If the defense is making this claim, then they are saying that the House failed to follow proper procedure in order to legally obtain the requested documents by not setting the up the vote for authorization in the house chamber to allow the committee to start the impeachment inquiry in motion.
I think the Judicial committee was the one to headline that act, but the intel committee jumped on it.
this raises the question on whether the Senate should have accepted the articles in the first place.
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
#1: If I were following the illegal action line of argument, since the Loons in the House want to "cherry pick" impeachment history, I would follow two lines of inquiry .... and separate them along common sense interpretations: NonPresidential impeachments and Presidential impeachments. Argument: Removal of a duly elected sitting President overturns the vote of the citizns who elected him and should carry with it a HIGHER STANDARD OF PROOF to actually pass articles of impeachment and a HIGHER BURDEN of proof to support those articles in the Senate.
#2: The testimony and documents to support the vote on the Articles should be open to the public before the Judiciary Committee, who ostensibly are appointed to that committee because of their extensive backgrounds in "judicial matters" and their reputation in the legal community for high standards.
#3: A full and complete video/audio recording of all matters regarding testimony and/or arguments for or against the articles along with all documents admitted and those not admitted, but offered, into evidence to support the passing of the articles, should be packaged and sent WITH THE ARTICLES for the Senate to Review .. in public so the voters who participated in the election of the accused may see what was there and what was not.
There is day and night difference between a Congressional body, e.g. the Senate, removing a Federal Judge, who the Senate approved for his bench, and the removal of a sitting President who THE VOTERS approved for his office.. It should apply regardless of the accused's party affiliation.
