Articles of Impeachment

[coorslite21]

Tuesday.......(tomorrow) we should see 4 articles of impeachment.......each of these articles will be voted on individually....by the house.....

 

The plan by the left for the 31 new seats gained in 2018 in districts.....districts that Trump won in 2016.......will be a plan of rotation........each of those 31 will vote no on 3 of the articles.....and yes on 1..... 

 

They can therefore prayerfully say how hard this was.....trying to save face so they can be reelected....      CL

 

 

 

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

• EDemocrats poised to unveil two articles of impeachment against Trump

Reaction from Fox News contributors Sara Carter and Dan Bongino on 'Hannity.'

House Democrats are preparing to announce at least two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Tuesday, Fox News has learned.

The articles of impeachment will focus on obstruction of Congress and abuse of power, but all details aren’t settled yet, Fox News is told. A markup session by the Judiciary Committee to prepare the articles would come either Wednesday or Thursday.

Notably absent from the planned charges was a "bribery" count. Democrats had repeatedly accused the president of essentially bribing Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, and even floated the idea of drafting an article of impeachment to that effect. But, it quickly emerged that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had conducted focus groups to determine that Democrats should use the term "bribery" purely for political benefit, even as legal experts disputed whether Trump had bribed anyone.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., convened the House chairmen leading the impeachment inquiry in her office on Monday after a daylong Judiciary Committee hearing that laid out the case against Trump as Democrats warned of the supposed risk his actions toward Ukraine have posed to U.S. elections and national security.

The chairmen left the meeting late Monday at the Capitol with some saying an announcement would come in the morning.

 

“I think there's a lot of agreement,” Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, told reporters. "You’ll hear about some of it tomorrow.”

What remained uncertain was whether Pelosi would reach beyond the Ukraine probe to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings of Trump's actions in his report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“A lot of us believe that what happened with Ukraine especially is not something we can just close our eyes to,” Engel said. “'This is not a happy day. I don’t get any glee at this, but I think we’re doing what we have to do. We’re doing what the Constitution mandates that we do."

 

 

 

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

[coorslite21]

Looks like they may have painted themselves into a corner.....just 2 articles that are joined at the hip....you vote for one ......logic says you have to vote for the other....

 

Neither article fits the high crimes or misdemeanor definition as defined for impeachment.

 

Those in the 31 now Blue Congressional districts that Trump won in 16 have really been put in a difficult place by their own party...     CL

 

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

1 hour ago, coorslite21 said:

Looks like they may have painted themselves into a corner.....just 2 articles that are joined at the hip....you vote for one ......logic says you have to vote for the other....

 

Neither article fits the high crimes or misdemeanor definition as defined for impeachment.

 

Those in the 31 now Blue Congressional districts that Trump won in 16 have really been put in a difficult place by their own party...     CL

 

 

I believe this is by design. The last thing Pelosi wants is an acquittal in the Senate. They just want to say Trump was impeached. 

[8th ID]

3 hours ago, coorslite21 said:

Neither article fits the high crimes or misdemeanor definition as defined for impeachment.

I agree....Maybe they should go to the Supreme Court first, for a ruling. Have them throw it out. That would throw a wrench into it all.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Small group of Democrats floats censure instead of impeachment

It's an unlikely outcome, but it underscores lingering angst among some moderates.

 

 

President Donald Trump (right) and Rep. Josh Gottheimer

 

By SARAH FERRIS and MELANIE ZANONA

12/10/2019 12:03 PM EST

Updated: 12/10/2019

 

 

Trump instead of impeaching him, according to multiple lawmakers familiar with the conversations.

Those Democrats, all representing districts that Trump won in 2016, huddled on Monday afternoon in an 11th-hour bid to weigh additional — though unlikely — options to punish the president for his role in the Ukraine scandal as the House speeds toward an impeachment vote next week.

The group of about 10 Trump-district lawmakers included Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), and Ben McAdams (D-Utah.).

“I think it’s certainly appropriate and might be a little more bipartisan, who knows,” Schrader said Tuesday when asked about the possibility of a censure resolution. But he acknowledged: “Time’s slipping by.”

The idea of censure, according to the lawmakers, is to offer a competing alternative to impeachment that could attract at least some Republican support on the floor. It would also help Democrats avoid a lengthy impeachment trial in the Senate, which some in this group fear could tilt public opinion toward the GOP in the final months before the 2020 election.

“Right now, there's no other options. This is another option,” said one lawmaker who attended Monday’s meeting.

The moderate Democrats know the odds of such an outcome are slim. Democratic leaders are confident that both articles of impeachment — which were publicly unveiled Tuesday morning — will have the necessary support on the floor, and they expect to lose few of their members.

 

The group of centrists is also far short of the roughly 18 votes needed to block impeachment on the floor, and any censure resolution would be nearly impossible to sell to the caucus at this point, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team have already settled on impeaching the president.

Democrats remain united on impeachment, with just two in the caucus on record opposing the House’s impeachment inquiry: Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.), who both sit in districts carried by Trump in 2016.

And Pelosi herself has previously publicly ruled out censure.

“I think censure is just a way out. If you want to go, you gotta go,” she told reporters in June. “If the goods are there, you must impeach. Censure is nice, but it is not commensurate with the violations of the Constitution should we decide that’s the way to go.”

Still, several of the moderate Democrats have discussed the possibility of censure privately for weeks, mostly in informal conversations on the floor or in smaller settings. But the conversations ramped up as top Democrats announced they were moving ahead with articles of impeachment this week.

The Trump-district Democrats say they are increasingly worried that a lengthy Senate trial — which could stretch into the spring — will result in an even more polarizing 2020 campaign.

Some of the Democrats involved have quietly reached out to centrist House Republicans in recent days to see whether they would be willing to censure Trump, according to multiple lawmakers, including in conversations on the House floor.

But while some Republicans privately acknowledge that censure would be a much tougher vote than impeachment, they doubt they will be confronted with that choice.

And unlike when Democrats floated censure during the Clinton impeachment, Republicans in the House and Senate are not actively looking for an escape hatch like censure.

The GOP has largely parroted Trump’s argument that he did nothing wrong in trying to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. House Republican leaders are expecting few, if any, defections on the House floor.

“I don’t think [moderate Democrats] have enough to block impeachment. 10 to 12 max. But they’re working to raise it,” said one GOP lawmaker, who has discussed censure with some Democrats. “And [they’re] obviously reaching out to Republicans to see if they would join them.

 

[coorslite21]

1 hour ago, 8th ID said:

I agree....Maybe they should go to the Supreme Court first, for a ruling. Have them throw it out. That would throw a wrench into it all.

 

The left doesn't have time for the 3rd branch of Govt...(Judicial).....to rule on this......

 

They need to get this over with......funny thing is....if it goes to the Senate .....Supreme Court Justice Kennedy will preside.......and based on the articles of Impeachment won't meet the requirements for a Constitutional impeachment....he might throw the whole thing out......     CL 

[nstoolman1]

4 hours ago, coorslite21 said:

 

The left doesn't have time for the 3rd branch of Govt...(Judicial).....to rule on this......

 

They need to get this over with......funny thing is....if it goes to the Senate .....Supreme Court Justice Kennedy will preside.......and based on the articles of Impeachment won't meet the requirements for a Constitutional impeachment....he might throw the whole thing out......     CL 

 

 

They will just find something else to try. 

[Karsten]

 

The above is about as close to the true as on can get in my opinion

 

Karsten

[nstoolman1]

https://www.westernjournal.com/house-follow-constitutions-proceduresimpeachment/utm_source=Email&utm_medium=rightalerts&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=ttp

The House Should Follow Constitutional Procedures for Impeachment

 

 

The deceivers in Congress and the establishment media want you to believe that the Constitution is “vague” on House procedures for bringing articles of impeachment. In reality, they want to evade the Constitution and have the authority to act arbitrarily.

Understanding how the House is supposed to proceed in the filing of impeachment is really not that complicated; the deceivers just want you to think it is. So, as briefly and plainly as possible, here is how it is supposed to work.

Working backward is the easiest way to logically understand the proper procedure for the House to file articles of impeachment.

 

1. We know from those who ratified the Constitution, our most relevant source, that the Senate is the “court” that will “try” the impeachment. (Read Federalist 65.)

2. We know from Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution that impeachment is valid for the crimes of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

A. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 states that after impeachment the convicted can no longer hold public office and can be tried in a criminal court for the same crime and held accountable under the law.

B. All four of the grounds for impeachment are actually crimes, subject to the terms of criminal prosecution. Alexander Hamilton discusses this in Federalist 65, in which he explains why the Senate and not the Supreme Court is the proper body to try impeachments: “Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt?” Hamilton writes.

 

Hamilton says that since the accused can be tried in a criminal court for the same crimes that brought about impeachment, it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to handle impeachment and also have the possibility of having the criminal case come before them as well. With that being said, the chief justice of the Supreme Court will still preside over the impeachment trial to ensure the proper rules of due process are followed by the Senate.

3. In Federalist 65, Hamilton calls the Senate the court, speaks of the proceeding as a trial and even indicates that the same process will be followed by the lower courts when trying the accused outside of impeachment. Hamilton also explicitly states that the proper conduct for the Senate is to judge the accused by the “real demonstrations of innocence or guilt,” once again using the legal vernacular appropriate of a true trial of justice.

4. Since the accused (president, vice president or any civil officer) will be having a legitimate trial in the Senate with all due process considerations of a court of justice, it will only be fitting to describe the role of the House as the “prosecutor” who reviews the allegations and the evidence and has the responsibility of filing the charges against the accused.

A prosecutor (I know — I was one for nearly a decade) does not file every allegation that comes along. A prosecutor does not even file a case against every person “believed” to be guilty of a crime. The belief of guilt is irrelevant in the criminal justice system. The only thing that matters in a true court of justice is what can be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the framework of the statutory crime, the evidence admissible and the rules of due process.

5. Since the Senate is the trial phase and the House is the filing stage, the House procedure for filing impeachment will logically be the same as that of a prosecutor.

A. The House members must look at the allegations. They must then look at that law and determine if the allegations fit the law. The Constitution establishes the law and that impeachment can only be brought for treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors. If the allegations do not fit into one of those four categories, then the House, just like any good prosecutor, must refuse to file impeachment. If you are confused by the current assertion that the Constitution permits the House to bring impeachment for “political” reasons, please read this article to help you understand why that reasoning is false.

B. If the allegations fit into one of the four categories of impeachable crimes, then the House must review the evidence and determine: 1. if the evidence is admissible, 2. if the admissible evidence satisfies the elements of the crime and 3. if the relevant evidence is sufficient to prove guilt. If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” then the House must refuse to file impeachment. If the answer to all these questions is “yes,” then the House must file impeachment and put together the case for trial in the Senate.

That’s it. That is the procedure for the House of Representatives for bringing articles of impeachment according to the intent of the founders and the Constitution.

Perhaps it seems very simple to me because this is the process I engaged in every day of my life for nearly a decade. I was even blessed enough to train new prosecutors in this process.

My philosophy was never to “win at all costs” but rather to consider the lives of both victims and accused, stay within the lanes of the law and above all preserve the rights of the people involved so that the system doesn’t become a tool for vengeance and destruction.

Our elected officials should hold the procedure of impeachment in the same reverence. The fact that every civil officer in our country can be impeached and removed from office only through the respect of law and due process is invaluable.

The thing I find interesting is that many House members are lawyers and many lawyers have trial court experience. For these people to claim that they are “confused” about the procedure of impeachment seems disingenuous and self-serving.

If American prosecutors handled cases the way the House Judiciary Committee is handling this impeachment, their cases would be thrown out of court, they would likely be looking at sanctions from the American Bar Association and could even face their own criminal trials for the crime of “vindictive prosecution.”

Perhaps one lesson our House members would do well to learn is the first lesson I taught all my prosecutors in training: We are “prosecutors,” not “persecutors,” and we must know the difference.

Every American should understand the importance of the House not engaging in vindictive prosecution and respecting the rights of due process. What these people in high office are allowed to do to the president will set not only a legal precedent but also a cultural one that will put the due process rights of every American in peril.