I’m sure President Gore would agree.
I can’t possibly imagine what Trump would have to do and how public it would have to be before the Senate would vote to remove him from office. That alone indicates that there is something very wrong with the process.
Then they should dispense with citing legal precedents, debating burdens of proof, taking oaths of impartiality, etc.
Why? It is whatever they want it to be. Or whatever they can get the majority of their peers to agree to. Because it’s a political process.
Right. The House has already impeached him. The Senate should not be arguing that these are not impeachable offences, but rather, did it happen.
The solution to your problem is to get a constitutional amendment passed that clearly defines the impeachment and conviction process the way you want it.
Did Clinton lie under oath?
This is not whataboutism. I didn’t think Clinton should have been removed from office. But if you believe what you wrote then Clinton would have been removed from office. Do you think that was the best solution then?
But, even if such an amendment contained an articulated standard – let’s say, there must be clear and convincing evidence of a crime or an abuse of power (just for example) – then senators can always weasel out by saying that the case just didn’t meet that threshold because… reasons.
Just like jury nullification in criminal trials. Yes that’s true. But at least it would clearly define the roles and focus what could and could not be discussed at trial.
Hey it’s not me that’s proposing things should change it’s not up to me to fix it.
I think the OP is wrong. The Constitution says that a President can be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. There is no definition given for what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor. So the intent seems to be that Congress would define these terms for itself. I think it would be a violation of the Constitution for some outside body to declare, for example, that murder is an impeachable offense but stealing a car is not.
One thing that has surprised me about Trump’s impeachment is that nobody seems to be invoking the b-word (unless I’ve missed it) in the arguments about whether Trump has committed an impeachable offense. As I noted above, the Constitution explicitly lists two crimes that are impeachable offenses. And while I feel the original authors were thinking of politicians receiving bribes, I think it’s clear that Trump was offering a bribe to Zelensky. Why aren’t people using this to get past the issue of whether Trump’s crime was an impeachable offense? Why charge him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and open this can of worms?
I don’t think that it would be unconstitutional for the House to decide and have the Senate abide by it.
Or perhaps with your imagination.
I disagree. I feel that the authors of the Constitution wanted the two halves of Congress to act as a check on each other in impeachments. The House cannot remove anyone from office because the Senate decision. And the Senate cannot remove anyone from office because it cannot initiate an impeachment. It takes an agreement by both halves in order to act.
It would have to be something bad enough that the Senators would be endangering their own careers if they did not remove him.
We’ll find out in November if Trump met that standard and the Republican Senators misread the situation.
It has been explained to you by multiple people (including myself) that you are wrong in viewing the Senate as a regular jury.
You are wrong; dead wrong; wrong in so many different ways; wrong in so many different dimensions; a thousand times wrong.
Would you please explain just why you persist in this delusion?
Will you explain how the Senate is not acting as a jury?
The senate is not a part of the judiciary.
There are some similarities between impeachment and a judicial proceeding, but those analogies are descriptive, nor prescriptive.