Missourinet

Your source for Missouri News and Sports

You are here: Home / Archives for impeachment

House impeaches President Trump, despite protests of Missouri Republicans

By

In a historic vote, the U.S. House has impeached a sitting president. As expected, Missouri’s delegation voted along party lines in making President Donald Trump the third U.S. president in history to get impeached by the lower chamber.

Some took their turn to speak on the measure to put Trump on trial in the Senate on the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.  Comments became more contentious as the afternoon wore on.

In defending the case against the president, St. Louis Rep. Lacy Clay told his colleagues, “Our founders feared a lawless, amoral president would willfully put national security at risk for his own personal gain.”

Rep. Long listens to Rep. Smith on House floor December 18, 2019

Six of the eight House members from Missouri are Republicans.

East-central Missouri Republican Blaine Luetkemeyer says the whole process has been political: “Awhile ago the speaker spoke of the Pledge of the Allegiance,” says Luetkemeyer. “The last phrase of the pledge is justice for all. Justice is not something afforded to the president during the investigation. He was denied due process.”

Rep. Jason Smith of southern Missouri said, “I’m from the Show Me State, you have to show me. the only thing that you all have shown is that you are about to impeach a duly-elected president who has done nothing wrong.”

Southwestern Missouri Rep. Billy Long had 30 seconds to speak and said Trump has been a victim since he was sworn in. “He’s had his head held underwater for almost three years now, never coming up for a breath of air, just keep pushing him down. Lowest Black unemployment ever, lowest Hispanic unemployment ever, highest stock market ever, lowest unemployment in years.”

West-central Missouri Rep. Vicky Hartzler issued a statement before the vote: “Today’s vote is a gross abuse of power by Congress. This entire process to impeach President Trump is nothing more than a political calculation being made to undo the voice of nearly 63 million Americans. House Democrats fear they cannot beat him fairly at the ballot box, so they are intent in removing him at all costs.”

The case against Trump is likely to end in the Senate, Missouri’s senior Sen. Roy Blunt told Missourinet.

“If you can’t convince all of the Democrats in the House to be for the impeachment charges, it is highly unlikely that you’re going to convince any number of the Republicans in the Senate to be for that.”

Blunt says the charges are too weak and vague.

 

Blunt: People will want to know why did the House take all this time on impeachment (AUDIO)

By

The Senate may have a trial of the president right after the first of the year, according to Missouri’s Roy Blunt. But he does not expect it to result in the removal of President Donald Trump.

Missourinet spoke with Sen. Blunt Friday after the House Judiciary Committee voted to approve impeachment articles against the president.

Blunt has said that he will be an impartial juror if the Senate has put Trump on trial. We asked him if that holds true now that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Fox News he has made up his mind: “I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can.”

Blunt said, “I do think we’re closer and closer to the point where the Senate can reach conclusions. The House is done. There are two articles of impeachment that are about as boiled down as they can possibly be to not very much. The bribery thing they talked about appeared to go away, the obstruction charge is something we’ll deal with.”

Missourinet: “Like McConnell, have you made up your mind?”

Blunt: “The likelihood that 20 Republicans would join every Democrat is pretty slim, and we’ll see. As I predicted for some time, a partisan determination to impeach by the House will almost certainly lead to a largely partisan vote in the Senate which means you would not have the votes you need to get this done.”

LISTEN TO INTERVIEW (3:15)

Blunt says the Senate, in the next few days, will decide on a trial date for after the first of the year.

 

Missouri Rep. Smith: Senators running for president are not impartial jurors

By

If the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump reaches the U.S. Senate, Missouri Congressman Jason Smith asks that some senators step back from voting.

Eighth District Republican Jason Smith filed a resolution to require senators who are running for office to recuse themselves.

“To be an impartial juror, that means you cannot have your mind made up; you have to listen to the facts. And I can tell out right now there are five members of the United States Senate who are all presidential candidates who have stood on national TV saying that they would vote right now to impeach the President of the United States. Those aren’t impartial jurors,” he told Missourinet.

Smith has introduced House Resolution 774, which would compel the U.S. Senate to amend its Rules of Procedure and Practice When Sitting on Impeachment Trials.

Congressman Smith has also written a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, calling for the change. More than two dozen members of Congress have signed the letter.

He says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “not giving the president his due process and fairness.”

“When you look at the Constitution, the Vice-President of the United States has to recuse himself from presiding over the Senate because of the conflict of interest. He’s next in line for president if the impeachment happens. Well, every senator has to take an oath of office during the impeachment process that they will be impartial jurors, basically. To be an impartial juror, that means you can’t have your mind made up; you have to listen to the facts.”

Smith calls the impeachment hearings “a sham” and says Speaker Pelosi is “abusing her power.”

“The first impeachment vote we had in the House happened in December of 2017. That was a year and a half before the Ukraine telephone call that everyone has seen the transcript of. Nancy Pelosi is only doing what her left-wing squad in the House of Representatives has pushed her that far.”

President Trump says the impeachment effort is bogus and has declined to participate in the current phase of House impeachment hearings.  He has refused to cooperate or allow cabinet witnesses or documents to be released.

Sen. Blunt on impeachment process, his role and Trump’s approach

By

Over the weekend, another whistleblower emerged who reportedly can corroborate the first account of President Trump’s conversation with the new Ukrainian president. President Trump is under an impeachment inquiry in the U.S. House to determine if he withheld aid to that country in return for intelligence information on his political rival, former Vice-President Joe Biden.

Missouri’s U.S. Senator Roy Blunt, a member of the Intelligence Committee, is also investigating the call to the Ukrainian President.

“I’m on the committee that’s supposed to look at all the things we can find and try to help come to conclusions with all of the information, rather than come to conclusions and then try to find the information that supports those conclusions.”

Senator Roy Blunt, appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday, said it doesn’t matter if there is another informant because “we’ve all seen the transcripts now so we can all back up what the whistleblower said as it relates to the transcript. I think the Speaker chose a fairly narrow topic here to move forward on, not very confusing. One way or another you’re going to decide is what the president says he said an impeachable problem or not.”

He told CBS’s Margaret Brennan Trump’s talk about asking other countries besides Ukraine to investigate Biden should not be taken seriously:  “I don’t know what the president was thinking,” Blunt said, “but I do know he loves to bait the press and he does that almost every day.”

Missourinet spoke with Sen. Blunt before the weekend talk show blitz.

He said that learning that the president knew Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on the call and that the U.S. Attorney General was also talking to foreign leaders about their questions is actually reassuring, as opposed to critics who fear the cabinet members were doing the president’s personal bidding.

Blunt says Speaker Pelosi has set up a narrow case to decide, and he expects the Democrat majority in the House will move quickly to impeach.

He does expect to hear from the initial whistleblower, “at some point in what appears to be a closed opportunity.”

“And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some of the firsthand information, if there is firsthand information, isn’t something that our committee hears and should hear. I do know that the Inspector General would have looked at some of this information earlier and I look forward to seeing and hearing some of the things the Inspector General may have already heard,” he told Missourinet.

While Blunt supports the law protecting government whistleblowers, he questioned why those with firsthand knowledge did not come forward first.

“If this is such an important issue, where were the people that told the whistleblower—why weren’t they the whistleblower?” he asked.

Missourinet asked Sen. Blunt if Trump’s handling of the impeachment probe was helping or hurting the situation.

At that point, Blunt said he had not been asked or offered any talking points.

“They’ll have to decide how they deal with this. They’ve gone through almost two years of the Mueller investigation so they’ve got a lot more experience trying to fight these things they believe are unfair than anybody else does and I don’t have any advice for them as to how they should do their job. I just have a sense of how I should do mine, which is quickly try to get the information put together so that we can look at it, then based on the facts in front of us, make whatever recommendations the intelligence committee decides need to be made.”

Lawmakers must decide whether to proceed with impeachment of Gov. Nixon

By

The House Judiciary Committee has held its final hearing on 3 impeachment filings against Governor Jay Nixon (D).

Representative Stanley Cox (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Stanley Cox (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Committee Chairman, Representative Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) says he will now poll his members to see whether they think those filings should come to a committee vote.

Cox says he hasn’t decided for himself whether they should be voted on, but when asked whether the articles raise legitimate complaints, Cox says “Absolutely.”

“The allegations are serious, are matters that certainly concern failure of the governor to fulfill his responsibility and certainly raise that idea that they could rise to the level of further action,” says Cox.

Articles filed against Nixon accused him of violating the State Constitution’s definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman with his Executive Order directing the Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns filed by same-sex couples married in other states, by not disciplining anyone in his administration in relation to the scanning, retention, and sharing with the federal government of personal documents from Missouri drivers’ license and concealed carry permit applicants, and by not acting quickly enough in setting special election dates to fill vacant seats in the House and the Senate.

Cox says he will talk to his committee members right away because less than three weeks remain in the legislative session.

Chairman: impeachment efforts will get a hearing

By

The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says he will give a hearing to the three filings of impeachment articles against Governor Jay Nixon (D) if their sponsors want one.

Representative Stanley Cox (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Stanley Cox (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The filings were assigned to that committee last week; the first movement for each since they were filed between February 6 and March 11.

Committee Chairman Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) says he will next talk to the sponsors of those three filings.

“Whether and when they are desirous of having a hearing,” Cox says he will ask those representatives. “Obviously we’re not going to have a hearing if they don’t want one … so I will talk to them first of all.”

The first articles of impeachment were filed by Representative Nick Marshall (R-Parkville), over Governor Nixon’s executive order instructing the Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns filed by same-sex couples who are legally married in other states. Marshall says that violates Missouri’s Constitution, which voters amended in 2004 to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Representative Mike Moon (R-Ash Grove) filed one article of impeachment saying Nixon didn’t act quickly enough to set special election dates for vacant seats in the House and Senate. Representative Rick Brattin (R-Harrisonville) filed an article this month saying Nixon’s failure to discipline or fire members of the executive branch for their involvement in the scanning of personal documents from Missouri license applicants and the release of those documents to the federal government violates the Constitution.

Moon, Brattin and Marshall all confirm they do in fact want a hearing.

“Not only do I want a hearing,” says Marshall, “I think it’s important that it be a candid hearing, an open hearing and a hearing that is free from any interference.”

Those articles were filed between February 6 and March 11, and were assigned to the Judiciary Committee last week. Brattin said upon offering his article that he was “appalled” action had not been taken faster on the filings.

Cox says he can’t speak for House Republican leadership, but says trying to remove an executive from office is an extraordinary action.

“I think that in order to do that there would have to be some clear information and evidence to support the accusation that they have violated their oath to the Constitution or the law in some way,” says Cox. “That’s my position and I assume the leadership would share that.”

Moon says he’s satisfied that leadership in his party is supportive.

“It’s just been slow-moving,” says Moon.

Impeachment articles would move through the House like a bill. If adopted by the House, the Governor would be tried by a committee of seven jurists chosen by the Senate.

House Republican ‘appalled’ by lack of action on impeachment filings against Gov. Nixon

By

The latest House Republican to file articles of impeachment against Governor Jay Nixon (D) says he is “appalled” his majority party’s leadership has not advanced any proposals to impeach the Governor since their filing.

Representative Rick Brattin (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel; Missouri House Communications)

Representative Rick Brattin (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel; Missouri House Communications)

Representative Rick Brattin (R-Harrisonville) has filed two articles of impeachment against Nixon. He says Nixon violated the state Constitution by not disciplining or firing members of the executive branch for their roles in the scanning and retention of concealed carry endorsement documents by the Department of Revenue, and the release twice of personal information related to those documents to federal authorities.

Brattin says Nixon should be held accountable.  His filing is HR 923.

“When you’re in charge,” Brattin says of Nixon, “the buck stops with you and we’ve had thousands of people’s important documents being scanned and sent over to another state and now are no telling where and I think it’s ridiculous and egregious.”

Brattin follows fellow Republicans Nick Marshall (R-Parkville) and Mike Moon (R-Ash Grove) who have also filed articles of impeachment against the Governor. He co-sponsors their efforts as they do his and one another’s.

Marshall filed two articles saying Nixon’s executive order instructing the Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns from same-sex couples violated the state Constitution. Moon says in one article that Nixon violated the Constitution by not acting fast enough to set special election dates to fill vacant seats in the House and the Senate.

No action has been taken on those articles since they were filed a month ago.

Brattin says those legislators raise important issues and he hopes their filings and his will be allowed to move through the legislative process.

“We swore an oath to uphold, defend the Constitution before any type of legislative agenda … before anything. When we have somebody acting out of the Constitution and out of their authority, then they should be held to account,” Brattin tells Missourinet. “I think it should move and I’m appalled that it really hasn’t, unfortunately.”

Brattin says it is a political decision not to take up the arguments against Nixon.

“It’s an election year and we have a lot we want to do legislatively for jobs and things like that, and I’m right there too,” says Brattin, “and I have constituents all the time saying, ‘We see Barack Obama doing all this type of stuff and why isn’t anybody doing anything?’ We here at the state level wonder why isn’t the federal government doing anything? Well, we right here at the state level have the same thing going on with our governor. Are we not going to stand up and do what we’re calling the federal government to do?”

House Speaker Tim Jones (R-Eureka) says the three filings are still being studied.

“We want to make sure we move them forward in the right way,” Jones says. “We’re going to have to go back and look what was done with the previous articles and I think they were moved to a committee for study, and so we’ll have to look at that prior determination and move along that same track.”

Articles of impeachment move through the legislative process in the House similarly to the way a bill would. They would have to be first referred to a committee. If the articles are passed in the House, Nixon would be tried by a commission of seven eminent jurists elected by the Senate.

Related stories:

Another Article of Impeachment filed against Governor Nixon

Two Articles of Impeachment filed against Governor Nixon (AUDIO/COPY OF THE ARTICLES)

Articles of Impeachment filed against Governor Nixon over action on same-sex tax filing

Openly-gay lawmaker discusses impeachment effort over same-sex tax filing (AUDIO)

Openly gay lawmaker discusses impeachment effort over same-sex tax filing (AUDIO)

By

Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) says he doesn’t think there is any legal question about the executive order filed by the governor regarding same-sex joint state tax filings.

Representative Mike Colona (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Mike Colona (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

A fellow lawmaker, Representative Nick Marshall (R-Parkville), has filed two articles of impeachment against Governor Jay Nixon (D) for issuing that order, alleging Nixon mislead Missourians in saying the action was necessary, and that Nixon violated the state Constitution.

Colona thinks the legislature is not the place to bring up the issues Marshall seeks to raise.

“I’m from St. Louis,” Colona asserts, “and we might have a few things going on here like, oh I don’t know, a school transfer issue, a school district that’s about to go bankrupt, we’ve had two public health clinics closed because we haven’t expanded Medicaid, yet we’re supposed to take the time to do something like this in the General Assembly?

“If Representative Marshall thinks that this is truly an issue where the Governor has overstepped his bounds, then the true forum for this should be the courts, not in an impeachment hearing in the General Assembly.”

Colona, who is openly gay, says he doesn’t feel personally slighted by the actions of his fellow lawmaker, Marshall.

“I don’t feel as if I’m being personally attacked. Representative Marshall is an attorney, he’s a prosecutor and to use the vernacular language, he doesn’t pull any cheap shots. I don’t think he holds any animosity toward the LGBT community.”

Colona calls the situation an opportunity for education, particularly if the issue reaches the House Floor, but he questions whether it will go that far.

Listen to the interview with Mike Colona: 9:59

Related stories:

Two articles of impeachment filed against Governor Nixon (AUDIO/COPY OF THE ARTICLES)

Articles of impeachment filed against Governor Nixon over action on same-sex tax filing

Governor’s Office, state lawmakers react to impeachment effort

Governor’s office, state lawmakers react to impeachment effort

By

Governor Jay Nixon’s (D) office has responded to the filing of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Representative Nick Marshall (R-Parkville) filed 2 articles against Nixon, accusing him of misleading Missourians and violating the state Constitution when he instructed the Missouri Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns filed by same-sex couples legally married in other states.

In an e-mail, Press Secretary Scott Holste dismisses the filing, calling it a “publicity stunt.”

Holste writes, “The Governor will continue to focus on the issues that matter to Missouri families: quality schools for our kids, good jobs in our communities and health care for working Missourians.”

The Minority Leader in the House, Representative Jake Hummel (D-St. Louis) called the articles of impeachment “bogus.”

In a statement, Hummel says the filing is, “further proof, as if any was needed, that the crazy wing has taken over the House Republican Caucus. There are many serious issues facing Missouri that will require serious people to solve. These aren’t serious people.

“If House Republicans insist on embarassing themselves with sham election-year proceedings, then, by all means, they should have at it,” writes Hummel. “When Missouri voters see how far down the path of extremism House Republicans have gone, there will be a lot fewer of them serving in the House of Representatives come November.”

House Speaker Tim Jones (R-Eureka) was asked in a conference with Capitol reporters about the issues raised by Marshall and Representative Mike Moon (R-Ash Grove), who has said he plans to file multiple articles of impeachment against Nixon alleging he hasn’t acted quickly enough in calling special elections to fill vacant House seats, and for not having called one to fill a vacant seat in the Senate.

Jones tells reporters, “They’re very serious charges, however the governor has made some very serious actions.”

“Impeachment is also a very serious remedy,” Jones continued. “I think we’re going to look at past history in the House … we’re going to back and examine that process … and move forward cautiously from there.”

Related stories:

Two Articles of Impeachment filed against Governor Nixon (AUDIO/COPY OF THE ARTICLES)

Articles of Impeachment filed against Governor Nixon over action on same-sex tax filing

Openly-gay lawmaker discusses impeachment effort over same-sex tax filing (AUDIO)

Two articles of impeachment filed against Governor Nixon (AUDIO/COPY OF THE ARTICLES)

By

A state representative who said he would file articles of impeachment against Governor Jay Nixon (D) has made good on that intent.

Representative Nick Marshall (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Nick Marshall (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Nick Marshall (R-Parkville) has filed two articles of impeachment. He says Governor Nixon’s executive order instructing the Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns filed by same-sex couples legally married in other states “is a direct violation” of Missouri’s Constitution. Further, he says Nixon “misstates and misrepresents the meaning and requirements under Missouri’s constitutional and statutory law and thereby misleads the citizens of this state.”

Read the articles of impeachment filed by Representative Marshall 

Marshall notes that in 2004, 72 percent of Missouri voters approved Constitutional Amendment 2 to change to the Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. He asserts in his filing that Nixon’s action “results in a recognition of same-sex marriage by the State of Missouri.”

Nixon, when issuing his executive order in November, said Missouri must accept such joint returns because Missouri’s tax code is tied directly to the federal government, and the state requires married couples who file joint returns to also file state taxes jointly. The office of Attorney General Chris Koster (D) says Nixon’s order appears to comply with Missouri law.

Marshall, in his filing, alleges that Nixon’s assertion was based on “a knowing omission of key statutory language.”

Specifically, in the section of Missouri tax code that defines terms, it reads that terms used shall have the same meaning as when they appear in federal tax code. Marshall seizes on the phrase, “unless a different meaning is clearly required by the provisions of,” Missouri tax code.

Marshall tells Missourinet, “Missouri law says a husband and wife who file a joint federal tax return shall file a combined return here in he state of Missouri. The condition precedent for that is that they are husband and wife, and you have to ask yourself, ‘Well, how do you define husband and wife?’ You may not use the federal definition. That’s not allowed because Missouri’s Constitution does not allow you to recognize same-sex marriage.”

The articles of impeachment have been co-signed by seven Republican members of the House: Ron Schieber, Ken Wilson, Jeff Pogue, Kurt Bahr, Mike Moon, Rick Brattin & T.J. Berry.

Moon (R-Ash Grove) has said he will seek to impeach Nixon for not acting quickly enough to set special election dates for vacant seats in the House and one in the Senate.  Moon told Missourinet earlier this week he would file articles of impeachment this week, but that has not happened and calls to his Capitol office today have not been answered.

Articles of impeachment move through the legislative process in the House similarly to the way a bill would. They would have to be first referred to a committee. If the the articles are passed in the House, Nixon would be tried by a commission of seven jurists elected by the Senate.

Position on same-sex marriage “irrelevant”

Marshall says he is opposed to same-sex marriage, but says his action has nothing to do with his stance on the issue.

“My position on same-sex marriage is irrelevant. The governor’s position on same-sex marriage should be irrelevant,” says Marshall. “What is extremely relevant is the limitation on the powers of the Governor of the State of Missouri. He has no more right to ignore the Constitution than I do.”

Marshall says if joint tax returns filed by same-sex couples are to be accepted in Missouri, the law or the Constitution must be changed.

“I think it could be revisited,” says Marshall, referring to the 2004 ballot issue that defined marriage in Missouri’s Constitution as being between a man and a woman. That issue was approved by 72-percent of Missouri voters. “I think one could make the arguement that attitudes have changed in the State of Missouri. I would not oppose another ballot question to examine the issue.”

Listen to an interview with Nick Marshall:  11:53

Earlier story:

Articles of impeachment filed against Nixon over action on same-sex tax filing