Wouldn't the talk of impeachment now be conviction before trial?

[madokie]

isn't that getting the cart before the horse? We all know they are guilty of many impeachable offenses and wouldn't it suck if they got off on a technicality. I want to see orange jump suits and steel bars and I will wait if that will help to insure that.

[Toots]

1. Impeachment always comes before the trial

:shrug:

[Lasher]

7. You are technically correct, an impeachment is like an indictment.

But most people want to see Junior tried in the court of public opinion before any impeachment proceedings occur. This can at last be done with Democrats in control of Congress.

[ClassWarrior]

2. IMPEACHMENT is the equivalent of indictment, or bringing charges.

Investigations lead to IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT leads to trial, and trial leads to conviction.

NGU.

[Lasher]

8. Coke!

[ClassWarrior]

11. LOL... Is that like jinx?

NGU.

[hootinholler]

28. Yes, but he doesn' have it...

You have to say it at the same time. Otherwise you would owe him a coke.

-Hoot

[Lasher]

31. Curses, foiled again!

You're right, 9:33 vs. 9:37. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Nope

Impeachment = indictment, with the House of Representatives acting as a grand jury. The trial is when the Senate meets to judge the articles of impeachment and, if they decide punishment is merited, "convict" on those articles.

Talking about impeachment is equivalent to talk about seeking an indictment. And any way, since when has someone gotten off on a technicality just because of the tide of publicity before a trial?

[bowens43]

4. No, it wouldn't.

Impeachment is the indictment. The trial takes place in the Senate after impeachment.

[H2O Man]

5. No. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. The impeachment process is not a criminal procedure.

The House votes a bill of impeachment, which is basically like a probable cause finding. Then the actual trial is held in the Senate once the president is impeached by the House. If he is convicted he is removed from office, which is all that happens as the result of a conviction on the bill of impeachment. Any criminal trial would be entirely separate, held in a regular federal court, following removal from office. Actually, once he's out of office he could theoretically be tried for criminal offenses even if he's never impeached or convicted. But a criminal trial and the impeachment process are two separate and unrelated things.

[madokie]

13. I understand now

I so want impeachment and removal from office with a trip to the International Criminal Court to stand and face charges of War Crimes.

[NotGivingUp]

16. i'll second that

[elocs]

19. I so want to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny,

but that is not reality. Impeachment can happen simply because the Democrats have the votes to do it. There will not be conviction or removal from office. Since my eyes have been opened to the existence of Santa Claus, those who believe in conviction by the Senate and removal from office may as well wake up and smell the coffee. It ain't happening in this reality.

One difference between the trial after conviction compared to a criminal proceeding is that in this case the jury, the U.S. Senate, is already known. Everybody knows who the jury will be even before impeachment (indictment). Smart people can count and already know that the 67 votes needed for conviction are not there. The hope that 16 or more Republicans, all of whom undoubtedly get trashed here on a regular basis because they are Republicans, will vote for conviction. Reality is a harsh mistress.

[ClassWarrior]

23. So did Santa Claus bring you the crystal ball you're using?

:eyes:

NGU.

[elocs]

26. Who is this poster called "Ignored" that responded to reply #19? n/t

[ClassWarrior]

27. Wow, someone's afraid of my opinion enough to "ignore" me??

I don't have anyone on "ignore." I'm not afraid of ideas.

NGU.

[Orsino]

9. Well, if no one talks about it, there won't even be an investigation.

Congress has proven its unwillingness to pursue actual work. I don't think anyone's wish to see impeachment is necessarily any hastier than your desire for those orange jump suits before an actual conviction. Talk it up, I say, or the * Admin will continue to get away with murder.

[Road Scholar]

10. Another question; Can censure be applied outright while

investigations are underway? Then impeachment when criminal activity is discovered and proven. Will censure impede impeachment?:shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

12. no

see all the other posts. Please don't buy into the bullshit. Impeachment hearings would be the investigation leading up to the the indictment of an impeachment resulting in a trial in the senate and removal on conviction, followed by criminal indictments, followed by a criminal trial, followed by conviction, followed by incarceration. Rule of law, sovereignty of the people through their legally chosen representatives, what a concept.

[madokie]

15. I promise I won't buy any of it.

My bad, we do need to talk of impeachment at the top of our lungs and I will be screaming as loud as I can. I haven't been using my vocal cords sinces the kids are out of school and aren't playing sports anymore. And they do need a good tuneup, thanks all.

[ThomWV]

14. It would appear that you do not understand the concept or the process.

The House brings charges (impeaches) the Senate holds the trial (find the party guilty or not). Impeachment is in no way finding anyone guilty or innocent of anything, it only presents the facts and brings the charges.

[madokie]

17. I agree I didn't but I do now, thanks to all

I knew that but I thought we should start with talk of investigations to keep from sounding like we have already convicted the basturds, my bad

[ClassWarrior]

24. Yup, investigations are part of the IMPEACHMENT process.

NGU.

[Deep13]

18. Impeachment is not justice, only removal from office.

That will happen anyway before any impeachment trial. Criminal prosecution is an entirely different matter.

[Marie26]

20. Impeachment is the trial

A Congressional vote to impeach is just like a juror's vote to indict. It's the Senate that decides whether the President should be convicted & removed from office.

[elocs]

32. Impeachment is not the trial. The House impeaches, the Senate holds the trial.

So many here believe that impeachment is the be-all and end-all to everything. There is no doubt that Bush can be impeached and there is very little doubt that he would be convicted. Imagine the surprise of many if Bush is impeached and then he finishes his term of office.

[magnolia]

21. It depends on who does the "talking".

As much as I would love for our newly elected majority to start talking impeachment, I understand that it is premature. But, we, the people, can and should be talking to our congressmen and senators about impeachable offenses and insisting on investigations.

If anyone says there's no time for that, remind them that the jobs of our congress in the last six years of rubberstamping has been part time. Now that we have democrats in charge they need to put in a full days work and make time for things as important as holding Bush accountable.

[madokie]

22. Nancy and Harry have assured us they are going to do both

work diligently and investigate. And I'll love 'em for it

[ClassWarrior]

25. Exactly. THEY can't talk about it, which is all the more reason...

...that WE should.

Visualize IMPEACHMENT. Then help make it happen.

NGU.

[porphyrian]

29. No. - n/t

[Solly Mack]

30. Impeachment is one thing. Criminal trial for war crimes/crimes another

Impeachment is the first step of a 2 part Constitutional process - The House impeaches (indicts) and the Senate convicts (or not) and the convicted is removed from office - and then subject to criminal law (or not), as in the case of a President.

It's not possible to put conviction in the impeachment process ahead of the actual impeachment - you can't convict someone in the Senate who has not been impeached first, in the House.

No one goes to prison for being impeached. The Constitution states quite clearly the punishment for conviction in the impeachment process is removal from office and can (and usually does) include being banned from ever holding public office again...but cannot extend any further than that.

Impeachment would help to restore the balance of power that was stripped from Congress under Bush and his drive for the unitary executive. Grounds exist because Bush has abused the power of the office of President, as well as violations of the Constitution - not to mention, but hardly the least of it, war crimes.

Trial for war crimes/other crimes has nothing to do with impeachment - though a country that won't impeach a President for war crimes is a country that won't arrest a former President for war crimes. It's also a country that will not allow the extradition of a former President for war crimes either.

[pat_k]

33. "If the impeachment provision in the Constitution. . ." --Barbara Jordan

The Honorable Barbara Jordan
25 July 1974, House Judiciary Committee

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2811631