He brought up the court case to explain the process, he didn't say impeachment was a court procedure. Your confusion is very confusing. It's all pretty basic and has been explained over and over and over. You still don't get that there is no required set of procedures in the Senate (or House), other than holding some kind of trial and voting on it. There are ways that things have been done in past impeachments, and may well be copied in future impeachments, but any Senate can make up any process they want for a new impeachment trial.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, WP seems to think the point of the FBI investigation has been to find charges for impeachment. It could be used for that, but that's not the purpose of the investigation.
The House could have voted for impeachment already by now if they wanted to.
No. It and other bodies will provide the investigation reports. The House could not have voted for an impeachment by now just by wanting to. See the procedure I quoted in the post before this.
Added: See the post below this one:
Just stop. An outside investigation is not required. Even your own link says so. Show what would have stopped a vote in the House if they wanted to do so. Be specific.
Admit for once you are wrong. You never knew much about impeachment proceedings until this year, and you are not a quick learner.
- - - Updated - - -
There is no investigation. But this is WP's style.
He has been very wrong on what could be used as the basis for impeachment and tries to distract with the plausibility and likelihood of the current Congress actually using such things.
Now he's moving the goalpost a little more to one side, and talking about where we currently are in the mandatory dance steps to achieve an impeachment.
The goalposts/parameters are unchanged.
Do you have a status of the investigation? Is it with the Judiciary Committee as reported towards the end of May 2017?
More confusing confusion. The DOJ investigation is separate from the House or Senate investigations, and NONE of them are expressly impeachment investigations. There is no reason to be so confused. Just stop.
Your first paragraph: thanks but I think he should have explained that a little better. I am aware of the particular court case which is commonly featured in writings.
I pointed out the process does not start in the Senate and was explaining the procedure leading up to the impeachment trial and the outcome.
In the second para, I would however be surprised if information from outside sources and investigations would be barred if they have relevance.
In the third para, movement towards a trial is first decided by a vote in the Lower House per procedure I mentioned. I was not talking about the DOJ but the House Judicial committees.
This is why I referred written references and literally go by these. This does not enter into or dispute what goes on in the Senate but what goes on before. So there were some cross-communications here.
I hope this clarifies
Captain Obvious Lord Confucius
Because I am either a masochist, or I just can not let wrongness go on being wrong, hazards of being a teacher.... they will get it this time.....
Let me try one last time. I said," They make the rules, they can change the rules. See please Nixon v United States, where the USSC refused to rule on THE PROCEDURES THE SENATE USED TO DISPOSE OF IMPEACHMENTS of judges because the impeachment process is a POLITICAL one and the court does not have the authority to intervene." You said I should have explained better. If for some reason this was unclear that I was pointing out that the congress decides the rules for impeachment, I apologize. Others seemed to get it, but it is always possible that no matter how clear I think my thoughts are there are unspoken assumptions, which you apparently did not share. So lets make it real simple shall we.......
A member of the House can introduce tomorrow a measure calling for the impeachment of the President because his hair tends to bring disrepute upon the United States. That measure could be affirmed by a majority of the House. Having "hair that tends to bring disrepute upon the nation is now a "high crime and misdemeanor."
The Senate can now appoint a 2 person commission to hear evidence on the issue and report to the Senate on their findings. The Senate can then vote, and remove the President from office for having, "hair that tends to bring disrepute to the nation." No investigation is required. "High crimes and misdemeanors" mean what the House says they mean. If enough in the Senate want the President removed, he is gone.
Nothing in the above scenario is unconstitutional. That exact scenario could occur, and the President would be removed from office.Do you now see that all of your talk about required investigations and standards for "high crimes and misdemeanors" is in fact meaningless.
