Chris Huhne Resigns

[Sheilbh]

Is that accurate, or am I way off?

I'm having trouble figuring out what it means.

I think the question is if there's a vote to proceed with the investigation/trial and then a separate vote to actually remove him and that's all covered under 'impeachment'? That's roughly my understanding and so I think Clinton's perjury can justify part one, but not part two.

[Admiral Yi]

I think the question is if there's a vote to proceed with the investigation/trial and then a separate vote to actually remove him and that's all covered under 'impeachment'? That's roughly my understanding and so I think Clinton's perjury can justify part one, but not part two.

The first step, the actual impeachment vote, is conducted by the House.  If the House votes impeachment, then it goes to the Senate to kick him out of office or not.  AFAIK there aren't any different standard in the two votes.

No vote to proceed with the investigation as far as I know.  The decision to appoint a special prosecutor is taken solely by the president.

[Sheilbh]

So what's the House vote for? My understanding was that they vote the allegations and then the Senate effectively act as a court?

Which is why in my view I can see why the House could vote for impeachment, but the Senate then vote against it - and both be right. There's allegations the House things are impeachable and then the Senate can decide whether or not to impeach/convict him.

[Admiral Yi]

So what's the House vote for? My understanding was that they vote the allegations and then the Senate effectively act as a court?

Which is why in my view I can see why the House could vote for impeachment, but the Senate then vote against it - and both be right. There's allegations the House things are impeachable and then the Senate can decide whether or not to impeach/convict him.

Checks and balances??

It could be that you and Jake are right.  I always thought the House voted death and the Senate didn't because House had a bigger GOP majority and the Senate tends to mellow out its members.

[mongers]

To Chris Huhne, here's for trying to be too clever by half.

[Sheilbh]

Of course that's precisely the role of the Senate, to be a deliberative chamber. It's possibly why the modern influx of ex-House members has increased the polarisation. Looking it up the Senate needs a two-thirds majority for impeachment which also seems a bit like a sort-of higher burden of legislative proof.

Checks and balances??

What?

[Admiral Yi]

What?

If two chambers have to vote to pass, it makes it harder.  Checks and balances are built into the US system so no one institution can accumulate too much power.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. I didn't get what you meant about them though.

[Jacob]

I'm having trouble figuring out what it means.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by defending Clinton while also trying to fill in the gaps in my knowledge about the process.

Is saying "Clinton lied under oath and that was bad (inexcusable, even), but given the context it did not warrant removing him from office; there was a due process and it came up right" defending Clinton? Is it factually true?

[Admiral Yi]

I'm trying to understand what you mean by defending Clinton while also trying to fill in the gaps in my knowledge about the process.

Is saying "Clinton lied under oath and that was bad (inexcusable, even), but given the context it did not warrant removing him from office; there was a due process and it came up right" defending Clinton? Is it factually true?

I think you're imputing a deterministic element to the impeachment process that isn't there.  The Senators didn't pore through law books to find out if perjury was sufficient grounds for impeachment; it was essentially a political decision.

[Sheilbh]

I think you're imputing a deterministic element to the impeachment process that isn't there.  The Senators didn't pore through law books to find out if perjury was sufficient grounds for impeachment; it was essentially a political decision.

Okay. But I'm imagining there aren't sentencing recommendations for Presidential impeachments. So how is what they did different than a judge deciding, based on the circumstances, the sentence to impose? Given that the only sentence available is very high wouldn't they want to be convinced that it was a crime worthy of the punishment?

It's also worth saying that Huhne resigned from the cabinet once the CPS decided to prosecute, but he's now resigned from Parliament.

[Admiral Yi]

Given that the only sentence available is very high wouldn't they want to be convinced that it was a crime worthy of the punishment?

I imagine.  But they had no one to turn to besides their own judgement.

[Jacob]

I think you're imputing a deterministic element to the impeachment process that isn't there.  The Senators didn't pore through law books to find out if perjury was sufficient grounds for impeachment; it was essentially a political decision.

Yeah I get that. But if Clinton had been doing something much worse - I don't know, transferring nuclear missiles to Iran and North Korea in return while personally murdering little children in the spare bedroom - the political decision would have been different.

In the end, removing the president of the US from office is a political decision not a legalistic one and that is - I think - as it should be.

Should Ken Starr have been asking Clinton about his sex life? No.

Should Clinton have lied about it under oath? No.

Should Clinton have been removed from the presidency for lying about a blow job? No.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah I get that. But if Clinton had been doing something much worse - I don't know, transferring nuclear missiles to Iran and North Korea in return while personally murdering little children in the spare bedroom - the political decision would have been different.

In the end, removing the president of the US from office is a political decision not a legalistic one and that is - I think - as it should be.

Should Ken Starr have been asking Clinton about his sex life? No.

Should Clinton have lied about it under oath? No.

Should Clinton have been removed from the presidency for lying about a blow job? No.

Should Clinton have conspired to impede the Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation?

[Valmy]

Oh God.  We are not really going to go over this nonsense again are we?