slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Vince Mongiardo, Attorney at Law

While this question and the underlying assertion by Sen. Graham are meant to evoke an emotional response, I'll try to keep my response factual and not to editorialize.

Not unfair, but, because of the president's and his defenders' behavior, dangerous to the rule of law. First, some basics that (unfortunately for some) need spelling out:

1) Impeachment is not a criminal process that requires adherence to the normal, 5th Amendment concepts of due process. Instead, as clearly recognized by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 65, it is a purely political process (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th...). Even the Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, specifically says, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States...," though the impeached individual would still be subject to criminal liability outside the impeachment process (that's where your 5th Amendment due process rights would apply).

2) The House of Representatives is granted the sole power of impeachment, under Article I, Section 2 (last paragraph), of the United States Constitution (https://usconstitution.net/xcons...).

3) Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution spells out the impeachable offenses of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Along with the (probably) straightforward "Treason" and "Bribery," impeachable "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," according to Hamilton, represent "the abuse or violation of some public trust." As a purely political matter, though, and as recognized by former President Gerald Ford before he took office upon Nixon's resignation, "An impeachable offense is wh**ever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Succinctly, the absence of a crime does not equate to the absence of an impeachable offense.

4) The Constitution doesn't spell out how the House is to go about its business in reaching a decision on impeachment. But generally speaking, the proceedings in the House must follow the House Rules adopted at the beginning of each "new" Congress. The House Rules adopted at the beginning of the current (116th) Congress are at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/..., and they are reportedly, by and large, the same rules as adopted by the House when under a Republican majority (see https://www.nationalmemo.com/hou..., which references a Republican-made change to the rules in 2015, that stripped minority committee members' say in subpoena issuance). I haven't found a House Rule that requires a v**e of the entire House to begin an impeachment inquiry, and the Constitution itself is silent on that. As far as I can tell, standing committees, like Oversight and Foreign Affairs, generally have the authority and discretion to hold hearings to investigate matters within their respective purview in furtherance of a legislative purpose (including determining the need for, and the drafting of, legislation), without a v**e of the full House. It follows, then, that each of these committees has a legitimate interest in the matters brought up by the whistleblower's complaint and confirmed by released documents and public statements of the president and his advisers.

5) The president has not yet been impeached. Three House standing committees (Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs) are conducting the inquiry. The full House will get a chance to v**e on impeachment itself if the committees find enough compelling evidence of one or more "violation[s] of some public trust" on the part of the president.

That's it for the primer.

So, first, has the process been "fair" on the part of the House leadership and the three standing committees jointly conducting the inquiry? This can be a subjective question, but if they are following established House rules, how can it not be fair? Near as I can tell, it's House Rule XI, clauses 2(g) and 2(k)(5) that allows the standing committees (including those involved in the impeachment inquiry) to hold closed hearings, to the exclusion of House members not on those committees. There's no evidence that the minority members of those committees are being excluded from participating in those closed-door hearings. In fact, I've read somewhere that a full quarter of the Republican-minority are in those closed-door hearings because they have membership on one of the committees conducting them. [Edit: Apparently, at least one of the House Republicans entitled to participate in the closed-door hearings isn’t even attending, nor has he bothered reading the testimony: GOP Congressman* Admits He Could Have Gone to Impeachment Hearings But Didn’t, Hasn’t Read Testimony.]

What I do think is not fair is that members of the House and Senate are drawing a salary meant to pay for their tending to the interests of the American public (the "General Welfare," so to speak), but, instead, they're seemingly spending their time defending the president, including time organizing and executing the storm-the-gates incident, etc. Another observation along these lines: How can one label the majority in the House as "do-nothing Democrats," when the majority leader in the Senate publicly brags about his chamber being the "legislation graveyard" for any Democratic legislative priority coming from the House? If the House majority were able to consider legislation without the certainty that their time was being wasted because of a majority in the Senate more focused on reshaping the judiciary, perhaps they'd have less time to scrutinize the president's behavior. Just sayin'.

Has the impeachment inquiry so far been dangerous? Yes, but because of the actions of the president, his White House, and his allies in and out of his administration. The rule of law is in jeopardy. Our Constitution establishes that no one is above the law. The president swore his constitutional oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President," and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." 1) Impeachment is not a "phony" provision of the Constitution; and 2) any executive agency's refusal to supply documents requested by the Oversight Committee is a violation of 5 U.S.C 2954 (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xh...). Yet the president claims the first (that impeachment is phony) -- in violation of his oath -- and directs his administration to ignore the second - in violation of his oath and of federal law. If Republicans don't believe the president should be held to account, then they claim, by extension, that the president (or any president) is above the law. Talk about slippery slopes; this one literally tops them all.

So that's my answer.

*I believe that to be Ted Yoho...slatten49

https://contemptor.com/2019/10/29/gop-congressman-with-right-to-attend-impeachment-hearings-says-he-hasnt-gone-to-any-yet/

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

[quote=slatten49]Vince Mongiardo, Attorney at Law

While this question and the underlying assertion by Sen. Graham are meant to evoke an emotional response, I'll try to keep my response factual and not to editorialize.

Not unfair, but, because of the president's and his defenders' behavior, dangerous to the rule of law. First, some basics that (unfortunately for some) need spelling out:

1) Impeachment is not a criminal process that requires adherence to the normal, 5th Amendment concepts of due process. Instead, as clearly recognized by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 65, it is a purely political process (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th...). Even the Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, specifically says, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States...," though the impeached individual would still be subject to criminal liability outside the impeachment process (that's where your 5th Amendment due process rights would apply).

2) The House of Representatives is granted the sole power of impeachment, under Article I, Section 2 (last paragraph), of the United States Constitution (https://usconstitution.net/xcons...).

3) Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution spells out the impeachable offenses of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Along with the (probably) straightforward "Treason" and "Bribery," impeachable "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," according to Hamilton, represent "the abuse or violation of some public trust." As a purely political matter, though, and as recognized by former President Gerald Ford before he took office upon Nixon's resignation, "An impeachable offense is wh**ever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Succinctly, the absence of a crime does not equate to the absence of an impeachable offense.

4) The Constitution doesn't spell out how the House is to go about its business in reaching a decision on impeachment. But generally speaking, the proceedings in the House must follow the House Rules adopted at the beginning of each "new" Congress. The House Rules adopted at the beginning of the current (116th) Congress are at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/..., and they are reportedly, by and large, the same rules as adopted by the House when under a Republican majority (see https://www.nationalmemo.com/hou..., which references a Republican-made change to the rules in 2015, that stripped minority committee members' say in subpoena issuance). I haven't found a House Rule that requires a v**e of the entire House to begin an impeachment inquiry, and the Constitution itself is silent on that. As far as I can tell, standing committees, like Oversight and Foreign Affairs, generally have the authority and discretion to hold hearings to investigate matters within their respective purview in furtherance of a legislative purpose (including determining the need for, and the drafting of, legislation), without a v**e of the full House. It follows, then, that each of these committees has a legitimate interest in the matters brought up by the whistleblower's complaint and confirmed by released documents and public statements of the president and his advisers.

5) The president has not yet been impeached. Three House standing committees (Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs) are conducting the inquiry. The full House will get a chance to v**e on impeachment itself if the committees find enough compelling evidence of one or more "violation[s] of some public trust" on the part of the president.

That's it for the primer.

So, first, has the process been "fair" on the part of the House leadership and the three standing committees jointly conducting the inquiry? This can be a subjective question, but if they are following established House rules, how can it not be fair? Near as I can tell, it's House Rule XI, clauses 2(g) and 2(k)(5) that allows the standing committees (including those involved in the impeachment inquiry) to hold closed hearings, to the exclusion of House members not on those committees. There's no evidence that the minority members of those committees are being excluded from participating in those closed-door hearings. In fact, I've read somewhere that a full quarter of the Republican-minority are in those closed-door hearings because they have membership on one of the committees conducting them. [Edit: Apparently, at least one of the House Republicans entitled to participate in the closed-door hearings isn’t even attending, nor has he bothered reading the testimony: GOP Congressman Admits He Could Have Gone to Impeachment Hearings But Didn’t, Hasn’t Read Testimony.]

What I do think is not fair is that members of the House and Senate are drawing a salary meant to pay for their tending to the interests of the American public (the "General Welfare," so to speak), but, instead, they're seemingly spending their time defending the president, including time organizing and executing the storm-the-gates incident, etc. Another observation along these lines: How can one label the majority in the House as "do-nothing Democrats," when the majority leader in the Senate publicly brags about his chamber being the "legislation graveyard" for any Democratic legislative priority coming from the House? If the House majority were able to consider legislation without the certainty that their time was being wasted because of a majority in the Senate more focused on reshaping the judiciary, perhaps they'd have less time to scrutinize the president's behavior. Just sayin'.

Has the impeachment inquiry so far been dangerous? Yes, but because of the actions of the president, his White House, and his allies in and out of his administration. The rule of law is in jeopardy. Our Constitution establishes that no one is above the law. The president swore his constitutional oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President," and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." 1) Impeachment is not a "phony" provision of the Constitution; and 2) any executive agency's refusal to supply documents requested by the Oversight Committee is a violation of 5 U.S.C 2954 (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xh...). Yet the president claims the first (that impeachment is phony) -- in violation of his oath -- and directs his administration to ignore the second - in violation of his oath and of federal law. If Republicans don't believe the president should be held to account, then they claim, by extension, that the president (or any president) is above the law. Talk about slippery slopes; this one literally tops them all.

So that's my answer. [/quote]

Good article..

Much better than the last...

Liberty Tree

[quote=slatten49]Vince Mongiardo, Attorney at Law

While this question and the underlying assertion by Sen. Graham are meant to evoke an emotional response, I'll try to keep my response factual and not to editorialize.

Not unfair, but, because of the president's and his defenders' behavior, dangerous to the rule of law. First, some basics that (unfortunately for some) need spelling out:

1) Impeachment is not a criminal process that requires adherence to the normal, 5th Amendment concepts of due process. Instead, as clearly recognized by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 65, it is a purely political process (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th...). Even the Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, specifically says, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States...," though the impeached individual would still be subject to criminal liability outside the impeachment process (that's where your 5th Amendment due process rights would apply).

2) The House of Representatives is granted the sole power of impeachment, under Article I, Section 2 (last paragraph), of the United States Constitution (https://usconstitution.net/xcons...).

3) Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution spells out the impeachable offenses of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Along with the (probably) straightforward "Treason" and "Bribery," impeachable "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," according to Hamilton, represent "the abuse or violation of some public trust." As a purely political matter, though, and as recognized by former President Gerald Ford before he took office upon Nixon's resignation, "An impeachable offense is wh**ever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Succinctly, the absence of a crime does not equate to the absence of an impeachable offense.

4) The Constitution doesn't spell out how the House is to go about its business in reaching a decision on impeachment. But generally speaking, the proceedings in the House must follow the House Rules adopted at the beginning of each "new" Congress. The House Rules adopted at the beginning of the current (116th) Congress are at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/..., and they are reportedly, by and large, the same rules as adopted by the House when under a Republican majority (see https://www.nationalmemo.com/hou..., which references a Republican-made change to the rules in 2015, that stripped minority committee members' say in subpoena issuance). I haven't found a House Rule that requires a v**e of the entire House to begin an impeachment inquiry, and the Constitution itself is silent on that. As far as I can tell, standing committees, like Oversight and Foreign Affairs, generally have the authority and discretion to hold hearings to investigate matters within their respective purview in furtherance of a legislative purpose (including determining the need for, and the drafting of, legislation), without a v**e of the full House. It follows, then, that each of these committees has a legitimate interest in the matters brought up by the whistleblower's complaint and confirmed by released documents and public statements of the president and his advisers.

5) The president has not yet been impeached. Three House standing committees (Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs) are conducting the inquiry. The full House will get a chance to v**e on impeachment itself if the committees find enough compelling evidence of one or more "violation[s] of some public trust" on the part of the president.

That's it for the primer.

So, first, has the process been "fair" on the part of the House leadership and the three standing committees jointly conducting the inquiry? This can be a subjective question, but if they are following established House rules, how can it not be fair? Near as I can tell, it's House Rule XI, clauses 2(g) and 2(k)(5) that allows the standing committees (including those involved in the impeachment inquiry) to hold closed hearings, to the exclusion of House members not on those committees. There's no evidence that the minority members of those committees are being excluded from participating in those closed-door hearings. In fact, I've read somewhere that a full quarter of the Republican-minority are in those closed-door hearings because they have membership on one of the committees conducting them. [Edit: Apparently, at least one of the House Republicans entitled to participate in the closed-door hearings isn’t even attending, nor has he bothered reading the testimony: GOP Congressman* Admits He Could Have Gone to Impeachment Hearings But Didn’t, Hasn’t Read Testimony.]

What I do think is not fair is that members of the House and Senate are drawing a salary meant to pay for their tending to the interests of the American public (the "General Welfare," so to speak), but, instead, they're seemingly spending their time defending the president, including time organizing and executing the storm-the-gates incident, etc. Another observation along these lines: How can one label the majority in the House as "do-nothing Democrats," when the majority leader in the Senate publicly brags about his chamber being the "legislation graveyard" for any Democratic legislative priority coming from the House? If the House majority were able to consider legislation without the certainty that their time was being wasted because of a majority in the Senate more focused on reshaping the judiciary, perhaps they'd have less time to scrutinize the president's behavior. Just sayin'.

Has the impeachment inquiry so far been dangerous? Yes, but because of the actions of the president, his White House, and his allies in and out of his administration. The rule of law is in jeopardy. Our Constitution establishes that no one is above the law. The president swore his constitutional oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President," and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." 1) Impeachment is not a "phony" provision of the Constitution; and 2) any executive agency's refusal to supply documents requested by the Oversight Committee is a violation of 5 U.S.C 2954 (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xh...). Yet the president claims the first (that impeachment is phony) -- in violation of his oath -- and directs his administration to ignore the second - in violation of his oath and of federal law. If Republicans don't believe the president should be held to account, then they claim, by extension, that the president (or any president) is above the law. Talk about slippery slopes; this one literally tops them all.

So that's my answer.

*I believe that to be Ted Yoho...slatten49

https://contemptor.com/2019/10/29/gop-congressman-with-right-to-attend-impeachment-hearings-says-he-hasnt-gone-to-any-yet/[/quote

Good leftwing spin by one who obviously favor impeachment.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

"Is Lindsey Graham correct to say the Trump impeachment has been unfair and dangerous?"

YES!

Cuda2020

I see, poor little Trump is a victim once again, big surprise. Yeah Trump definitely behaves as an innocent .
The White House informed Mr. Eisenberg’s lawyer on Sunday that President Trump was directing him not to testify. The White House is claiming “absolute immunity” — a form of executive privilege that contends the president’s closest advisers are not obligated to cooperate with Congress. Yeah he has nothing to hide...once again.

Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!

I never did like the spin cycle. I like direct and to the point.
So I have to give this one to Blade Runner.
Yes Yes Yes
MAGA

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Totally void of reasonable rebuttal, eh

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Eh

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

See above response to Blade Runner.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

What's to rebutt? "Impeachment" has been reduced to a bumper sticker slogan. Since the day Donald T***p w*n the e******n we've seen a steady stream of impeachment excuses, one right after the other, and there's president Trump still holding down the Resolute Desk, kicking ass and taking names.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

[quote=slatten49]Vince Mongiardo, Attorney at Law

While this question and the underlying assertion by Sen. Graham are meant to evoke an emotional response, I'll try to keep my response factual and not to editorialize.

Not unfair, but, because of the president's and his defenders' behavior, dangerous to the rule of law. First, some basics that (unfortunately for some) need spelling out:

1) Impeachment is not a criminal process that requires adherence to the normal, 5th Amendment concepts of due process. Instead, as clearly recognized by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 65, it is a purely political process (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th...). Even the Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, specifically says, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States...," though the impeached individual would still be subject to criminal liability outside the impeachment process (that's where your 5th Amendment due process rights would apply).

2) The House of Representatives is granted the sole power of impeachment, under Article I, Section 2 (last paragraph), of the United States Constitution (https://usconstitution.net/xcons...).

3) Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution spells out the impeachable offenses of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Along with the (probably) straightforward "Treason" and "Bribery," impeachable "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," according to Hamilton, represent "the abuse or violation of some public trust." As a purely political matter, though, and as recognized by former President Gerald Ford before he took office upon Nixon's resignation, "An impeachable offense is wh**ever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Succinctly, the absence of a crime does not equate to the absence of an impeachable offense.

4) The Constitution doesn't spell out how the House is to go about its business in reaching a decision on impeachment. But generally speaking, the proceedings in the House must follow the House Rules adopted at the beginning of each "new" Congress. The House Rules adopted at the beginning of the current (116th) Congress are at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/..., and they are reportedly, by and large, the same rules as adopted by the House when under a Republican majority (see https://www.nationalmemo.com/hou..., which references a Republican-made change to the rules in 2015, that stripped minority committee members' say in subpoena issuance). I haven't found a House Rule that requires a v**e of the entire House to begin an impeachment inquiry, and the Constitution itself is silent on that. As far as I can tell, standing committees, like Oversight and Foreign Affairs, generally have the authority and discretion to hold hearings to investigate matters within their respective purview in furtherance of a legislative purpose (including determining the need for, and the drafting of, legislation), without a v**e of the full House. It follows, then, that each of these committees has a legitimate interest in the matters brought up by the whistleblower's complaint and confirmed by released documents and public statements of the president and his advisers.

5) The president has not yet been impeached. Three House standing committees (Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs) are conducting the inquiry. The full House will get a chance to v**e on impeachment itself if the committees find enough compelling evidence of one or more "violation[s] of some public trust" on the part of the president.

That's it for the primer.

So, first, has the process been "fair" on the part of the House leadership and the three standing committees jointly conducting the inquiry? This can be a subjective question, but if they are following established House rules, how can it not be fair? Near as I can tell, it's House Rule XI, clauses 2(g) and 2(k)(5) that allows the standing committees (including those involved in the impeachment inquiry) to hold closed hearings, to the exclusion of House members not on those committees. There's no evidence that the minority members of those committees are being excluded from participating in those closed-door hearings. In fact, I've read somewhere that a full quarter of the Republican-minority are in those closed-door hearings because they have membership on one of the committees conducting them. [Edit: Apparently, at least one of the House Republicans entitled to participate in the closed-door hearings isn’t even attending, nor has he bothered reading the testimony: GOP Congressman Ted Yoho Admits He Could Have Gone to Impeachment Hearings But Didn’t, Hasn’t Read Testimony.]

What I do think is not fair is that members of the House and Senate are drawing a salary meant to pay for their tending to the interests of the American public (the "General Welfare," so to speak), but, instead, they're seemingly spending their time defending the president, including time organizing and executing the storm-the-gates incident, etc. Another observation along these lines: How can one label the majority in the House as "do-nothing Democrats," when the majority leader in the Senate publicly brags about his chamber being the "legislation graveyard" for any Democratic legislative priority coming from the House? If the House majority were able to consider legislation without the certainty that their time was being wasted because of a majority in the Senate more focused on reshaping the judiciary, perhaps they'd have less time to scrutinize the president's behavior. Just sayin'.

Has the impeachment inquiry so far been dangerous? Yes, but because of the actions of the president, his White House, and his allies in and out of his administration. The rule of law is in jeopardy. Our Constitution establishes that no one is above the law. The president swore his constitutional oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President," and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." 1) Impeachment is not a "phony" provision of the Constitution; and 2) any executive agency's refusal to supply documents requested by the Oversight Committee is a violation of 5 U.S.C 2954 (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xh...). Yet the president claims the first (that impeachment is phony) -- in violation of his oath -- and directs his administration to ignore the second - in violation of his oath and of federal law. If Republicans don't believe the president should be held to account, then they claim, by extension, that the president (or any president) is above the law. Talk about slippery slopes; this one literally tops them all.

So that's my answer.[/quote]

Padre says:

The simple T***h is that within hours of taking office the Progressives began clamoring for Trump's impeachment and it hasn't stopped or slowed down but intensified. That colors this entire impeachment process. If the Progressives had taken the Senate Trump would have already been impeached on some BS charge but primarily because they h**e him. They h**e him because his vision for America is Traditional not hell bent to fundamentally change us. So don't try to convince us that this impeachment is legitimate and according to the Rule of Law and protecting democracy. What it is is a direct assault, a c**p, against a duly elected President using our Constitution against us. These subversive are very talented in using the Constitution against us; many Americans fell into their traps. For example, censoring Pornography is now a violation of the freedom of speech. It didn't used to be. A******n, a mother intentionally k*****g her unborn child, is now a Constitutional right. It never used to be. Homosexual marriage is now a Constitutional right. It never used to be either. There are more examples many of you already know those which can be added to this brief list. Be aware, be vigilant and recognize that our Constitution is smoothly being used against us. Destroy a nations traditional morality and values, vilify the nation's faith as inconsistent with a changing society (you know who is doing this) capture the future by capturing our youth (70% today would v**e for socialism) do these things and evil, immorality and corruption reigns supreme and America dies by committing suicide.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

The Blade Runner cuts to the chase.

Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!

I can only hope that one day you do get your Whale.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Yes you do. When you speak we listen! 😇

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Ignore for the moment your personal feelings about president Trump, or any politician for that matter, and tell us the real reason why our nation is in such upheaval, why America is in such a godawful mess?