Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Sunday
How the ground shifted on Trump impeachment
WASHINGTON — After more than two years of jousting over President Donald Trump’s conduct, the ground has shifted in Congress and a move toward impeachment has broken free of constraints.
That does not mean the path ahead is all set.
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who for months had been a powerful brake on restive Democrats wanting to impeach Trump — launched a formal inquiry toward that end, accusing the president of “betrayal of his oath of office,” betrayal of national security and betrayal of the integrity of American elections.
A look at the matter and what’s known about what happens next:
Next steps
Six House committees are investigating various aspects of alleged impropriety by the president, with the intelligence committee taking the lead in examining Trump’s actions with Ukraine.
The investigations are on an expedited basis, though with no specific deadline.
Ultimately, the House Judiciary Committee would be the panel responsible for recommending any articles of impeachment against Trump.
If the panel backs impeachment articles, the matter goes to the full House for a vote. Democrats control the House and its committees.
If a majority of the full House votes for impeachment, the matter goes to the Senate, which is responsible for holding a trial, overseen by Chief Justice John Roberts. It takes a two-thirds vote in the Senate to force a president from office — a daunting challenge for Democrats if the effort goes that far, given Republican control of that chamber.
Impeaching a president is often misunderstood to mean his removal. It actually means the House has voted to bring one or more articles of impeachment and send the process forward. No president has been ousted by impeachment.
Democrats break their impasse
Some Democrats in Congress have long wanted to kick-start the constitutional process to remove Trump, despite the slim odds of success. But they lacked a critical mass and Pelosi’s support.
Trump’s machinations to avoid culpability from the Russia investigation fed into their push, but that inquiry came to an indistinct conclusion. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report detailed troubling episodes of presidential behavior, but stopped short of recommending charges for obstructing justice or conspiring with Moscow to tip the 2016 U.S. election to Trump.
Trump’s pre-election payment to a porn actress to maintain her silence and apparent Trump Organization profiteering from his presidency also fueled impeachment sentiment from a segment of the party. But it took a whistleblower’s still-secret complaint about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine to change the landscape.
In a nutshell: There’s little doubt Trump pressed Ukraine to conduct a corruption investigation of Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son — the president has defiantly stated that he did. He also acknowledged that days before a phone conversation with Ukraine’s leader in July, he ordered military aid to Ukraine to be frozen.
The episode raises the possibility that a president used the power of his office to get a foreign government to help him win reelection.
Trump denies doing or saying anything improper — and even doubled down on Thursday, openly calling on China to investigate the Bidens. He also plans to challenge the legitimacy of the impeachment inquiry because it wasn’t approved in a vote by the full House. Democrats say there is no requirement for a vote to start impeachment.
What has changed
Pelosi’s buy-in on impeachment proceedings is a huge advance for advocates of that approach after the proceedings in the Judiciary Committee were mostly seen as going nowhere. As well, Democrats believe the focus on Trump’s dealings with the Ukrainian leader could resonate more than the Mueller report did.
In terms of congressional process, not much changes, at least at first. The judiciary panel had already begun impeachment hearings and had asked other committees for input. And it’s not clear that Pelosi’s “expedited” timeline will move things along any more quickly. The committee chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, has said he wants to make a decision on whether to recommend articles of impeachment by the end of the year.
The last time this happened…
You can find partisans during almost every administration who think the president of the opposing party should be thrown out of office between elections. But there hasn’t been a serious effort to do that since the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
In 1998 and 1999, the House under Republican control pursued the impeachment of the Democratic president, primarily based on matters arising from his relationships with women outside his marriage.
The House approved an allegation that Clinton “willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony” before independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s grand jury investigation. And it voted to bring forward the accusation that he “prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice.” The Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him.
A rarity in history
Only two presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Clinton. Both won acquittal in the Senate.
Richard Nixon, who was the subject of impeachment proceedings, resigned from office in 1974 when it looked certain that the House would impeach him and his prospects in the Senate appeared dire.
Words from the Constitution
The Constitution gives the House “the sole power of impeachment” and the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments.”
And it dictates the removal from office of an impeached president who is convicted by the Senate of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” It is left to Congress to define such terms.
source: newsinfo.inquirer.net
A look at FBI Comey’s decisions in the Clinton email case
WASHINGTON — The FBI’s announcement that it recently came upon new emails possibly pertinent to the Hillary Clinton email investigation raised more questions than answers.
FBI Director James Comey said in a letter to Congress on Friday that the bureau had discovered the emails while pursuing an unrelated case and would review whether they were classified.
The announcement, vague in details, immediately drew both criticism and praise to Comey himself. Some questions and answers:
Where did the emails come from?
A: The emails emerged during a separate criminal sexting investigation into former Rep. Anthony Weiner, estranged husband of Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s closest aides, a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter told The Associated Press. The official was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation and discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.
Federal authorities are investigating communications between Weiner, a New York Democrat, and a 15-year-old girl.
It was not clear from Comey who sent or received the emails or what they were about.
Why is this coming out so close to the election?
A: Apparently because the emails were found very recently. In his letter to Congress, Comey said he had been briefed only Thursday by investigators.
Releasing the letter opened Comey to partisan criticism that he was dropping a significant development too close to an election. But keeping it under wraps until after Nov. 8 would surely have led to criticism that he was sitting on major news until after the election.
Comey has said there are no easy decisions on timing in the case. In an internal email sent Friday to FBI employees, he said he was trying to strike a balance between keeping Congress and the public informed and not creating a misleading impression, given that the emails’ significance is not yet known.
“In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood,” he wrote.
Upon learning of Comey’s intention to send lawmakers the letter, Justice Department officials conveyed disapproval and advised the FBI against it, according to a government official familiar with the conversations who was not authorized to discuss the matter by name and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Department leaders were concerned that the letter would be inconsistent with department policy meant to avoid the appearance of prosecutorial interference or meddling in elections, the official said.
Is the disclosure standard for the FBI?
A: No, but neither was the Clinton email investigation.
In a nod to the extraordinary nature of an election-year probe into a presidential candidate, Comey promised extraordinary transparency as he announced the investigation’s conclusion in July.
“I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest,” Comey said at the unusual news conference where he announced the FBI would not recommend criminal charges against Clinton.
Since then, the FBI has periodically released investigative files — that is, summaries of witnesses who were interviewed. Those materials aren’t typically public.
Comey, a former Republican who is not registered with a political party, has served in government under both Democratic and Republican administrations and speaks repeatedly about the need for the FBI to be accountable to the public.
His letter Friday seemed in keeping with a statement he made to Congress last month, that although the FBI had concluded its investigation, “we would certainly look at any new and substantial information” that emerged.
But why was the letter so vague?
A: For one thing, the FBI avoids publicly discussing ongoing criminal investigations, or even confirming it has one open.
It also appears the FBI isn’t sure what it has. Comey said the FBI cannot yet assess whether the material is significant, or how long it would take to complete the additional work.
Nevertheless, the letter’s vagueness was immediately seized upon by critics as unacceptable and leaving the public in the dark.
What happens now? Does this increase the likelihood that someone could be changed?
A: The FBI will review the emails to see if they were classified and were improperly handled.
It’s impossible to say if anyone is in greater jeopardy than before.
The FBI announced in July that scores of emails from Clinton’s server contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. So, new emails determined as classified might do nothing to change the legal risk for anyone who sent them.
Comey said in July that the FBI had found no evidence of intentional or willful mishandling of classified information, of efforts to obstruct justice or of the deliberate exposure of government secrets. Those were elements that Comey suggested were needed to make a criminal case.
Nothing in the letter appears to change that standard. TVJ
source: newsinfo.inquirer.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


