Star Member StarfishSaver (1,578 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212146677
Let's define our impeachment terminology
Last edited Fri May 31, 2019, 08:53 AM - Edit history (5)
Impeachment = a determination by a simple majority vote of House of Representatives that a federal official has committed a high crime or misdemeanor. An impeachment does not remove the official from office. Only the Senate can remove and only after a trial and vote of 2/3 of the body
Impeachment Inquiry = an official process used to determine whether an official has committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
Impeachment Investigation = a part of the inquiry that gathers evidence to be used as part of the determination of whether an official has committed an impeachable offense.
Impeachment Hearings = proceedings in which the committee conducting the impeachment inquiry takes testimony from witnesses. The witness can be fact witnesses, legal and constitutional experts, special interest representatives (civil rights groups, etc.), and others with information or advice relevant to the inquiry. Hearings can be conducted in public or in private.
Although the terms are often (and inaccurately) used interchangeably, impeachment, impeachment inquiries, impeachment investigations, and impeachment hearings are not synonymous. Hearings can be part of an investigation, but investigations do not require hearings. Investigations and hearings can be components of the inquiry but an inquiry can be conducted without them. In other words, investigations and hearings are specific subsets of an inquiry.
Impeachment is the actual vote that finds the official has committed high crimes or misdemeanors.
There is no such thing as "starting impeachment." Congress is considering whether to open an impeachment inquiry that will likely include an investigation and hearings and could lead to impeachment.
The process for opening an inquiry begins with a majority vote in committee - usually the Judiciary Committee. If the recommendation passes the committee, it is referred to the floor for a full House vote. The House then votes to approve the initiation of an inquiry. Usually the vote is to authorize the Judiciary Committee to open the inquiry, prescribes the scope and depth of the inquiry, and details the powers and authorities the committee shall have to conduct its investigation.
Impeachment inquiries can take different forms. For example, in the Clinton impeachment inquiry, the Judiciary Committee conducted no investigation, but merely accepted the Starr Report and its deliberations concerned only whether the information in the Starr Report was sufficient to justify impeachment. The Nixon impeachment inquiry was broader, however it, too, relied heavily on evidence and findings elicited in previous investigations and hearings.
At the conclusion of the inquiry, the committee votes on Articles of Impeachment. The approved articles are then recommended to the full house for a vote. If the full house votes to approve one or more of the articles, immediately upon and by operation of the vote, the official is impeached.
It will then be up to the Senate to decide whether the official is removed from office.
I hope this is helpful!
yeah... not gonna happen...
Star Member uponit7771 (55,553 posts)
12. ***THIS !!! *** is very very important. The KGOP is trying hard as hell to conflate these terms...
... in order to induce the impeachment ... VOTE ... they do not want the investigations.
Star Member StarfishSaver (1,578 posts)
15. Exactly!
It's not just the GOP. The media and lots of people on this site do it, too. That's why I broke it down for everyone.
An impeachment inquiry isn't "impeachment." There's a difference between opening an impeachment inquiry and impeaching. And an impeachment inquiry does not consist only of confrontational hearings intended to reveal wrongdoing and produce made-for-tv Perry Mason moments. If done right, it's a thorough, deliberative and sober process and while compelling, often quite boring.
Star Member malchickiwick (1,039 posts)
106. And NOBODY is more fluent in all of this than Speaker Pelosi
Which is why I trust her to signal when impeachment is appropriate.
Star Member SunSeeker (35,206 posts)
109. Hillary is probably more fluent in it. She was one of the impeachment attorneys in Watergate.
And of course she went through her husband's impeachment. Hillary recently wrote an Op Ed advising we commence a formal televised impeachment inquiry, saying Watergate was the "better" precedent to follow, that we could do it "today"
:thatsright: