yovargas wrote:Cerin wrote:
I do not believe it was the framer's intent for that investigative work to be undertaken in a Senate impeachment trial. The Senate trial, imo, is to reach a verdict based on the evidence contained in the articles of impeachment.
But why do you believe that? I wish you would specially say what in the Constitution leads you to that conclusion. It's very short, so it should be easy to point at specifics. Like I've said, I've read it several times and I see literally nothing about this. So what is it that you are seeing that I'm not?
For re- clarification of what I see in the Constitution: the house will present charges, the Senate will try those charges. That's pretty much all it says. Do you see more, or something different? Or is it that you contend that "trying charges" should never involve any independent investigation for some reason?
Going by your last paragraph, we're in agreement. The House will present charges. What are the charges? They are the articles of impeachment -- obstruction of Congress, abuse of power. They are actual documents, which represent actual motions that were carefully written and historically voted on. They are based on the evidence collected in the House hearings.
Those charges are what are to be tried. The Senate is to hear them -- the charges and evidence of those articles that were written and adopted by vote -- and either concur with what the House did based on that evidence and remove Trump from office, or disagree with what the House did based on that evidence and acquit the President.
What the House did, in investigating and impeaching the President, might have included testimony by Bolton and others, had Pelosi chosen to follow procedure and allow the courts to rule. But Pelosi chose to do without those witnesses. Her choice has consequences; every mature person on earth knows that their choices have consequences. The consequence of Pelosi's choice is that Bolton's testimony was not part of the impeachment of the President, and therefore it cannot be part of a Senate trial that sits in judgment of that impeachment.
As to why I believe this and what I'm seeing that you're not -- I'm seeing words (as you point out, there aren't many of them).
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.
and, the oath that Voronwë provided (emphasis added) once again repeats that wording:
"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to
the trial of the impeachment of (the person on trial), now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws; So help me God."
It doesn't say, the Senate shall have the sole power to try all Presidents.
The oath doesn't say, appertaining to the trial of Donald Trump. It says, appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of . . .
These words have meaning to me. The Senate is to 'try' (to put to test or trial) the impeachment. What is the impeachment? It's what the House did -- the investigation, the writing of articles based on the evidence gathered, the vote on the motions to adopt the articles, the vote to send these articles to the Senate. The House had the sole power to do those things. The Senate has the sole power to put the House's impeachment of Trump to the test, to judge whether they, as jurors, agree with the House impeachment of the President (which was not based on the testimony of Bolton, etc.) and remove him from office, or disagree with the House's impeachment of the President and acquit him. The fact that the evidence leading to the impeachment does not include all of the testimony and documents it might have included lies squarely and solely at the feet of Nancy Pelosi and her choice to rush the process. Now she is trying to have the Senate complete work that is the sole Constitutional province of the House. This is what I object to.
In the end, I guess we all interpret things the way they make sense to us. This makes wonderful, simple, logical sense to me, based on the very few words that are written. What is the Senate meant to try (test, judge)? The Senate is meant to try (test, judge) the House's impeachment of Donald Trump and see if it meets the standard of removal from office; the impeachment didn't include testimony and documents that Pelosi was in too much of a rush to wait for. She can't include them now, because they are not part of the impeachment that has been presented to the Senate for judgement.
edit
This is why I wanted so badly to find out if other impeachments have ever included undeposed witnesses and uninvestigated documents that were not part of the House investigative process. If the inclusion of new witnesses and evidence not underlying articles of impeachment has never occurred, I would take that to support my interpretation.
