What special powers does an impeachment panel have?

[MonkeyFunk]

I hear people argue for impeaching now in order to do a real investigation.

I even saw one person claim that in an impeachment hearing, there is no executive privilege, and nobody can refuse a subpoena - they MUST appear.

I've never heard of any such thing. Why would an impeachment panel have any powers that an investigatory panel currently doesn't have?

I believe those people are just plain wrong - an impeachment panel has no special powers that aren't already vested in the investigatory committees, but I'm open to seeing some evidence to the contrary.

[PeaceNikki]

1. Telekinesis?

:shrug:

Interested in the answers.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. LOL

that'd be cool!

[PeaceNikki]

4. Memory manipulation would be far more handy

... in this case.

[brentspeak]

2. A lot of the "we must impeach" crowd don't seem to know what they're talking about

A few do, but most are just ignorant of the whole process.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. i think people think impeachment will immediately result in removal.

cos clearly clinton immediately left office after his impeachment.

[PeaceNikki]

11. Even if that DID happen... what does that mean? OOOOHHH... Cheney in Charge!!

Gosh, that's a great concept, huh?

[tandot]

5. Impeachment before any hearings and investigations?

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

7. it seems people here

support that. They want to impeach TODAY.

[bonito]

8. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1424525&mesg_id=1424525

[tandot]

26. and if the Dems don't impeach RIGHT F*CKING NOW!11! they are all

war mongers. And if we support them, we are towing the party line or are trolls. Lots of name calling going on.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. oh yes

I've been called a paid right-wing disruptor simply because I agree with the DEMOCRATS in congress.

[wiggs]

28. No one says impeachment before ANY hearings. We've had hearings and are having hearings. Moreover,

the impeachment process includes results from previous hearings but includes its own investigations (from bonito post below)

"Q. What procedures does the House of Representatives follow in the impeachment process?
A. While the Constitution outlines the basic process for impeachment, the specific procedures are determined by the internal rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate. To begin, the House of Representatives refers the investigation to its Judiciary Committee, which reviews the evidence and may conduct hearings. It determines whether an official impeachment inquiry is warranted and, if so, asks the House for permission to proceed. An official investigation follows, with the Committee deciding whether to offer articles of impeachment to the full House. The House then votes separately on each of the articles, with a simple majority needed to impeach the official. Articles of impeachment approved by the House are then presented to the Secretary of the U.S. Senate for trial."

An OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION follows. This may result in an offering and enumeration of articles of impeachment, much like a grand jury does in a criminal case. These charges are not subject to pardon or commutation or appeal (might be considered the special powers you were asking about). Once in the senate a trial is conducted, with more testimony possible. Senate can issue writs, mandates, citation contempts (without another body needed to vote). Removal from office is immediate...on the spot.

Another special power might be the spotlight that would be shown on all manner of misdeeds in the full view of the public...unlike hearings.

[Thothmes]

32. Removal from office immediate, provided a guilty verdict is reached.

[mmonk]

9. Check out the American Bar association on the process.

Articles are brought forth. The panel determines if there is need for an inquiry for impeachable offenses. Once that is determined, articles or charges if you will are written up. Then they are voted on by the House one at a time. Those voted for in the affirmative are sent to the senate for trial. A senate panel decides the protocols for the trials and then the trials begin. The senate then renders judgement. The president or vice president or other official is represented by counsel and there are no "special" powers to which he can claim to invoke.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. How does that answer

the question I asked?

[mmonk]

12. More power than a renegade president. How's that?

He can't hide by "wartime" or "unitary" or anything else. Neither can Darth Cheney. They have to rely on counsel. If you have a problem with that, it's too bad as those that drafted the constitution are no longer with us.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. I don't get it

what powers does an impeachment panel have that a current House panel doesn't have?

[mmonk]

20. Impeachment is the purview of the House and is their most

potent weapon against any official guilty of malfeasance of office. That's why taking it away is a bad idea. Without it, the current executive is running wild and refusing to co-operate on his theory of unitary executive and the vice president is doing the same. They could not deny or take away or ignore the impeachment process.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. who's talking about taking it away?

I'm asking if a committee meeting under the banner of impeachment has any powers that a regular House committee doesn't have.

[mmonk]

23. The answer is yes, more power.

By taking it off the table is what I meant by taking it away. Then they have nothing or little to fear.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Then please tell me

which powers they have, and provide some evidence for your assertion.

[mmonk]

25. Also, I think the administration would like to give his court appointments

a try. Impeachment would circumvent that and put him at the mercy of others.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. You're fundamentally misunderstanding my question

but thanks for trying.

[mmonk]

34. Nope. You're trying to ask if all these investigations are just

as effective and powerful as an impeachment "panel" as you call it. You would be wrong in asserting in this particular confrontation between an executive branch that thinks it has inherently more power and is challenging Congress that an impeachment inquiry isn't anymore powerful than current investigations. Impeachment is the trump card. Otherwise their investigative hearings, panels, etc. don't necessarily lead to anything substantially harmful to the president or vice president. They just fall on their sword and later are free. Remember Iran/Contra? Pretty much ineffective.

[mmonk]

35. I'll put it this way.

Impeachment is a special power congress has that can check the executive branch. No other branch has that SPECIAL power.

[Poiuyt]

14. I believe the executive privilege thing came from John Dean

I don't have a link, so I'm going by memory here. I think if Congress is investigating criminal activity, then executive privilege could not be claimed.

Bruce Fein said on Bill Moyers the other night: "Certainly with regard to the one example of the abuse of presidential authority, seeking to obstruct a legitimate congressional investigation by a preposterous assertion of executive privilege. Remember, in a democracy, in - under the Constitution, transparency and sunshine is the rule. The exception is only for matters of grave national security secrets. That certainly doesn't apply here."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071407B.shtml

I think this would go to the Supreme Court if Bush kept claiming executive privilege.

[Poiuyt]

22. From the book, "The Federal Impeachment Process"

The President cannot withhold information from Congress based on his assertion of executive privilege in order to ensure that he is not above the law. Because impeachment Page 76 follows: trials are extraordinary hearings administered by Congress, the special rules of evidence that state and federal courts use do not apply.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=0226289575&itm=8

[LSK]

15. able to leap small buildings in a single bound?

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

16. The power to impeach is LITERALLY in the Constitution - while "Executive Privilege" is merely ...

... an interpretation of a limited (pragmatic) necessity to conduct those duties exclusively granted to the Executive Branch. Thus, there is no defense of Executive Privilege regarding ANY evidence relevant to a high crime or misdemeanor under consideration. This was tested during both Nixon's and Clinton's impeachment and there is no reputable disagreement.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Well...

I believe the Clinton case referred to a Grand Jury, not the congress. The Nixon case was regarding special prosector Leon Jaworski. In neither case, was an impeachment panel ruled to have powers that don't otherwise exist.

Specifically, does a house panel meeting under an impeachment banner have any powers that a regular house investigatory panel doesn't have?

[H2O Man]

17. If you have not

read Raoul Berger's "Executive Privilege v. Congressional Inquiry" (UCLA Law Review, XII 1328-29; 1965), I think you would find it interesting. Also, his "Executive Privilege: The Withholding of Information by the Executive: Hearing" (92 Congress; 1 Sess.; 1971; p 346). I also highly recommend his 1973 book "Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems" (Cambridge).

Though we disagree on issues involving impeachment, I am sincere in my suggestions. It's also possible, perhaps likely, that you are as familiar with these works as I am. I do not think they support either the pro-impeachment or the alternative position exclusively. Impeachment is indeed a difficult process, for as Spinoza reminds us, "all noble things are as difficult as they are rare."

[MonkeyFunk]

19. I don't have those resources here...

but perhaps you can tell me if a house committee meeting under the label of impeachment has powers that a regular house committee does not have.

[H2O Man]

36. One of the

things that those who disagree with the pro-impeachment folks on DU often say is that we should not seek or expect instant gratifaction. They point out that it takes time to dig out the important and necessary information.

If your question is sincere, then I have provided the resources that you will need to dig out the answers to your question. If your question is simply part of a game, then I can only hope other DUers who are interested in this topic will take the time to read Raoul Berger's classic works on the topic.

I'll end by saying that Elliot Abrams made an infamous attack on Berger, and Ann Coulter infamously plagiarized his work. His work is worth making the effort to read.

[warren pease]

29. This from another OP ...

According John Dean, who should know something about impeachment proceedings, the following special conditions apply (paraphrasing the OP poster's own paraphrase):


Impeachment is valuable BECAUSE Bush CANNOT assert executive privilege over ANY ITEMS needed in the investigation AGAINST HIM.

All the records regarding the energy policy, the Plame leak, etc...everything loses its cover and becomes property of the investigating body (The House). This also means that all the people that REFUSE to acknowledge the subpoenas...Rove, Rice, Miers, etc. HAVE to testify in an impeachment hearing and there is NO getting around that.

The media can ignore Congressional hearings. The media can ignore parliamentary procedure BUT the media CANNOT ignore an impeachment hearing.

So, if you think pulling the media cover and executive privilege cover off of this administration wouldn't net the support in the Senate (because it sure as hell would get the attention of the people who aren't being told exactly what is going on)...then I am sorry that you simply do not understand the reason we NEED impeachment proceedings.


So... no hiding behind executive privilege; no more ignoring subpoenas; the prospect of actual media coverage; the chance to dismantle BushCo in front of the entire world -- sounds like a deal to me, but I'm just one of those "impeach yesterday" radicals with absolutely no concept of the niceties of mutual back-scratching politics if they get in the way of doing the right, honorable and just thing when dealing with this pack of mad jackals.


wp

[MonkeyFunk]

31. but under what court decision

or legal authority is that true?

Edit: I can't find any court decision referring to special conditions that apply to an impeachment panel. Dean might be referring to US v Nixon, which wasn't about a congressional impeachment hearing.

[warren pease]

33. Well, that's a tough one...

Only cite I could find is from an article in Slate by Bruce Fein, constitutional lawyer and author of "Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle Over the Constitution and Democracy." He writes:

...suspicion has arisen that the White House intended to manipulate U.S. attorneys in some instances to harass Democrats with contrived voting fraud prosecutions or otherwise. The committees' interest in exposing misuse of the president's power to appoint and remove executive officials is compelling. As Justice Louis Brandeis* observed, sunshine is the best disinfectant. The congressional judiciary committees are further legitimately investigating whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or other Department of Justice officials committed perjury or endeavored to obstruct Congress' investigation by misrepresenting White House involvement in the decisions to remove the U.S. attorneys.

The Supreme Court, in the 1957 case Watkins v. United States, explained that Congress enjoys the power to "inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration, or inefficiencies" in the executive branch, including crimes. President Bush's assertion of executive privilege to stymie the committees' well-founded investigations is wildly misplaced.


Full text here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2170247/nav/tap3/


Now I'm as intrigued as you and will continue trawling for other case law on the subject.


wp