Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cowboy]

I have a question on this,

supposedly clinton was impeached. what does that mean for him? he wont get pay for the rest of his life?
wont he have to answer for what he did wrong? wouldnt it be smart to get rid of the laws and crap that
were passed that he was impeached for be removed? shouldnt there be charges and a trial ?

this is just something I have never knew much about!

[mike]

'Impeachment' is 'indictment', by the House.
Then trial on the indictment by 'the impeachment' takes place in the senate.
So the impeachment without successful conviction means nothing, nothing more than an indictment 'in the public', with subsequent failure to convict.
Mike Kemp

[cowboy]

so its just wasted time and money?

[CDJ]

No actually it's two different things, but one must occur before the other, to wit:

A person subject to Impeachment has their 'trial' before the Senate, UPON  indictment (Articles of Impeachment) from the House.

Should the person be Impeached that person remains in office until there is another separate trial, BASED UPON THE IMPEACHMENT to REMOVE the person from office.

Only being Impeached does not render the person Impeached ineligible for benefits that accompany the office held.

REMOVAL would have to occur before any forfeiture of benefits can be imposed.

For some information on those processes please see:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html

 

[cowboy]

Thanks for explainin that better and the link

I think it is awful lenient for someone who possesses so much power though!

[CDJ]

Actually it's rough.

See the Chief Justice rules on objections from either side based on evidence presented and ruled on in previous Impeachment proceedings ONLY.  Not regular evidentiary law.

And then the senate can over rule the CJ on whatever he does in that regard.

And it isn't just presidential Impeachments, it's from all persons who hold an office that carries Impeachment consequence.  So it might be rulings from an Impeachment trial on a judge.

FYI

CDJ

[cowboy]

ahh, I understand it better now, thanks bro

[CDJ]

I like it when I can enlighten areas that are murky

I figure the better one knows the rules, the better they can break them and get away with it

[mike]

Quoting from Robert Heinlein's Friday, in an 'ad' in the fictional work-- 'Shysters, Inc.'-- 'Nothing is illegal. It's not what you do, but how you do it.'

And if you ever want to see what a 'trial' is supposed to look like, look to the impeachment trial of Slick Willy. The Chief Justice essentially sat there and kept his mouth closed and his opinions to himself except when he was addressed by 'the jury'-- the senate. Meanwhile, Rehnquist just enjoyed his placidyl buzz.

And then, if 'the jury' didn't like what they heard, they simply ignored it.
And until juries return to the practice of bixch-slapping hizzoner whenever it suits them,, courts will remain a joke. Dirty jokes.
Mike Kemp

[admin]

That's why I will never be on a jury again.  Ever. They would not have me, no way, no reason, no how. I may even try to "pretend" but they will see through it. I hope for the day I'm called again for jury duty.

[reclusive]

IMHO it's a feel good waste of time, the same as cops investigating themselves, or more plainly put, covering their asses!