factnotfiction

There has been post after post by various assorted and sundried trumpcons with there own wrong understanding of what is going on in the impeach trump process.

Either because they are poorly educated, or they are indoctrinated by goofy rightwingnut media sources, or they deliberately post lie after lie, and call it 'opinion', or the single biggest reason is that they are stupid.


**************************************************************************************

There are a lot of questions swirling around about impeachment. The lack of a solid civics education in this country has left a lot of Americans to wonder what is impeachment, what is it for, what does it do, and will it remove the president from office.

What is an impeachment inquiry?

An impeachment inquiry is when evidence is gathered, and hearings are held to find out if there has been enough wrongdoing for an office holder, in this case, the president, to be impeached. There is no constitutional requirement for an impeachment inquiry, nor is there a requirement to hold a vote to approve an impeachment inquiry.

Where in the Constitution is impeachment mentioned?

“The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” —Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” —Article, Section 3, Clause 6

“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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” —Article, Section 3, Clause 7

When the House of Representatives votes to impeach, will the president be removed from office?

No, once impeached the process moves over to the Senate where there will be a trial. To remove him from office the Senate must vote to convict with a two-thirds majority.

Will the president go to jail if the Senate convicts him?

No, the penalty is that he will be removed from office. Once convicted, the Senate has the option to punish the individual by barring him from holding a federal office in the future, at this time this only requires a simple majority. After impeachment, he can be tried in a court of law for any crimes committed.

Who becomes president if the the president is impeached and convicted?

If his vice president is not impeached, then the vice president would become president, if the vice president were impeached at the same time, then the speaker of the House would become president.

Can the new president pardon the president who has just been impeached and convicted?

No. Per the U.S. Constitution pardons cannot be in given in the case of impeachment.

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” —Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

What are high crimes and misdemeanors?

It can really be anything Congress wants it to be, per Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution impeachment is for, “...Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” High crimes and misdemeanors is not defined in the Constitution, however, it can cover a lot of ground as shown below.

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, or tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute.

What is this phony emoluments thing I keep hearing about? Is that a high crime and misdemeanor?

The emoluments clause in the Constitution is very real, and has likely been violated by the current president, and Congress could consider it to be a high crime and misdemeanor.

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” —Article I, Section 9, Clause 8.

With the president maintaining control of his properties, and promoting them for use for the G7, and foreign governments trying to gain favor by staying in his properties, he is violating the emoluments clause.

Isn’t impeachment just a political ploy to smear the president?

The framers of our Constitution knew that at some point an elected official or federal appointee would need to be removed from office. There are cases where it has been used as a political weapon, President Clinton’s impeachment for example. The New Yorker recently ran a piece on the history of impeachment and how it came into being:

Impeachment is a terrible power because it was forged to counter a terrible power: the despot who deems himself to be above the law. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention included impeachment in the Constitution as a consequence of their knowledge of history, a study they believed to be a prerequisite for holding a position in government. From their study of English history, they learned what might be called the law of knavery: there aren’t any good ways to get rid of a bad king. Really, there were only three ways and they were all horrible: civil war, revolution, or assassination. England had already endured the first and America the second, and no one could endorse the third.

Can’t we just wait until the next election to vote a bad president out?

No, impeachment holds two purposes: one, punishment for abusing political office, and two a warning to anyone who may want to abuse political office. It is the duty of Congress as a co-equal branch of government to ensure that the executive branch is not corrupt—and the current administration is about as corrupt as they come.

tbutkovich

Fiction not Fact!

There’s precedent that has been set in two former impeachment’s and the proceedings were always about transparency, integrity, fairness and objectivity giving both the the accused, the accusers equal access to information regarding the accusation and charges. This proceeding is a joke!

It is conducted in closed sessions where the senior partisan politicians come together and try to strongarm the other rank and file members to support their one-sided political positions. This political kangaroo court has been secretive, unfair, uncivil and subjective! It is wrong,you know it, the country knows it, the voters know it, and your attempt to sugar coat these procedings and your attempt to convince the American people that it is being conducted above board is “Absolute Bull$chitt!”

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Not in the least worried.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Wonder what far left rag fartnotfact got that cut and paste?

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

The Precedent for Impeachment

https://www.justsecurity.org/64070/the-precedent-for-impeachment-nixon-not-clinton/

by Kevin Kruse and Julian Zelizer, May 14, 2019

[Editor’s note: Just Security is publishing a series in conversation with Sidney Blumenthal’s “An Open Memo: Comparison of Clinton Impeachment, Nixon Impeachment and Trump Pre-Impeachment.” Other authors in the series include John Dean, Ryan Goodman, Hon. Elizabeth Holtzman, Walter Pincus, and Jill Wine-Banks.]

Politicians naturally look to the past to inform their actions in the present, but all too often, they draw the wrong lessons from history.

A large portion of the Democratic Party now believes that President Donald Trump has abused, and continues to abuse, the powers of his office, but the party is divided on how best to proceed. Some congressional Democrats worry that any effort to impeach the president will follow the same path as the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, leaving the chief executive in office with his powers only strengthened further. Many Democrats, such as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, lived through that period. As a result, the events of the 1990s deeply inform how they think about the current situation.

Sidney Blumenthal is correct, however, to push back against this line of historical reasoning. Blumenthal, who had a front row seat to the Clinton drama, understands that there are major differences between these two instances. For one, Clinton was much more popular than Trump, having soundly won reelection in 1996 and improving his approval ratings, largely by drawing marked contrasts between himself and the Republican extremists on Capitol Hill. At the same time, the case against Clinton was much flimsier than the one pending against Trump. Clinton was charged with perjuring himself over a lie about his relationship with a White House intern. President Trump is being investigated for obstructing an investigation into a major effort by an overseas government to interfere with the 2016 election, with the president’s campaign receiving most of the assistance. While it is not yet a clear majority, polls show that the public’s support for impeachment is much higher today than it was after the release of the Starr report. It is, instead, comparable to the moment when Democrats launched impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon in early 1974.

Despite the stark lack of similarities between the two cases for impeachment, the specter of the Clinton struggle hangs over Democratic deliberations today. This political miscalculation has become so congealed in Washington that it has led otherwise talented politicians to miss major differences and push aside obvious reasons that the House has an obligation, regardless of the risks, to move forward with this process. Many forget that the impeachment process itself has the power to change public opinion. In 1998, House Republicans opted not to hold televised hearings to make the case for Clinton’s impeachment, believing that the graphic details of the Starr Report would suffice in swaying a skeptical public. But in 1973 and 1974, congressional Democrats patiently presented the evidence against the president and, in so doing, convinced the country that Nixon needed to go. The contents of the material discovered in the Nixon investigation were deeply disturbing to the public, revealing a serious pattern of presidential abuse of power, which in turn solidified support for Congress taking action.

As Blumenthal notes, there were clear risks confronting the congressional Democrats who made the decision to impeach President Nixon, but they pushed aside the doubts and did their duty. They held a reckless president accountable, forcing legislators to take a stand on the president’s misdeeds and, indeed, forcing the country itself to live up to its constitutional ideals and democratic values. In the end, the party did not suffer as a result of that decision and instead saw its standing soar in the next election. More important, the nation itself was strengthened by the impeachment process, with its renewed emphasis on the rule of law and the balance of powers.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

Some came from the Constitution others may have came from one of these two links ,
https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
Go to https://history.house.gov and search for impeachment you'll get several examples or maybe some that he found.

This below came from page 18 of the House Rules document that in 2015 Republicans voted a change to subpoena requirements. Pease note what is in parentheses. All meetings other than committee on Ethics are to be in the open. Since the impeachment is based on presumed unethical practices the meetings can be held in private. Then the other option for closed meeting is when the infomation that comes out may endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the House.

Open meetings and hearings
(g)(1) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the mark-
up of legislation, by a standing committee or subcommittee thereof (other
than the Committee on Ethics or its subcommittees) shall be open to the
public, including to radio, television, and still photography coverage, except
when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority
present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of the
meeting on that day shall be in executive session because disclosure of mat-
ters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise
sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to defame, degrade, or in-
criminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the
House. Persons, other than members of the committee and such noncommittee Members, Delegates, Resident Commis-
sioner, congressional staff, or departmental representatives as the com-
mittee may authorize, may not be present at a business or markup ses-
sion that is held in executive session. This subparagraph does not apply to
open committee hearings, which are governed by clause 4(a)(1) of rule X or
by subparagraph (2). (2)(A) Each hearing conducted by a committee or subcommittee (other than the Committee on Ethics or its
subcommittees) shall be open to the public, including to radio, television,
and still photography coverage, except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate a clause 2(k)(5); or (ii) agree to close the hearing as provided in clause 2(k)(5). (C)

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

379 days and counting...

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I wasn’t referring to the original text. I was referring to where he got it. I’m sure he didn’t copy and paste the Constitution or the Rules himself.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

No matter what, the investigation into the investigators is now criminal and happening. Ukraine is looking into the 2016 election and Burisma/Biden's.

It's now out of Trumps hands. The dems are going to pay, no matter what.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

If I understand your question which ever search engine you use all is needed is to type in the Constitution and the links show up. Here are some of the ones I use;
https://constitutionus.com/
https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/constitution

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Yes, I’ve done the same. Thanks. I just don’t believe he did the research. I imagine he read it in an internet piece.

EmilyD

Is this from The Onion, Babylon Bee, Or just you shuddering from a drug overdose?

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

OK, glad to help to use a old trekkie salute live long and prosper.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

You also Spock.