slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

You'd do as Pip.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

I listen to you too, padre, but muchas gracias por el complemento.

debeda

[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]

Interesting point of view from the left. Thanks for the perspective.

debeda

Well said Blade! I agree!

Liberty Tree

Conservatives want to help everyone be equal at the starting line while liberals want to do everything possible to make everyone equal at the finish line. Conservatives believe there are certain unchanging principles that should govern goals. Liberals believe that goals allow principles to be changed or abandoned at will. Thus the conflict.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

I read/listen to you both with no small degree of respect and admiration. Yet, I say on impeachment..."The t***h does not change according to our ability to stomach it." Also, "It's time to stop trying to out-smart the t***h, and let it have its day."

Tick, tock...tick, tock.

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Whose "t***h?" The l*****ts?

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Actually, L-T, a quote from the past noted liberal, Patrick Moynihan: "The central conservative t***h is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal t***h is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself."

I believe that, somewhere and somewhat torn between the two, lies the t***h.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

"The t***h is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ---

Winston Churchill

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

And the l*****ts refuse to accept it.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Moynihan is talking about TWO t***hs. The absolute T***h is neither.

Does T***h Matter?: Temple University

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

I'm sure Mr. Mongiardo would thank you, Debeda.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

And, no doubt, Parky, l*****ts would say the rightists refuse to accept it.

C'est la vie.

debeda

Yes, its life, but does it have to be QUITE so bipolar

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I love it

Congress can blame their squabbles on a mental illness