If you are saying "other impeachments" meaning past Presidential impeachments, Johnson didn't even have an inquiry investigation, and in Clinton's case, there was no House inquiry investigation, they used Starr's report. Impeachments of judges and other Gov't officials were done without a formal vote on commencing impeachment inquires. Your precedent arguement isn't applicable
The House is doing an investigation, reviewing relevant information to determine facts, similar to what a prosecutor does before introducing evidence to a Grand Jury. They are not litigating, the concept of due process you are importing doesn't relate at this point in the process.
As far as being done in secret, also not accurate, every GOP member of that Committee is, or has the right to, attend everyone of those testimonies, ask questions just as they do when the hearings are on TV, and that includes FOX "regular contributors as Nunes and Radcliffe.
And Republicans crying about the Democrats investigating is embarrassing, they spent ten years investigating the hell out of anything and everything Obama/Clinton and now they are complaining after the Democrats have been at it nine and half months?
There is no designated way for the House impeachment process, you fucking moron. This is in the investigative phase. Read the goddam article, dumbshit.
He gets due process at trial, idiot. Until then, the House sets its own rules in how they go about their impeachment process.
Fucking ignorant crybaby
Nomad (10-19-2019)
Stupid fucking moron. At the founding, that term had nowhere near the meaning that you’re trying to bullshit us with. Educate yourself, if that’s possible.
The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/...demeanors.html
cancel2 2022 (10-19-2019)
dumb ass domer repeating the same thing doesn't change the facts that the hearings are held in secret ( no transcripts -just selective leaking) so the American people can't see the full picture just Schiff's narrative
Then what? the House is going to vote on Schiff's narrative? -which is why due process and transparency is needed for an impeachment vote - not voting on Schiffs report or whatever flim-flam he puts out besides leaks
cancel2 2022 (10-19-2019)
They don’t have any right to see the procedings at this point.
Have you read even one reference that I’ve provided you? If not, that means you choose to remain willfully ignorant. If so, you are one incredibly stupid fuck that you can’t grasp the concept.
Which is it, dumbfuck?
cancel2 2022 (10-19-2019)
cancel2 2022 (10-19-2019)
Nomad (10-19-2019)
These are crimes? lol What a fucking moron!
“appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates”
The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.
Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.
https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal...procedure.html
cancel2 2022 (10-19-2019)
The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.
Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place.There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.
https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal...procedure.html
domer76 (10-19-2019)
Adam Schiff Flip-Flopped On Whistleblower Testimony After Reports Of Coordination
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/18...-coordination/
House Democrats’ top impeachment inquisitor abruptly changed from repeatedly insisting on the testimony of a whistleblower against President Donald Trump to working to prevent it. The change occurred as soon as it was revealed the complainant had secretly worked with Rep. Adam Schiff’s Democratic staff prior to filing his formal complaint on Aug. 12.
At first, Schiff insisted an anti-Trump bureaucrat sharing allegations against the president must share his story with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But after news broke that Schiff’s staff had secretly worked with the whistleblower prior to the complaint being lodged, discussions that the whistleblower failed to mention when specifically asked about them as part of the official whistleblower process, Schiff moved to prevent the testimony. The move appears designed to prevent Republican lawmakers from asking the individual under oath about his discussions with House Democrats, media, and others involved in the impeachment effort.
Schiff announced on Sept. 24 the whistleblower had agreed to speak with the committee
wo days later, Schiff peppered Joseph Maguire, the director of national intelligence, about the need to hear from the “whistleblower” in an uninhibited fashion:
ADAM SCHIFF: Director, do I have your assurance that once you work out the security clearances for the whistleblower’s counsel, that that whistleblower will be able to relate the full facts within his knowledge that concern wrongdoing by the president or anyone else, that he or she will not be inhibited in what they can tell our committee, that there will not be some minder from the White House or elsewhere sitting next to them telling them what they can answer or not answer? Do I have your assurance that the whistleblower will be able to testify fully and freely and enjoy the protections of the law?
“We need to speak with the whistleblower,” Schiff and other Democrats proclaimed, repeatedly.
On Sept. 29, Schiff talked about the whistleblower coming in “without a minder from the Justice Department or from the White House to tell the whistleblower what they can or cannot say. We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower.”
Bookmarks