Rob offers his apologies.

Page 10 of 11  
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

But that wasn't your point. You stated that evidence to support an impeachment did not appear until *after* the impeachment hearing began. You were incorrect. The hearings of the judiciary committees WERE NOT an impeachment hearing. My point still stands that Articles of Impeachment must contain relevant facts and evidence to support itself when presented to the House for passage.

Look at the Constituitonal description of Impeachement.

That was not what I said, nor is it what you stated. You stated that Articles of Impeachment could be a period of evidenturary discovery, which of course, they cannot be. The Articles of Impeachment must contain the rationale -- through facts in evidence -- to provide support for bring a motion of impeachment before the House. To arrive at the facts in evidence to develop the Articles, fact finding hearings and other methods of discovery are usually undertaken. But, unlike what you had stated, discovery of facts are not undertaken *after* the Articles are presented to the House. After the Articles are presented, the facts in evidence are judged by the House members to either support or not support impeachment.

You seem to lack knowledge of what Articles of Impeachment are and the purpose that they serve. Any investigation to determine if facts are in evidence is put into play PRIOR to the Articles being drafted, because the Articles are all about facts in evidence to support the alleged reasons for impeachment.

No, facts in evidence do not have to come from congressfolk. That's not what I was talking about. But it would take a member of the House to form the evidence into Articles of Impeachment, which is what I *was* talking about. And if you would have taken the time to read my post prior to responding, you would have seen that I properly covered who has responsibility to determine impeachment vs which house is responsible for the trial.

Please cite the House rules which allow the majority to do this. Quite the contrary, the minority has procedural abilities to conduct whatever hearings and factfinding is necessary in cases of misdeeds by the Executive branch.

This has happened during many administrations and regardless of who holds power in Congress. Usually it is proffered when the scope of an investigation is not the witness called.

I'm listening; go ahead and state the evidence and those provable facts.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Bugg wrote:

Yes, and I remind you that I corrected that error myself above.

I agree that they should. 'Must' is too strong a term as the House _may_ pass whatever they wish, no matter how absurd it may be.

No, I did not. Nor can I parse your statement in such a way as to produce anything intelligible. I think that we both have been hasty and written sentences with such bad syntax as to obscure whatever it was we wished to communicate.

I did not state that "discovery of facts are undertaken *after* the Articles are presented to the House. " Nor did I state anything that reasonably could be interpretted as such. Moreover the historical example I presented, that of the House Judiciary Comittee's Watergate hearings, is an example of Articles of Impeachment being introduced after evidence was discovered, not befor

You seem to have not read my example of how the House Judiciary Comittee did just that, in that order.

That's wrong. Anyone can author an Article of Impeachment. Only a member of the House of representatives can introduce that Article of Impeachment. Senators and Congressmen seldom ar the actual authors of the legislation they introduce.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee to conduct hearings before a House committee, when the majority of committee members vote against doing so.
Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee to subpeaona a witness to testify before that committee when the majority of committee members vote against doing so.
Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee to require that a witness testify under oath before that committee when the majority of committee members vote against doing so.

--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

You did when you stated "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had begun". To me this indicated that you thought that discovery could be conducted during the actual impeachment hearing.

Sorry, too much time spent empaneled on Grand Juries. Evidenturary discovery is the investigative period needed to gather evidence of wrong doing.

When you stated "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had begun", I reasonably interpreted such.

But, Articles of Impeachment were NOT introduced to the House. Nixon resigned prior to that event

I did, but I think you need to re-read the thread.

Point taken.

...snip of requests for citations
Sure. I'll show you mine when you show me yours.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Bugg wrote:

It doesn't matter what "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of
Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had begun". meant to you. I did NOT state that "Articles of Impeachment could be a period of evidenturary discovery,"

I don't see how that addresses the bad syntax of the statement I did not make.
Regardless, it appears that you are aguing that one or more Articles of Impeachment must be introduced before the House could hold hearings to investigate allegation of impeachable acts.
That is just plain wrong.
The House could, and should, investigate and gather evidence before any Articles of Impeachment are introduced. Indeed, that is just what the House Judiciary Committee did during Watergate.

That interpretation is unreasonable because it presuposes that Articles of Impeachment MUST be introduced before the House could hold hearings to investigate allegations of impeachable acts.
My statement was erroneous, because the House never conducted 'impeachment hearings' per se, for the impeachment of Richard Nixon. E.g. I incorrectly called the Watergate hearings, Impeachment hearings. I corrected that error in my next article, and then in the next article after that pointed out to you that I had done so. Here we are three (3) articles later and you are still writing as if I had never corrected that error.
Regardless, had Nixon not resigned, the House Judiciary Committee undoubtrable would have voted to send one or more Articles of Impeachment to the House for debate.
Even if Nixon had not resigned and had been impeached, there is no reason to suppose that 'impeachment hearings' would ever have been held. The Watergate hearings were sufficient to produce the evidence needed for Articles of Impeachment.

Three articles were introduced into the committee, without 'impeachment hearings' per se, being held. There is no reason to suppose that the committee would have adjourned the Watergate investigation and then held impeachment hearings before sending the Articles to the House for debate.
The sequence of events was:
Watergate hearings by the House judiciary committee.
Articles of Impeachment introduced into the House Judiciary Committee
Nixon resigned.
Had Nixon not resigned then the follwoing sequence is likely:
Articles of Impeachment sent from teh Judiciary Committee to the floor of the House for debate.
One or more Articles of Impeachment passed by the House.
No 'impeachment hearings' per se.
Articles of Impeachment do not precede investigation, they are written (or not) based on evidence developed during the investigation.

Perhaps you need to do so, noted where I admitted having incorrectly referred to the Watergate Hearings as impeachmetn hearings.

I thought "congressfolk" was ambiguous.

Mine is consistent with the general principle of majority rule.
Yours is consitent with, what?
A minority can meet in caucus and conduct 'hearings' of their own and indeed, the Democrats have done just that. But those hearings are no way comparable to hearings held by House committees.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

No, that's not what I am saying.

That is what I said.

Yes. But again you had stated, "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear *until after the impeachment hearing had begun"*.

No, it implied that you believed investigations and fact-finding were part of an impeachment hearing.

You may have thought you corrected the error, but it didn't read that way. Now I see that.

Sigh... Articles of Impeachment ARE what impeachment hearings are based on. There is NO impeachment unless the Articles of Impeachment are heard in the House, and the House members vote, by a simple majority, to *accept* the Articles of Impeachment.

What don't you get about the fact that there IS no impeachment hearing UNTIL Articles of Impeachment are filed into the House.

Wrong. Articles of Impeachment were NEVER introduced into the House Committee.

Right. He resigned prior to any Articles being developed.

Huh? Do the Articles just hang around? After Articles are introduced, there HAS to be a hearing in order for the House to procede to a vote on the matter.

Now you are trying to lecture me on what I have already told you.

Executive Branch oversight by congress.

Correct, and that is what I am referring to. Regardless, they can still develop the facts and evidence needed as the basis for Articles of Impeachment. So, nothing is stopping the Democrats from developing the evidence they need for impeachment, except for the fact that they don't have a rational basis of fact. If they did, they would procede.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Bugg wrote:

Yet you contradict that below, when you say that impeachment hearings follow the introduction of Articles of Impeachment.

And, for the fourth time, I state that I mistakenly referred to the Watergate hearings as impeachment hearings.
I should have written: Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had begun.

No shit! And you don't?
Investigation and fact-finding are (ostensibly) the function of all Congressional hearings.
Seriously, why do you suppose the House commitees hold hearings and call witnesses to testify if not to investigate and find facts?
BTW, I mistakenly referred to the Watergate hearings as impeachment hearings.
I should have written: Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had begun.

It still appears that you didn't read it at all.
I mistakenly referred to the Watergate hearings as impeachment hearings.
I should have written: Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had begun.

You see what, exactly?
I hope you see:
I mistakenly referred to the Watergate hearings as impeachment hearings.
I should have written: Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had begun.
But since three times were not sufficient to get that through to you, I have repeated it four more times.
Do you get it yet?

What do you mean by heard?
Are you seriously suggesting that if the House Judiciary committee had voted to send Articles of Impeachment to the floor the House would have sent them back to committee for more hearings? Why would they not have proceeded to debate the Articles based on the evidence developed durig the Watergate hearings?

What do mean by 'filed'?
One of the many things you don't get, is that hearings of any sort are not required. It is possible for an Article of Impeachment to be introduced to the floor of the House, the measure debated, and then passed, without ever any hearings being held. Hell, even debate is optional, if no one in the House cares to speak on the matter it could go straight to a vote. Depending on the rules of procedure, a vote per se may not even be needed. The person introducing the Article of Impeachment could request that it be passed by unanimous consent, and if no one objects, it would. Unwise and improbable, but possible.
However if hearings are held, they are held to develop the evidence upon which Articles of Impeachment are based. The Articles of Impeachment are developed during or after the hearings, not before.

We disagree. Three Articles of Impeachment were intoduced into the House Judiciary Committee, debated and passed by that Committee by votes of 27-11, 28-10, and 27-17, respectively.
The full text may be read here: http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

What do you mean by 'developed'?
Three Articles of Impeachment were passed by the House Judiciary Committee.
I don't know if being passed by the committe qualifies as being heard, filed, or developed, nor do I care. They were passed by the committee and sent to the floor of the House for debate.

Actually, I was wrong again, that which follows below DID happen.

THEN Nixon resigned mooting the issue prior to the House intiating the debate.

Wrong. Once a measure is on the floor the time for hearings has ended and the time for debate has begun. The House COULD send the matter back to committee which then COULD hold more hearings but that would be the exception and not at all likely in the posited hypothetical.
Why would one set of hearings be held to develop the evidence needed to write the Aritcles of Impeachment and then a second set of hearings held to re-confirm that same evidence?

That is because you keep contradicting yourself.

How so?

They cannot subpoena witnesses nor compel testimony under oath.
THAT is the difference between conducting an investigation and blowing smoke.
--
FF

PS, in case you didn't notice:

I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Right, I got that. Sorry.

Look, the context of our back-n-forth has been jumbled by mistakes that both you and I have made.... probably from writing too fast to catch the mistakes. I don't have the desire to continue this discussion which is encumbered by misconstrued text and trying to back-track on mistakes made. If we were talking face-to-face the mistakes would take no time at all to correct, and the discussion would stay on track. The writing and waiting for a response then slogging through interminable text just ain't working for me right now. My bad. I guess you can have the last word :-)
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote in wrote:

Gents, how thin can you split a hair?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Reminds me of the SNL skit with Alec Baldwin doing the country radio show and describing his famous and delicious "Schweaty Balls". ;!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Hey! That was NPR, not a country show, and they tape the "real" version ("Food Schmooze") not far from my location.
What a GREAT parody... <G>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I strongly suspected that they were making fun of an actual radio show. You cannot make stuff like that up. LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

The real show is as lame as the parody makes it out to be. It's bad!
I picture most of the regular audience needing an occasional dusting!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe that honor belongs to you.
Take your crap elsewhere troll.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At least Bush has balls, and conviction. In this day in age that kind of person is hard to find. Unfortunately many find this type personality kind of harsh as they have been brought up in a society that has learned to accept no back bone spineless politicians as the norm.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

That would be good if he and his cronies had brains, too. Bush and his gang of vengeful fools has dragged America down to the lowest level it's been in world opinion since WWII. America no longer commands much respect because of its foreign adventures that are not based on anything rational. The support America had after 9/11 has been lost. America is more at risk from terrorists now than ever - even the quasi-secret Bush-held documents on the Iraq situation say that. The more revealed about Iraq, the worst things look. It's time to fix the problem, not support the fools.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's time for you to mind your own business. We don't tell you who should be president of your parasitic country.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Daly wrote:

OH-MY-GAWD!!!!!
OH-MY-GAWD!!!!
NO, please, help us find it!!!! Support, here support, come here boy. Someone call missing persons, please.

Really?? That's not what I read. Go ahead and paste the content of the report that said thet so we can read it ourselves. I'll wait.

Ummmm..... not so much. Al Queda sure seems panicked, though.

Here's a fix I love: America will make a treaty with all terrorist groups; To wit, as long as you leave America and those countries who provided troops to Iraq completely alone, we will leave you alone. BUT, you can do whatever you want, and kill whoever you want, in Canada, most of Europe and other head-in-the-sand, smegma-ridden countries.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe Jimmy Carter took us down that road along with the economy. All it took was for Regan to get elected to convince the Iranians to release our citizens.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RogerD wrote:

The only ones to purposefully bomb Iraqi civilians are the Iranian-sponsored insurgents.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Quite the opposite.
Faced with a tough task and the tools to do it, he cut and ran from the time honored principles and procedures of the US Military and US Justice system, the Constitution and our treaty obligations.
Less than two months after September 11, he proposed courts that were without competent juristidiction and rules of evidence thet condoned and encouraged torture. He never even tried to use the tried and true existing system of courts-marital and the established regulations for handling captives.
Any politician can stand up for priciple and respect for the rule of law when danger is passed. It takes courage and conviction to stand up for those priciples in time of crisis. Bush never even tried.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.