Quote (Thor123422 @ Jan 11 2020 11:25am)
The bramches coordinating with the executive on this issue pretty much nullifies impeachment as a check, and Trump has blocked witnesses from testifying so if anyone is to blame for lack of executive involvement its Trump directly.
you're saying it's political, but it's always been political.
the reason the courts weren't given impeachment powers, and instead given to our political actors in the house and senate is because it was designed to be political.
Democrats are asking Trump to follow norms, that's fine. Democrats have consistently violated norms throughout the process though. so it's a fair stance to be just as political as the opponent.
1. it started without a full house vote.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-the-white-house-argues-it-can-reject-the-houses-impeachment-requestsQuote
Jamil Jaffer:
Well, William, there are no requirements in the Constitution for how the House is supposed to conduct an impeachment inquiry.
But prior practice suggests that the House should take a full — a vote of the full House to initiate the impeachment inquiry. As you can imagine, this is a huge issue. It's a conflict between two coordinate, co-equal branches of the government, one investigating the other, somewhat outside of the normal purview of what the House does.
Typically, the House does legislation and oversight. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. And so it's been the practice, although certainly not a constitutional requirement, for the House to take a vote of the full House before beginning an impeachment inquiry.
William Brangham:
So there's no precedent for it, but this — I mean, there's precedent for this, but there's no requirement for it.
Let's just say the House were to hold this vote and formally call this an impeachment inquiry. Is there precedent then for the White House or the subject of impeachment to say, I'm not participating?
Jamil Jaffer:
The challenge is, typically, in this scenario, when they when they vote to pass a resolution to initiate an impeachment inquiry, there are also procedural rules in place which provide a certain amount of due process to the potential target of the impeachment, in this case, the president of the United States, including the right to call witnesses, the right to cross-examine, the right to be present or have counsel president at hearings and the like.
And that's normally the process, in part. And it also gives process, by the way, procedural rights, to the minority, typically so that the majority is not accused partisanship or doing something inappropriate.
So that's generally the ticktock. And so you see the White House saying, this is illegitimate, it's inappropriate. But they're basing that on practice, not on a legal requirement.
2. they blocked key participation points from the Republican minority in the house.
https://nypost.com/2019/11/19/adam-schiff-blocks-republicans-attempts-to-question-impeachment-witnesses/Quote
Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic chair of the House Intelligence Committee, repeatedly stymied Republicans’ attempts to question two witnesses in Tuesday’s impeachment hearings.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/impeachment-hearing-live-updates-second-day-judiciary-committee-testimony-n1097486/ncrd1098241#liveBlogHeaderQuote
Nadler denied Collins' witness requests — including the initial whistleblower and Rep. Adam Schiff — in a Monday letter, echoing Schiff's earlier rejection of a similar witness list provided by Rep. Devin Nunes during the House Intelligence Committee hearings.
Collins had requested eight witnesses in addition to any who were "requested by" Trump. Nadler wrote that since he understands Trump "is not requesting any witnesses to appear in our impeachment proceedings," there "is no further reason to address that request."
even if you exclude the whistleblower, there were other names denied.
3. Dems break actual constitutional rights to progress the impeachment narrative.
https://davidharrisjr.com/steven/how-did-adam-schiff-get-phone-records-of-giuliani-nunes-derek-harvey-and-reporter-john-solomon/Quote
In what could easily be considered a violation of President Trump’s constitutional rights, Adam Schiff has obtained the phone records of his attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
And that’s not all, he has obtained the phone records of Devin Nunes and his aide Derek Harvey as well as the phone records of investigative reporter John Solomon, whose investigations have proven to show that Democrats don’t have a leg to stand on in the impeachment witch hunt.
here's an example of how bad it is. give me the evidence listed under the articles being sent to the senate.
what impelling evidence is given to make the case?
i'd also like to mention that "bribery" is listed specifically as an offense. "bribery" was not an article written.
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/?_escaped_fragment_=/articles/1/essays/11/impeachmentQuote
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Jan 11 2020 11:49am