“If we decide to report articles of impeachment,” Nadler said Monday, “we could get to that late in the fall. . .”
politi.co/2OEk5yp
Take out your notebooks. It's time Impeachment 201, the advanced course.
The Constitution gives the basics. The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment. (Art. I, Sec. 2)
Both the House and Senate make their own rules governing procedure.
history.house.gov/Institution/Or…
The term evidently made sense to the framers of the Constitution, but subsequent generations find it rather, well, vague.
They decide what it means.
Members can introduce impeachment resolutions, or the House can initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry.
That isn’t enough to impeach.
It isn’t clear to me that the Judicial Committee has to wait until a majority of the House wants the inquiry, but waiting seems prudent.
Trump will gloat and declare himself exonerated.
It seems like the House Dems want more on board, which House leaders imply may happen when they have more hard evidence in their hands.
(Pretty much what they’re doing now, without calling it an Impeachment Inquiry. Why avoid calling it an inquiry? See: terikanefield-blog.com/impeachment-wh… )
These are presented to the full House of Representatives for a vote.
The House selects Managers to act as prosecutors in the Senate.
"The Senate shall have the sole to power try all impeachments." (Art I, sec. 3) archives.gov/founding-docs/…
The president is served a summons and the Articles of Impeachment.
The trial begins.
Each side presents evidence, cross-examines witnesses, and present closing statements.
At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate goes into a closed session and deliberates.
A vote is called.
2/3 of the Senate is needed to remove the president from office.
Good luck with that, right?
Now I've watched how the GOP treated the Cohen and Mueller hearings, and—let’s just say— I have doubts.
@tribelaw says to let the House findings stand, but don’t try in the Senate.
washingtonpost.com/opinions/impea…
During the Mueller hearings, the GOP made the point that accusing a person without giving him a chance to clear his name in an open trial was highly unfair and put a “cloud” over that person’s head.
nbcnews.com/politics/congr…
Moreover. . .
Indicting (accusing) a person without allowing a trial seems problematic and a due process violation.
I don’t see why the GOP would want that. Having watched the GOP performance at the Mueller and Cohen hearings. . .
They'll also declare that the "real" criminals are the investigators.
If removed from office via the Impeachment-Senate removal process, the President is still subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment according to the law. (Art. 1, Sec. 3)
If not impeached, he can still be indicted in regular court because the Senate trial is not a criminal matter and hence there is no double jeopardy.
Not really. “Some legal experts have argued that the House might have a stronger legal position” if they called it impeachment. lawfareblog.com/what-powers-do… washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
Lawyers love making arguments like “it might.” The problem is that people hear it and think “it will.”
The reality is that the House court cases and demands for evidence are moving quickly by the pace of ordinary legal proceedings.
I hope you all took notes.
Impeachment will be included as a section of your Twitter Bar Exam.
If you want to see all 8 threads I've done on impeachment, there's a list of categories. If you click "impeachment" you get this list: terikanefield-blog.com/category/impea…
You can view this one here:
terikanefield-blog.com/impeachment-20…
Impeachment is by nature political: The drafters considered giving the task to the courts. Instead they gave it to elected reps.