(10-08-2019, 11:55 AM)jj82284 Wrote: In 98 the independent prosecutor came back and made affirmative declarations that clinton was guilty on multiple FELONIES inclyding perjury, suborning perjury paid a settlement on sexual assault, was disbarred etc.  He should have been removed.

In this case there is no such declaration.  You have an anonymous complaint that doesn't meet the rules of evidence for a criminal proceeding and doesn't point to any criminal or illicit activity. Even still in 1998 the Republican majority in the house still allowed a floor vote to officially authorized the impeachment proceeding and gave the minority certain representation rights is for is issuing subpoenas interviewing Witnesses Etc. In this particular case the Democratic majority has not called for a floor vote to officially authorized and impeachment inquiry. Have also block the president's attorneys and certain members of the minority from participating in witness interviews. There is no comparison between the two processes.

Facts Check

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury before a grand jury and for obstruction of justice. There was no felony committed. The federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

Now, as to the second paragraph of your post.

"There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a full House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry," Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Newsweek. "That has been done before, but it is not a constitutional requirement. President Trump is wrong in saying that it is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry without a floor vote."

As far as being present for witness interviews, whistleblowers have protections afforded to them under the law. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.

The White House is trying to obfuscate the facts, and it isn't working well. (Well, it's working with some of us). And in fact the irony is that in addition to his (alleged) high crimes and misdemeanors with respect to Ukraine, he is also, by all appearances, guilty of the same obstruction of justice that Clinton was impeached for. In fact, it is far worse because it involves national security. Also, the President may be guilty of violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act by threatening to take retaliatory action.

This is a fluid situation. Do not obfuscate. There is enough of that already.

Respectfully,

---