Regardless of where you stand politically, it seems clear that no one believes what has been happening with Trump represents a fair, impartial process. From investigation to statements about how a potential trial will be handled from McConnell and Graham, everyone I believe will find some aspect to take issue with. I am not starting this thread to debate where and how things have gone wrong but rather to collaborate on a proposition to codify the process for future potential impeachments to mitigate these pitfalls and arguments about process attributed to partisan bias.
Loosely, my ideas.
Principally, there needs to be an investigatory phase. In recent cases, the most useful ways to gather evidence have been through special prosecutors. Unfortunately, Trump has broken that through his ability to appoint Barr. Firstly in Barr's ability to disrupt the findings of Mueller's investigation and subsequently Barr's presence in the current source of Impeachment proceedings preventing appropriate appointment of such counsel and, had such been elected, dictating the rules for that counsel and cherry-picking the person running the investigation. I am not pleased with the prospect of a partisan choice through Congress either, but it's better than the executive being in charge of it's own oversight. A 2/3rds majority makes sense but basically allows a minority to protect a President by blocking selection of counsel. Perhaps a simple majority with Supreme Court needing to approve if 2/3rds not reached. I would require a special counsel investigation unless articles of impeachment are approved without other inquiry by 2/3rds majority.
Similarly, would like the House to dictate ahead of time the scope of the counsel investigation, with any leads suggesting divergence from that scope requiring the same 2/3rds majority/Supreme Court oversight to modify scope.
Would require special counsel to render opinion on whether evidence of violation of federal criminal code exists which would suggest presentation to Grand jury if not president but clearly indicate that the House still has the power to pursue impeachment for offenses which aren't specifically criminal.
Would codify phases of House Impeachment as follows:
1. Presentation of special counsel findings, questioning of counsel
2. Judiciary committee hearings including legal experts with Chief Justice presiding to enforce rules of House in questioning witnesses and ensuring all witnesses are pertinent. The goal of this hearing will be, if committee deems appropriate, to define the potential articles of impeachment offenses, burden of proof at trial, and criteria to meet such offenses (e.g. mirroring criminal code but can be different if committee decides even if a specific criminal statute applies)
3. Witness questioning phase/collection/presentation of evidence, debate thereof with Chief Justice presiding and having all decisions on whether witness or questions are material to proposed articles. At the end, ability for any member to request judiciary committee to consider additional article of impeachment
4. Judiciary committee vote firstly to consider new positions then repeat of steps 2+3 if approved but limited to the newly suggested articles
5. Judiciary committee to prepare and approve full articles to House
6. Full House debate/vote
Many additional thoughts and of course need to address Senate hearing, but even putting this much in writing is taking a while. Hopefully can readdress soon.
Loosely, my ideas.
Principally, there needs to be an investigatory phase. In recent cases, the most useful ways to gather evidence have been through special prosecutors. Unfortunately, Trump has broken that through his ability to appoint Barr. Firstly in Barr's ability to disrupt the findings of Mueller's investigation and subsequently Barr's presence in the current source of Impeachment proceedings preventing appropriate appointment of such counsel and, had such been elected, dictating the rules for that counsel and cherry-picking the person running the investigation. I am not pleased with the prospect of a partisan choice through Congress either, but it's better than the executive being in charge of it's own oversight. A 2/3rds majority makes sense but basically allows a minority to protect a President by blocking selection of counsel. Perhaps a simple majority with Supreme Court needing to approve if 2/3rds not reached. I would require a special counsel investigation unless articles of impeachment are approved without other inquiry by 2/3rds majority.
Similarly, would like the House to dictate ahead of time the scope of the counsel investigation, with any leads suggesting divergence from that scope requiring the same 2/3rds majority/Supreme Court oversight to modify scope.
Would require special counsel to render opinion on whether evidence of violation of federal criminal code exists which would suggest presentation to Grand jury if not president but clearly indicate that the House still has the power to pursue impeachment for offenses which aren't specifically criminal.
Would codify phases of House Impeachment as follows:
1. Presentation of special counsel findings, questioning of counsel
2. Judiciary committee hearings including legal experts with Chief Justice presiding to enforce rules of House in questioning witnesses and ensuring all witnesses are pertinent. The goal of this hearing will be, if committee deems appropriate, to define the potential articles of impeachment offenses, burden of proof at trial, and criteria to meet such offenses (e.g. mirroring criminal code but can be different if committee decides even if a specific criminal statute applies)
3. Witness questioning phase/collection/presentation of evidence, debate thereof with Chief Justice presiding and having all decisions on whether witness or questions are material to proposed articles. At the end, ability for any member to request judiciary committee to consider additional article of impeachment
4. Judiciary committee vote firstly to consider new positions then repeat of steps 2+3 if approved but limited to the newly suggested articles
5. Judiciary committee to prepare and approve full articles to House
6. Full House debate/vote
Many additional thoughts and of course need to address Senate hearing, but even putting this much in writing is taking a while. Hopefully can readdress soon.
Facebook
Twitter