Why is Mitch McConnell refusing to subpoena any documents and witnesses?

Since the articles contain no treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors they are entirely on point.

You? Not so much.

 

Actually, he is accused and impeached for "high crimes."

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency' — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

"High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.​

Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. They can be thought of as serious cases of power abuse or dereliction of duty, without a requirement for these cases to be explicitly against the law.

Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."

The process of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and the Senate is difficult, made so to be the balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor," "maladministration," or "other crime." Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved "for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors," the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offences. This gives a lot of freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The constitutional law by nature is not concerned with being specific. The courts through precedence and the legislature through lawmaking make constitutional provisions specific. In this case the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent.

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors#United_States

Both articles (Abuse of Power & Obstruction of Congress) are, by definition, HIGH CRIMES. Leningrad Lindsey and Moscow Mitch certainly voted that way when it was Clinton under the gun...

 

Sorry but Abuse of Power is an opinion and the second article is baseless because of the constitutional separation of powers the House was too lazy to use the normal procedure of the third branch, the court, to settle.

No treason, bribery, or high crimes or misdemeanors.

 

I go back to what I said around page three or four if not earlier. It is not the job of the Senate to redo the house's investigation now matter how thoroughly the house screwed the pooch, it is the senates Job to decide whether the house's charges as is are accurate and worthy of removal of the president. Given that nothing actually in the charging document is illegal, and half of it is completely bogus the Senate would be well within it's rights to tell the house to try again when they actually can bring fourth evidence of an illegality not just something they don't like.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/icreport.htm

Humpty Trumpty's own lawyer Ken "IOKIYAR but IACIYAD" Starr and SCOTUS judge Brett "Poutraging Little Bitch" Kavanaugh strongly disagree:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/7groundsxi.htm

XI. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton's actions since January 17, 1998, regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky have been inconsistent with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.

...

The President promised in January 1998 to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation and to provide "more rather than less, sooner rather than later." At that time, the OIC was conducting a criminal investigation and was obligated to report to Congress any substantial and credible information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

The President's conduct delayed the grand jury investigation (and thereby delayed any potential congressional proceedings). He asserted, appealed, withdrew, and reasserted Executive Privilege (and asserted other governmental privileges never before applied in federal criminal proceedings against the government). The President asserted these privileges concerning the investigation of factual questions about which the President already knew the answers. The President refused six invitations to testify voluntarily before the grand jury. At the same time, the President's aides and surrogates argued publicly that the entire matter was frivolous and that any investigation of it should cease.

After being subpoenaed in July, the President made false statements to the grand jury on August 17, 1998. That night, the President again made false statements to the American people and Congress, contending that his answers in his civil deposition had been "legally accurate." The President then made an implicit plea for Congress to take no action: "Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long."(454)

The President has pursued a strategy of (i) deceiving the American people and Congress in January 1998, (ii) delaying and impeding the criminal investigation for seven months, and (iii) deceiving the American people and Congress again in August 1998.

...

C. The President repeatedly and unlawfully invoked the Executive Privilege to conceal evidence of his personal misconduct from the grand jury.

When the allegations about Ms. Lewinsky first arose, the President informed the American people that he would cooperate fully. He told Jim Lehrer that "we are doing our best to cooperate here."(466) He told National Public Radio that "I have told people that I would cooperate in the investigation, and I expect to cooperate with it. . . . I'm going to do my best to cooperate with the investigation."(467) He told Roll Call "I'm going to cooperate with this investigation. . . . And I'll cooperate."(46

Such cooperation did not occur. The White House's approach to the constitutionally based principle of Executive Privilege most clearly exposed the non-cooperation. In 1994, White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler issued an opinion that the Clinton Administration would not invoke Executive Privilege for cases involving personal wrongdoing by any government official.(469) By 1998, however, the President had blended the official and personal dimensions to the degree that the President's private counsel stated in a legal brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: "In a very real and significant way, the objectives of William J. Clinton, the person, and his Administration (the Clinton White House) are one and the same."(470)

After the Monica Lewinsky investigation began, the President invoked Executive Privilege for the testimony of five witnesses: Bruce Lindsey, Cheryl Mills, Nancy Hernreich, Sidney Blumenthal, and Lanny Breuer. These claims were patently groundless. Even for official communications within the scope of the privilege, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1974 in United States v. Nixon(471) that the Executive Privilege gives way in the face of the compelling need for evidence in criminal proceedings.

The President's assertion of Executive Privilege for Ms. Hernreich, an assistant who manages the secretarial work for the Oval Office,(472) was frivolous. At the time that the President was asserting Executive Privilege for one assistant, the President's other assistant (Betty Currie) had already testified extensively.

Based on Nixon, the OIC filed a motion to compel the testimony of Hernreich, Lindsey, and Blumenthal. The United States District Court held a hearing on March 20. Just before the hearing, the White House -- without explanation -- dropped its Executive Privilege claim as to Ms. Hernreich.(473)

On May 4, 1998, Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled against the President on the Executive Privilege issue.(474) After the White House filed a notice of appeal, the OIC filed an expedited petition for certiorari before judgment in the Supreme Court. The President thereupon dropped his claim of Executive Privilege.

The tactics employed by the White House have not been confined to the judicial process. On March 24, while the President was traveling in Africa, he was asked about the assertion of Executive Privilege. He responded, "You should ask someone who knows." He also stated "I haven't discussed that with the lawyers. I don't know."(475)

This was untrue. Unbeknownst to the public, in a declaration filed in District Court on March 17 (seven days before the President's public expression of ignorance), White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff informed Chief Judge Johnson that he "ha[d] discussed" the matter with the President, who had directed the assertion of Executive Privilege.(476)

The deception has continued. Because the President withdrew his Executive Privilege claim while the case was pending in the Supreme Court of the United States, it was assumed that the President would no longer assert Executive Privilege. But that assumption proved incorrect. White House attorney Lanny Breuer appeared before the grand jury on August 4, 1998, and invoked Executive Privilege. He would not answer, for example, whether the President had told him about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and whether they had discussed the gifts he had given to Monica Lewinsky.(477) On August 11, 1998, Chief Judge Johnson denied the Executive Privilege claim as a basis for refusing to testify, and ordered Mr. Breuer to testify.(47

On August 11, 1998, Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills testified and repeatedly asserted Executive Privilege at the President's direction.(479) The breadth of the claim was striking: The privilege was asserted not only for Ms. Mills's communications with the President, senior staff, and staff members of the White House Counsel's Office -- but also for Ms. Mills's communications with private lawyers for the President, private lawyers for grand jury witnesses, and Betty Currie.(480)

On August 17, the President testified before the grand jury. At the request of a grand juror, the OIC asked the President about his assertions of Executive Privilege and why he had withdrawn the claim before the Supreme Court. The President replied that "I didn't really want to advance an executive privilege claim in this case beyond having it litigated, so that we, we had not given up on principal [sic] this matter, without having some judge rule on it. . . . I strongly felt we should not appeal your victory on the executive privilege issue."(481)

Four days after this sworn statement, on August 21, 1998, the President filed a notice of appeal with respect to the Executive Privilege claim for Lanny Breuer that Chief Judge Johnson had denied ten days earlier (and six days before the President's testimony). In addition, Bruce Lindsey appeared again before the grand jury on August 28, 1998, and the President again asserted Executive Privilege with respect to his testimony -- even though the President had dropped the claim of Executive Privilege for Mr. Lindsey while the case was pending before the Supreme Court of the United States in June.(482)

The Executive Privilege was not the only claim of privilege interposed to prevent the grand jury from gathering relevant information. The President also acquiesced in the Secret Service's attempt to have the Judiciary craft a new protective function privilege (rejecting requests by this Office that the President order the Secret Service officers to testify). The District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the privilege claim. The litigation was disruptive to the Secret Service and to the grand jury. The frivolity of the claim is evidenced by the Chief Justice's decision to reject the Secret Service's request for a stay without even referring the matter to the full Court. All of that litigation would have been unnecessary had the President testified in February instead of August, or had he taken the position that relevant facts should be fully available to the grand jury.

...

F. Summary

In this case, the President made and caused to be made false statements to the American people about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He also made false statements about whether he had lied under oath or otherwise obstructed justice in his civil case. By publicly and emphatically stating in January 1998 that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and these "allegations are false," the President also effectively delayed a possible congressional inquiry, and then he further delayed it by asserting Executive Privilege and refusing to testify for six months during the Independent Counsel investigation. This represents substantial and credible information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

 

Well, don't take my word for it. Maybe you'll take the words of Chief Justice Rehnquist from the Clinton impeachment.

 

You never saw me say he wasn't impeached. He's impeached. Honestly, to be impeached out of the hatred of the left in the House is a badge of honor, not a reflection of his character.

The Constitution actually lays out zero reasons for impeachment. It lays out rules for conviction and removal from office in the Senate but there are no rules mentioned in the Constitution for impeachment. That means that a president, or other impeachable person, could be impeached for anything the House wants to impeach them. One definition, from the period, for impeach is to censure. So there could be impeachments with no conviction or possibly even with conviction but no removal from office.

Pelosi said it all, though, when she said that it's not about proof, it's about allegations. Their motive has nothing to do with proving anything or conviction; it's about raising enough allegations to affect the 2020 election both for the Senate and for president.

Once again, the Constitution on Impeachment:

Nothing in the above implies in any way that the only thing the President can be impeached for is treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. What it says, quite explicitly, is that those are the offenses for which, if impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, the president can be removed from office.

Once again, there are no restrictions at all on what the House can impeach.

So, President Trump was impeached. So what?

 

The obvious answer is tRUMP would be found guilty. And the R party would be in turmoil.

 

Clinton was impeached for an actual crime.

 

At this point it reflects more on the Dems than he.

On impeachment for.......the impeachable offenses. The reasons for an impeachment and removal were hotly contested by the founding fathers and their great fear that the impeachment would become a petty political process and that any President facing an opposition party would be impeached as matter of course. So they inserted the for qualifications for impeachment. Now the Senate will say those are not impeachable offenses.

Yes the House CAN impeach on whatever they want, at this time, but they CNN violate the Constitution in doing so. Would getting a speeding ticket be an impeachable offense?

I agree and that flies in the face of the Constitution and the impeachable offenses clause.

I'm going to disagree on your semantical argument.

 

Perfect, like I said, an opinion and not a crime.

 

Clinton invoked executive privilege on private affairs and not govt dealings. Apples and oranges.

 

Why is Mitch McConnell refusing to subpoena any documents and witnesses?

Hopefully he aims to keep this political process as short as possible. I, on the other hand, want witnesses because they will make for better entertainment.

 

I rest my case.

 

It’s time to end this charade.

Shut it down, Mitch.

 

LOL, you have no case to rest. Just more hysteria.

 

No, that is false. The House merely impeaches. Like a grand jury, the House merely determines if there is enough evidence for an impeachment. The House indicts. It does not try. According to our Constitution, the trial takes place in the Senate. Like a grand jury, the House does not determine guilt or innocence. The Senate does that with the presentation of all relevant evidence, including witness testimony.

You are supporting a trial without witnesses. That is ludicrous. A trial without witnesses is a cover-up.

You are suggesting that the opening statements in your trial is evidence. Opening statements are not evidence. Are you suggesting a trial without evidence?

If the Senate maintains this moronic position, the American people will become the judge and jury on November 3. You best think about that.

You have avoided the evidence. Trump incriminated himself twice. His chief of staff confirmed that bribery was used on a foreign leader. Trump has systematically blocked witnesses and documents for being presented to Congress.

This has been repeated over and over again and still Trump's fans don't get it.

 

Why is Mitch McConnell refusing to subpoena any documents and witnesses?

This is obvious to anyone who bothers to think as there is only one reason to not look and listen to evience in any trial......It will show your client is guilty.

 

The House managers will get to present their evidence.

 

What we know runs counter to what you have chosen to believe and it doesn't matter a damn because none of that is even in the charging documents because the house knew it wouldn't fly.

 

They will see all the evidence the house has if that isn't enough then maybe the house shouldn't have been in such a rush to get the investigation done.

 

That is not in question and does not address the point. Why would Trump prevent testimony and data that would exonerate him?

 

You mean wait until Trump allowed testimony and data that exonerates him?

He could have done that at any time but instead forbade it.....I wonder why.

 

Guilty until proven innocent? That’s very dangerous.

 

You do understand what charges and trials are.....correct? You get charged for something, then there are these folks who try to defend against prosecution. So yeah innocent till proven guilty or vice versa.....take your pick.