Sentences with phrase «impeachment does»

«If impeachment does come up, I think it works to the President's benefit, I think it works to his party's benefit,» Bloomberg's Sahil Kapur said.

Impeachment does not put an official at jeopardy of life or limb therefore there is no restriction on how many times he can be impeached for the same action.

@endolith - my understanding is that impeachment does not have to fit a specific legal code crime, but I could be wrong.

Not exact matches

Comey explained that while he does believe that Trump is «morally unfit to be president,» he does not hope for the impeachment of the president.

«It doesn't seem like an exaggeration to say that some Republican members of Congress would have called for Barack Obama's impeachment if he had ever called for taking people's guns away without due process,» The Washington Post's James Hohmann wrote on Thursday.

«I don't know that they're talking about impeachment, but whether they have the facts and the law to make a determination of how they go forward — we don't have that information,» Pelosi said then.

The past 24 hours of news in President Donald Trump's various legal imbroglios — the replacement of outgoing lawyer Ty Cobb with Emmet T. Flood, who represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment as president, and the admission of Rudy Giuliani to Sean Hannity (subsequently confirmed by Trump on Twitter) that Trump did in fact reimburse Michael Cohen for a $ 130,000 payment made to porn actress Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election — are powerful reminders of something that can't be said often enough: Trump and his White House lie all the time, without apparent compunction.

Washington is still deeply divided on the resignation - impeachment question, but on one thing it is united, namely that the time for self - deception is past and that the time has come, in Ike's first rule, to «get all the facts and all the good counsel you can, and then do what's best for America.»

The main take - away from all the above is this: Hamilton, the likely author of # 65, and Madison and Jay also, to the extent this particular paper was run by them in advance (scholars think such a preview was done sometimes, but not generally), did not understood impeachment for «high crimes and misdemeanors» as referring to an easily defined category.

And to repeat, the farthest I go is to call upon Republican members of the House to begin airing threats of impeachment, as way to restrain Obama from further egregious violations of the Constitution, and as a way to put it on record that those violations did provoke attempts to employ the sort of check spoken of in Federalist # 51.

Fellow conservatives, I know you don't want to talk about Impeachment.

Even assuming he signed it, the bill would theoretically be a law re-appointing Mueller as special prosecutor / independent investigator, which Congress is already capable of doing via impeachment, select committees, etc..

Not even the timing's good: why bring up impeachment when Mueller's probe seems likely to do the job for us?

As an allegation supporting an impeachment process, this would be the first time that posture, that «could have» had a certain effect but did not, would be a supporting ground for a constitutional impeachment process.

A restaurant workers association and a Washington, D.C. - based event booker are joining a lawsuit alleging that Trump should be up for impeachment because his hotels and restaurants are doing business with foreign government officials.

While, the NPP MP for Ayawaso West Wuogon, Emmanuel Kyeremateng Agyarko, claims the Speaker of Parliament, Edward Doe Adzaho, has summoned the legislators to the House to commence investigations into circumstances surrounding the car gift to President Mahama, his boss, the Minority Leader, Osei Kyei Mensah - Bonsu, has denied knowledge of any impeachment proceedings at the instance of his side.

Faux News did all it could to extend Monica Lewinsky's time in the news... even promoted impeachment for Clinton's unacceptable personal conduct.

... [Impeachment] is an option available to us to exercise and when we deem it fit, we are going to exercise it if things don't change,» Mr Fuseini added.

But he learned his former company had done work for a state contractor whose gifts to the then - governor, John Rowland, were part of the impeachment inquiry.

All an impeachment hearing will do is deflect that.

One can make whatever argument you wishes to the House considering an impeachment, or to the Senate trying an impeachment, but ultimately, this would be about convincing representatives and senators to agree with your argument, not convincing a judge (although a judge does preside over a Presidential impeachment and senators might be inclined to defer to the rulings of that judge).

Double jeopardy is a pretty fundamental element to the US criminal justice system, but does it apply to a US President (or other impeachable official) and the trial - like impeachment proceedings in Congress?

What you could do is propose an amendment to the bylaws before the impeachment process which fixes that hole by rewriting the above part to exclude the accused from the vote for impeachment.

The constitution does not provide for the impeachment of the president elect.

Both conceded they don't expect Hizzoner to drop the reins of city government without a fight so they're exploring how to jump - start the impeachment process.

This explanation did not go down well with the lawmakers, who argued it was an impeachment offence.

He resigned as president on Tuesday as parliament began an impeachment process, after resisting pressure to do so for a week.

In the case that something illegal has been done, impeachment is another option.

«To me, the governor has not done anything wrong to us and none of us here is talking about impeachment of the governor at all», he said.

Ian Bremmer, who heads up the Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, points out that while you can't say the chance of impeachment is 0 per cent, he's not convinced that Trump has done enough to give that serious thought.

We don't hear as much now as we did a few months ago about likely impeachment and other powerful anti-Trump possibilities, while the Democrats aren't pursuing climate change as a major policy item.

WITF and Philly.com report that leaders in the Pennsylvania House don't plan to support the impeachment resolutions, though they also don't agree with the court decision.

The Constitution does not limit the presidential power of pardon to «people besides himself»: the only limit is that the president can not immunize a person against impeachment, though he can pardon the crime underlying an impeachment (which has no effect on impeachment).

According to the Times, Trump disliked the fact that Flood had represented former President Bill Clinton during his impeachment, and Flood didn't want to represent Trump if another lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, had any involvement with the team.

What if an AG advises a president or a governor to do X illegal act because the only penalty is impeachment and the legislature is controlled by his own party so he can get away with it?

Rule 30.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that if surveillance is to be used as substantive evidence at trial, then counsel must give the opposite party notice of its intention to use the evidence, and the evidence itself must be produced to the opposite party at least 90 days before the commencement of trial.7 If counsel fails to do so, the Court will limit the use of that evidence to impeachment purposes only, except where a trial judge grants leave to use the evidence for substantive purposes.

Assuming the documentary productions could be used to impeach the plaintiff / complainant in the course of her testimony at the criminal trial (impeachment is a recognized exception to the deemed undertaking rule, in that Rule 30.1 does not prohibit discovery evidence being used for this purpose), the civil defence lawyer emailed the plaintiff's productions to his criminal counterpart.

The constitution does not actually forbid «abusing a position for financial gain», and thus it is left to the political process to address any such actions (voting for a different candidate), or the legislative process (defining certain acts as forbidden)-- or, the impeachment process.

Impeaching Your Own Witness: Even though Evidence Rule 607 authorizes a party to impeach the credibility of his own witness, a party is forbidden from placing a witness on the stand if his sole purpose in doing so is to present otherwise inadmissible evidence cloaked as impeachment.