Taking impeachment off the table gives the Congressional investigations more credibility?
Is it possible for the investigations to reach the threshold that Nancy Pelosi has set? Will the evidence be so over-whelming that both Parties will have to accept it in a "bi-partisan" way?
She says that Democrats do not want to impeach for "political" reasons. Which makes one wonder what the definition of "political" is?
It was obvious from the first hearing, with Cohen, that Republicans were going to do nothing but obstruct. They have no incentive or desire to find out the truth. Not even for the security of our country. That says a lot.
So now, the job of the Congress is to get the facts out to the people. Their plan is to wait until the election of 2020 and let the people decide. But, will facts be exposed, between now and the time of the election, that will force the Congress to take a look at it?
Also, Republicans had planned to use the "impeachment" issue in the next election, to get the masses to rally behind their guy. This appears to have thrown an obstacle in front of those plans?
What next?
=====================
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachment
<snip>
Impeachable Offenses
The Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice. On June 2, 1787, the framers adopted a provision that the executive should “be removable on impeachment & conviction of mal-practice or neglect of duty.”857 The Committee of Detail reported as grounds “Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.”858 And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to “Treason, or bribery.”859 On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct that should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add “or maladministration” following “bribery.” Upon Madison’s objection that “[s]o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” Mason suggested “other high crimes & misdemeanors,” which was adopted without further recorded debate.860
The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388.861 Treason is defined in the Constitution.862 Bribery is not, but it had a clear common law meaning and is now well covered by statute.863 “High crimes and misdemeanors,” however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses.864 Use of the word “other” to link “high crimes and misdemeanors” with “treason” and “bribery” is arguably indicative of the types and seriousness of conduct encompassed by “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, the word “high” apparently carried with it a restrictive meaning.865
Debate prior to adoption of the phrase866 and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions867 were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress’s “removal” debate, Madison maintained that the wanton dismissal of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment.868 Other comments, especially in the ratifying conventions, tend toward a limitation of the term to criminal, perhaps gross criminal, behavior.869 The scope of the power has been the subject of continuing debate.870
= new reply since forum marked as read
