bigsly
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2018
- Posts
- 2,010
In addition:
President's Procedural Rights
Prior to the October 5, Committee meeting, some raised
concerns about ``procedural fairness'' and encouraged the
Committee to adopt rules, similar to those adopted by the
Committee in 1974, which would provide the President with
certain procedural rights. After voting on the Hyde resolution,
the Committee adopted, by voice vote, a number of protections
for the President. The President and his counsel shall be
invited to attend all executive session and open committee
hearings. The President's counsel may cross examine witnesses.
The President's counsel may make objections regarding the
pertinency of evidence. The President's counsel shall be
invited to suggest that the Committee receive additional
evidence. Lastly, the President or the President's counsel
shall be invited to respond to the evidence adduced by the
Committee at an appropriate time. The provisions will ensure
that the impeachment inquiry is fair to the President.
Issues Relating to Defining Standards for Impeachment
The minority and the White House have demanded that the
Committee needs to adopt standards of impeachment before it
proceeds. Standards, however, already exist. They are found in
Article Two, Section Four of the Constitution and include
``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
Our founding fathers did not adopt these words without
debate or forethought. These words are not arbitrary or
capricious. They have meaning to which facts must be applied.
Indeed, the meaning of these words have been applied in the
House of Representatives numerous times, four of which occurred
in the past 25 years. Impeachment precedents, like court
precedents, can be helpful to the Committee as it proceeds and
will help inform the judgment of all Members of the House. It
would be presumptuous of this Committee to state as fact the
manner in which all Members should judge the evidence. All
Members, after a consideration of the facts and the law of
impeachment, must exercise their constitutional responsibility
as they deem appropriate.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/105th-congress/house-report/795/1?s=1&r=60
Looking back at the Clinton impeachment and the difference between how he was treated by the Republican controlled House at the time. Compare it to how Trump is being treated today:
H. Rept. 105-795 - INVESTIGATORY POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WITH RESPECT TO ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY105th Congress (1997-1998)
"It is the intention of the Committee that its investigation
will be conducted in all respects on a fair, impartial and
bipartisan or nonpartisan basis. In this spirit, the power to
authorize subpoenas and other compulsory process is committed
by this resolution in the first instance to the Chairman and
the Ranking Minority Member acting jointly. If either declines
to act, the other may act alone, subject to the right of either
to refer the question to the Committee for decision prior to
issuance, and a meeting of the Committee will be convened
promptly to consider the question. Thus, meetings will not be
required to authorize issuance of process, so long as neither
the Chairman nor the Ranking Minority Member refers the matter
to the Committee. In the alternative, the Committee possesses
the independent authority to authorize subpoenas and other
process, should it be felt that action of the whole Committee
is preferable under the circumstances. Thus, maximum
flexibility and bipartisanship are reconciled in this
resolution."
"On October 5, 1998, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported the resolution printed herein by a vote of 21
to 16, a quorum being present.
Need for the Resolution"
"Because the issue of impeachment is of such overwhelming
importance, the Committee decided that it must receive
authorization from the full House before proceeding on any
further course of action. Because impeachment is delegated
solely to the House of Representatives by the Constitution, the
full House of Representatives should be involved in critical
decision making regarding various stages of impeachment. With
the passage of H. Res. 525, the full House has already directed
the release of the Referral from the Independent Counsel, set
the parameters for public release of other related materials,
and directed the Committee to review the Referral and
accompanying materials in order to make a recommendation to the
House."
Also, a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry into
the conduct of a president is consistent with past practice.
According to Hind's Precedents, the ``impeachment of President
Johnson was set in motion by a resolution authorizing a general
investigation as to the execution of the laws.'' When the first
attempt to impeach President Johnson failed, the House
``referred to the Committee on Reconstruction the evidence
taken by the Judiciary Committee in the first attempt to
impeach President Johnson.'' 3 Hind's Precedents, Sec. 2408.
The impeachment investigation of President Nixon was
explicitly authorized by the full House. During debate of H.
Res. 803 in 1974, Congressman Rodino, then chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, stated:
We have reached the point when it is important that
the House explicitly confirm our responsibility under
the Constitution.
We are asking the House * * * to authorize and direct
the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate the
conduct of the President of the United States * * *.
Such a resolution has always been passed by the
House. The Committee has voted unanimously to recommend
that the House of Representatives adopt this
resolution. It is a necessary step if we are to meet
our obligations * * *.
You're not going to cite watching Mark Levin and the same stuff he recited last night as your inspiration?