Help me to understand the impeachment process

[whosinpower]

What exactly does impeachment mean?

If congress goes through with the impeachment thing and it succeeds - what happens? Does it go to the senate? And even if it succeeds in the Senate - then what happens?

Because it seems to me that the latest Bush refusal indicates that he has some sort of immunity factor that we may not be aware of. It is like he is asking for the dems to pull the impeachment trigger.

Seems like the only way to get these a$$es is to put them in jail - -for surely their actions are criminal in the highest sense. However - Wolfowitz loses his job and gets a full pension and a 1 year salary parachute. Rumsfeld is still going strong....and Blair might just be the next president of the World bank.

And yet - to prosecute them, we must go through the court system, and it is readily apparant that the court system is corrupt and broken. You have Rice who simply IGNORES subpoena's and Gonzales who simply IGNORES subpoena's regarding documents that Congress needs to investigate. Gonzales faces a no confidence vote - but what does that mean? Can Congress fire him? Do they have the authority?

[GOTV]

1. Answers

> If congress goes through with the impeachment thing and it
> succeeds - what happens? Does it go to the senate?

Yes

> And even if it succeeds in the Senate - then what happens?

Bush is no longer preseident and can no longer hold public office. Cheney becomes president.

> Because it seems to me that the latest Bush refusal
> indicates that he has some sort of immunity factor
> that we may not be aware of. It is like he is asking
> for the dems to pull the impeachment trigger.

Well, 25 years of conservative rule has so enfeebled the judiciary that he may well be immune to congress.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Here is the analogy from normal life

Impeachment is equivalent to a conviction before a grand jury. At that point this goes to trial before a Jury of your peers, in this case the US Senate

The president or Judge presiding over the process in the Senate, the court part, is the US Supreme Court Justice

It is both a legalistic, by intent, and political process.

You need to have the evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, which by the way in 18th century England did not quite mean running a red, they were crimes as in serious crimes... and high crimes... that is the only place in American Jurisprudence that they are truly mentioned... we should ask our british brethren what those mean. It is a judicial event, but one where you also need the political capital to burn. It has transormed itself into a political act. After all, when the Consitution was written, none of the authors expected factions to become the way of life in the United States, by that I mean political parties

If you indict, but don't convict, well the person walks. Period.

[SteppingRazor]

If articles of impeachment pass in the House...

then a trial is held in the Senate. In order to convict an official (the president, for example), you need the votes of 2/3 of the Senate. That's 67 senators. So, Bush can afford to just thumb his nose at Congress. There's not enough votes in the Senate to throw him out.

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. But you have to wonder if it's enough to piss off Republicans

and Independents who usually vote Republican. It's not just Democrats that are pissed off and think he should be Impeached. The Cons look to their (dwindling) base. Senators that are up for re-election might find themselves in even more hotwater, particularly when it's compared to a more recent Impeachment of the previous duly elected President.

It's quickly becoming a coin toss for the Minority.

[SteppingRazor]

9. Certainly, GOP senators are feeling heat, but nowhere near enough...

to toss the president out.

67 senators means we'd need to get every Democrat to vote to throw Bush out, as well as 16 GOP senators. Even the former isn't a sure thing. Lieberman (Yes, I know he isn't a Democrat. He caucuses with us, so I'm lumping him in), Pryor, Landrieu and probably half a dozen others can't be reliably counted upon to vote to remove Bush.

And then there's the 16 GOP senators. Who would we get? Gordon Smith, maybe. Possibly Hagel and Specter. A very slim chance of either Collins or Snowe. But that's it.

Like it or not, impeachment's a pipe dream at this point. At least, impeachment of the president is. I think the V-P or the A-G are a bit more likely.

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. Doubts on Hagel, but there might be a few surprisers

Grassley - he made a point about being noted as voting Yes on the subpoenas for Gonzo and he's still pushing about no progress on the anthrax investigation
Kyl (yes, Kyl) - Arizona might push him to "the rule of law"

Anyway, I think there are more in play that we're aware of. JMHO.

[Rydz777]

3. The House indicts; the Senate is the jury. If the Senate convicts,

he is out of office. The problem is that this takes a lot of time. We are stuck with him for 18 months. Then we get a Democratic President who will have a monumental mess to try to clean up.

[BlooInBloo]

6. And Chief Justice presides.

[Spazito]

4. Here is a really good explanation of impeachment, imo

What is Impeachment?

Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal. Most references to impeachment, however, encompass the entire process, beginning with the House's impeachment inquiry. The term will be used in that broader sense here. By design, impeachment is a complex series of steps and procedures undertaken by the legislature. The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, "all civil officers," includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.

The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.

The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.

The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.

The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.

If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.




http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

[BuyingThyme]

5. Impeachment for kids:

Remember that Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs would test bombs by smacking them with a huge mallet? If the bomb didn't explode, Bugs would mark it with the word "DUD," and pass it along to the dud pile...

That's what impeachment is -- the marking of the foreheads of public officers with the word "DUD." But you first have to smack them with a huge mallet.

[Bitwit1234]

7. Even tho

bush would not be removed from office, and we all know that, I think impeachment would be a good thing. It would show that the Democrats and the American people are not sitting still for his corruption.

And remember, in an impeachment request and trial, the congress will bring up each and every single solitary crooked, immoral and illegal act this excuse for a president has done. The republicans might not vote to impeach him, but the truth would be out there and that would be another nail in their coffin when it comes to getting elected.

If the MSM did the job they should be doing, then they would emphasize the fact that the 109th congress majority made up by republicans enabled this president to do these things. It would help to get their butts thrown out of office.

I say he must be brought up on charges of impeachment, even tho they don't go thru. Aren't we all wishing that.