it is a non-starter, so it is correct to say the process begins in committee since, unless the committee takes action, the impeachment process isn't triggered. In each Congress over the past several years, Members have introduced impeachment resolutions and they died after referral to committee.
There are currently at least two impeachment resolutions sitting in committees awaiting action - one introduced by Brad Sherman, the other introduced by Rashida Tlaib. Both resolutions were introduced on the Floor and referred to committee (Judiciary and Rules, respectively) the same day they were introduced. To date, neither committee has taken any action.
And it is completely appropriate to differentiate between an inquiry, an investigation and a hearing - because they are different things. As you said yourself, investigations and hearings are "all part of the inquiry" which is exactly my point. An investigation and hearings are subsets of an inquiry. "Investigation" is not synonymous with "inquiry" because an inquiry can include aspects that aren't investigatory and an inquiry can occur without hearings and without investigations.
I hope this is helpful to you.
Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #59)
SunSeeker This message was self-deleted by its author.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Wow.
You gleefully inserted yourself into a thread in which I made an error recently. And that involved the Op as well. No hard feelings. Mueller himself agreed with my position a few days later when he felt it vital to address the nation on TV.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)CaptainTruth
(6,589 posts)"no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3)"
[link:https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm|
Which has made me wonder if some Senators might not show up for the vote, to avoid going on the record one way or another? What if a bunch of Republican senators didn't show up for Trump conviction & removal votes? And is there a quorum requirement?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Their absence would reduce the number of guilty votes needed to convict.
brer cat
(24,562 posts)K&R
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... in order to induce the impeachment ... VOTE ... they do not want the investigations.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)It's not just the GOP. The media and lots of people on this site do it, too. That's why I broke it down for everyone.
An impeachment inquiry isn't "impeachment." There's a difference between opening an impeachment inquiry and impeaching. And an impeachment inquiry does not consist only of confrontational hearings intended to reveal wrongdoing and produce made-for-tv Perry Mason moments. If done right, it's a thorough, deliberative and sober process and while compelling, often quite boring.
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,490 posts)the distinction between an impeachment conviction in the House (very damning in itself, IMO) and the removal from office phase in the Senate, which I suppose could be called the sentencing phase as in a regular jury trial.
.........
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The investigations prior to and during the impeachment inquiry are like police investigations, the development of and vote on the Articles of Impeachment in committee is like the presentation to the grand jury, and, as you said, the House vote on impeachment is like the indictment. And the Senate vote is the trial.
Rough analogies, but they're helpful.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I'm sure she does, as do all serving House members. They should not and will not be fooled by the KGOP into jumping to an impeachment vote without the evidence lined up. That is why we must proceed with formal impeachment investigation hearings. That is the best, most powerful way to get the evidence, and if done in open hearings, the most powerful way to disseminate it to the American people via the media, as Hillary counselled us to do.
Hillary is calling for formal impeachment investigation hearings:
During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee also began a formal impeachment inquiry that was led by John Doar, a widely respected former Justice Department official and hero of the civil rights struggle. He was determined to run a process that the public and history would judge as fair and thorough, no matter the outcome. If today’s House proceeds to an impeachment inquiry, I hope it will find someone as distinguished and principled as Doar to lead it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.108a5648959e
Do you think the Trump wants an impeachment inquiry? I'm sure he doesn't. Did you hear him go off about how "disgusting" the "i-word" is yesterday? He is spooked.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)
Celerity
(43,339 posts)All I am hoping for atm is the House opening an impeachment inquiry in the next several months that may very well include an investigation and hearings. hat gives us a more robust toolkit to further investigate and compel evidence and testimony.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)- AG Barr would be first, then a number of other trump admin officials
- trump should have one going in next several months, its a way to hanstring him and GOP into defending him even with an inquiry.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Regular oversight hearings don't.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Whether to disclose such material is a completely within a judge's discretion ("The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter".) and the judge may also refuse to allow anyone to have it. Moreover, the judge also has the discretion to disclose such material in certain other types of non-judicial proceedings, including those "preliminary" to an impeachment proceeding.
So, while it may be easier for Congress to convince a judge to allow it access to grand jury material if it opens an impeachment inquiry, contrary to your claim, an impeachment investigation doesn't "entitle" "us," Congress or anyone else to access grand jury information. (Since you're clearly a stickler for accuracy, I'm sure you will appreciate the correction of your erroneous assertion).
You can find this in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(D) and 6(E).
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)But at least we could argue that we are entitled to it because formal impeachment investigation hearings are judiciary in nature and exempt from the grand jury secrecy rule, unlike regular oversight hearings.
We stand no chance of getting Mueller's grand jury info if all we're doing is regular oversight hearings, even with a good non-Trumper judge.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And a panel's status as an impeachment body doesn't automatically entitle it to obtain materials. It simply gives it "standing" to make an argument. It still has to prove to the judge's satisfaction that it has a compelling need for the materials it seeks. If the judge thinks they haven't met that burden, he or she won't permit them to have the materials, although the fact that they are seeking the materials as part of an impeachment proceeding will likely be one of several factors weighed by the judge in deciding whether their need is compelling enough to warrant disclosure.
FYI - I notice you didn't provide links or sources for any of your claims about "entitlement" to grand jury materials. Apparently references aren't as important as you claim - or are they just required dor people with whom you disagree?
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I didn't say it "automatically entitled them." Like I said, having a right to something does not mean you'll get it. Ask a poor woman in Mississippi who wants an abortion.
The fact is, formal impeachment investigation hearings are exempt from grand jury secrecy, regular oversight hearings are not. Can we at least agree on this important fact?
As Lawrence Tribe stated in the Washington Post:
In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no “inherent power” to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.
In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trump’s former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.
In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.
One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.
Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.
But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is “not worth it.” That decision may hamstring Nadler’s quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government “oversight” to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.
For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee — and the public — about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trump’s selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense — unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
Not only would trying to recreate the grand jury testimony be time-consuming and wasteful in a regular oversight hearing, now that the White House has ordered all Trump aides, including McGahn, to not respond to Congressional subpoenas, it will be next to impossible to do it in light of case law. But not if it is a formal impeachment investigation hearing. That is why we must go this route, and do it immediately.
So, you don't have to believe me, just listen to Lawrence Tribe.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Impeachment inquiries (not just "impeachment investigation hearings" - remember, the terms are not synonymous) are among several types of proceedings to which a court, in its discretion, has the authority, but is not required, to allow grand jury material be disclosed.
This is not the same as an "impeachment investigation hearing are exempt from grand jury secrecy." You may think that is "nit-picking," but the law is all about nit-picking.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I was trying to be specific, that is why I am referring to impeachment investigation hearings, so you don't go off on a tangent quibbling about what I am referring to and avoiding answering my question. Alas, my efforts were for naught.
The issue is impeachment versus regular oversight hearings. That is what the debate over how we should proceed is about. Can we at least agree that impeachment investigation hearings are exempt from grand jury secrecy, whereas regular oversight hearings are not?
I am referring to the 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, by the federal court of appeals in Washington, which reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no “inherent power” to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it, so long as all they are doing is regular oversight hearings. As Tribe said, the House has a way to cope with this obstacle, "if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so." As Tribe poimted out, all three judges in McKeever v. Barr agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.
It's a yes or no question: Do you agree that impeachment investigation hearings are exempt from grand jury secrecy, whereas regular oversight hearings are not?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)because it's not true, no matter how many times you say it.
"Exempt" means that grand jury secrecy doesn't apply to them. It does apply. It's simply that there are limited instances in which a court can make an exception (which is different than an entity being "exempt".) and allow them to see specific material. You may not understand or care about the distinction, but there is one.
I am very familiar with McKeever, as well as Tribe's analyses of it. It does not hold what you think it does and it certainly doesn't support your argument. In fact, neither the case nor Professor Tribe's analysis are even relevant to the point you're trying to make.
But you are certain in your legal interpretations, so I'll just leave you to yourself.
Have a good evening.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)It's pointless wasting your time and skill arguing against foolishness.
But some of us appreciate your effort and patience.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)SMH
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)is indeed foolish.
That's not an attack. It's just a statement of fact.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I have learned quite a bit from Tribe. I never "refuse" to "learn anything." Good grief. You are really angry.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Their words, not mine.
Night night.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)So, what's your source for your claim that "Tribe and all three McKeever judges say impeachment inquiries are exempt from grand jury secrecy. Their words, not mine"?
Given your belief in the importance of sources and links, you surely can post a link to your source for claiming "their words" say that impeachment inquiries are "exempt" from grand jury secrecy.
Looking forward to your response, Counselor.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)As Lawrence Tribe stated in the Washington Post:
In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no “inherent power” to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.
In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trump’s former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.
In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.
One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.
Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.
But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is “not worth it.” That decision may hamstring Nadler’s quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government “oversight” to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.
For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee — and the public — about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trump’s selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense — unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And where did "all three judges" say it?
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
The three judges use the word "exception," not exemption. I have been using exception and exemption interchangeably since they basically mean the same thing in this context. But if that bothers you, I'll stick to just "exception."
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)and neither did any of the judges.
Thank you.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)And it was all three judges. You're welcome.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But you think it is, so whatever ...
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)to release grand jury materials.
And with that, this portion of the discussion is concluded.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)That is one of the reasons why I (along with Elizabeth Warren, and Tribe, and Hillary) have been calling for formal impeachment investigation hearings.
We're not all a bunch of "know nothing" "harpies" who "always refuse to learn." We passionately care about our country, the Democratic Party, and justice.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)with no link, mind you - which you had to be corrected on by more than one poster until you finally had to admit you were wrong - and then devolved from there into several other blatant misstatements of fact and law blossoming into a dazzling display of how woefully limited your legal interpretation skills are.
Hence the at the sight of you having the nerve to criticize anyone else in this thread.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Regular oversight hearings do not fall under one of the exceptions for grand jury secrecy, whereas impeachment investigation hearings do. I cited Tribe and McKeever v Barr, with links.
We must proceed with a formal impeachment inquiry. We need Mueller's grand jury info, and that's the only way we can get it.
Maybe this is a game or funny for you, but this is deadly serious for our country.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)And you failed to include a source or link, which makes sense since you probably couldn't find a source for such a blatantly bogus argument.
You do realize we can still see what you posted, right? Trying to pretend you said something different fails when we can just read what you said.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts) Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Given sanctimonious condemnation and resulting dismissal of everything in the OP because of a lack of links and poor choice of a couple of words (which she acknowledged and corrected or clarified), your casual dismissal of your own false, inaccurate and unsourced statements is a textbook example of it.
No, I'm not bummed at all. I'm actually somewhat impressed by your chutzpah.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I am not holding my self out as an impeachment expert and posting OPs that incorrectly define impeachment terms, without any citations. There is no "hypocrisy" in my posts. I am genuinely trying to discuss thd law, and citing where I am getting my information. If I am paraphrasing Tribe imprecisely, then point that out, and tell me what word you would like me to use, like Effie did (she thought it important that I say exception, not exemption). I gave you where I am getting my information from, so it is quite easy for you to do so, unlike with the OP.
Again, do you agree that impeachment investigation hearings are exceptions to grand jury secrecy, whereas regular oversight hearings are not?
FBaggins
(26,731 posts)The committee would have a better argument for the judge to release (on the theory that they are essentially a judicial proceeding), but that is by no means a guarantee. They would still have to get the judge to agree... they couldn't just send over the order and claim that they're entitled to it.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts) FBaggins
(26,731 posts)I think it’s likely that they would rule the same way if the question were properly before them... but I’m not sure how SCOTUS would deal with it.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)He would use it to block any attempts to get Mueller's grand jury info by the House regular oversight committees, as Tribe notes.
And yes, whether impeachment inquiries are exempt may not have been squarely before them, but it is right in the same opinion, in the portion signed off on by all three judges, and would amount to very persuasive authority.
Of course anyone reading that would think they would rule the same way if the question was squarely before them. That's what makes it so persuasive, and presumably why Tribe wrote that Op Ed urging this course of action.
What the Supremes would do is anybody's guess...about everything. But until they opine on the subject to the contrary, federal appeals court rulings are the law (unless there's a split on the subject, which there doesn't appear to be).
Do you agree with Tribe and the McKeever panel that impeachment inquiries are judiciary proceedings exempt from grand jury secrecy?
FBaggins
(26,731 posts)I don't know whether they ruled correctly, but there's no question that their ruling will likely keep grand jury materials from the committee absent an impeachment inquiry.
Do you agree with Tribe and the McKeever panel that impeachment inquiries are judiciary proceedings exempt from grand jury secrecy?
I'm not sure. I think a better argument would be that the Senate trial counts as a "judicial proceeding" and therefore the House inquiry is "preliminary to" that proceeding. But that still leaves some procedural language that doesn't seem to fit.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Bookmarking.
So glad you're here!
Karadeniz
(22,513 posts)I think I've read all your posts and am always benefited, so thank you for your efforts. As a retired teacher, I appreciate organized, clear writing...not that nonteachers don't!
Don't be like me and get all depressed by one or two replies that seem a tad aggressive. One person accused me of proselytizing and made me so mad, I wouldn't so much as open the DU site for awhile.
One thing we Americans (sorry) seem to be short on is tact. The morning after we moved to England, I was waiting for a bus into Oxford. When one came, I asked (raising my voice a dab since I stayed on the sidewalk) if he was going to Oxford. No. As he drove off, a tiny, white-haired woman scuttled to me and so sweetly said, "Here, when we need to question someone, we begin with 'Excuse me...'" She was genuinely wanting to help me with some good advice, so I didn't mind at all....well, I believe I may have thought that we Americans strive to be blunt and to the point so as not to waste another's time!
After day one, never again did I approach a stranger without making sure, by stating "excuse me," that it was okay to temporarily interrupt someone's life. One instance stands out. I was toodling around villages in my decrepit Morris Minor with a French friend and we were totally lost. I finally saw a man mowing his lawn near his house. The house stood atop a very long hill leading down to the street. Naturally, I had to scream "excuse me" due to the distance and the mower noise. I got his attention! He threw down the mower and ran down the hill; I asked my question; he trotted off. My friend couldn't believe that someone would go so out of his way to be nice to a stranger! Actually, I didn't even notice, having gotten used to the magic key that opened up British manners! ❤
So please excuse us if we seem blunt or abrasive. Many DUers either instinctively know or have developed the talent of questioning or correcting in ways that keep a good relationship with a poster. I know I'm learning from them!
And...I love your nom de plume. I bet it's from the story about someone throwing starfish back into the ocean. Love that story.
Kara
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And what a lovely story.
Thank you!
And, yes. That's where my name came from!
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)I've recently read another story about the so-called "Seattle freeze." I've lived her so long I don't even notice, but I might try the "excuse me method" next time I feel like initiating a conversation with a stranger. Maybe it would work here, too. 
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)Saved re:impeachment
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Impeachment is not "a determination...….that a federal official has committed a high crime or misdemeanor", but rather, like an indictment, it is a determination that a majority of the House members believe that there is a sufficient amount of evidence against a federal official to warrant a trial in the Senate. That is where the determination is made as to whether or not the federal official has actually committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
It's not a small difference. If it was as you say, there would be no need for a trial in the Senate.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)WillowTree
(5,325 posts)After that I didn't bother to absorb much of the rest.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I see impeachment as the House's determination that the crimes have been committed and it is up to the Senate to convict and remove, but that is probably not the best way to say it since it suggests that they have reached a verdict. I like your description much better than mine.
Thanks!
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Like Grand Jury's result, it just a determination that there is sufficient evidence to cause a trial.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The Constitution is silent on this.
We tend to try to equate it to aspects of criminal indictments and trials - although the parallels aren't exact, it makes it easier to understand.
George II
(67,782 posts)...to proceed. What that eventually may be, that's up to the Democratic leadership.
It's not an easy decision, and fraught with pitfalls. Let's hope they make the right choice and prevail.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)Which is why I trust her to signal when impeachment is appropriate.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)And of course she went through her husband's impeachment. Hillary recently wrote an Op Ed advising we commence a formal televised impeachment inquiry, saying Watergate was the "better" precedent to follow, that we could do it "today":
During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee also began a formal impeachment inquiry that was led by John Doar, a widely respected former Justice Department official and hero of the civil rights struggle. He was determined to run a process that the public and history would judge as fair and thorough, no matter the outcome. If today’s House proceeds to an impeachment inquiry, I hope it will find someone as distinguished and principled as Doar to lead it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.108a5648959e
Response to SunSeeker (Reply #109)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)This is very helpful
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I reposted this OP since this thread has gotten bogged down with a lot off-topic infighting.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212150822
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)I am active in the local Democratic lawyers association and one of our members has a nice book on impeachment. Barbara is a former biglaw firm partner who ran for US senate
Link to tweet
I have a copy fo Barbara’s book and it is great
Kashkakat v.2.0
(1,752 posts)seem to be using words without regard to their true meanings. Guess I expect better from the DU crowd!
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Made a couple of corrections and added sources (although I doubt anyone who demanded them have any genuine interest in the information they contain) in order to try to clear away some of the underbrush and confusion sowed in this thread.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212150822
George II
(67,782 posts)....and none have succeeded (although Nixon would most certainly have been convicted in the Senate if he hadn't resigned)
It's not something to be taken lightly.
SWBTATTReg
(22,114 posts)take care and thank you so much.
hadEnuf
(2,189 posts)Perhaps when some people stop trying to split hairs to the point of talking themselves out of it, an impeachment inquiry can be started to flesh-out Trump's crimes to the country and the hairsplitting details can be worked out at that time.
The next election will be lost either by Russian military-grade hacking or by milquetoast Democrats who are perceived as useless politicians who stand for nothing.
Holding Trump accountable at least gives us a chance.
LakeArenal
(28,817 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)There is broad agreement that an open impeachment inquiry could help the Judiciary Committee argue that it has a right to information otherwise protected by grand jury secrecy rules. That information includes certain portions of the Mueller report that Attorney General William P. Barr blacked out, as well as underlying evidence like transcripts of witness testimony before a grand jury.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently issued a ruling that put forward a narrow view of when courts may let outsiders, like members of Congress, see grand jury information. The decision’s reasoning called into question how it had been legal for the court, back in 1974, to permit the grand jury investigating the Watergate scandal to share its evidence with the House Judiciary Committee. But rather than overruling that precedent, the court decided the sharing of information could be interpreted as falling under an exception in the rules that permits such sharing when it is needed for “judicial” proceedings — and impeachment proceedings are like a judicial process.
Under that logic, if there was an impeachment inquiry opened against Mr. Trump, the House Judiciary Committee could invoke the Nixon-era precedent as a legal basis to ask a judge to let it see Mr. Mueller’s grand jury evidence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/donald-trump-impeachment.html
That NYT link is indeed helpful. Wish that was put in the OP. The NYT does a good job of accurately defining the terms as well, unlike the OP.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)After you posted an outright false claim that an impeachment inquiry “entitles us” to grand jury materials that, despite being shown you were wrong, you stubbornly hung on to until, after several tries, people got you to admit your error, only for you to spout more false information that people finally got you, after several tries, to admit was inaccurate, you eventually came around to saying the same thing the NY Times said, which no one you were arguing with had ever contested in the first place
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)We may have a breakthrough here....
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)It didn’t work out so well for you the last time you tried this gambit.
“Impeachment hearings entitle us to grand jury info”
No, they don’t.
“Well, we could argue that we’re entitled to them.”
That’s not the same as being entitled to them.
(Trying to change the subject)
“Can we at least agree that impeachment investigation hearings are exempt from grand jury secrecy?”
They’re not exempt.
“Yes, they are.”
No, they’re not exempt.
“Yes, they are. Tribe and three judges say impeachment inquiries are exempt from grand jury secrecy.”
No, they didn’t say they’re exempt.
“Yes, they did say they’re exempt.”
Show me where they used the word “exempt.”
“They didn’t use that exact word. They said exception. It’s the same thing.”
No, it’s not the same thing. They mean two different things under the law.
“Ok, fine. Will you agree that impeachment inquiries are “excepted?”
No. They fall within a category of proceedings in which a judge has the discretion to make an exception and disclose the materials, if they see fit.
“That’s my point! We can get Mueller’s grand jury info with impeachment, but not with oversight hearings.”
No, your point was that impeachment hearings entitle us to grand jury info. That’s not true.
“Is that it? You’re bummed that I used the word ‘entitled’l?
Not bummed. Just amused at your belief that no one can see you talking in circles.
And you’re trying it again, seemingly under the misapprehension that we don’t remember you playing - and failing miserably - at your little game just a couple of days ago.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts) pnwmom
(108,977 posts)I have one question. What is your personal opinion about whether we should be advocating for opening an impeachment inquiry? Is there any reason we shouldn't? I realize Nancy can't do it on her own -- she needs to have the backing of 218 to get a resolution passed.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)In fact, that advocacy is an important part of the process. If people enough people let their representatives know that's what they want and expect, it is much more likely to happen.
But yelling at Nancy Pelosi because your representative isn't onboard is useless.
And claiming that everyone will get on board if Pelosi just tells them to not only isn't true but I can only imagine their reaction if Pelosi started pushing Members around to force them to support something folks around here didn't support. They surely wouldn't be so eager to insist that a Speaker should force her caucus to take an action they aren't ready to take.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)So I'm going to my first Town Hall next Saturday.
https://townhallproject.com
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)
egduj
(805 posts)No Impeachment = no impeachment.
PatrickforO
(14,572 posts)A happy, factual post!
CaptainTruth
(6,589 posts)As I think I understand it, the first is a vote to convict & requires 2/3 of the members present to pass. (Which makes me wonder about Senators not showing up for the vote if they don't want to be on the record one way or the other? Also, is there a quorum requirement?)
The second vote is to remove the person from office & bar them from ever holding office in the future, & requires just a simple majority to pass. This vote is only held if the first vote passes. (I'm not sure if this is only federal office, or state/local as well?)
Please correct me if I got anything wrong.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Conviction and removal is one vote - if the president (or any other impeached official) is found guilty by a 2/3 vote, they're automatically removed from office.
However, if they are removed, the Senate can then take a second vote to disqualify them from ever holding federal appointed office. That disqualification can be passed with a simple majority vote. Of course, we've never had such a vote in a presidential impeachment because neither impeached president was convicted.
CaptainTruth
(6,589 posts)The first vote (2/3 of members present, which is not necessarily 67 votes) is to convict AND remove from office.
The second vote is to bar from office (simple majority of members present).
And from what you said that only applies to federal office. So an impeached & barred POTUS could be a state legislator, or governor, etc.
I've found it difficult to find sources with this level of detail. For example there are hundreds (thousands) of articles that talk about how a president impeached in the House can be convicted & removed from office in the Senate, but I'm the guy who asks "OK, if that happened to Trump before the election, what's to stop him from running again in 2020, maybe as an independent?" He's so far outside all norms & has such a huge ego he'd probably do it if he could. That's how I learned about the second Senate vote to bar from office. I didn't know about that until recently.
Thanks again!
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)So, I don't think he'd be barred from running again.
Yikes!
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)Most helpful. I will be bookmarking for reference as things progress.
Me.
(35,454 posts)
