Well, Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School, and a man called to testify as to the constitution's meaning for both Clinton's and Trump's impeachment hearings disagrees with the bolded conclusion above.eric76 said:There is legitimate thought that "high crimes and misdemeanors" comes from the British and refers to political abuses.Agnzona said:eric76 said:An impeachment is a political matter, not a criminal matter. A President could be impeached without breaking any law at all. When it comes down to it, an impeachable act is whatever the House bases an impeachment on.BuddysBud said:eric76 said:Do you really want the Senate to do an end run around the Constitution?BuddysBud said:
Can the Senate just make up rules that are obviously biased, and vote that if the House doesn't bring the case within a certain time (say 3 days), the trial is over?
It's not like the House impeachment process was an open, unbiased investigation with due process and both parties were allowed equal opportunities to present evidence.
The House impeachment process was screwed up, but not for the reason you think. Do you really believe that someone is denied due process if they are not permitted to be a part of the investigation against them? Let's empty out the prisons if that is true.
And don't forget that the House Judiciary Committee extended an offer to Trump to be represented in their hearings and Trump turned them down. That should pretty much end any nonsense about due process violations.
The House refused the minority party to present evidence that didn't fit their narrative.
The House found no evidence of wrongdoing.
No grand jury in the world would present charges based upon the evidence presented in the House hearings, much of which was done in secret. The Dems repeatedly broke House rules and even rules set by the Dems for this process.
The House Dems have been calling for impeachment since the day Trump was elected. Not one Republican voted for impeachment. It was obviously a partisan hack job that was done to undo the 2016 election.
It was a complete shredding of the Constitution.
Since Nancy set the precedent, so yes to end this farce, I would not mind that the Senate follows the same standards set by the House.
Give me a break about the judiciary committee representation. One witness, a Democrat who does like Trump, shredded the "Orange Man Bad" crying of the other two on a Constitutional basis. What would have council done there.
The Senate should dismiss quickly and then launch an investigation into Schiff and Pelosi.
Any comparisons between an impeachment and a criminal trial are nothing but an overreach.
The Senate can pretty much decide what they want to investigate, but I don't see any advantage in starting a war between the House and Senate of each investigating the other.
While impeachment is a political process your statement that you don't have to break laws to be impeached is Constitutionally undecided and most likely incorrect. High Crimes and Misdemeanors are actual crimes.
From www.lawliberty.org/2018/08/09/the-original-meaning-of-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-part-2/:Quote:
imply put: the records of the debates at the Constitutional Convention show that the framers deliberately borrowed the concept of impeachment and even the specific term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" from the English experience.
...
As to the impeachment standard itself, the Constitutional Convention considered a number of formulations before finally returning to the familiar English-practice standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Early discussion centered largely on the idea of abuse or misuse of official government power. On June 13, the report of the "Committee of the Whole" included a resolution that the executive would be removable "on impeachment and conviction of malpractices or neglect of duty." In a subsequent debate, George Mason referred to "corruption" as grounds for impeachment. Gouverneur Morris, who went back and forth on whether the president should be impeachable at all, eventually affirmed that a power of impeachment was necessary to guard against a president "corrupting his electors" to gain office, betraying his trust, being in foreign pay, or engaging in "bribery," "treachery," or other corruption. Edmund Randolph said impeachment was needed to guard against a president "abusing his power." James Madison spoke broadly of impeachment as necessary to protect the people against "negligence" or "perfidy" (that is, dishonesty), warning that a president might "pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation [self-dealing] or oppression" or "betray his trust to a foreign power."
...
The evidence of original meaning, drawn from the English background experience and from the framers' linguistic choices, is fairly clear: the impeachment standard chosen by the framers "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" possessed a recognized historical meaning derived from long practice and usage; that meaning was broad, extending well beyond ordinary criminality, and including a variety of perceived offences of a "political" nature involving injuries to the constitutional system or abuse of government authority; the framers were familiar with and consciously drew upon that broad meaning and traditional understanding, adopting it in preference to other formulations (and over certain objections).
Quote:
For the purposes of this hearing, it is Article II, Section 4 that is the focus of our attention and, specifically, the meaning of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." It is telling that the actual constitutional standard is contained in Article II (defining executive powers and obligations) rather than Article I (defining legislative powers and obligations). The location of that standard in Article II serves as a critical check on service as a president, qualifying the considerable powers bestowed upon the Chief Executive with the express limitations of that office. It is in this sense an executive, not legislative, standard set by the Framers. For presidents, it is essential that this condition be clear and consistent so that they are not subject to the whim of shifting majorities in Congress. That was a stated concern of the Framers and led to the adoption of the current standard and, equally probative, the express rejection of other standards.
Quote:
It can be fairly stated that American impeachments stand on English feet.9 However, while the language of our standard can be directly traced to English precedent, the Framers rejected the scope and procedures of English impeachments. English impeachments are actually instructive as a model rejected by the Framers due to its history of abuse.
Quote:
Ultimately, the United States would incorporate the language of "high crimes and misdemeanors" from English impeachments, but fashion a very different standard and process for such cases.
Quote:
In the end, the Framers would reject various prior standards including "corruption," "obtaining office by improper means", betraying his trust to a foreign power, "negligence," "perfidy," "peculation," and "oppression." Perfidy (or lying) and peculation (self-dealing) are particularly interesting in the current controversy given similar accusations against President Trump in his Ukrainian comments and conduct.
Jonathan Turley, written statement presented to the House Judiciary Committee on December 4, 2019Quote:
However, the Framers clearly stated they adopted the current standard to avoid a vague and fluid definition of a core impeachable offense. The structure of the critical line cannot be ignored. The Framers cited two criminal offensestreason and briberyfollowed by a reference to "other high crimes and misdemeanors." This is in contrast to when the Framers included "Treason, Felony, or other Crime" rather than "high crime" in the Extradition Clause of Article IV, Section 2. The word "other" reflects an obvious intent to convey that the impeachable acts other than bribery and treason were meant to reach a similar level of gravity and seriousness (even if they are not technically criminal acts). This was clearly a departure from the English model, which was abused because of the dangerous fluidity of the standard used to accuse officials. Thus, the core of American impeachments was intended to remain more defined and limited.
